Page 2

him as a Commissioner of the U.S. District court would answer every purpose that could be affected by an affidavit taken before a state Magistrate. Mr. Adam is a prac=ticing lawyer of this bar; and when [?] gives an opinion, lawyers must yield.

What then is the remedy for this mistake? Clearly it is to send to Kentucky for Woodruff, bring him hither, and have his affidavit taken before a Magistrate of this state. But I have considerable doubt whether the ends of justice would be [Illegible], by bringing the criminals to justice punishment, by bringing Woodruff hither. I will give your Excellency my reasons for this doubt, with a mind to eliciting your opinion, and, if possible, settling upon a course of action which will result in the punishment of such atrocious mur-derers as Wilson and Bill Forrest. I will consider the case of Forrest first. According to Woodruff's affidavit
[new page]
all the evidence he could give against Forrest would be simply heresay, which of course would go for just nothing in a criminal prosecution. I have very little doubt that Forrest murdered the two traders] in Grenada last spring, yet I doubt whether any-thing could be done toward the legal establishment of the facts by Wood-ruff's testimony.

In regard to Wilson's case I will remark first, that Mr. Barksdale is of the opinion the two left the state, but does not express an opinion as to where has gone, so that a requisi-tion could be made by your Excellency for him. First this investigation might throw light on this point, and fur-nish sufficient data for you to act on. But I fear this is not the least difficulty in convicting Wilson of the assassination of Lieut. Blanding.

That he is _the author of that odious crime I have not a particle of doubt. But the question is, can he be convicted? Let it be suppposed that he has been arrested, indicted