THE CHARACTER OF THE PROSECUTOR.

The vile character of the prosecution is not yet sufficiently understood. There is yet more to be developed. Enough has already been brought to light to give some idea of Shoemake, one of the main witnesses in the struggle to crush truth. Earth was never trod by a more dangerous and despicable wretch than this. He was the embodiment of all that was mean, cruel, bloody and horrible. How much superior the other agent and intended witness, Bentonville Taylor is, the reader will judge for himself from the following authentic testimony.

The statement will be remembered in the commencing part of the proceedings of the trial that no ordinary amount of astonishment was experienced by the defendant when Bentonville Taylor was called into court as one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution. The defendant well knowing the character of this man, he lost no time for getting the most substantial of testimony touching his notorious reputation. This testimony has been held in reserve up to the present period for reasons which will be given presently.

In Shoemake’s evidence, the prosecution sustained such an overwhelming defeat that it refrained from calling up another of the same type for that time. As before stated, Bentonville Taylor was brought from Williamsburg, Covington county, Miss. The nature of his testimony, intended to be given in court, was immediately learned afterward by his card published in one of the Mobile newspapers. The substance of this card was to the effect that the names given in the confessions were forged by the defendant, and that Copeland himself was insane at the time he made the confessions, and the same entirely unworthy of any credit whatever either in public or private. It was thought at the time that Bentonville Taylor was to be used in the other two cases of Moulton and Cleaveland against the defendant to be afterward tried. This is one reason why the documents pertaining to Bentonville Taylor have so long been withheld. Another is, it is always painful, in the absence of imperative necessity, to make public such considerations as, under other circumstances, might be better enveloped in silence; but when charges of forgery have been made, and that the whole confessions are entirely unworthy of credit, then it becomes an absolute necessity to know something of the man who has had the audacity to make such charges.

First will be given some extracts from a letter which was intended for publication at the time, but on more mature thought was decided to be suppressed for the same reasons as just given. This letter is now in the hands of the defendant, the severer parts of which will still be suppressed for humanity’s sake:

“Who is this Bentonville Taylor, where did he come from, and what his character as established by himself? It seems he came to Ellisville, Jones county, Miss., about the time or shortly after Copeland was brought from the Alabama penitentiary to Mississippi to be tried for the murder of Harvey—pretending then to be a Yankee school master seeking employment—having with him a woman whom he introduced to that community as his sister and assistant teacher. They obtained a school; he and his sister took board in a respectable family located in Ellisville, Mr. Parker’s. They had not been there long before reports got out in this family of such a nature that is perhaps improper to publish. However, Mr. Parker ordered them to leave his house. The trustees of the school forthwith called a meeting, which resulted in the discharge of both. They were promptly paid off; the woman left for parts unknown, while he has been loitering around in the adjoining counties in a way anything but satisfactory, ever since. He got out a license to plead law, defended Copeland in his last trial, and then was brought from Williamsburg, Covington county, by the Mobile prosecutors, to there serve their purposes, in the most reduced of external condition and centless, but returned in the finest suit of attire, with plenty of money in his pocket—the rewards of his services in Mobile for falsehood and attempted deception. And this is the respectable lawyer from Mississippi, as represented by one of the prosecutors. A cheaper and more degraded instrument could not have been found in all Eastern Mississippi. A poor subterfuge to resort to such a man to lie men out of deserving censure. How readily it seems the prosecution knew where to place its fingers to subserve the purpose. A few more such licks will nail the truth of Copeland’s confessions to the cross forever.”

But read the documents now in possession, from the best and most respectable citizens of Jones county, about this man:

The State of Mississippi,}
Perry County.

This day personally appeared before me, A. L. Fairly, a Justice of the Peace, in and for the said county and State aforesaid, Franklin J. Mixon, who makes oath in due form of law, and on oath says that Bentonville Taylor stole from this affiant a bridle and girth, while this affiant resided in Jones county, Mississpipi, at, or near, Hoskin’s ferry in said Jones county, in the month of March or April, 1858.

Sworn to, and subscribed before me this twelfth day of April, 1859.

A. L. Fairly, J. P., P. C.

Signed, F. J. Mixon.

State of Mississippi,}
Perry County.

I, James Carpenter, Clerk of the Probate Court of said county, certify that A. L. Fairly, whose name is signed to the above affidavit, was at the time of signing the same, a Justice of the Peace, in and for said county, and that full faith and credit are due all his official acts as such.

Given under my hand and seal of said court, this sixteenth day of April, 1859.

James Carpenter,
Clerk Probate Court, Perry Co., Miss.

Ellisville, Jones County,}
Mississippi.

We, the undersigned citizens of said county and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that we are well acquainted with Bentonville Taylor, and know him to be a man of no moral worth as a citizen, no character as a lawyer, nor school teacher, and a man to whose word we could not give any credence for truth and veracity.

J. L. Owen, Att’y at Law, Ellisville, Miss.
J. A. Easterling.
Norval Cooper.
S. E. Nettles, Treas. of Jones county.
F. K. Willoughby, Justice of the Peace.
Hiram Mathas.
Isaac Anderson.
M. H. Owen.
Amos J. Spears.
Richmond Anderson.
Thos. D. Dyess.
John H. Walters.
H. D. Dossett, Ex-Sheriff of said county.

State of Mississippi,}
Jones County.

I, D. M. Shows, Clerk of the Circuit and Probate Courts of said county, do hereby certify that I believe the men whose names appear to the foregoing annexed certificate, are men of truth and veracity.

Given under my hand and seal of office this second day of April, 1859.

D. M. Shows, Clerk of C & P. C.

Ellisville, Mississippi,}
Jones County.

I, E. M. Devall, Sheriff of said county and State aforesaid, do certify that I believe that the men whose names appear to the foregoing annexed certificate are men of truth and veracity.

Given under my hand and seal this 2d day of April, 1859.

E. M. Devall, Sheriff Jones county.

After Bentonville Taylor returned from Mobile, I saw him and told him of the rumor that was in circulation relative to his going to Mobile as a witness against Col. J. R. S. Pitts, and he denied emphatically to me of having any share in the transaction, and also stated that the aforesaid rumor was false.

[Signed.] Edward W. Goff.

The next question to be dealt with is the miserable plea of insanity, and forged names in the confessions.

First, let the report from the inquisition jury be read, which will be found on [page 113] of this work. Again, it is well known by those who visited Copeland in person, that there was a keenness and shrewdness about him which distinguished him from ordinary men; and all the promptings given to feign insanity did not amount to anything but deserving failure. And as to the gratuitous charge of forging names, the defendant did not know anything about them previous to being given by Copeland. He did not know that such names were in existence before, and of course could not forge in the absence of all knowledge appertaining; but the conduct of the prosecution, with hundreds of living witnesses, go, as quoted from the letter just referred to, “to nail to the cross forever the truth of Copeland’s confessions.”

So much for the trial in Mobile in the first case, and now for the necessary comments to further enable the reader to comprehend the whole.

There were two other cases on the same docket of precisely a similar nature to the first against the defendant. For two or three years afterward he was in regular attendance, and always ready for trial; but the prosecution would not allow either case to come on until known that his presence was required in the army during the war; and then it had the cases called up, and the bonds declared forfeited. The two cases were ordered dismissed, and, some several years afterward, the bondsmen were finally released by the “Commissioners of Revenue” without injury.

Nothing is plainer than of the prosecution being glad of any plausible pretext for dismissing the cases—anything in the shape of a convenient opportunity for relief in the awkward situation in which it stood. Why so determined and successful to bring on instanter the first case in spite of the most powerful reasons for a temporary continuance? And why, when this was over, was it equally determined and successful to ward off the two remaining cases? Is it not evident, notwithstanding all the prostituted forces at command, that it was unwilling to make a second experiment? But how stands the presiding Judge affected in this slimy affair? In the first case, in defiance of the most powerful cause assigned in favor, he would not allow one hour of continuance of the case; but from term to term, from year to year, he allowed the prosecution all it wanted, regardless of all the urgent efforts of the defendant for the remaining trials to be proceeded with to save entire ruin from excessive and repeated expenses. But when the defendant’s absence was compelled by demands made from the War Department, then did this Judge allow the case to be pressed forward by the prosecution, and the bonds declared forfeited! If this junta, or combination of Judge with the prosecution did not exist, the plainest of all circumstantial demonstrations are not worthy of any notice whatever. But this is only one instance out of a number, which will be given of this Judge’s partiality—of his palpable efforts to do violence to justice.

Again, mark his conduct in endeavoring to obtain a forced and unnatural verdict. After twenty-four hours of close confinement, the jury returned with the report that there was no earthly chance of coming to an agreement. The Judge bid them, contrary to all custom, to again retire, with a declaration that he would hold it in confinement until the verdict could be made up, even though an indefinite period were required to accomplish the object.

Had he before been in consultation with the prosecution? Did he know the whole arrangement? Did he know that some one or more, perhaps influenced by gold, were resolved to hold out to the bitter end? And that one by one of the opposition, under the tortures of long confinement, must keep falling in to avoid further suffering, and more especially when the cunning device was resorted to for the purpose of deceiving the opposition by inducements to the effect that it was hardly worth while holding out when all could be so easily avoided by a few dollars of fine in the way of damages, which would not at all hurt the defendant? What was the meaning of the sham in his appearing, in the first part of his instructions, to lean to the defendant by telling the jury that if there was a doubt existing with it, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of said doubt; and then, in the last hours of worn out confinement, came squarely out in conflict, and positively told the jury that it was bound to find a verdict of guilty from the law and evidence before it? What was the meaning of packages and writing being conveyed to the jury by outsiders during the latter part of its retirement, or, at least, to that part of it in favor of the prosecution?

Notwithstanding the most justifiable and potent of all reasons in favor of the petition got up and signed by six hundred of the best and most respectable citizens of Mobile to be forwarded to the Governor for the release of the defendant, the Judge hearing of the same, emphatically declared, before being asked, that he would not sign it; and the Governor, because of this omission, refused to grant the prayer. Did the prosecution influence both Governor and Judge, so that the whole formed one compact ring to defeat justice? What says the learned Dr. Bevell on this subject—the very man who sat on this jury and witnessed all:

“We have made an effort to limit his imprisonment through the pardoning power of Governor Moore, by an article addressed him in the shape of a petition, with about six hundred signatures of the most respectable citizens of Mobile; but in this we have failed, and, to my deepest regret, he will have to serve his time out. We first drew up a petition to Judge McKinstry, signed by a respectable number of the jury, but hearing of his negative declarations on the street, we declined honoring him with the request.

“Although we have failed in these efforts, the conduct of all the opposing clique strongly indicate to my mind that the principal stringent ruling and opposition are to gratify, and sustain, and retain political influence.”

But the abuses committed by Judge McKinstry do not close here. A verbal copy of Shoemake’s affidavit has just been received, the insertion of which cannot be omitted, as it will add new light on what has already been advanced on this subject in the commencing part of the trial, and will go still further to demonstrate the deeply sullied conduct of the prosecution and Judge. Let this copy be read with attention:

[COPY.]

State of Alabama,}
Mobile County.

Before ——, personally came S. S. Sheumack, who on oath saith that one J. R. S. Pitts did, within the last six months, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously, with intent to injure, defame, villify, and prejudice this deponent, and to bring him into contempt, scandal, and disgrace, publish and circulate in said county a printed pamphlet entitled, “The Life and Career of James Copeland, the Great Southern Land Pirate, who was executed at Augusta, Mississippi, October 30th, 1857; together with the exploits of the Wages’ clan in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.”

In said pamphlet, said Copeland is described as one of the leaders of a gang of robbers, murderers, highwaymen, and the deponent is represented therein by the name of “S. S. Shonesmak,” as a member of said clan, or gang of robbers, murderers, and thieves; which pamphlet containing the aforesaid statement, referring to this deponent, is a defamatory libel, and is utterly and wholly false.

S. S. Sheumack.

Subscribed and sworn to, this 17th day of January, 1859, before me,

Alex. McKinstry, Judge.

To any Sheriff of the State of Alabama:

You are hereby commanded to arrest the body of J. R. S. Pitts, charged by affidavit made with the offense of “Libel,” by one S. S. Sheumack, and hold him in custody until discharged by due course of law, which may be done by any examining magistrate.

Witness my hand and seal,

Mobile, January 17, 1859. Alex. McKinstry, Judge.

Received January 17, 1859, and on the same day I executed the within writ on J. R. S. Pitts, and have now in jail.

James T. Shelton, Sheriff. M. C.

The State of Alabama,}
Mobile County.

I, P. LaVergy, Clerk of the City Court of Mobile, hereby certify, that the foregoing is a true copy of the affidavit signed by S. S. Sheumack, as also of the writ of arrest, and Sheriff’s return, in a case of the State vs. J. R. S. Pitts, as the same on file in my office.

Witness my hand, this 19th day of July, A. D., 1874.

P. LaVergy, Clerk.