REMOVAL OF THE RECORDER OF NEW YORK. STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT,} June 7, 1840. GENTLEMEN: Your communication on the subject of the condition of the court of general sessions of the city and county of New York, has been received. I fully concur in the opinion that the law passed at the last session re-organizes the court by dispensing with the judicial services of the aldermen. Nor have I any doubt of the constitutionality of the law. Indeed, after the continued exercise of the legislative power for so many years in similar instances, and since the exercise of that power has been sustained by the supreme court, on so many occasions, it seems very extraordinary that any functionaries should be willing to jeopard the public peace and embarrass the administration of justice, by assuming to act as judges, in violation of the law in question. I confess my surprise that such functionaries should in the present instance be sustained, in their illegal proceedings, by an officer of such acknowledged ability and learning, as the recorder of the city of New York. But, gentlemen, the constitution prescribes a suitable mode for correcting every error and removing every evil in the administration of justice. It is true, as you suggest, that the constitution authorizes the senate to remove judicial officers, upon the recommendation of the governor. And it is also true that the action of the recorder in the present case, by obstructing the business of the court, and encouraging and sustaining the aldermen in their opposition to the laws, might, without violence, be regarded as a sufficient cause for removal in that way, yet the recorder is acting as a judge under the solemnity of a judicial oath, and no improper or corrupt motive is attributed to him. Under such circumstances, a removal by the senate, or an executive recommendation, would very naturally be regarded as assailing the independence of the judiciary. Whatever may be the evil consequences of his course, the general principle ought not to be forgotten, that the exposition of the laws may be more safely intrusted to courts of justice, than to the executive authority. It seems to me, therefore, that it will accord better with the spirit of the constitution, to leave the question for the consideration of the supreme court than to employ the executive power, and thus furnish a precedent for future invasions of the independence of the judiciary. I am, with great respect, your obedient servant. TO THE HONORABLE MESSRS, BAYLES, WOODHULL, Aldermen of New York. PRISON LIBRARIES. AUBURN, July 11, 1840. MY DEAR SIR: The public expectation of an improvement in the moral instructions at the stateprisons has been manifested in various ways. It is a reasonable expectation, and I confess that I have observed it with much pleasure. I have long believed that it was expedient to instruct every ignorant convict how to read, and to supply proper books for those who can read. A difficulty arises concerning the selection of books. There would naturally be jealousies excited in the community, if the selection was hastily or inconsiderately made. The surest way to avoid such jealousies seems to be, to adopt Harper's Common-School Library, and the books in that collection will be found well adapted to the purpose. I therefore respectfully recommend to the inspectors of the stateprisons, to procure a sufficient number of sets of that library, so that each convict who can read shall always have a volume in his cell. If there should be any convicts in the prison who are foreigners, instructed to read in their own tongue but unacquainted with ours, it would be advisable to furnish them with a bible in their own language. You will have the goodness to lay this letter before the board of inspectors. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant. TO THE AGENTS OF THE STATE-PRISONS AT AUBURN AND SING-SING. EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE. STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Albany, October 10, 1840. } SIR: A requisition issued by your excellency for the surrender of Horatio Stevens, as a fugitive from the justice of Pennsylvania, has been delivered to me. By the affidavit thereunto annexed, it appears that the alleged fugitive was, in September last, a passenger in the steamboat Milwaukie on Lake Erie from Detroit to Buffalo, that the boat touched at Erie in the state of Pennsylvania, that while she was lying at the public wharf there, Perry H. Oliver, a deputy-sheriff of that state went on board to arrest Stevens, by virtue of a writ of capias ad respondendum in a civil action, that the deputysheriff found the defendant concealed, that Stevens then made an attack on the deputy-sheriff, that a struggle ensued, that the deputy-sheriff succeeded in bringing him from his hiding-place, that Stevens requested the deputy-sheriff to go into the captain's office, where Stevens assaulted and prostrated the deputy-sheriff, that the boat had at this time got under weigh, and the deputysheriff was carried to Dunkirk in Chautauque county. Your excellency requires me to surrender the defendant Stevens as a fugitive from justice, that he may be taken to the state of Pennsylvania for thus assaulting and resisting an officer in the execution of civil process. I have no knowledge of the parties or the transaction other than that furnished by the affidavit. I am not informed whether the alleged fugitive is a citizen of this state or of Pennsylvania, of Michigan, or of some other state. I am not informed whether the action in which the capias ad respondendum was issued was an action upon a contract or a tort. I am not informed where the cause of action accrued, whether the action was one in which the detention of the supposed fugitive was justified by the laws of Pennsylvania, or whether it was a non-bailable action. I am not informed that the writ contained any clause authorizing the defendant to be held to bail, or that there was an order of a competent tribunal for that purpose. By the laws of this state, a sheriff who should seize and detain a defendant by virtue of a capias ad respondendum in a civil action upon contract, would be guilty of assault and battery and false imprisonment, and resistance by the defendant sufficient to overcome force by force would be justified. I am perhaps bound to know that a different law prevails in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless I can not be ignorant that even there some writs of capias ad respondendum are bailable, and others are not bailable. It is respectfully submitted that the affidavit ought to show that the writ in the present case was of the former description. It is manifest that every word in the affidavit before me may be true, and yet, if I understand the laws of Pennsylvania, the resistance of the defendant may have been justifiable, and he may be guiltless of the offence. Your excellency will perceive therefore that I can not comply with the requisition, because the papers annexed to the same are defective. I am bound, however, in candor to say to your excellency further, that if the papers should be amended, yet inasmuch as imprisonment for debt, whether of citizens of this state or of the stranger within our borders, is forbidden by our laws; and inasmuch as the offence of resisting an officer making an arrest by virtue of civil process is only made a contempt of court and simple misdemeanor, and is not punishable as a felony, the question would then arise whether the case falls within the description of offences in which the obligation to surrender fugitives from justice is prescribed by the constitution of the United States. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant. HIS EXCELLENCY DAVID R. PORTER, Harrisburgh, Pennsylvanic AMERICAN STATE CREDIT. STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE Department, SIR: No one who reasons justly concerning the tendency of events, can doubt that we are rapidly advancing toward a state of general distrust of state credits. The failure of two of the states to pay the interest on their stocks, and the anticipated failure of others, have given existence in Europe to doubts of the ability of some of the states, and painful apprehensions concerning the ultimate disposition of all of them, to pay their debts. These doubts and apprehensions, unquestionably, have been increased by the catastrophes of the bank of the United States of Pennsylvania, and of some other moneyed institutions having extensive connections abroad. Owing to this unhappy state of things, the stocks of some of the states are depreciated from fifteen to sixty per cent. It is manifest that several of the state stocks approximate to the point where the securities must cease to be available for any of the public objects for which they were authorized. It is not difficult to foresee that, in such a state of things, distrust will become universal, and a pressure come upon the country, which will be disastrous to its industry and injurious to its fame. This state and some others which owe small debts, or have large revenues, will be able in this emergency to secure, by vigorous measures, a discrimination in their favor, and preserve their public credit; but this will have little effect in mitigating the pressure, or preventing its disastrous effects upon the prosperity of the whole nation. It seems to me that the time has arrived when measures of relief should be suggested. Whence are they to come? Manifestly, they can not be expected to come from the non-paying states. They will sink into despondency, and the public credit will become the sport of faction. I think that effectual relief can come from no other quarter than the federal government. To |