The New York herald., 1862-11-26
NEW

me Had you any Information from Mr.. Watson that |
Baker had reported this him before the arrest
10 sSo .nas ' Subsequently sSs 70 that arrest .ss
Fats> ~neken i bim The subject, reported the
e nae No. ss' armss q IL that
he War Departnnen. nSstment was based on
70, my letter to the o.. s@te here asked
ae ,aeH Irsssa'ad q pc Yee ns,S ss;a hsr sy
'souer aid he raniad she wss ss.s,ssS ma 7
5yvssvSss Ss'x 'xsrsSss, IS that sol :.
rder Of Marshal nsker ne was arrested BY order the
s "a, 'PsssT PsssT,nsn, sss R,a sr; K'pns'. any
lie interview 90 had -. um claim that he held her
virtue any arrest he had made or made under I nls
rectsc .s2 A. No. not at ALL O. Did he not on the con
rasy insist ha, the responsibility Of the arrest where
" sr that respons iby rested was m Wasnmgson, a.
On The subject he always left the responsibility OF Inc
arrest and detention with the War Department ,,..
Mr.. prayer when provost marshal general r d. putty
determines in hts mind that person Is dsloy@ and de-
70 70 arrest him % Sr her ne
other captor 6f the prisoner without sme in writ
ing, and guch order Of commitment usual, by whom
he Who signs the order and his order is generally in
writing his instructions, when verbal, are In cases oi
BE- .n Sasa 'Gsss his
sibihty
10 have i answered In this case il seems that the
mitmsna was vesoal one Mrs. B,insmadc orgi-
na .srsstsd BY sowe who dss no dD rop1s @s
part made report TO any one; ne distinctly says 50
himself He subsequently, sends her on 70 New YORK 70 NJ
Keamedy with letter which Is not letter Of explana
ticH commitment, and Kennedy, without any oraep
or affidavit proving the chsrge against her, places heE
IS usual for the havg the custody Of the ailsnd
yrsons Of New York. toconsent that persons snorN be
locked uY the verbal order statement Of an uner
ling deputy or ssib deputy, provost marshal any
where, there being written order whatever On which
the psFty holding the Jail can turn TO- necessary as the
cause Of said commitment and confinement is that usuaR
MIR Draper-Not Gully is It not usual but never mad
M q ssn oa viii ase
responsibility under certain circumstances for l. they
failed 70 do % the thief might get away wne Iney were
sending to Washington for an order 70 arrest nim
| Mr. DIAPERS EXAMINATION RESUMED.
By Mr. DeanWas any commitment ever issued for the
arrest OF Ioewen,ha by any magistrate or justice? A.
do not believe or think here for that purposcof
answering questions this trial that have nothing 70 40
with t. and haye bearing whatever on the Brinsmadc
case.
| Mr. n--superintendant Kennedy is here on trial,
and desire to know he was authorized IN the case Of
Loewentha the statement Of an officer, without
an order from Judge Advocate or magistrate, either
verbal or written, to detain a man as prisoner
Mr.. Maper-As understand II ms answer was, j
| never knew such case.
MIR Bowen--The purport Of the answer was that the
usual custom was there should be legal commitments,
but that there exceptional cases, and Mr. Draper
illustrated that by instancing the case Of thief who
| of bis arrest would come down from Washington.
Mr. Dean propose to deducc from the case Of Ioewen
vos Marshal here without commitment from any ma
gstrate and until fact habeas was issued for
his appearance from the Supreme Court, that Supern-
tendent Kennedy was justified in the detention Of Mrs.
Brnsmadc the order he had received. would not
into this, but inasnuch Mr. Barlow On the part OF the
put the question 10 the legality Of de-
tention the order Of MAJ shall and as the question
have the explained fully, and to prove that he
acted according to custom, l. there be custom pro.
pose this question whether the order Of the Provost
Marshal General not warrant upon which prisoner
| may be hclds
time Of commitment Of Loewenhal had you any judicial
| authority A. None whatever. O. You requested Su
perntendent Kennedy TO imnrson and deain this man
for you-:hat was his only order, was iE A. That was
{! srEEcH OF JUDGE DEAN.
On behs Of Mr. superintendent Kennedy, now on trial.
have that have always. nj time during the
pending this examination been ready that any tcst
mony that could be discovered bearing the should
the Board Of Police nor do know what is
the be pursued before the court by conn
counsel would only be justified, but it part u
their duty TO sft and examine the grounds Of defence
and few words at rate the considerations
which bear upon them before taking testimony propose
TO DO that If the Commissioners win allow me-not at
length, but in few brief words. do so the more will
ngy, owing the fact that The has attracted so
much attention in the papers, and, consequently, en-
Super iaendent Kennedy is now on trial I
should s'y' 10 Justice to him. p,'cs that snD.rn ne
tendent he mast be satisfied IN making
ont merely de.enee in which the charges against him
be simply Inc questfCDS
raised. In that case would advise him to call no wit
But in this matter cannot stop there II is i'm
| possible. have made him not only or IL existsl a de-
fence but complete and thorough vindica,ion This is
great and important question IL is one that has occu
has been discussing it, II has not been limited TO the
mere personal question Of right or wrong bat II has been
brought inso the phase Of arty issues An officer, with
high responsibilities. bcldug ointment from this
Board cannot justify himself either before the Board IN
The prcsenef Of bis sapesiors or oeere Tie public whose
Icl defence, bot ente viacica,ion of his conduct.
That now propose 70 do propose TO call such test
Enony as viii satisfy not only these parties but the
e.tire public that Superintendent Kennedy this matter
has acted only and entirely under orders from the War
Department and that lie has only done his duty as an
ofer oi the Police Commiss Jners, and 10 thai extent
only And IL there any fault 20 be anywhere stribut-
ed must be to the system under which he acting,
and the individual who for The time being demon
stratea lhat system would say - those who hoard the
trial thai follow the testimony tAEough he case that
they dealing with this quesisp according the
issues involved br that an attempt being made 10
the principle which lies az the foundation cf the question:
aud making the system responsible Tor these errors.
n the COMMISSIONERS please Is well for US 10 say be-
se any testimony introduced Exactly what is tue po
sn q the party under trial here and The nature OF te
szes to be decided said yesterday 10 The discussion
that arose as 70 the tssues that admitted every
side that the arrest Of Mrs BrDsmade was illegal that
he he'd wiihou, authority Of law and that lhe quss
arrest and snIsequent confinement Whether sap.ru.
te:der, edy. at that time Provost Marshal some
cover who "as the other party II is enough show
the ndv idua whom you have properly called 70 acconn
py ihe testimony pro rh ceore you and the public. for
you 10 decte whc.ncr that individual Is RESPONSE
Die OF not The Superintendent cf Police in this
city 10 an ca,,er Of the law, which ne |
Is clearly oornd 10 execute Now admit that II would
he within the oi the authorities Of the state az
New York 70 ioEuse 10 allow persons arrested by the
United states TO be either imprisoned their jas or
detained by their officers. The State OF New York, there.
FORE has surrendered ha, privilege to the govern
n.,nt Some states have done Massachusetts In |
1873 rassed &C; iOrbfGing al magistrates that l
Common,ses.ih from interfering with or granting any
process 10 srs .ress under the Fugitive Slave law;
and fortddng the Gse Der ais OF Of any Of her officers
or sherts 10 rake an arrSt i.dcr th law The State
Of New York might DO tie ssae Thing, particularly With
reference 70 those arrests claimed s E.s " os egs
Undes the laws o hs Iruysst Marshal Gel. rakhp Inc
state q New York has not done Dnt the uniion pgfc
tce u tbs state since IL has been (and II was
nLe before the settlement Of the cdei al UnionJ,
Las been e. allow the jails 10 oe used as I
pIsohs ~ the coLnlemeit or lfisoiefs charged with
Offences against he federal authorities 0Ie rrfance Is