The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-02-13

been hung tomorrow, at the jail in this city,
riot in June, 1866, has had his sentence COM
muted, by his Excellency Governor Orr, to i'm
prisonment in the State Penitentiary for five
years. This is case in which our community
have been deeply interested, and in which the
military authorities have made the most strcn-
uous endeavors to determine the doubt whether
John Jenkins was the guilty person.
The following reasons for the communication
| of the sentence will explain the character of
the evidence upon which the action of the
Governor has been based:
TEE STATE uS JOHN JENKINS AND scrPIo
FRAsER-MURDER.
The prisoners John Jenkins and Scipio
Fraser were indicted for the murder of R. M.
Brantford, in the City Of Charleston, on the
oath of June, 1866. They were tried at the
January term, 1867, of the Court of Sessions,
before Judge Dawkins, and convicted. Their
counsel appealed. Pending the appeal, one OF
the prisoners, Scipio Fraser, died in jail. At
the April term of the Appeal Court, 1867, the
case of Jenkins was heard, his motion for
new trial refused, and he was sentenced to be
executed in June. 4 few days before the exc
cution was to take place, respited the prison
er for one month. Before the expiration OF
this time was applied to by the officer then
commanding this Military District for further
respite. I, however, declined to grant 1t, and
assigned my reasons, at length, in communl-
cation addressed to General Sickles. The
prisoner, John Jenkins, was then further re-
spited by the military authorities, and evidence
was taken ly General Hlncks, the Provost
Marshal General of this District, IN the
form of afidavits, from quite number
of witnesses who were not sworn before
the trial tending to show an dl6i These
papers we're submitted to my consideration,
and upon careful examination, Twas satisfied
that the effort Of the prisoner to establish an
oiibi was unsuccessful, and that this supple
mental evidence was not entitled to outweigh
and override the testimony -, py wlJncases
on the stand during e. ) .RRasi. Several wit
r nesses then established to my satisfaction the
fact that Jenkins was engaged in the riot on
the Bay and up King-street. But the only wit
ness who professed to lave seen Jenkins infiict
q blow upon the deceased (Brantford) was one
George J. Ahrens. He stated, in his testlmo-
ny before Judge Dawkins, that he ''saw Jen-
lins and Fraser both throw bricks that took
effect on Brantford. Jonkins threw one alter
he fell and stamped upon him. They were the
leaders of the crowd and he knew them well.
He further says: ''The next day he saw Fraser,
heard him say in his yard he had killed one
white-liyered son of bitch and would Kill
another, and he had him arrested" In his
cross-examination he says: Jenkins flung the
first brick and Scipio Fraser the second. Brant-
ford then ran, and was by their house when
Jenkins hit him againS'
Upon the testimony of Ahrens, thon, solely
depends the question whether Jenkins did or
dld not, upon that occasion, inflict one or more
of the blows which took the life of the de-
ceased.
In the two reviews of the case heretofore
made by me and transmitted to tho military
authorities assumed that Ahrens' testimony
was true, and if so, that Jenkins was the mur-
derer.
this District, he examined tho case and remit
ted it again to the civil authorities, and In jan
uary, 1868, Jenkins was re-sentenced by Judge
Moses, and his execution fixed tor the second
Friday in February. A renewed effort has been
made by the friends OF the prisoner to secure
the pardon or Communication OF the punish
ment of Jenkins, and very numerously signed
petition, embracing the names Of some whites
and of many hundred colored citizens, has
been placed in my hands. In addition to this,
from the information communicated to Gen.
eral Candy by General Hincks, who oinvestigatcd
the subject closely, General Candy instructed
Lieutenant-C Colonel Williams, the present Pro-
vost Marshall, to make careful examination
of the premises and ascertain the precise To-
cality where the first brick was thrown and
where Brantford fell. He has made that ex-
animation, together with drawing OF the
premises, and concludes his report" that
Ahrens could not have seen with any certainty
the transaction, and particularly if the crowd
as it did, assembled around the fallon man."
This report was made on the S0th of January
last. General Candy, in his communication OF
the 4th instant, says: 81 stated to you verbally
some DAYS since that General Hincks, then act
ine Provost Marshal of this district, had form
ed the opinion from his own examination of tho
case, that it was physically impossible for the
bow Ahrens to have seen what he testified to on
tha trial of John jenkins for the murder Cf
Brantford; aud that on his examination subsc-
ouent to the trial. he was unable to discrimi-
nate with any distinctness between what he
had seen and what he had heard Of the riot.
To settle this question definitely, directed
Colonel Williams, the present Provost Marshal,
TO make careful examination again, fix exact
" the spot where Brantford fell, and the loca-
tion of the porch, from Which, according to
the testimony before the court, Ahrens Witness
ed the killing" Again, General Candy says:
"On Saturday preceding the date of this let
teri, prompted, suppose, by the new investi-
pation. Ahrens sent word to the Provost Mar
shal that his testimony was not true; but that
he had been deferred by the fear Of prosecu-
ton from making this confession at an earlier
period"
On the 9th instant Ahrens subscribed in his
own handwriting an affidavit before Colonel E.
". Dennis, Judge Advocate of the U. S. Army,
Second Military District of which the following
is copy:
STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. AHnENs IN THE CASE