Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1858-09-17
THE CASE OF THE ECHO.

THE CASE OF THE ECHO.
Africdn Negros 10 be Returned By The United
States Marshdl-Opinioa ofhe State Ator-
neg Generd-Their Syferings and Emaci-
Gted Condition Fearful Story byd Nsitor.
It appears by the Charleston Mercury of the
lst inst, that on Sunday morning last num-
Der of gentleman called on Colonel Carew, the
Sheriff of Charleston District, and laid before
him formal information of the fact that a large
number of free persons of color. had been
brought into the barbor Of Charleston, on the
Echo" contrary to the act of Assembly
passed in November, 1885.
Acting on this information, the Sheriff ad-
dressed notes to Hon. j. w. Haynes, Attor-
noy of the State, and Messrs. Whalcy 81
Lord, his legal advisers.
The latter argued that in States where ne
gro slavery exists, TO them must be left the
manner in which free negroes entering there
in arc to be dealt with, and therefore advised
the Sheriff of Charleston District to take into
custody the Echo's negroes
James Conner. the t. S. District Attorney,
instructed the United States Marshal to re-
tain the negroes in his own custody, in which
he was sustained by the opinion Of the Attor-
ney General, which follows:
OFFICE or THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, !
30th August. 1858.
Dear Sir: Your note of Sunday, the 20th
inst was brought TO me at home and could
only send you verbal message, to the effect
that the case stated by you did not call for
any action on your part as Sheriff. ! now
send you my opinion in behalf of the Attor-
ney General at present absent from the city.
You say at has been suggested TO me
that cargo of free negroes is lying within
the jurisdiction Of the State, and that the act
Of 1856 does not apply consequently there
may be a conflict of the laws Of South Caroli-
ma and those of the United States by which
they are retained. As the law officer Of the
State, would request an opinion from You
as TO the paramount jurisdiction"
The facts, as represented to me, are that
some officers OF the United States Navy bro {
into this port a vessel. captured by them as a
SLAYER, having on board some three hundred
/ Africms that after remaining day at the
Quarantine ground, the Africans we're deliy-
cred to the custody Of the United States Mar
shall. and have by him been placed in Castle
Pinckney.
The only law Of South Carolina which
think bears upon the case is the A. \. 1885,
which is still of force, although modified in
certain cases (of which the present is not one
] by the Act OF 1890.
BY the first section Of this act : S. L. 400
| it is enacted "that it shall not be lawful for
any free negro or person of color to migrate
into this State, or be brought or introduced
into its limits. under any pretext whatever,
by land or by water = and goes on to declare
what shall be done in case Of any such migra-
ton or Introduction contrary to this act.
l am clearly Of opinion that you are not au-
D 81 = - ,.1 81
visions of this act in the present case.
Fira-Because | think that the present
/ case does not come within the purview and
scope Of the Act Of Assembly Of 1885. These
negroes have been seized and brought into
( this port by officers Of the United States, in
literal compliance with the acquisitions and
directions Of certain Acts Of Congress, which
Acts. made in pursuance of the constitutional
powers of Congress over the subject matter
are part of the law of South Carolina, and
cannot think that the Act Of the Legislature
was intended to embrace the case.
The A. A. of 1885 provides certain modes
of procedure, and declares certain penalties
in the case of free negroes unlawiully brought
into the limits Of the State, and its provisions
do not apply to the case Of such persons law
fully brought within the limits of the State.
Secondly am of opinion that the case
which has arisen does not come within even
the lettor Of the A. \. Of 1885, for these AZ
ricans, even if they are to be regarded as free
negroes" mentioned in the act (Which may
admit Of question: have not migrated into this
State, or been brought or introduced into its
limits so as to be subject to the operation of
the act.
These Africans arc now in Castle Pinckney,
a fort ceded 20 the United States and exclu-
sively within the jurisdiction of the United
States, and, therefore. not within tho limit"
Of the State and previous to their being
placed there, they were in vessel under the
jurisdiction Of the United States.
BY the ninth section of the A. A. of 1915,
[ it is declared that its provisions shall not ex-
tend TO free negroes employed as stewards
| &c, in any vessel in the United States Navy,
nor do think that its provisions would apply
to the case of other free negroes on board the
] United States vessels.
/ 1t has been suggested to me that the first
/ section of the A. A. of 1856 does apply to
/ these negroes as being brought into this port
/ by "a cause which makes such entry involun-
/ tary," and, therefore, exempts them from the
I operation of the A. A. of 1885 but am not
/ disposed to rest my advice to you on this
! construction 6f the act Of 1856, but rather
| where | have before placed it, on the view
( that the act Of S35 does not apply to this
case, either in spirit or letter.
( 1t might be added in passing, in confrma-
tion of the view which | have taken Of the act
Of 1885, that to hold that it applied to this
case, and that the sheriff was bound to take
possession of these negroes, would be to de-
! feat the very object Of the act, by introducing
these persons who are now in the custody of
the United States officers, and, therefore kept
from among us, to certain extent into the
midst of us-the very evil intended to be pre-
vented.
might further suggest to you, that as the
object of the A, A. of 1885 was to prevent
the introduction of this class of persons
amongst us, and its provisions are to secure
their leaving the State, even if the act of 1885
were applicable to the case, you might, never
theess, be satisfied with procuring this result
without a literal compliance with tho requsi-
tions Of the act but with my decided opin-
ions as to the inappicability of the act to the
present case, it would be needless to advise
you on this point
The foregoing has necessarily been very
| hur,;o1l,, ,vr;ttan and | hava had Ia cnntont