Manuel Pereira; Or, The Sovereign Rule of South Carolina

by F. Colburn Adams

The singular fact presents itself, that while Judge Withers was deliberating upon the question of granting the “habeas corpus,” the proceedings pending, and the Governor's instructions to the contrary before him, the sheriff takes it upon himself to smuggle the prisoner out of port. Now what was the object of this Secret and concerted movement? Was it “kindness” on the part of that functionary, who has grasped every pretence to enforce this law? We think not. The reader will not require any extended comments from us to explain the motive; yet we witnessed it, and cannot leave it without a few remarks.

It is well known that it has been the aim of that functionary, whose “characteristic kindness” has not failed to escape the Governor's notice, to thwart the consul in all his proceedings. In this instance, he engaged the services of a “shipping master” as a pretext, and with him was about to send the man away when his presence was essential to test his right to the habeas corpus, and at this very time, more than two months wages, due him from the owners, lay in the hands of the consul, ready to be paid on his release.

The nefarious design speaks for itself.

The consul was informed of the proceeding, and very properly refused to submit to such a violation of authority, intended to annul his proceedings. He preferred to await the “test,” demanding the prisoner's release through the proper authorities. That release, instead of being “a few days after this,” as the message sets forth, was-not effected until the fifteenth of May.

Let the Governor institute an inquiry into the treatment of these men by the officials, and the prison regimen, and he will find the truth of what we have said. Public opinion will not credit his award of “characteristic kindness” to those who set up a paltry pretext as an apology for their wrong-doing.

If men are to be imprisoned upon this singular construction of law, (which is no less than arming the fears of South Carolina,) is it any more than just to ask that she should pay for it, instead of imposing it upon innocent persons? Or, to say the least, to make such comfortable provision for them as is made in the port of Savannah, and give them what they pay for, instead of charging thirty cents a day for their board, and making twenty-two of that profit?

Had the Governor referred to the “characteristic kindness” of the jailer, his remarks would have been bestowed upon a worthy man, who has been a father to those unfortunates who chanced within the turn of his key.

In another part of his message, commenting upon the existence of disgraceful criminal laws, the management and wretched state of prisons, he says, “The attorney-general, at my request, has drawn up a report on the subject of prisons and prison discipline.” Now, if such were the facts, the reports would be very imperfect to be drawn up by one who never visits the prisons.

We are well aware that he called for this report, and further, that the attorney-general, in a letter to the sheriff, (of which we have a copy,) propounded numerous questions in regard to the jail, calling for a statement in full, particularly the amount of fees paid to certain functionaries; those charged to the State, and the average number of prisoners per month, from Sept. 1851, to Sept. 1852, &c. &c. That letter was transmitted to the jailer-a man whose character and integrity is well known, and above reproach in Charleston-with a request that he would make out his report. He drew up his report in accordance with the calendar and the facts, but that report was not submitted. Why was it not submitted? Simply because it showed the profit of starving men in South Carolina prisons.

We have the evidence in our possession, and can show the Executive that he has been misled. We only ask him to call for the original statement, made out in the jailer's handwriting, and compare it with the calendar; and when he has done that, let us ask, Why the average of prisoners per month does not correspond? and why the enormous amount of fees accruing from upward of fifty “colored seamen,” imprisoned during the year, and entered upon the calendar “contrary to law,” was not included?