<​August 7​> Sunday 7. At home through the day.

<​8​> Monday 8. This forenoon I was arrested by the Deputy Sheriff of and two Assistants, on a warrant issued by , founded on a requisition from of , upon the Affidavit of , complaining of the said Smith, as “being an accessory before the fact, to an assault with an intent to kill, made by one on ” on the night of the sixth of May A.D. 1842. was arrested at the same time as principal. [HC 5:86] There was no evasion of the officers, tho’ the Municipal Court issued a writ of according to the Constitution of the , article 8 and section 13. This writ demanded the bodies of Messrs. Smith and to be brought before the aforesaid Court, but these officers refused to do so, and finally without complying, they left them in care of the Marshal, without the original writ by which they were arrested, and by which only they could be retained, and returned back to for further instruction<​s​>. and Messrs. Smith and went about their business. I have yet to learn by what rule of right I was arrested to be transported to for a trial of the kind stated. “An accessory to an Assault with an intent to kill”— does not come under the purview of the fugitive act, when, the person charged has not been out of &c An accessory before the fact to manslaughter is something of an anomaly. The isolated affidavit of is no more than any other man’s, and the constitution says “that no person shall be liable to be transported out of the , for an offence committed within the same”. The whole [3 words illegible] <​is​> another farce. In fact, implied power, and constructive guilt, as a dernier resort, may answer the purpose of despotic governments, but are beneath the dignity of the sons of liberty, and would be a blot on our judicial escutcheon.

I received a letter from the post office, which had been broken open, and I was grieved at the meanness of its contents.

The City Council passed the following “Ordinances regulating the mode of proceeding in cases of before the Municipal Court”