The Case Of Kidnapping In Berrien County

It was in a former communication on the subject of the Kidnapping of Samuel Bowles, that he returned to Niles on the 9th November, after his providential escape from his Kidnappers at Laporte. On the 11th or 12th November, warrants were issued on the application of Bowles, against John Wittenmyer, Sheriff of the County of Berrien, Jacob Statler, the Justice who issued the warrant, and John Defield, the teamster who accompanied Gunn the Kidnapper. The warrants were predicated on affidavits, sufficiently broad to include a charge of assault and battery, and false imprisonment. as well as the proper charge of Kidnapping. The parties were arrested, and brought before E. McIlvaine, Esq. a Justice of the Peace at Niles, where the examination took place. It was proved that Bowles was taken from the steamboat Algoma, at Berrien, by Wittenmyer, and by him taken directly to the Jail, where Statler kept his office. Statler also held the office of Jailer. It was also proved that Gunn the Kidnapper was in attendance, and stated to the jailer that he wanted a room to confine Bowles in for the night. That Bowles was then shut up in a cell, and there kept until about 5 o'clock the next morning, when Gunn came, with a teamster, put irons on Bowles and carried him away, as was stated in my last communication. It was also proved that the day before the arrest of Bowles, Gunn informed the Sheriff that he wished to arrest a runaway slave. - It was further proved that after Bowles was confined in the jail, Wittenmyer and Gunn went to the house of Defield, where money was paid to Wittenmyer by Gunn. The amount was not proved, but Gunn informed Defield, that the sum paid was ten dollars, and he complained that the Sheriff had been "hard with him." At the request of the Defendante, each one of them was then allowed to make his own statement of the matter. Each one of them stated in substance what we have before communicated. Although Wittenmyer in his statement refused to tell how much money Gunn paid him. Bowles was present, and sworn as a witness. He stated that he was bom free, near Brownsville, in the State of Pennsylvania. - He gave a long, full, and minute account of his employment for the last ten years, naming the steamboat on which he had been employed, and the places where he had worked. Among other things he stated that some years ago, he went a voyage to Liverpool from N. York on the packet ship Queen of the West.That he also went one trip to the Baltic on the Barque -. That he had been engaged as cook or steward, on board the Maria Hillyard, and C. Walker, on the Lakes. That he had never been held in slavery and had not for more than six years last past resided in St. Louis. On this testimony the Justice discharged all the Defendants, stating, "that, he saw no evidence of their criminal intention, in what they had done." Thus has ended, for the present, this proceeding. Every spectator was astonished at he result - and none apparently more so than the defendants themselves. It is to be remarked that the pretended warrant issued by Statler, was proved to have been written by R. W. Landon, Treasurer of the County, and that between him and Gunn there had been frequent consultation on the subject. That this pretended warrant was the merest mockery of a Legal warrant, no one can doubt. Nor can any one doubt from the evidence but that the Sheriff at least, combined with Gunn to arrest Bowles, in this State without right or authority, and that Wittenmyer, for his services, received at least ten dollars. Had the subject of this crime been a horse and not a man, how would the matter have appeared? Let us see. - A person without right or warrant, takes the horse of another, and puts him in a stable, where he is kept till the morning, when his confederate takes him from the stable, and moves away with all speed for a distant State. On his way he is arrested and brought back to the place of the taking. Would not the law say that he who took the horse, as well as he who receives the horse were alike guilty of larceny? - that parties confederating to take the horse, although but one of the parties actually carried away the horse. still they were both principals? and is not this the very case in question? Gunn and Wittenmyer combined to arrest Bowles unlawfully. - They do not question this. - Not even Wittenmyer denies it. Wittenmyer confines Bowles in the jail, until Gunn could make preparations for his removal, and as soon as these preparations were made, he conveyed him out of the State, avowedly to take him into a Slave State. And yet in all the Justice sees no evidence "of criminal intent!!" Comment is unnecessary. If this decision is the voice of the law, it is this: any man - whether black or white, who is guilty of no offence, may be seized and carried away, against his will, and yet the Kidnapper be declared guilty of "no criminal intent!" Yours, for Liberty, J. I. Alexander.