History draft; handwriting of Jonathan Grimshaw, , , James Ure, and Robert L. Campbell; 76 numbered pages plus several inserted pages; CHL. This manuscript covers the period from 1 January 1844 to 21 June 1844.
The Mayor stated <said:—> thatLawye <Messrs.> , Mr. and Lawyer , <Lawyers from > have called on him <me> from , and told him <me> that the occasion of the excitement at , and the resistance to the law in< the> case of <the> arrest of Cook, was the late ordinance of this Council “to prevent unlawful search or seizure of person or property by foreign process in the City of ”; that they consider<ed> said ordinance was designed to hinder the execution of the Statutes <of > in <within> this City: Consequently they, the old Citizens felt disposed to stop the execution <of> processes, issuing from the City, <precincts> in the County; and also They <also> raised objections against the process issued by <for the apprehension of Cook,> because it was made returnable to him alone; when <whereas they said> the statute required it to be made returnable before himself or some other Justice. <-[Place the whole of Joseph’s speech in one paragraph]->
The Mayor<said he had> <I> explained to the delegation from <to them> the nature and reason of the ordinance; that it was to prevent kidnapping under the pretence of law, or process, and to further <facilitate> the apprehension of thieves &c in this by throwing all foreign processes into the hands of the Marshal, who would be most likely to know the hiding places of fugitives from justice who might seek to secrete themselves in our midst <>; and <said that> if [p. 2a]