The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1853-04-26
GOfOrCGl SeaM.CEa.

The case of Reuben Roberts, an allen negro,
against Jeremiah ID. Yates, Sheriff, of Charles
ton District, was yesterday disposed of by the
u S. Circuit Court, Judge Gilchrist presiding.
Wehave already stated that this is an action in
sttuted by the British Consul for the purpose of
testing the validity of,he laws of South Cardiff
ma in regard to the admission Of colorcd sea-
men into the ports Of this State. The form O.
the action is trespass against the Sheriff for as
sault, false imprisonment, and the exaction Of
money. The defence was a plea ofJustifica-
ton, averring that ever since 1894, it has been
unlawful for free negroes, mulatoes, or mesti-
zoes, from the Bahamas and West Indies, to
come into this State, and that the Sheriff, as in
duty bound, proceeded under the provisions of
the Act Of the General Assembly, passed in
1885, to apprehcnd and confne the Plaintiff,
who had thus unlawfully come into the State,
and that the alleged cxactions were the fees
provided by law for performance of the duties
under The Act The replication was, that the
Sheriff had acted of his own wrong.
The Attorney General Mr. Hayne, on part
Of the Defendant, cited the following Acts Of
the General Assembly, to wit: of 1894, 1900,
1901, 1902, 1903, all passed before the Treaty
with Great Britain in 1915, and the Acts Of
A. d. 1920, 1922, 1923, and 1925, passed be.
fore the Reciprocity Act of Congress, relied on
by Mr. Pttigru in behalf of the Plaintiff; and
lastly, the Act Of 1885, which modifies the
mode of procedure for the enforcement Of pre-
existing laws of the State. The attention of
the Court was likewise called by the Attorney
General to an Act of Congress passed in 1903
recognizing and enforcing the then existing pro-
visions for the exclusion of this class Of per
sons from those States in which laws to this et-
feet had been enacted.
Mr.. Petigru, for the Plaintiff, relied upon
the Treaty Of 1915, the Reciprocity Act of
1880, and the Presidents Proclamation.
The objectof the Counsel for tie Plaintiff
being to get the opinion Of the Supreme Court
of the United States, he submitted no argu-
uent, though it had been intimated by the
presiding Judge that his opinion was adverse
to the Plaintiffs claim. The facts set forth in
the Sherif's Justification being proved, Mr..
Petigru asked that the Court should charge
that the laws and statutes of South Carolina,
relied on i'll said plea, being in contraventon
Of the treaty of 1915, and the reciprocity and
proclamation Of 1880, were unconstitutional,
and therefore invalid and of no force.
This charge was refused, and the charge was
given that the laws under which the Sheriff
justified were valid, and that the verdict should
be for the Defendant. A bill of exceptions
was signed and sealed to this effect, whereupon
the Jury found verdict accordingly, and the
case stands ready for final arbitrameut by the
Supreme Court at Washington.
What is the. good expected to be effected by
those who prosecute this case at this time
The efforts, we doubt not will be approved by
the National Era and Mrs. Stowe on this side
the Atlantic; and by the Duchess OF Suther-
land and the Exeter Hall phlanthropists on
the other side. But how sensible people, who
profess to desire peace between England and
the United States, and harmony among the
States themselves, can consider these ends pro-
noted by the uncalled for agitation of that
question at such time, we confess ourselves
at loss to conceive Mar. Mercurg.