New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-22

The law of South Carolina in relation TO colored
seamen-the same for attempting to test the con-
stitutionality of which the late Samuel Hoar while
acting as agent of the State of Massachusetts, was
60 unceremoniously driven from the City of Charles
ton-has recently been under debate in the South
Carolina legislature in which bill is pending for
its modification. Thefrst section of this bill relates
10 the case of cOlOred seamen who ccme into the
State involuntarily, driven in BY stress Of weather,
or otherwise brought into the State without any
consent or cooperation on their part. 1t is pro-
yided that in such cases these cOlOred seamen,
instead of being committed to jail, as the present
law requires, shall remain on board the vessels to
which they belong, or in such other places as the
authorities may appoint. The second section re-
lates to the case of cooks or seamen shipped on
board vessels bound to the ports Of South Carolina,
a. 70 whom it is provided, in the new bill, that
they nay be allowed to remain on board the vessels
to which they belong the master giving bonds in
heavy penalty that such colOred cooks and seamen
shall not leave their vessels otherwise infringe
the laws of the State in which case not only Is tho
bond TO be forfeited, but the cooks and seamen arc
themselves to be subjected to all the penalties of
the law of 1895.
This bill was debated in the South Carolina
House of Representatives, as would appear, with
a good deal of warmth, though the debate, so far
as we have seen, has been only partially reported
It was insisted by those who advocated the repeal of
the old law and the adoption of the new one that the
old law, especially in its treatment of shpwrecked
persons, and others coming invOluntarly into the
State, was barbarous and nhuman, while those
coored seamen who came into the State in the reg
uar course of their business treated BY it with
severity for which there unreasonable ground.
The law ascribed to these persons an Importance
which did rot belong to them, and it ascribed to
the institution of Slavery a weakness which did
not belong to il. Besides the operation Of tho law
went to defeat the very object which it professedto
have in yiew The protested object of the law was
to cut off these cOlored persons thus coming in from
abroad from any opportunity to corrupt the native
negroes. BY taking them out OF their vessels, as
the present law did, and carrying them to Jail, it
placed them in immediate contact with the worst
and most dangerous class of the native negro popu
ation, al thus afforded them an opportunity which
otherwise they would not have as well as
proyocation to disseminate dangerous ideas. The
proposed amendment, it was sad, while it would
more effectually accomplish the object in view,
of preventing any communication between free
colored sailors and the native slave population,
was free from that character Of harshness and
severity which created 30 unfavorable an i'm
preston abroad, and which, 10 fact, was condemned
by the public sentiment Of The State and especially
of the City of Charleston, to whose commerce the
law was serious obstruction.
Other advocates for the change Of the law
adopted course ofargument designed as an appeal
to the sef.compacency Of the members They
secuted the idea of being driven to changes of the
law BY clamOrs or threats from without. In fact
all attempts Of this sort from abroad had been aban
boned, and in place Of demands as matter of
right, the Legislature had been for several years
past invoked and humbfy besOught to dispense with
| the harsher features Of the law.
The following is summary Of the speech of Mr..
j. d. Pope upon this point:
Gas long the question an open one, and
CANT Dc man5s were made for the repeal Of the law he
would not have yielded inch or modified letter Of
the act. But that que stion nov settled. As YOUTH
in that gallery, be saw the distinguished gentleman
from Charleston CAIr. Memnin.er), then, az low, a
eediDg member of this H0use, upon the question Of
the expulsion OF Mr. Hoar from the State rice in his
place ard ssk for siDge day. single hour, TO make
up his mind upon tie subject. No., sad the House,
we must act now or never He well remembered his
argument that, should Mr.. Hoar apply to Courts
for habees corpus, they would be compelled to grant
it, and by action thus instituted, we should have
the legislative and the judicial branches Of The Govern
ment in coLhct. He remembered, too, the wer:
We will take The responsibility, and leave the conse
quencts to the test OF time and truth. This he re-
garded as the first triumph of the act Of 1885. Toe
next triumph when the General Government de
oliDed 10 interfere in the matter and turned the Engsh
Ministry over to the STATE Of South Carolina All
would remember the application Of that Government
TO this Legislature, through her Consul, Mr. Mathew
and the treatment it received at that time. This he
regarded the third triumph of the act Of 1885, But
its Growing triumph was when British ststesmen
abandoned the question in debate in the House 0f
Lords and admitted the right Of South Carolina to
pass the law police regulation SO much for the
principle at issue"
The principle at issue being thus established, the
perfect tight Of South Carolina to enact these laws
as regulation Of police being tacitly conceded by
Massachusetts, and expressly so by the British
Minister, Mr.. Pope and others were Of opinion that,
as matter Of policy, it might be well enough to
make some cOncessiOns-especallya as the sentiment
of the State sgainst the act, as made apparent
by memorials to The Legislature, the presentmsnts
Of grand jores, the press, and the recommendation
Of ever! Governor for the last eight or ten years.
In spite, however, Of all these arguments and ap.
peas to msgnani@;ty. very vehement opposition
was made 10 any change. The law as il stand,
Was put forward as truthful embodiment u tn