Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1761-1769. 103

the presence of M^r Evan Shelby, a Justice of the Peace, Jona-
than Hagar, John Rench, and a Number of other Witnesses,
I submit it to your Judgment to determine whether the said
John Wolgamot cannot be properly suspected of being guilty
of the Murder himself, or at least accessary to it by not appre-
hending the pretended Murderer, when he had him in his

Lib. J. R.

& U. S.

Power, and not informing against him the moment he re-
turned to the Settlements.
I need not observe that unless Satisfaction can be given to
the Indians for that Murder it is not only Probable that they
will renew the War, but that it will be very difficult if not im-
possible ever to make another Peace with them, as they would
believe us a faithless People, whose Promises they could no
longer rely upon.
I have the honour to be with great respect
Sir your most Obedient humble Servant
Henry Bouquet.

It being the Opinion of this Board that the Affair is not
Cognizable in any Court of Law in this Province His Excel-
lency was pleased to send the following Letter in Answer
thereto.
Annapolis 11^th January 1765.
Sir
The Intelligence you communicate to Me by the Letter you
were pleased to write from Conegocheague the 20^th of last
Month gives me great concern. I wish it was in my Power as
much as my Inclination to have the Perpetrator of the Crime
you mention punished according to his Deserts, but I am told
by our Lawyers that if he could be apprehended and it could
be made appear by the clearest Evidence that the James Bow
you speak of did kill a Friend Indian near Pittsburgh he could
not be convicted of Murder in any Court of Law in this Prov-
ince, that place being without the Limits of Maryland, and
that M^r Wolgamot's Behaviour in receiving the Scalp from
him cannot be taken Cognizance of or at least punished by
any Civil Jurisdiction, Such being the Opinion of our Lawyers
I declined taking any Step for his Apprehension or giving
any Orders which might alarm Bow until I could advise you of
the Doctrine above mentioned so that you may consider
whether it would not be more advisable to have him taken by a
Party of Men and tried by a Court Martial for the Offence
which I suppose must have been committed while he was
properly in Service under your Command and he was then no
doubt subject to Martial Law, but if you are averse to having
him taken and proceeded against in that way an Information

p. 393