Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-02-07
wThe man Hessliu alias T,ck.-

THE man Hesslin, alias Tucker,
spoken of as one Of three recently arrested
In Baltimore, charged with completely in
the murder of Mrs. Lampley, is not native
OF this county, as stated by the Sun. He
was, however, extensively engaged herea-
bouts In the horse-stealing enterprise some
few years since. Our readers will doubt
less recollect that soon after the war many
OF our people sustained serious losses by
the frequent and too successful raids made
upon their pastures and stables by daring
thieves. Many horses, at that period, were
stolen and carried off to parts unknown.
Subsequent developments strongly indicat-
ed that an organized band of horse thieves
was operating in our midst. In the course
oftime information reached our authorities
that some of the stolen property was to be
found in Virginia, and that man named
Hesslin was under arrest in that State, and
held awaiting requisition from the Gov
ernor Of Maryland for his surrender. A
requisition was duly issued by Governor
Swami, and Hesslin was brought here for
trial Three different indictments were
nled against him, and he was convicted in
Gil, having stolen altogether, we believe,
tve horses. He was indicted and tried
here under the name of Charles Hesslin,
alias John McNulty, at the October Term,
1856, Vivian Brent, Esq, acting States
Attorney, by appointment of the Court, in
the absence of r. II. Edelen, ESQ.,, who was
absent in consequence of serious Illness
In the first case Hesslin was sentenced to
the Penitentiary for six years in the sec
ond case, also, for six years, the period of
service to commence at the expiration of
the sentence in the first case; in the third
case his sentence was for five years and six
months, to begin at the expiration of his
sentence in the second case. His pardon
by Governor Whyte was filed in the Clerks
office here November 9th, 1872. The facts
developed in the cases, no doubt, fully
warranted and authorized the long confine-
n1ent to which he was sentenced.
Hesslm represented himselfas being from
Connecticut, and gentleman of this vii
hge, soon after the conviction here, met
with gentleman from Connecticut who
knew Hesslin, but told our informant that
HIS true name was Tucker, that he was from
Norwich, Connecticut, was most respect
ably connected, in family point of view,
and had enjoyed every opportunity for OBJ
tanning good education; but that his bad
traits of character were abundantly devel-
asned in his boyhood life.
80 ease4 Ind earnest appeals, We under
stand, were made to Governor Bowie for
Hesslin's pardon, by Ex-Governor English
and other heavy influences in Connecticut,
but Governor Bowie refused to entertain
them unless he was also further fortified
by recommendation from Judge Brent to
that end. Judge Brent presided at his
trial here, was fully familiar with all the
facts, and declined to interfere in Hesslin's
behalf We do not know what has chang
edthe Judges views, or, indeed, whether
they have been changed at all, although
We hardly think, under the circumstances,
that Governor Whyte would have issued
the pardon without the courtesy of hear
ing from Judge Brent, and that, too, in the
face of the very proper example set by the
Governors predecessor. At the time of
the application of HessIin, to Governor
Bowie, for pardon, protests were filed a.
gainst granting it by the States Attorney
who prosecuted him, and by other citizens
of the county. The gentlemen who pro-
tested assigned, among other reasons, that
it was well known that Hesslin had said
he would be speedily released, through the
influence of powerful friends, and that
everybody connected with his prosecution
would be made to suffer for it. Governor
Bowie promptly responded to the protest
ants, and stated that he had conferred with
Judge Brent, and that under no circum-
stances could he think, for moment, Of
pardoning such a man. These protests
are, or ought to be, on file IN the Execu-
tive Office at Annapolis. We also under:
stand that when Governor Whyte gave no,
tice, through the Times of the 18th of No
vember last, that application had beer
made for the pardon of Hesslin, and tina
the same would be taken up for hearing OF
the taoesty second of the same month, protest'
were again sent to the Executive agains
the pardon of this outlaw. In reply to {
protest thus sent by Mr.. Thomas R. HALEY
one ofour County Commissioners, and from
whom Hesslin had stolen two horses, thu
Governor wrote, in substance, that ht
thought Hesslin had been punished enough
and that he saw no reason in the protest.
for not pardoning the man.
We must say that, in view Of the recen
action of the Governor IN the case of Craig
and the Uniform action of his predecessor
IN the Executive Chafr, in refusing to par
don convicted criminals without the assem-
of the prosecuting attorney, os the presid
ing Judge, his course in this particular
case, where their recommendation was al
ready on file against it, is, to say the least
an use of the Executive clemeney which
WAS never contemplate by the Constitu
flor, a,rF which ought not to Dass or b,