<title type="main">James Harlan, Jr. to Thomas E. Bramlette Edition created from new transcripts of this manuscript. Initial upload of this work's facsimile images and metadata to FromThePage for editing Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections Administrator of the CWGK Migration transcription project on FromThePage Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections Kentucky Historical Society Digital Collections made 4 edits between June 21, 2025 and June 21, 2025. Dynamic TEI export from FromThePage (version 22.10)

This image and transcription is publicly accessible. The image appears courtesy of the repository named in the Source Description. The transcription and annotation were undertaken by Kentucky Historical Society staff, volunteers, and interns. If referencing this document title, accession number, and permanent URL.

 November 11, 2025 Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives Office of the Governor, Thomas E. Bramlette: Governor's official correspondence file, petitions for pardons, remissions, and respites 1863-1867 KYR-0001-004-0577 BR9-411 to BR9-412

1864-03-30 Correspondence English Version 1 of page "4": Changes to page transcript. Version 0 of page "4": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile. Version 1 of page "3": Changes to page transcript. Version 0 of page "3": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile. Version 1 of page "2": Changes to page transcript. Version 1 of page "1": Changes to page transcript. Version 0 of page "2": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile. Version 0 of page "1": Empty transcript -- probably initial upload of page facsimile.
1

To His Excellency the Governor-

Application is made for relief against a judgment rendered in the Police Court of Frankfort on the 31st day of Dec 1863 against Gabriel Weitzel on a charge of selling liquor to a free negro. It grew out of an alleged sale of a dram to a free negro- He is cut off from an appeal to a higher court by the lapse of 60 days in which appeals are to be taken. This was caused by circumstances beyond his control, and attaching no blame to him- This oversight was caused.

1st By the sickness in the family of the undersigned in his counsel, which was of such a charter as to keep him from his office or other business until the time had expired-

2d Before the expiration of the time Judgment was entered in the case the sixty days had expired.

3d No execution was issued in the case until about Seventy days after the trial and judgment.

Passing over many errors of law which appear in the proceedings of the trial, it is respectfully insisted that the judgment

2

is wrong. The defendant was prosecuted under a city ordinance. The city had no authority to pass the ordinance. It is repugnant to the statute and the laws of evidence.

1. It imposed a fine of one hundred dollars for selling a drink of liquor to a free negro. Whereas the revised Statutes impose a fine of not less than $20, nor more than $50 for selling a free negro liquor to be carried off in a vessel. Under the Revised Statute it is no offense to sell a drink to a free negro.

2. The city ordinance gives the informer one fourth and makes him a competent witness. Under the law and practice in this State an informer who gets a part of the judgment to be obtained upon his evidence is not a competent witness, because of his direct immediate and certain interest.

3. The city ordinance says that the fact of the informers interest shall in no wise invalidate his testimony. This deprives the jury of the right to judge of the credibility of the witness, and is an outrage upon the law, the jury and common sense. Under such a rule there is no safety. The citizen is at

3

the mercey of an unleashed witness. Public necessity or the zeal to protect public morals, however commendable, does not excuse or mitigate such an outrage.

There was no other testimony against the deft except of the informer or informers.

There is another case of the same kind, upon the same character of testimony, tried the 8th February, in which Weitzel is prosecuting an appeal. But having been, cut off from this remedy for the reasons stated, he has no other recourse except to the executive- It was the purpose of his atty to prosecute the appeal. If he should fail in his appeal from the judgt of 8th Feby he will have to pay at least one hundred and fifty dollars including fine and expenses.

This statement is made by his attorney because the facts are within his knowledge.

Respectfully James Harlan Jr March 30th 1864-

4

Police Court of Frankfort Comth vs } Petition Gabriel Weitzel

$100 -- Judgement herein referred to respited for six months Richard T. Jacob

30th Mch/ 64