Page images
PDF
EPUB

I have directed Judge Lynch to retain the pardon until you shall have made arrangements which will secure your husband some permanent and respectable employment. When that has been done, you will take the pardon and release him from his imprisonment; and may God bless you and him.

THE CASE OF THOMAS TOPPIN.

STATE OF NEW YORK, FECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Albany, July 29, 1842.

GENTLEMEN: Thomas Toppin has been convicted in New York of the crime of murder, committed under circumstances of great atrocity, and was therefore sentenced to suffer death on the 5th day of August next.

Since his conviction representations have been made to me, that, in 1832 or 1833, he was affected by a coup-de-soleil which prostrated his reason, and that he has since that visitation been an insane person, with lucid intervals, and a mind constantly enfeebled; and that the crime was committed in a state of mental derangement.

This defence was offered at the prisoner's trial, and was disallowed by the jury. It has now been presented in a manner which deserves consideration, together with an explanation of the reasons why the evidence now submitted was not produced at the trial. The testimony is not conclusive; yet, when the gravity of the case is considered, the evidence is deemed sufficient to induce an inquiry into the subject. I beg leave to ask you to conduct that inquiry. To enable you to prosecute the same, I send you a copy of the minutes of the trial, together with the affidavits which have been submitted to me. I respectfully request you to examine and converse with the prisoner, and to assign a time and a place for hearing whatever may be offered on the subject, and to procure the attendance of persons who may be able to give any information thereupon; to reduce the result of your inquiries into a report to be submitted to me, with your opinions concerning the moral accountability of the prisoner; accompanying the same with such depositions as you may

think proper to take, and returning to me at the same time the papers herewith sent. A copy of this communication will be sent to the person who supports the application for executive clemency. The prisoner's sentence has been respited until the 26th day of August next, to allow time for your investigation. In adopting this course at the suggestion of one of the justices of the supreme court, and of the attorney-general, I am aware of the burden I seek to impose upon you; but the importance of the subject, in regard to the cause of public justice and to the prisoner, and the hazard of relying upon exparte information, induce me to hope that you will give me the aid of your efforts, in ascertaining the truth concerning the facts submitted for your investigation.

I remain, gentlemen, with very high respect, your obedient ser

vant.

JOHN W. FRANCIS, M. D., Resident Physician,

AND J. R. WHITING, ESQ., District-Attorney,

}

New York.

THE SAME.

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Albany, August 18, 1842.

DEAR MADAM: The paper which you will find herein announces the result of my consideration upon the case of Thomas Toppin. Deeply impressed with the generous devotion you have exhibited in behalf of the miserable being who, in one sense, owes to your exertions a prolongation of his life, I can not deny you the pleasure of communicating to the prisoner the results of your mediation in his behalf.

I remain, dear madam, with very high respect and esteem, your humble servant.

MRS. ANN S. STEPHENS.

THE CASE OF JOHN C. COLT.

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Albany, March 12, 1842.

}

DEAR MADAM: Custom excuses me, as indeed necessity would, from acknowledging the many advisory letters I receive concerning subjects of official duty. Yet I can not deny myself the pleasure of returning you my thanks for your letter of yesterday, concerning the application for pardon to the offender, whose crime has excited so much and various feeling throughout the country. You will have learned before receiving this, that the decision on the application preceded my receipt of your letter. Still I am happy to find such an evidence that the view I have taken of the subject will be satisfactory to at least a portion of the community. I have read with great satisfaction the article in the "Mothers' Monthly Journal," to which you refer me, and am deeply impressed with the right, sound, moral, Christian, and political principles it promulgates. I assure you, my dear madam, that you will do society a good service by continuing to spread such sentiments, especially in regard to the necessity of a firm execution of the laws.

The sympathy for convicted persons is not unnatural, and those who indulge it forget the danger to which it leads. When blood has been shed, the whole community is alarmed. Every citizen rushes forward to apprehend the fugitive and bring him to justice. The vindicatory spirit continues its work until the offender is convicted and sentenced, and then that spirit reposes and is satisfied. The opposite or antagonist spirit rises then, and at first timidly and apprehensively approaches the executive power, but gaining confidence becomes more and more importunate, until it happens in most cases that the governor, who conscientiously declines to pardon a murder judicially established, and perhaps unrepented of, comes to be regarded as himself the only manslayer in the transaction.

My table groans with letters from gentlemen and ladies, of acknowledged respectability and influence, among the former are gentlemen of every profession, and of the press, recommending, urging, and even soliciting, the pardon of John C. Colt, and it is fair to suppose that there would have been petitions numerously signed, if there had not been a distrust of the influence of such forms of appeal in capital cases. I shall surprise you when I inform you that your letter is the only remonstrance that has been received; and yet there is no doubt that a considerable, perhaps the larger, portion of the community will approve the decision which has just been made.

It is true, madam, that Mrs. Stephens, then a stranger to me, procured proofs which raised a doubt of the moral accountability of a man condemned to death, and saved him from that extreme punishment. It was well and womanly done, and I rejoiced in the humanity, spirit, and perseverance, she displayed under convictions that an unfortunate and bewildered maniac was in danger of death, and none put forth the effort necessary to collect the proofs which might exist of his insanity.

And why should not a woman, who is satisfied that a family has been bereaved by violence, committed by one who is an acknowledged seducer and libertine, speak her thoughts and fears, if she apprehends that the offender is about to escape, through misapprehension and misrepresentation!

Be assured, madam, of my high respect, as well as my grateful sense of the personal kindness which your letter expresses toward

me.

MRS. ELIZA C. ALLEN.

THE CASE OF JOHN C. COLT.

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT,
November 11, 1842.

JOHN C. COLT was convicted on the 27th day of September last, at a court of oyer and terminer in the city of New York, on an indictment for murder, and was sentenced to suffer death on the eighteenth day of the present month. The trial was humanely conducted. Peculiar advantages of defence were allowed. Every objection raised by the counsel was deliberately considered; the charge of the court manifested unusual tenderness toward the accused; and the jury examined the evidence with extraordinary patience and attention.

When the verdict had been rendered, an application for a new trial on the grounds of alleged prejudice by a juror, improper conduct by the jury, and other supposed irregularities, was considered by the court of oyer and terminer, and justly denied. The presiding judge then allowed a writ of error, by which the cause was removed to the supreme court, and in the meantime the sentence consequent on the verdict was delayed. That tribunal reviewed and affirmed all the decisions of the court of oyer and terminer, which court then performed its remaining duty by rendering final judgment. The accused then again demanded a writ of error, with a view to obtain a reconsideration by the supreme court, and in the event of an adverse adjudication, then to remove the record for revision to the court for the correction of errors. Such a writ could only be allowed by a circuit-judge, a justice of the supreme court, or the chancellor. The circuitjudge, who tried the cause, the chancellor, and one of the justices of the supreme court, with the concurrence of his associates, have severally refused to allow a writ of error, and the accused now appeals to the executive authority for its interposi

tion.

« PreviousContinue »