Life and bloody career of the executed criminal, James Copeland, the great Southern land pirate

by J. R. S. Pitts

THE CHARACTER OF THE PROSECUTION.

Scheumack or Shoemake, all the while a citizen of Mississippi, the defendant a citizen of Mississippi, yet, he goes to the City of Mobile, in another State, among his friends and brethren, for process of law. This was changing of venue with a vengeance. With equal propriety, as far as law is concerned, might he not have gone to New York—not one whit more unnatural.

Sheumack, the “big dog” among the clan; the man, above all others, steeped the deepest in blood, and crime, and dissimulation; the man who brought counterfeit documents pretending to come from the Probate Judge of Kemper county; the man who denied writing the John R. Garland letter on the witness stand, and whose oath was there invalidated to the satisfaction of all; the man who bore the requisition from the Governor of Alabama to the Governor of Mississippi for the arrest of the defendant; this is the man to whom Judge McKinstry granted his writ to serve the purposes as specified in the affidavit.

This affidavit charges with “unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously, with intent to injury, defame, villify, and prejudice the deponent:” and again “this deponent is represented by the name of Shonesmak, as a member of a clan or gang of robbers, murderers, and thieves, which statement, referring to the deponent, is a defamatory libel, and utterly and wholly untrue.”

In answer, will any one deny that such a “clan” existed? Will any one deny that its whole object was robbery, murder, and theft? It is presumed that none will have the effrontery to make such a denial in the face of such overwhelming testimony almost everywhere to be found.

The next thing to be considered is, did the defendant publish and circulate, with an intent to defame, villify, and prejudice, etc., one represented by the name of Shouesmack, as belonging to the said clan?

Is there one disinterested and unprejudiced being in existence who can believe that the defendant could have any motive for “wickedly, maliciously.” etc., assailing somebody he before knew nothing about, either good or bad—not even before knowing that such a creature was in existence? Up to that time, unacquainted with a single act of his life, can any one believe that the defendant published and circulated with a wicked and malicious intent to defame and prejudice somebody he neither knew by person or reputation before? Maliciousness can not exist while unconscious of any cause for the same. So much then for the unlawful, wicked and malicious attempt to injure the fair fame of Scheumack.

The same arguments will apply with equal force to the other names as published being the same as given by Copeland to the defendant; for to suppose otherwise would be the height of absurdity. The next subject for inquiry is, did Copeland, in his list of names, include Scheumack rightfully or wrongfully?

Shonesmack, and not Scheumack, was given in the published list in consequence of a typographical error. But Scheumack declared that the published name must mean him, and the same publication was “having a very deleterious effect against him in his own county, Kemper.” Why was Scheumack so very sensitive? Why did he take on himself the published name of Shonesmack? Why was the publication having a very deleterious effect against him in his county, Kemper? An innocent man by the name of Scheumack would hardly have troubled himself much about Shonesmak. A man living honestly, honorably, and respectfully in his own county would not have taken any umbrage at all from the publication. Around here, there are quite a number by the same, or very similar, name, yet none of these complained against the publication having a very deleterious effect against them. Those who foam, and rave, and curse the hardest, are generally the object on whom suspicion falls the heaviest.

But this is not all, immediately after the publication of the pamphlet complained of, he wrote his John R. Garland letter, in which he described himself with the most perfect of accuracy as being occasionally absent for some time, and then returning with horses and mules, and other sorts of property which nobody besides himself could account for, etc. Let it be borne in mind that he denied writing this letter on oath on the witness stand, when the conclusive proof came next that he undoubtedly was the author of it. The counterfeit papers, with feigned authority from the Probate Judge of Kemper county, his several designs on the life of the defendant, with many other of his actions which are more than suspicious, all go to establish the fact that Copeland made no mistake when he gave his name and designated him as a “big dog” among the clan.

Ye, Governors, Judges and prosecutors, learn from the old adage: “Tell me the company you keep, and I will tell you who you are.”

But there is something left behind of a still darker and more enigmatical character as to the mockery in processes of law belonging to the case.

Scheumack, a resident of another State, goes to Mobile to prosecute for libel, and Judge McKinstry grants him the writ accordingly. The Sheriff is represented as returning the same to the effect that the writ had been executed, and the defendant in jail on the 17th of January, 1859. Again, the trial docket and the records show that four bills were got against the defendant from the Grand Jury the November term, 1858, marked cases numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, corresponding to which are given the names of G. Y. Overall, C. F. Moulton, G. A. Cleaveland, and S. S. Scheumack; and that the name of Scheumack disappeared subsequently without any order being made or without any cause being assigned for the same; and furthermore four appearance bonds given by the defendant are found on file in the office. In these cases, there is no record of any action being taken by either Governor of Alabama or Mississippi, the reason for which, perhaps, may be accounted for by the innovation and wrong being too great for Governors’ names to be associated with on record.

Now, it is evident, from the affidavit of Scheumack, that he did not get a bill at the time the other three did from the Grand Jury of 1858, and it is equally evident that he never afterward got one; then why was his case associated on the trial docket with the other three?

The writ executed and returned asserts the defendant to be in jail on the 17th of January, 1859. What a farce! If the defendant was in jail at that time, it so mysteriously happened that he never knew it. A bond is found on file in the office given by the defendant to answer the charge preferred by Scheumak. What a farce! If the defendant gave such a bond, he never knew it—was never called on to sign it—never went before any examining magistrate, nor never knew, until a few days ago, that Scheumack had ever succeeded in any action of law against him.

Ye prosecutors, answer, if you can, how the records are made to show that Scheumack got a bill from the Grand Jury of the November term, 1858, when his affidavit of January 17, 1859, shows conclusively that he never got any such bill at all. Answer, if you can, how his name so mysteriously disappeared from the trial docket without any order being made, or without any cause being assigned for the same. Answer, if you can, how the appearance bond relative to him and the defendant is found on file in the office, when no such bond could possibly have been given. Answer, if you can, how the defendant came to be in jail on the 17th of January, 1859, when thousands positively know that such was not the case. If “something rotten in Denmark” is not found here, it is vain to seek from any other quarter.