Bonham's Trial - We hear from Racine that the Court was busy yesterday empanelling a jury for the trial of Bonham. It is supposed that a day or two will be consumed in this process, and that the trial will not be finished till some time next week.

Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Friday Morning, October 30, 1846, page 2 of 4.

---

Correspondence of the Sentinel and Gazette.
Racine, Nov. 7, 1846
    Messrs. Editors - The evidence in the case of the United States vs. David Bonham, indicted for the murder of Henry Keene, closed on Thursday last, and a part of that day and, the whole of Friday, was occupied with the arguments of counsel. Judge Miller delivered his charge to the jury last evening, and after an absence of four hours, they returned with a verdict of GUILTY.
    Throughout the whole trial the Prisoner has been confident in the belief that he would be acquitted, and when he heard the verdict his feelings overcame him, and he wept like a child. The defence has been ably conducted by Isaac P. Walker and Jas. Holliday, Esqs., and the prosecution with equal ability by Jonathan E. Arnold and James J. Brown, Esqs. The Speeches made by these gentlemen were eloquent and pathetic, add were listened to by a crowded audience. Mr. Arnold's closing speech, especially, was a master effort, and the manner of its delivery, and the beauty of his expression, struck me as peculiarly calculated to have an effect upon the jury.
    Mr. Walker occupied about four hours with his speech; and displayed a vividness of concentration, and a memory of facts, rarely possessed by our ablest lawyers. Had it been in the power of man to have cleared David Bonham, Mr. Walker would have done it.
    The same may be said of Mr. Holliday.
    Sentence was pronounced against the prisoner this forenoon about 11 o'clock. When asked why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced against him, he rose and read a statement which he had prepared, in which he asserted his innocence of the crime charged against him. He had lived, he said, a man among men, and he should die like a man. After he had finished, the Judge pronounced sentence against him. Unless pardoned by the Governor, he is to be hung on the 11th of December next, by the sheriff of our county [Racine].
Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 9, 1846, page 3 of 4.
-----

Bonham's Trial (American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, November 17, 1846, page 2 of 4.)
    We copy the following succinct and lucid account of this trial, from the Southport Telegraph of November 11th.
    The case occupied the attention of the Court, to the exclusion of all other business, over eight days of the term.
    We propose now to give briefly the circumstances of the murder, as drawn from the material part of the mass of testimony presented.
    It seems that there is a sawmill situated on a small tract of canal land, in the town of Menomonee, Waukesha Co. This mill was erected some years ago by the joint means and labor of Mr. Nottingham and a Mr. Phippin, who, of course, were joint owners. The last named individual sold his interest shortly after the mill had been erected, to Mr. Henry Keene, of Prairieville, between whom and Mr. N, there appears not to have been a good understanding, from the outstart. At the canal land sale, in Milwaukee, in April last, Mr. Keene bid off, and paid for, the tract of land upon which the mill is situated; and thus became, in law, the entire owner of the property in question. Mr. Nottingham at this time, and for some weeks after assumed and exercised exclusive control of the mill. Shortly before the fatal occurrence, the mill was placed in possession of David Bonham, as lessee of Mr. N, Mr. B., as appears from the testimony, was fully aware of the difficulties which existed in regard to the property; and it appears farther, that a leading object in view, on his part, in taking it, was to prevent, by force if necessary, its falling into the hands of the legal owner, who, it was supposed, would soon attempt to enter into possession. Mr. Bonham had been somewhat conspicuous as an advocate of what are termed "settlers' rights" - was very familiar with the rules and regulations which had bee adopted by settlers for mutual protection in these rights; and being, withal, a man of some courage and determination, was of course, the very one who would be most likely to fight the thing successfully through against the claim of Mr. K. Indeed, he had, it seems, expressed a determination to do so, and for two nights prior to the night of the 22nd of May, when the murder was committed, had guarded the mill with a deadly weapon - a gun in his hands. Early in the afternoon of the 22nd of May last, Mr. Keene, acting under the advice of his counsel, appeared in the mill, which was then in charge of a Mr. Frary, a hired man of Bonham. After making some inquires in reference to Nottingham and Bonham, the former of whom he was told had gone to Walworth Co., and the later to Prairieville after the Lisbon mail, he informed Mr. Frary that he intended very soon to take possession of the mill. He then left but returned a short time before sundown and sensing a favorable opportunity, when Mr. Frary had stepped outside to point out to a Mr. Foster where certain lumber was to be found, he shut down the gate and stopped the mill. When Frary stopped back again, Mr. K told him he had taken possession and that his services were no longer needed. Frary soon started away leaving the mill in peaceful possession of Keene, who provided to take out the saw and removed it, with a segment of the drag wheel, &c, and discharged a loaded gun which he found on the premises. Bonham by this time had returned home from Prairieville with the mail.
    By this mail he read a letter from Mr. N., then in Milwaukee, informing him of the design of Mr. K and advising him, at all hazards, to regain possession of the property. Bonham sent his brother George to a neighbor to borrow a gun directing him to be at the mill with the gun, in the course of half an hour and immediately, himself, started for the mill, the distance of which, from his house, is over a mile. He met Frary within a few rods of the mill, who informed him what had taken place. When Bonham entered the mill, he found Keene, Foster, and a young lad, by the name of Dunn, there. He shook hands with Mr. K, to whom he said, "you have stopped my mill." K replied, "Your mill? You couldn't expect a mill so easy as that." Bonham then went away, and returned with Frary, and commanded Mr. K to bring back the articles he had taken off. Thus, K, refused to do so. B then ordered all but Frary out of the mill. K declined going, and requested Foster to remain. About this time George Bonham appeared with the gun which he had been sent for.

    David Bonham immediately took it, and again, with the gun in his hand, ordered Keene, Foster, and Dunn out of the mill who all now left, K taking the lead. K got only about half a rod from the mill, when Bonham called out, "Keene, come back I wish to speak with you."- K turned about and met Bonham, who had advanced toward him - B then again demanded the articles which had been taken away. K replied "You can not prove that I have taken them". B rejoined, "Bring them back, or I'll shoot you." K advancing a step, said, "Shoot, I'm not afraid." B. drew back, presented the muzzle of the gun within a short distance of the body of K and fired, the whole charge entering the lower part of the stomach, passing through and lodging, (as appeared by post mortem examination) in the spine. K reeled, fell on his right hand, exclaiming, "I am a dead man." B. replied, "You are no worse." K recovered and staggered away at out 70 yards, when he fell. He was carried into Mrs. Phippin's house, which was in the immediate vicinity, where in the course of half an hour he died. Bonham and his brother, and Frary very coolly left the scene of the occurrence, without going near the wounded man, or making the slightest inquiry, or exhibiting the slightest feeling of anxiety, in regard to his situation. This fact doubtless impressed the mind of the jury, as it did that of the Court and public most unfavorably towards the prisoner, and was the strongest evidence presented of the express malice upon which the indictment rested."

    These are the principal circumstances, as narrated by the witnesses for the prosecution. It is proper to state that the testimony of George Bonham and Frary, on the part of the defense, differed in material points from that above given. Frary swore that Bonham, instead of calling Keene back, said, "Keene, don't you come back, unless to return the property you took away," and that when this remark was made, Keene advancing towards the mill, with the mill-dog in his hand, an article which it seems he had been carrying about with him during the time of the difficulty. George Bonham swore, in addition to this, that when his brother demanded the return of the article taken away, he said, "If you don't bring them back, I'll sue you!" - that Mr. K. replied, "sue, I'm not afraid" - that after K said "you can not prove that I have taken them," his brother replied, "you have one of them in your hand" - that then K raised the mill dog in a threatening manner and advancing said, "Yes! God damn you, take it," when his brother stepped back and fired, as before described.

    The summing up was commenced by Mr. Brown, District Attorney of Milwaukee Co. on the part of the prosecution, whose duty, we are informed, was ably discharged. Mr. B. was followed by Messrs. Holliday and Walker, whose efforts on behalf of the prisoner displayed more than ordinary ingenuity and talent - not a point or circumstance, which could be turned to their advantage, was left untouched, and the impression was doubtless general, that if the prisoner was condemned, it would not be for the want of faithfulness, energy, or ability, on the part of his counsel. Mr. Arnold closed on the part of the prosecution. His speech occupied about eight hours. A forensic effort of more power has probably seldom been heard. His closing appeal to the jury, (in which they were called upon to sustain the law in its majesty and impartiality, and in which allusion was made to the violation of law and justice in the case of Vineyard, who murdered Arndt, and is now a member of our Constitution convention - in the case of Freeman, "the poor, miserable, stolid, insane, negro," who was condemned to be hung - and in the case of Spencer, who, because of hereditary insanity in his family was acquitted of the murder of his wife, whom he destroyed in a fit of jealousy,) will not soon be forgotten. But we shall not pretend to give and idea of this, nor other points, of his eloquent appeals and arguments. We could not do the subject justice, and have not room, if we had the ability.

    The defense endeavored to sustain the position that the act was not one of felonious homicide, but excusable homicide, committed in self defense. the testimony of Geo. Bonham and Frary was, of course, the basis of the argument; but, unfortunately, there was much to discredit this testimony, and the law was read, on the other side to show that, even admitting the evidence in question to be entitled to full crudity, yet, under the circumstances, the plea of self defense could not stand. The evidence adduced as to the prisoner's former good character for "benevolence, kindness, and humanity," was dwelt upon as affording ground for reasonable presumption as to his innocence of the crime alleged, - and if a doubt existed it was contended that the prisoner was entitled to the full benefit of that doubt, and should be acquitted.
    The court was requested by the Counsel for the defense to charge the Jury specially in reference to certain written points presented, embodying among others, the points above stated.
    After the charge of the court, the case was left with the jury, about 10 o'clock P. M., of Friday. At 1 A. M., of Saturday, the verdict was rendered. The word GUILTY fell upon the ear of the prisoner with appalling force. He had indulged a hope, amounting in his mind almost to a certainty, that he should be acquitted. He had known of cases in the Territory, where the circumstances of guilt against the prisoner had been as strong, if not stronger, than in his case. Yet, verdicts of acquittal had been rendered. He supposed the result in his case would be the same - and doubtless, from what he had seen of the administration of law in Wisconsin, he had calculated the chances of escape, before the crime was committed. Such is the influence of crime unpunished to beget crime. The strong hope he entertained, sustained him during the progress of the trial. It was not observed that at any time he exhibited the least feeing of anxiety or apprehension. Indeed, it would have been difficult, so unconcerned generally was the expression of his countenance, for a stranger to have told who among the persons at the bar, was the prisoner. But as we said before, the word "guilty" came upon him with a crushing effect. With hope, the spirit of the man appeared to be almost extinguished. The look of indifference was gone - and in its place was one of terror and despair. The tottering step, of the before strong man, as he left the Court room for the prison, to await his sentence, betokened the state of mind under which he was now laboring, and how little prepared he had been for the awful verdict which had been announced.
    At 11 o'clock on Saturday, he was brought the Court to receive the sentence of the law. Being asked what he had to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced against him, he rose, and with a tremulous voice and choked utterance, read four or five pages of manuscript which he held in his hand, giving detail of the circumstances ... that he had no intention to kill Mr. Keene - that no one could regret the occurrence more than he did - that he alone was responsible for what had been done - that his brother, Nottingham, and Frary were not accessories - that he had noted in self defense, etc, etc. he was disposed to submit to the laws of his country. he had been advised the day after the offense was committed, and when he could have done so, to effect his escape. This advice was given by Dr. Hilliard of Waukesha Co. But he scorned to do it. He had to abide the issues before a Court of Justice, having no fear as to the result. But the decision was against him!. He hoped that the Court would have mercy upon him; and begged that he might be allowed as long a time as possible to prepare for the awful event which awaited him. He sank upon his seat overcome with emotion, when the Court proceeded to discharge the solemn duty which devolved upon it.

    David Bonham is about 35 years of age; and has, we are informed, a wife and four children.
    It is due to his Honor Judge Miller, to say that the whole of the proceedings in this case were characterized by an evident disposition on his part to afford the prisoner and his counsel every advantage which propriety and the most liberal construction of law, would warrant.

Source: American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, November 17, 1846, page 2 of 4.

---

The Case of David Bonham (Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Friday Morning, November 20, 1846, page 2 of 4.)
    We hear, not without surprise, that a strong effort is made to procure a pardon, or commutation of punishment for David Bonham, now lying under sentence of death for the murder of Henry Keene, in the town of Menomonee, on the 22nd of May last. Petitions to the Governor have been prepared and are circulating in this and adjoining counties, and as many of our readers will no doubt be asked to unite in this appeal to the Executive we thought it due to them, as well to the community at large and to the cause of justice, to recapitulate the facts in the case and to offer some consideration which seem to us conclusive again to the propriety of the proposed Executive interference. The circumstances of the murder as established on the trial, are thus printed in the Southport Telegraph.
    "It seems that there is a saw mill situated on a small tract of canal land, in the town of Menomonee, Waukesha Co. This mill was erected some years ago, by the joint means and labor of Mr. Nottingham and a Mr. Phippin, who of course, were joint owners. The last named individual sold his interest shortly after the mill had been erected, to Mr. Henry Keene of Prairieville, between whom and Mr. N., there appears not to have been a good understanding, from the out-start. At the canal land sale in Milwaukee, in April last, Mr. Keene bid off and paid for, the tract of land upon which the mill is situated and thus became, in law, the entire owner of the property in question. Mr. Nottingham at this time, and for some weeks after, assumed and exercised exclusive control of the mill. Shortly before the fatal occurrence, the mill was placed in possession of D. Bonham, as lessee of Mr. N., who appears from the testimony, was fully aware of the difficulties which existed in regard to the property, and it appears farther, that a leading object in view, on his part, in taking it, was to prevent by force if necessary, it falling into the hands of the legal owner, who it was supposed, would soon attempt to enter into possession. Mr. Bonham had been somewhat conspicuous as an advocate of what was termed "settlers rights" - was very familiar with the rules and regulations which had been adopted by settlers for mutual protection in these rights, and being, withal, a man of some courage and determination, was of course, the very first one who would be most likely to fight the thing successful through against the claim of Mr. K. Indeed, he had, it seems, expressed a determination to do so, and for two nights prior to the night of the 22nd of May, when the murder was committed, had guarded the mill with a deadly weapon - a gun - in his hands. Early in the afternoon of the 22nd of May last, Mr. Keene, acting under the advice of his counsel, appeared in the mill, which was then in charge of a Mr. Frary, a hired man of Bonham. After making some inquires in reference to Nottingham and Bonham, the former of whom he was told had gone to Walworth Co., and the later to Prairieville after the Lisbon mail, he informed Mr. Frary that he intended very soon to take possession of the mill. He then left but returned a short time before sundown and sensing a favorable opportunity, when Mr. Frary had stepped outside to point out to a Mr. Foster where certain lumber was to be found, he shut down the gate and stopped the mill. When Frary stopped back again, Mr. K told him he had taken possession and that his services were no longer needed. Frary soon started away leaving the mill in peaceful possession of Keene, who provided to take out the saw and removed it, with a segment of the drag wheel, &c, and discharged a loaded gun which he found on the premises. Bonham by this time had returned home from Prairieville with the mail.
    By this mail he read a letter from Mr. N then in Milwaukee, informing him of the design of Mr. K and advising him, at all hazards, to regain possession of the property. Bonham sent his brother George to a neighbor to borrow a gun directing him to be at the mill with the gun, in the course of half an hour and immediately, himself, started for the mill, the distance of which, from his house, is over a mile. He met Frary within a few rods of the mill, who informed him what had taken place. When Bonham entered the mill, he found Keene, Foster, and a young lad, by the name of Dunn, there. He shook hands with Mr. K, to whom he said, "you have stopped my mill." K replied, "Your mill? You couldn't expect a mill so easy as that." Bonham then went away, and returned with Frary, and commanded Mr. K to bring back the articles he had taken off. Thus, K, refused to do so. B then ordered all but Frary out of the mill. K declined going, and requested Foster to remain. About this time George Bonham appeared with the gun which he had been sent for. - David Bonham immediately took it, and again, with the gun in his hand, ordered Keene, Foster, and Dunn out of the mill who all now left, K taking the lead. K got only about half a rod from the mill, when Bonham called out, "Keene, come back I wish to speak with you."- K turned about and met Bonham, who had advanced toward him - B then again demanded the articles which had been taken away. K replied "You can not prove that I have taken them". B rejoined, "Bring them back, or I'll shoot you." K advancing a step, said, "Shoot, I'm not afraid." B. drew back, presented the muzzle of the gun within a short distance of the body of K and fired, the whole charge entering the lower part of the stomach, passing through and lodging, (as appeared by post mortum examination) in the spine. K reeled, fell on his right hand, exclaiming, "I am a dead man." B. replied, "You are no worse." K recovered and staggered away at out 70 yards, when he fell. He was carried into Mrs. Phippin's house, which was in the immediate vicinity, where in the course of half an hour he died. Bonham and his brother, and Frary very coolly left the scene of the occurrence, without going near the wounded man, or making the slightest inquiry, or exhibiting the slightest feeling of anxiety, in regard to his situation. This fact doubtless impressed the mind of the jury, as it did that of the Court and public most unfavorably towards the prisoner, and was the strongest evidence presented of the express malice upon which the indictment rested."
    Bonham was arrested the day succeeding the murder, was shortly afterward indicted by the Grand Jury of the county and his trial set down for the term of the current court held in June. - but when the appointed day came the prisoner, thro' his counsel, made application for a change of venue, upon the ground that he could not obtain a fair trial in this county. The Judge granted the application and set down the case for trial at the next term of the court in Racine county. The trial came off accordingly and after hearing the testimony, the arguments of counsel and the charge of the Judge, the Jury, after an absence of a few hours returned a verdict of Guilty.

    Such, in brief, are the facts in the case. Let us next glance, for a moment, at the palliating circumstances attempted to be shown in behalf of the Prisoner. First, it was stated by George Bonham, the brother of the Prisoner, in his testimony, that Bonham said to Keene, "If you don't return the irons I'll sue you (not "shoot", as other witnesses testified) and that Keene replied "Sue, I'm not afraid." But without dwelling upon the circumstance that George Bonham prevaricated upon this point in his cross examination and that he was distinctly contradicted by Robert Dunn, Joseph Younger, and Thomas foster, who were all present at the occurrence and swore that Bonham threatened to "shoot" (not "sue") it is sufficient to remark that Bonham would not have borrowed a gun to sue with, and that Keene would scarcely would have replied, "I'm not afraid.", if simply threatened with a law suit. Second, that it was sought to be shown by George Bonham that when his brother shot Keene the latter was advancing toward him, with his arm raised and a mill iron in his hand, as if about to strike. But here again George Bonham, was distinctly contradicted by the other witnesses who testify that Keene at the time he was shot was standing still with his arms hanging by his sides.
    Lastly, it is claimed by the prisoner himself that he did not intend to kill Keene, but only to wound him. But to this is opposed the fact that he fired the gun, loaded with No. 3 (?) shot, directly at Keene's body, when the prisoner and his victim were but six or eight feet apart, the whole charge, as we have before stated, passing through the lower part of Keene's abdomen. Admitting, for a moment, the absence of homicidal intent does not the firing of a gun, directly at the body of a man, but a few feet off, evince that recklessness of human life, which, even where malice before thought is not proven, is held to constitute murder?
    Several of our most respected citizens, Col. George H. Walker, Mr. Kilbourn, Mr. Crocker &c, were called by the Defense to testify to the Prisoner's ?? acts, and they swore ?????? that they had ??? considered him a humane well disposed, ???? man. Mr. Crocker, ???? to a question from Counsel, said that he was surprised when he heard of the transaction, as which of ?? ?? not. It was shown, too, that Bonham was a man of standing and influence in the community, that he had filled several important offices by election, or appointment, in the town and territory. and that he attended several sessions of the Legislature in the capacity of Sergeant at arms. But all these circumstances in our humble judgment so in from palliating in the tended to aggravate the guilt of the Prisoner for they go to how that Bonham had enjoyed opportunities superior to those of most of his fellow men for learning the law of the land, and distinguishing between right and wrong. It was not through ignorance of the law, ??? ??? ???, that Bonham cried.
    Nor can it be pretended that he didn't have a fair trial. The venue, at his request, was changed to the Court of Racine county, prover??? for an intelligent, thrifty, ?????, population.-
    The Jury was carefully selected out of a panel of some 60 or 70 drawn by the Sheriff. The Judge held the scales of Justice ??? ??? ??? hand.
Editor's Note: Too much of the article above continues in a very unreadable manner; another couple of paragraphs yet to be deciphered.

Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Friday Morning, November 20, 1846, page 2 of 4.

-----

Gov. Dodge, has issued his warrant for the execution of David Bonham on the 3d day of February next. We regret to see the remark of the Milwaukee Sentinel on this subject. It exhibits a feeling which is far from being creditable to the editors. That time allowed the prisoner by the sentence of the court was unusually and unreasonably short was generally admitted. Why then object to this slight exercise of Executive clemency in his behalf? The demands of justice will in the end be as fully met, while it is an act of but the commonest mercy to allow the unfortunate culprit time sufficient to prepare for the awful event which awaits him. We love to witness such exhibitions of weakness on the part of those who have the lives of any of their fellow men at their disfusal. It is such weakness as the Almighty disposer of events in in the daily habit of exhibiting low  ???????? creatures.

Source: Southport Telegraph, South Port, Wisconsin, December 9, 1846, page 2 of 4.

-----
Another Pardon - William Galloway, who was found guilty of manslaughter last spring, at Lancaster, Grant county, for his participation in the murder of Mr. De Lassauit, and who was sentenced to five years imprisonment, has been pardoned by Gov. Dodge. Our readers may remember, that this murder, like that of Keene, grew out of a dispute about land. If Gov. Dodge intends, by this exercise of his prerogative, to establish the law that all disputes about land are to be settled by an appeal to arms, and that "might is to make right", it is due, as well to those who now in our Territory, as to those who propose emigrating hither, that the fact should well and widely known. If such is not his Excellency's purpose, he owes it to the people of the Territory to make public the reasons which have induced him to pardon William Galloway, and to reprieve David Bonham. Unexplained, his conduct wears the appearance of criminal weakness.

Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Thursday Morning, December 10, 1846, page 2 of 4.

-----

David Bonham
    We are informed that the twelve jurymen who returned a verdict of guilty against David Bonham, have signed a petition to Governor dodge, praying for a commutation of his sentence. The officers of the Court - the Sheriff, deputy Sheriff, Clerk, and Deputy Marshall, the Jailor and constables, have all petitioned the Governor to the same effect. In addition to the above, about four hundred of our most respectable citizens, have also signed a similar petition. In fact, we are confident that there are hundreds more who would like to have the prisoner saved from the gallows by executive interference, but their previous committal in favor of the death penalty prevents their saying so. We sincerely hope that Governor Dodge, in view of this almost unanimous expression of our citizens in favor of David Bonham, will be please to commute his sentence to imprisonment. [Racine Whig]
Source: The Fond Du Lac Whig, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, January 14, 1847

-----

A. W. Randall's Letter
Prairieville, Wisconsin
January 28, 1847
To His Excellency Henry Dodge, governor of Wisconsin:
Sir:
    I presume to address you on the subject of the commutation of the sentence of David Bonham, and it is proper for me to state to you my own acquaintance with his difficulty and of the primary examination of the witnesses against him. When in conversation with you at Madison, on the subject last fall, I exposed a doubt as to the consequences in several points of view, if his sentence should be commuted at that time. Then there was a strong feeling manifested throughout this part of the country against Bonham.

    (1) A great change has taken place in the public mind in this region of country within a few weeks, and in conversing with a multitude of people on the subject of both the the great political parties, I am satisfied that there is a general desire that the sentence of David Bonham should be commuted.

    (2) There is one exception to this sentiment. The political abolitionists alone, as a class, desire, or to have, Bonham hung. I have never made a statement of what fell under my own observation in this case, for the reason that I was the legal advisor of Keene. Keene exceeded my advice in his acts. I was well acquainted with both parties. Keene to my certain knowledge was advised (not by me) but by some lawyers in Milwaukee, that "he had the right to take possession of the premises by force, and to keep possession even to the shedding of blood." I know that Keene went to Lisbon intoxicated, and with this advice, and with a determination by force and with weapons, if necessary, to take and hold the premises. I also knew well Mr. Phippin, of whom Keene made a pretended purchase of an undivided portion of the property. I know that Phippin's title was good of nothing, and the trade between him and Keene was a sham trade. They are both dead. I know all their connection with the property and their title to it before they died. I know that Bonham was advised, on the afternoon of the affray at this place, of Keene's intention and determination, and that he was much affected by it. I saw Bonham on that afternoon - I overheard what was said to him. Keene was a man of quick temper and when excited and crossed, inclined to be malicious. I was present the next day after the affray in Lisbon, and saw the body of Keene examined. I saw the ground on which both parties stood. Their relative position was explained to me by the three witnesses upon whose testimony Bonham was convicted. I was counsel for the prosecution before the justice who committed Bonham to jail. I examined these witnesses for hours, with the minutest care. I saw the manner in which the charge of the gun entered Keene, and the point at which it entered and the direction it took in the body. I saw the place where the charge finally lodged and from which it was taken by the physicians. I have the testimony of these witnesses word for word, as it was uttered. The justice, Sloan before whom the examination was had, did not take it with care - he did not take it correct, From the situation of the parties at the place of the affray in Lisbon, as it was pointed out to me by these witnesses, inch by inch and foot by foot, and from their own statements there, and on their examination under oath. I know that their statements under oath are not only improbable, but the truth of them absolutely and utterly impossible. The feeling they manifested when they swore out their writs against Bonham - the strange anxiety they manifested in the case while consulting with me alone, before they were sworn and the actual fact that they did, within my knowledge, and in my hearing, correct and arrange the statements of each other, so that their stories should agree with singular accuracy, led me first to distrust and doubt, and finally to become morally certain that they did intend, and finally did commit the most damnable perjury. And although there was much public indignation felt here at the time of examination, among the large body of people who assembled to hear it, yet I do know that among the candid and thinking portion of those who heard it there was a settled conviction that Bonham did not intend to commit murder, nor to kill Keene. The case for the defence was bunglingly managed by the counsel who assumed to take the lead, or much might at the time have been unmasked. If the other counsel employed by Bonham had been permitted to share more in the proceedings, I never doubted but a different complexion would have been given to the matter.
    BONHAM DID NOT INTEND TO KILL KEENE. Keene, did go to Lisbon with the intention of taking and holding that property - to use his own words, or their purpose; "if all hell stood at the door." And before God, I believe that Bonham killed him accidentally in defence of Bonham's own lawful possession, and to which Keene had no shadow of claim except a paper claim from Phippin, which bore fraud upon its very face, and which if Phippin had not died and left a defenceless wife, of whom Keene took most shameful advantage , he (Keene) would never have dared attempt to enforce. I was counsel for Phippin and for Keene, in their matters. I kept their secrets. I knew their views, wishes and intentions. They are dead. There is no motive for further concealment.     That life of a man guiltless of murder hangs upon a thread - one who though of rough and unprepossessing exterior, had in his inner man all the nobler elements of humanity.
    Unless your clemency is interposed, he must die - die as a felon without having committed a felony - as a murderer - condemned - despised and hooted - without having committed murder.
    I cannot, sir, sit quietly by without speaking in this matter. the struggle has been hard with me, but I must tell the errors of the dead and their machinations when the life of a man innocent of murder, hangs at the door of death. We all have our faults, and we all are compelled to suffer for them. All have their rights, and unless they are craven cowards, will maintain them. So it was with Bonham, and in maintaining not only what he supposed his rights, this accident occurred which excites us all.
    (3) The end of the law can be well answered by commuting his sentence, as by taking his life. By the first, the blow aimed at justice, will be stayed. By the last, a man will suffer the punishment of a crime he did not commit. Surely, sir, that justice which adds dignity to mercy, will be satisfied by the interposition of your prerogative, and that mercy which tempers justice, will be bestowed upon a fitting object. By commuting his sentence all that the law demands will be simply paid. If it is not commuted, I cannot, no man can, answer to the result. A husband and a father dies upon the gallows - a spectacle for a cold, heartless, mocking crowd - dies as a murderer! A wife, oh! If you could see her now, and then see what she was - a fair high-minded, honorable woman, reduce to a mere walking ghostly skeleton, with utterable woe fastened like a spectre upon every line of her visage - gloomy and tottering after her dying husband. No life to act, no hope to cheer her, scorned as a felon's wife and about to be turned upon the cold, lean charity of the world, a murderer's widow. If you could see her dim, glassy eye, turn to her little ones, the felon's children, who sit wondering at their mother's grief. and why their father stays so long from home, I am sure you could but feel the hardship of their lot. What will they do? Where can they go? They have no home, no friends; strangers look coldly upon their sufferings. Sir, there is no hope nor help but in you. You have great examples in such emergencies.
I am sire, most respectfully,
Your ob't serv't,
A. W. Randall
Source: printed in the American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, March 10, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

We learn that the Washington Guards of this city, in compliance with the requisition of the Sheriff of Racine County, will leave here on Tuesday next to attend the execution of Bonham, which is to take place on the day following.

Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Saturday Morning, January 30, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----
Extraordinary Legislation - It will be seen, by reference to our Madison letter, that a bill has passed the House, and is now pending in the Council, to abolish Capital Punishment. It will be seen, too, that the chief is not sole object of the bill and of them who introduced it, is to meet on particular cases, other words, to afford the Gentleman a pretext for commuting the punishment of David Bonham. The Governor, it appears, satisfied in his own mind that no good ground exists for extending the Executive clemency to this unhappy convict, or postpone the doom. But he is said to have promised that if the Legislature would pass a law abolishing Capital Punishment, he would, in that event, commute Bonham's sentence. Hence, as a last effort, the friends of Bonham have procured the introduction of such a law in the House and its passage, under whip and spur, on the next day after its introduction. We hesitate not to say, that the enactment of this law, under such circumstances, would become of the most unpardonable outrages that a Legislature could commit. Here is an attempt made, without debate, without any previous discussion among the people, on the spur of the moment and to meet a particular case, to change a law of the Territory, which has been in force since its first organization. Now, however men may differ as to the right, or expediency of Capital Punishment, there cannot, we think, be two opinions, as to the gross impropriety and wrong of this special, post-haste legislation. What security is there for life and property, when the Legislature, forgetting in their sympathy for an individual their duty to the public, thus hurriedly, inconsiderately and obeying a blind impulse, pass a law remitting the penalty for the worst of crimes as a last means of saving the life of a convicted murderer?

    Which certainty is there that punishment will follow any offence, when our Law-makers thus step in between the law and its victim, and by an ex post facto enactment seek to rescue the guilty from the hands of Justice? But we cannot believe that the council have lent their sanction to this ubiquitous act. We shall know to-night, and meanwhile we suspend our comments.
    P.S. We hear, by last night's mail, that the Council have ordered this bill to a third reading by one majority (7 to 6), But we are assured, nevertheless, that it cannot pass. We trust, for the honor of our Territory, that it will not.

Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tuesday Morning, February 2, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

A Second Reprieve for Bonham - Those who returned yesterday from Racine bring word that the Governor had again respited Bonham; this time for 30 days. This, we presume, is preliminary to a commutation of sentence. When his Excellency shall have finally made up his mind, one way or the other, we may offer some comments upon his course. It would have saved a very considerable expense to our county, if he had notified the Sheriff of his last change of purpose a day or two sooner.
    We learn that a very large number of people had assembled at Racine yesterday and that there was a good deal of excitement about the conduct of the Governor and the action of the Legislature. As to the last, we hear but one voice, and that of the most unqualified and indignant condemnation of the passage of the Anti-Punishment law to meet a particular case. It is the most discreditable act of which our Territorial Legislature has ever been guilty, and cannot but affect, most injuriously, the interest and reputation of Wisconsin.
Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Thursday Morning, February 4, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

From the Milwaukee Sentinel
EXTRAORDINARY SENTIMENTS
    If the public have been surprised and shocked by the manner and motive of the recent action in our Territorial Legislature on the subject of Capital Punishment, what will they say when they come to hear that their members were found to stand up on the floor of the House and excuse, if not justify, the murder committed by David Bonham?
    We invite their attention to the following remarks made by Mr. Hobart of Sheboygan, a leading and influential member of the House, during a debate on the subject of the Canal Lands and a day or two previous to the introduction of the bill to abolish Capital Punishment.
    "The records of the canal land troubles had already been written in blood, if he might be permitted to allude to the unfortunate murder that had been committed on these lands. He would say that it was to a certain extent justifiable. The act was done with the belief that it was in defence of private rights and with a noble motive. The man by whom it was committed believed that he was acting in defence of the property of others. if nothing was done by the Legislature on the subject now before the committee, similar outrages might be expected, if outrages they could be called which were committed in the defence of sacred and inalienable rights."
    Now what is to be said to sentiments so revolting, to language so extraordinary as this? The murder of Keene "to a certain extent justifiable!" The act "done in the defence of private rights and with a noble motive!" the murderer to be held guiltless because he was standing up "for sacred and inalienable rights!" Have we, indeed, so utterly mistaken the character of this transaction as Mr. Hobart's language would seem to indicate? did the Jury which convicted and the Judge who sentenced Bonham, so grossly transcend their powers as to attempt to inflict the penalty for murder upon a man who was battling "for scared and inalienable rights!" Shall a man be held responsible for following our a "noble motive", even tho' it lead him to cut his neighbor's throat, or shoot him down, like a dog, on the public highway? Is it not a sufficient and satisfactory defence to every indictment for murder, that he who committed the act "believed that it was in "defence of private rights?" Has not every man full power and authority to assert his own rights and avenge his own wrongs? And if in so doing he destroys life and tramples under foot both human and Divine law, shall that be called an outrage which was committed in defence of "sacred and inalienable rights?"
    These are conclusions to which the remarks of Mr. Hobart irresistibly lead. We tremble for the cause of law and order in our Territory, when such sentiments are uttered in our legislative halls and are suffered to go forth to the world, unanswered and unrebuked. Fata indeed will be the influence of language like Mr. Hobart's, of legislation like the passage of the anti-Capital Punishment bill; of Executive weakness and instability such as has marked the course of Gov. Dodge, upon the name and fortunes of our fair territory, if the People, rising in their majesty, do not administer to each and all a withering rebuke! Source: American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, February 17, 1847, page 1 of 4.

-----

    We understand that the Governor's private Secretary denies that he lost the warrant of the Governor to the Sheriff of Racine Co. to stay the execution of Bonham. Our authority for saying so was pretty direct, but we don't know that it is of any consequence, farther than that it might cost the Territory a little more expresses. Source: Evening Courier, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 3, 1847, page 3 of 4.
-----

    A friend tells us that he saw Bonham out of jail, sawing wood, in Racine on Saturday last. This, we suppose, is the first step towards his discharge from confinement. Why keep a man in prison who has only committed murder? Source: Daily Sentinel and Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Tuesday Morning, March 9, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

CASE OF DAVID BONHAM
    The sentence of this unfortunate man has been commuted to imprisonment for life.
    This act from the Governor a full statement of his reasons. The setting aside of the action of the Court, after the full and deliberate trial afforded to the convicted criminal, is not trivial action. Unless it was done for the most substantial reasons which will commend themselves to the sound judgment, as well as the kind wishes of the community, its effects upon public, morals, and upon the reputation of the laws and government of our Territory will be disastrous in the high degree.
    We notice in the Madison Argus of the 2nd inst. a number of documents from the governor's office, which we suppose are published as a justification of his action. In a petition of eleven of the jurors, the say - "while acting as jurors under the solemnity of an oath, the were in duty bound to find Bonham guilty of the crime where with he stood charged; that while they believe in the strictness of the law, said verdict was correct, yet they do not believe said Bonham ought to die for said offence."
    The affidavits of James Kitchingman, Thomas E. Parmele and Ira Dean represent three of the witnesses, Foster, Younger and Dunn, who testified at the trial, as manifesting "hostility and revenge against said Bonham, and seemed determined to procure a conviction of said Bonham if possible by their evidence."
    As any one may see, the petitions of the jury-men amount to nothing more than a declaration that they do not believe in capital punishment.
The Argus also publishes the petitions of several officers in Racine county, and several members of the Legislature, for the commutation of Bonham's punishment. That our readers may know who of our Legislature signed such a petition we extract as follows:
    To His Excellency Henry Dodge:
    The undersigned members of the council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Wisconsin, respectfully represent that it would be in accordance with their wishes, that the sentence of David Bonham be commuted to imprisonment for life, and would respectfully ask that said commutation may be granted.
January 30, 1847
Council - Henry Clark, Wm. Singer, H. N. Wells, Joseph Turner, Andrew Palmer, B. F. Manahan, Mason C. Darling, J. E. Holmes, Chauncey M. Phelps.
House - James Giddings, W. W. Brown, Joseph Bond, Joseph W. Ymber(?), H. C. Hobart, John W. Stewart, C. A. Bronson, Jared G. Winslow, J. M. Burgress, Thos. Chilton, U. Wood, John T. Haught, Wm. Richardson, C. G. Heath, Geo. W. Green.
    But what surprises us most of all is the letter written to the Governor by our townsman A. W. Randall, Esq., which the reader will find in another column.
    (1.) If the execution of law is to depend wholly upon the state of public sentiment, carefully ascertained by political spies here and there, what safely remains to the citizen whose sentiments may not coincide with public opinion? If public opinion, rather than the constitution and laws, is to be consulted, why have we constitution or laws? Why not be controlled by mob law at once? Why should the honest citizen, who looks to the Government for protection, be deluded by the false assurances of constitution and laws?
    Public sentiment has changed, Gov. Dodge, and therefore you are released from your oath to support the laws of Wisconsin. You should act in accordance with public sentiment, or you will become unpopular. It is not quite so important that the dignity and authority of the laws should be maintained, as it is, that your popularity and future election should be secured!!
    (2.) But the one exception is worthy of note, "The political abolitionists alone as a class, desire to see, or to have Bonham hung." That the Abolitionists as a class have revengeful "desires," or thirst for Bonham's blood, is false. Where have they expressed it? What manifestation of such "desire" have they made? Have they ever advocated his execution through their organ?
The truth is there is a great diversity of opinion among Liberty men on this subject, as there is also in the other "great political parties" whose opinion, it is so important to consult. Some of them, doubtless, are in favor of capital punishment, and if David Bonham is guilty of murder, as he has been proved to be before an impartial jury of his peers, they believe he should bear the penalty of the law. Others of them believe that human governments have no right to take human life, even as a punishment for murder. The writer, as an individual, is alone responsible for the articles on this subject that appear over his signature in the Freeman.
    But why should Mr. Randall make such an assertion in the ears of the Governor? Did he wish to enlist his antipathy against the abolitionist in favor of Bonham's release? Why this singling out of the Liberty party in his communication to the governor, as alone in favor of the execution of the laws? Are there no whips or democrats who are of opinion that the honor of the laws and the protection of community demand Bonham's execution? Can half a doze men be found in Bonham's own neighborhood, who believe that he is not guilty of willful, deliberate murder - who do not believe that justice demands his execution?
    (3.) Has it then come to this, that every man must report to the pistol, the musket, and the bowie knife, to defend himself in the possession of his property? Is there no protection in law? Does Mr. R. indeed design to advocate this method of maintaining individual rights? And are those to be termed "craven cowards" who will not spill their neighbor's blood in private quarrel in defence of their own property? May not every murder committed since the death of Abel be justified on similar principles? the death of Keene, then, at the hands of Bonham, is to be regarded as an accident? If this is a proper name for that act, to what deed of flagrant crime and malicious hatred, any not that soothing appellation be applied? If crime is ever to be checked, and if righteous laws are to be honored and obeyed, crimes must be called by their proper names, and meet their appropriate penalty. If such men as Vineyard and Bonham are to escape "?????? of justice", and are to enjoy not only the protection , but the honors of the state, what better is the government than an organization for the defence of wrong?
    The special pleading reported to in this letter - the vivid picture of Bonham's afflicted, and we know, worthy wife, is brought in in conflict with the honor of just law, and the safety of the whole community. "Better one suffer than many," is a sound maxim. But who is the author of her sufferings? Not the law - not those who demand its execution - but the wretched man who is guilty of the murder of Keene, No one is more entitled to our sympathy and kind offices than a worthy woman place din such distressing circumstances. Let that tongue be dumb that would utter a word of reproach in her hear - and let that hand be palsied that would point the finger of scorn at her. But she needs protection from the murderer's steel, and so does the community. The defences that an honored law throws around 30,000 fire-sides in Wisconsin, ought not to be prostrated at the request even of a noble woman's quenchless love.
    Why dwell altogether upon the family scene of Bonham? Why not consider the desolation wrought by the hand of crime in the circle poor Keene moved? Were his rights less dear, are his friends less sensitive, than those of his murderer?
If Mr. R. knew all the facts to which he refers in his letters why did he conceal them until the 23rd of January? Why did he not produce them at an earlier date, and let them have an influence at the time of Bonham's trial? Why did he suffer an innocent man to endure all the horrors of imprisonment, reproach, and the most dreadful suspense, when his testimony in time, he might have secured his release? Why wait so long and then whisper in the Governor's ears, that the witnesses are guilty of "damnable perjury."
    How will those witnesses bear this sweeping charge? What will Justice Sloan - what will Judge Miller, and the council for the defence think of this remarkable letter? We shall see.
M.
Source: American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, March 10, 1847, page 2 of 4. Milwaukee, March 9, 1847.

-----
Editor of Evening Courier
    I, the Wisconsin Argus of the 2nd inst., I have read a communication from A. W. Randall, of Prairieville, to Gov. Dodge, on the subject of the commutation of David Bonham's sentence. I have heard many express their surprise at this document, not only on account of the utter professional depravity of which Mr. Randall convicts himself, bit also on account of the very peculiar light in which he places Gov. Dodge.
    The first remarkable passage found in the letter of Mr. Randall is as follows:
    "When in conversation with you at Madison, on the subject last fall, I exposed a doubt as to the consequences in several points of view, if his sentence should be commuted at that time. Then there was a strong feeling manifested throughout this part of the country against Bonham. A great change has taken place in the public mind in this region of country within a few weeks, and in conversation with a multitude of people on the subject of both the the great political parties, I am satisfied that there is a general desire that the sentence of David Bonham should be commuted."
    Now what inference can be drawn from the above than this: That last fall, not only Mr. Randall, but the Gov. also, was coldly weighing the political consequences to himself, if he should then commute. Notwithstanding that (according to the letter) "unless the Governor's clemency is interposed he (Bonham) must die - die as a felon without having committed a felony - as a murderer - condemned - despised and hooted - without having committed murder." Great God! Would Mr. Randall have us believe Gov. Dodge to be so lost to all sense of moral rectitude, of human feeling, and of responsibility to his Creator, as to let an innocent fellow creature die upon the gallows as a murderer, rather than take upon himself the responsibility of commuting at the hazard of some political or party censure? That Mr. Randall could entertain such sentiments, and practice from, and be actuated by such motives, is evident from his letter. For last fall he could only express doubts as to "consequences." Now he can and does advise commutation, because he has conversed with multitudes of the political parties, and is satisfied that the consequences will not be bad.
    And yet he can say in his letter, "before God I believe that Bonham killed (Keene) accidentally in defense of Bonham's own lawful possession, and to which Keene had no shadow of claim," &c. Did he, "before God" believe this any the less, when "last fall" he was weighing his doubts of political consequences against the life of Mr. Bonham?
judge and answer after you hear him, He says in his letter;
    "I was well acquainted with both parties. Keene, to my certain knowledge, was advised, (not by me) but some lawyers in Milwaukee, that "he had a right to take possession of the premises by force, and to keep possession even to the shedding of blood." I know that Keene went to Lisbon intoxicated, and with this advice, and with a determination by force and with weapons, if necessary, to take and hold the premises. I also knew well Mr. Phippin, of whom Keene made a pretended purchase of an undivided portion of the property. I know that Phippin's title was good for nothing, and that the trade between him and Keene was a sham trade. They are both dead. I know all their connection with the property and their title to it before they died. I know that Bonham was advised on the afternoon of the affray at this place, of Keene's intention and determination, and that he was much affected by it. I saw Bonham on that afternoon - I overheard what was said to him. Keene was a man of quick temper and when excited and crossed, inclined to be malicious.  I was present the next day after the affray in Lisbon, and saw the body of Keene examined. I saw the ground on which both parties stood. Their relative position was explained to me by the three witnesses upon whose testimony Bonham was convicted. I was counsel for the prosecution before the justice who committed Bonham to jail. I examined these witnesses for hours, with the minutest care. I saw the manner in which the charge of the gun entered Keene, and the point at which it entered and the direction it took in the body. I saw the place where the charge finally lodged and from which it was taken by the physicians. I have the testimony of these witnesses word for word, as it was uttered. The justice, Sloan before whom the examination was had, did not take it with care - he did not take it correct, From the situation of the parties at the place of the affray in Lisbon, as it was pointed out to me by these witnesses, inch by inch and foot by foot, and from their own statements there, and on their examination under oath. I know that their statements under oath are not only improbable, but the truth of them absolutely and utterly impossible. The feeling they manifested when they swore out their writs against Bonham - the strange anxiety they manifested in the case while consulting with me alone, before they were sworn and the actual fact that they did, within my knowledge, and in my hearing, correct and arrange the statements of each other, so that their stories should agree with singular accuracy, led me first to distrust and doubt, and finally to become morally certain that they did intend, and finally did commit the most damnable perjury. And although there was much public indignation felt here at the time of examination, among the large body of people who assembled to hear it, yet i do know that among the candid and thinking portion of those who heard it there was a sealed conviction that Bonham did not intend to commit murder, nor to kill Keene. BONHAM DID NOT INTEND TO KILL KEENE. Keene, did go to Lisbon with the intention of taking and holding that property - to use his own words, or their purpose; "if all hell stood at the door." And before God, I believe that Bonham killed him accidentally in defence of Bonham's own lawful possession, and to which Keene had no shadow of claim except a paper claim from Phippin, which bore fraud upon its very face, and which if Phippin had not died and left a defenseless wife, of whom Keene took most shameful advantage , he (Keene) would never have dared attempt to enforce. I was counsel for Phippin and for Keene, in their matters. I kept their secrets. I knew their views, wishes and intentions. They are dead. There is no motive for further concealment. That life of a man guiltless of murder hangs upon a thread - one who though of rough and unprepossessing exterior, had in his inner man all the nobler elements of humanity.
    Unless your clemency is interposed, he must die - die as a felon without having committed a felony - as a murderer - condemned - despised and hooted - without having committed murder."

Source: Evening Courier, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 13, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----
Mr. I. A. Hopkins, 146 U. S. Block, has for sale "the life and writings of David Bonham", who was convicted of the murder of Keene, but his sentence commuted by Governor Dodge. [Editor's note: I. A. Hopkins operated a bookstore in Milwaukee]

Source: Daily Sentinel & Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Monday, March 15, 1847, page 2.

Source: Daily Sentinel & Gazette, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Monday, March 27, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

    I found on my way through the lake towns that general dissatisfaction was manifested against the conduct of Governor Dodge in the case of Bonham. I met everywhere a prevailing spirit right the reverse of that declared in Randall's letter. Randall did not expect that would meet the public eye when he penned it, I presume. It was beneath him or any man, to utter that palpable lie that the political abolitionists as a party wished to see Bonham hung, while other parties were anxious for commutation. It is plain throughout that a desire to make capital for Bonham, and not to state the truth, was the master passion that governed Mr. Randall while inditing that libelous and flagitious letter. No party, it is to be hoped, would like to see a fellow being hung, and in no party it is believed has the sacredness of human life been more thoroughly discussed than in the Liberty Part
There are differences of opinion among Liberty men touching the rightfulness of the death penalty as among men of other parties.
    I. Codding (Editor Note: Co-owner/Editor of the American Freeman)
Source: American Freeman, Prairieville, Wisconsin, March 17, 1847, page 2 of 4.

-----

    As A. W. Randall in his famous letter to governor Dodge upon the subject of the commutation of the sentence of David Bonham, imputes to me neglect of duty and a violation of my oath of office while acting as magistrate in the primary examination of Bonham before me, and in my opinion has grossly and willfully misrepresented the facts of the case throughout, I feel called upon by a sense of duty to myself, to the public and three of the witnesses as well as to his honor the governor, to expose the insincerity and hollow-heartedness of the author in this transaction as also the imposition he has attempted to practice upon all who are concerned or live in the Territory. Having been familiar with the whole history of the proceedings from the day of the arrest of Bonham up to the present time I cannot look upon the letter as anything but an outrage upon common sense, upon myself, upon the witnesses Foster, Younger and Dunn, and an insult to the community in which I live.
    I took the examination of Bonham, and that with the utmost care and as nearly as possible in the language of the witnesses. And when Mr. Randall said that I "did not take it with care" - that I "did not take it correct," he perpetrated a most infamous falsehood and a libel upon me. I committed Bonham to the jail of Milwaukee upon the evidence of the witnesses produced on the part of the prosecution, for there was none produced or sworn on the part of the prisoner; and I committed him upon their evidence because i believed it. I have also been familiar with the proceedings in the premises from that day to this. I attended the trial in the district court at Racine and was in the Court-House there during nearly the whole of the trial and heard every word of the testimony of Foster, Younger and Dunn, and know they recapitulated the evidence they gave before me and as I have it recorded, nearly word for word. And it is more particularly to perform a duty which I owe to these witnesses, Foster, Younger and Dunn, and to undeceive the public in regard to some other things which appear in that letter than to defend myself from the aspersions of Mr. Randall's letter. It was my intention to leave the matter so far as it related to me without note or comment until I found that some very honest people appeared inclined to construe my silence into a tacit acknowledgement that Mr. Randall's statements concerning me were true. From what I have already said it will appear that I make no such concessions and that I give no countenance whatever to the construction which is put upon my reluctance to appear in the public prints in vindication of my own reputation.
Having been acquainted with Mr. Randall from his boyhood, and for a time associated with him in business, the appearance of so much more depravity and hypocrisy than I had ever supposed him capable of, filled me more with shame and regret than with a desire to revenge the injury done to my name. I however felt bound from the moment I finished the first reading of his letter, as a citizen of Wisconsin to expose its iniquity as far as in me lay, if some plausible explanation of the principal features of it was not in due time laid before the public by the author.
    If the Governor was really deceived by it, he ought to know how far he has been duped; and it is due to the witnesses Foster, Younger and Dunn of whom Mr. Randall says, "I know that their statements under oath are not only improbable, but the truth of them absolutely and utterly impossible," - "the feeling they manifested when they swore out their writs against Bonham - the strange anxiety they manifested in the case while consulting with me alone, before they were sworn and the actual fact that they did, within my knowledge, and in my hearing correct and arrange the statements of each other so that their stories should agree with singular accuracy, led me first to distrust and doubt, and finally to become morally certain, that they did intend perjury" that I should unmask the fraud if there is any.
    Now I look upon these statements as false and wicked in the extreme. I believe them to be without even the shadow of truth, and I look upon the man who could deliberately pen them, as lost all sense of right and justice as well as regard for truth - as a man whom the public should hold in utter abhorrence, as the traducer and persecutor of these men, until they are otherwise convicted of swearing falsely. They are men who belong in the humbler walks of life and are accustomed to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brows - they are in a foreign land, among strangers and to them strange laws. The industry of one of them at least, has, it is said, secured for him a competence for old age - the other two are in the morning of life. they are all persons who have known but little comparatively of the wide world, and in my opinion much less of its crimes. Yet nature has done much toward making them intelligent and useful citizens. They have all and at times appeared to me to be strictly honest. Mr. Randall intimates that he was present when they swore out their writs and that they "manifested a strange anxiety." Now the fact is, only two of them came to make the complaint. Younger and Dunn made affidavits before me upon which I issued the writ that Bonham was apprehended and brought before me upon - foster had nothing to do about it. And as to their manifesting any feeling except timidity and fright and as to Mr. Randall's being present on the occasion, I am almost certain it was not so, for I certainly saw nothing of either. Mr. Randall was present when I first met them in the street, but I have no recollection of seeing him about my office while I was examining these persons or while the writs were being made out. He was not present during their examination on the trial at Racine and of course has no personal knowledge of what they said or did there.
    But I have - I was there - and the conviction left upon my mind is, that they saw all that they pretend they saw respecting the murder of Keene - the Grand Jury that found the indictment must have got that impression, and the jury which pronounced Bonham guilty must have had it strongly impressed upon their minds or they would never have rendered the verdict as they did. And yet, although they may and probably have related nothing more than what they saw, that does not determine the murderous intention of Bonham's heart. They s