Manuel Pereira; Or, The Sovereign Rule of South Carolina

by F. Colburn Adams

“On the 9th of June, a writ in trespass, for assault and false imprisonment, from the Federal Court, was served upon Sheriff Yates, laying the damage at $4000.

“The Act of 1844, I take it, was intended to prevent all interference on the part of any power on the face of the earth, with the execution of this police regulation, which is so essential to the peace and safety of our community. Had the legislature which passed it ever dreamed that the sheriff was to be subjected to the annoyance of being dragged before the Federal Court for doing his duty under a law of the State, I am sure it would have provided for his protection. As no such provision has been made for so unexpected a contingency, I recommend that you so amend this Act of 1844, that it may meet any case that may arise.

“It is certainly wrong to tolerate this interference with the laws enacted for the protection of our institution. In the general distribution of power between the Federal and State Governments, the right to make their own police regulations was clearly reserved to the States. In fact, it is nothing more nor less than the right of self-preservation-a right which is above all constitutions, and above all laws, and one which never was, nor never will be, abandoned by a people who are worthy to be free. It is a right which has never yet been attempted to be denied to any people, except to us.

“The complaint against this law is very strange, and the attempt to bring us in conflict with the General Government on account of it, is still more remarkable; when, so far from its being at variance with the laws of the United States, it is only requiring the State authorities to enforce an Act of Congress, approved February 28th, 1803, entitled, An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their importation is prohibited. By referring to this Act, you will see that the plaintiff in the action alluded to was prohibited by it from entering into this State. I deem it unnecessary, however, to enter fully into the argument. If any doubt should be entertained by you, as to its constitutionality, I beg leave to refer to the able opinion of the Hon. J. McPherson Berrien, delivered at the time he was Attorney-General of the United States, which I herewith send you.

“On the subject of the modification of this law, I am free to say, that when Her B. M.'s Government, through its consul, made a respectful request to our legislature to that effect, I was anxious that it should be made. It was with pleasure that I transmitted his first communication to the last legislature. I would have made a recommendation of its modification a special point in my first message, but that I thought it indelicate to do so, as the matter was already before the legislature, and committees had been appointed to report upon it. Another reason for the neglect of this recommendation, was the then excited state of party politics, which might have precluded the possibility of a calm consideration of the subject. But for the proceedings instituted in the premises, I would even now recommend a modification of the law, so as to require captains to confine their colored seamen to their vessels, and to prevent their landing under heavy penalties. For while I think the State has a perfect right to pass whatever laws on this subject it may deem necessary for its safety, yet the spirit of the age requires that while they should be so formed as to be adequate to our protection, they should be at the same time as little offensive as possible to other nations with whom we have friendly relations. But since an attempt has been made to defy our laws, and bring us in conflict with the Federal Government, on a subject upon which we are so justly sensitive, our own self-respect demands that we should not abate one jot or tittle of that law, which was enacted to protect us from the influence of ignorant incendiaries.”

We are under many obligations to Governor Means for his remarks upon this subject. We esteem his character too highly to entertain an idea that he would knowingly make an incorrect statement; but, with a knowledge of the facts, we can assure him that he was misled by those whom he depended upon for information. And also, though his name deserves to stand pre-eminent among the good men of Carolina, for recurring to that frightful state of things which exists in the Charleston prison, that he did not receive a correct statement in regard to it. In this want, his remarks lose much of their value. Subjects and grievances exist there which he should know most of, and yet he knows least, because he intrusts them to the caretakers, who make abuses their medium of profit.

Under the influence of that exceedingly suspicious, and yet exceedingly credulous characteristic of a people, few know the power that is working beneath the sunshine of South Carolina, and those who do, stand upon that slaveworn ostentation which considers it beneath notice.

We have no interest nor feeling beyond that of humanity, and a right to expose the mendacity of those who have power to exercise it over the prisoners in Charleston. That mendacity has existed too long for the honor of that community, and for the feelings of those who have suffered under it.

It may be true that this case was considered a favorable one to try the issue upon, but no elements of sympathy were sought by the consul. That functionary to whom the Governor has attributed “characteristic kindness,” said, in our presence, and we have the testimony of others to confirm what we say, that if Judge Withers had granted the habeas corpus, he would not have given up the prisoner, but rather gone to jail and suffered the same regimen with the prisoners. Had he tried the accommodations, he would have found the “profits” more than necessary to appease common hunger.

The Governor says, “Pereira was at liberty to depart at any moment that he could get a vessel to transport him beyond the limits of the State.” How are we to reconcile this with the following sentence, which appears in the next paragraph:—“While these proceedings were pending,” (meaning the action instituted by the consul to release the prisoner,) “the sheriff of Charleston had my instructions not to give up the prisoner, even if a writ of habeas corpus had been granted?” According to this, the sheriff assumed a power independent of and above the Governor's prerogative. We have attempted to picture the force of this in our work, and to show that there are official abuses cloaked by an honorable dishonesty, which dignifies the business of the local factor and vendor of human property, and which should be stayed by the power of the Executive.