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

Jenkins, at any time during the riot, any
nearer to MIR. Brantford than he (Jenkins) was
at the time Brantford fell which was about
twelve feet closer to 3rantford than I was at
the time. The same evening that the riot
occurred Scipio Fraser came into my yard, and
was talking about the riot. He said i, and
no one else, killed the rebel son of bitch
(meaning Brantford), 'and he is not the first,
nor he will not be the last 1 will kill The
next morning told MIR. Nipson what Fraser
had said, and he caused him to be arrested. l
did not see Jenkins strike Brantford during
the riot"
(Signed) g.. F. AHRENS.
Sworn TO and subscribed before me this 9th
day of February, A.D. 1868.
isigned) GEO. A. WILLIAMS,
Brevet Lieut-Col. and Major 9Th Infantry,
A true copy of the original affidavit.
| GEO. A. WILLIAMS,
oreyet Lieut.. Col and Major 9Th Infantry,
Provost Marshal General.
The foregoing statement by Ahrens, contra
dieting so absolutely and unequivocally his
own sworn testimony upon the trial, should
cause any executive to hesitate before allowing
the death penalty to be executed on human
being, when that is the only testimony ienti-
| fying Jenkins as one of the persons who in
ficted the blows which took the life of young
Brantford. If the prisoner possessed wealth
and means, it might have been that this wit
ness, for consideration, would have been in
duced to perjure himself; but the prisoner has
not the means to purchase such q statement as
the last one made by Ahrens. Additional evi-
dence, however, has been placed in my hands
in the form of afidavits-and, with such sur
f0
frming the truth of the last statement of
Ahrens-to wit: that he did not see Jenkins
use any violence whatever upon tie deceased
Francis Nipson, who is the executor or ad-
ministrator of the estate Of the father Of
Ahrens, in an affidavit on the 1st Of February,
1868, says: George Ahrens, who was wit
ness in the above case, came to me (Nipson),
and said Scipio Fraser, the boy who killed Brant-
ford, was there the day before he was arrested
and told him (Ahrens), that he was the one
who killed brantford, and no other person
had done it, and it was not the last or the first
rebel he had killed And also that George
Ahrens said that no one had done it but Scipio
Fraser. Scipio Fraser told me (Nipson) at the
time 1 arrested 1;n., and before handed him
over to the police, tns.he wRs the one who
committed the act The two female witnesses
in the yard OF No. sc Trsdd-street (sarah Brown
and Kate Kennedy, and Ahrens also told me
that Scipio Fraser was the one who killed
Brantford, and they did not mention anything
about Jenkins; otherwise I would have gone
with the police and arrested him ALSO" [Jen-
kins was not arrested until three days after
Fraser had been arrested and lodged in jail.
ssFrom the situation of the piazza of the house
No. sc Tradd-street, where Ahrens says he saw
Jenkins strike Brantford, after a careful ex-
animation, find it was impossible for Ahrens
10 have seen jenkins strike Brantford as he
says
John Hass, the uncle OF Ahrens, on the 4th
of February, 1868, makes the following state
ment on oath: "That he saw Brantford walk
ing up Tradd-street towards King, and dis
tinctly observed that ho tried to turn back
again, but there being large crowd OF men
and boys, he found it impossible. One colored
man cried out "Charge, and bricks and stones
were thrown, apparently by all OF them, so
that he could not tell who threw the brick or
stone tnat killed Brantford; and that he was
in the house of No. 86 Tradd-street, looking
ont of the window" (which is nearly twenty
five feet nearer to where Brantford was killed
than whore Alrens stood on the piazzal ''and
saw the whole Of the affair, from the time the
rioters turned into Tradd-street from King
street, and that the bricks and stones were
thrown so fast that he could not tell who threw
| al
that he could not recognize any Of The crowd"
Neither OF the two last named witnesses
wore sworn upon the trial or have heretofore
submitted afidavits.
The foregoing are the additional facts which
have been brought to my attention since the
case was reviewed by me on previous occa-
sion. There was one fact, however, important
in it's bearing upon the case, which was before
mo- and which it is proper here to repeat.
James Kennedy, who was the jailor of the
Charleston jail ut the time that Scipio Fraser
died, to wit: About the 18th of April, 1867,
states, under oath, ''that Fraser died in his
cell; that when the said Scipio Fraser was in
articulo morris, having been previously in
formed, and being himself convinced that he
was in dying state, he made to this doponent
a confession as follows: That was concerned
in the affair in which one Brantft vas killed,
in July, 1866, and that one JohL Villinms,
freedman, struck the blow which incked
Brantford down, and that he, Scipic 'raser,
struck Drantford whom he was down; tina said
Williams lived on South Bay, in ne
woodward, the deponent thinks, and mu.h
resembled one Johl Jenkins, then and now
under sentence of death upon conviction of
having killed the said Brantford; that he knew
the said Jenkins previous to the affair, and
that he was innocent Of the crime of which he
had been convicted, as he, Jenkins, was not
present at the time Brantford was killed; that
tho deponent then asked the said Fraser why
he had no. made this confession previous to
tho trial of Jenkins, and the said Fraser an
swered that he thought that he would have a
better chance to get clear if he could have a
trial with jenkins, knowing him, Jenkins, to
be innocent of the charge"
After careful review Of the circumstances
connected with this case, and of the new facts
that have beon brought to light within the past
few days have come to the conclusion that
there is not sufficient evidence to justify
me in declaring that Jenkins was one Of the
murdelers of Brantford. On the contrary,
| n1o 10