The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1858-09-04
THE D1spATr.H.

VIA al NV OUs
D1SpA Tr.H.
SATURDAY MoNNiSe ssprsMssn I, ,.s.
THE AFRICANS Al
Charleston
cuSFIE-T or ST4rE 4Np FspFsaI IA Ws
--ikfUHrANT roRREsiuSpESf'E@ fHE
SHSRifF or CHARLESTON c6atMS ffk
aFRfGi W. fkfkfk REAotab no f0E1
S6ATER~A rsEuFDENr, as. fe.
very important correspondence has tsheu
place between she FEDERAL and state authetities II
Charleston. relative 10 The cargo Of Africans cap
.ared on the Putnam, and nov on south CaroIins
soil The law Of that State prohibiting the iatro
duetien Of free blacks within tie iin,its, on any
pretext, sheriff Carcw, Of the District, addressed
letter to Hon. 1. W. Hsyne, the State Attoraey
General, asking his advice, and to n. j wha,cy
his Own legal adviser The Attorney usneral IN
his reply, says:
The only Law OF South Carolina which I think
bears upon the case IL the A. A. 1895. which Il
still Of force, although modified Ia certain cascs
1856.
By the rst section Of this Act fJ g. L. 47o) IL "a
enacted, THAT Il shall not be lawful for any fees
negro person Of color to migrate into this State
or be brought or introduced into Ito limits uude,
any pretext whatever, By land or by water,o and
goes on 70 declare what shali bc done IN case o
any such migration or introduction contrary to
this Act.
I am clearly Of opinion that yon are not author
lied, as Sheriff, to proceed under the provisions o
this Act 10 the present case.
first. Because think that the present case
does not como within the purview and scope OF the
Act OF Assembly of 1885 These negroes have
been sesed and brought into this port by officers
OF the United States, In literal compliance with the
re4ntsitons and directions of certain Acts Of Con
gress, which Acts. made Ia pursuance Of the con
stitutional powers Of Congress over the subject
matter, part tr the Law Of South Carolina, and
cannot think that the Act of the Legislature wal
inte pded to embrace this case
The A. A. of 1885 provides certain modes of pro
cedure aud declares certain penalties In the case
OF free negroes aatdwf,ity brought into tho limits
of the State aud its provisions do net apply TO the
case Of such persons la,cfauy brought within the
limits OF the State.
Secondly, am Of opinion that the case which
has arisen does not come within the letter OF
the A. A. of 1885, for these Africans even II they
are to be regarded as Stree negroes" mentioned In
the Act (Which may admit of questiop.) have not
migrated into this State, or been brought intro
duced into IT'S limits, 20 as TO be subject to the
pe,a.iou of the Act.
These Africans are now In Castle Pinckuey, q
fort ceded to the United States, and exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the United States and
therefore not ''iohin the limits of the State; and
previous to their being placed there they were 10
vessel under the jurisdiction of the United States.
BY the niuth section of the A. a. of 1885. IL is
declared that its provisions shall not extend to
free negroes employed as stewards. &c, in any
vessel Of the U. s. Navy, nor do / think that its
provisions would apply TO the case OF other free
negroes on board of 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 fort by "a cause which
makes such entry Involuntary" and therefore ex.
empts them from the operation CT the A. A. OF
1885; but am not disposed to rest my advice to
you on this construction of the Act OF 1856, but
rather where l have before placed it, on the view
that the Act of 1885 does not apply to this case,
either in spirit or letter.
1t might be added, in passing, in confirmation
of the view which have taken of the Act Of 1888,
that to hold that 1t applied to this case, and that
the Sheriff was bound to take possession Of these
negroes, would be to defeat the very object of the
Act by introducing these persons, who are now in
the custody of the u S. officers, aud therefore kept
from amopg us, to q certain extent into the midst
of us-the very evil intended to be prevented.
l might further suggest to you, that as the OBJ
ject of the A. of 1885 was to prevent the intro
ducton of this class Of persons amongst US. and its
provisions to secure their leart,ag the State, even
if the Act of 1885 were applicable to the case, you
might, nevertheless, be satisfied with procuring
this result without literal compliance with the
acquisitions of the Act: but with my decided OPT
Mons IA to the inappiicabiIity Of the Act to the
present case 1t would be needless to advise you
this point.
The opinion of the sheriffs legal adviser takes
the opposite side of the question. He contends
that these Africans are not 10 the employ of the
United States-nor do they occupy any relation
towards the Federal government, which would
entitle them to the benefit of the exception made
in it's behalf, by the State law on the subject Of
free negroes entering the State. Touching the
question of the Africans being within the limits
of the State. he shows that in cediDg the ground
for Fort Pinckney, to the United States; South
Carolina reserved the right Of serving civil and
criminal process therein, aud contends that the
Africans having violated the law of the State
by entering it, may be reached by process issued
by State court. The United States government
is as much bound to take these negroes out of
South Carolina, as she is to obey the quarantine
laws Of the State. He concludes his opinion as
f,lows:
In cese the State officer took possession he is
required to that they leave the State if posi-
bic and to that end would be responsible for their
delivery to the authorities of the United States If
applied for within the time limited Ia the act of
1885. In the case of foreign powers, and in case
of her own citizens, the regulations of the act Of
1885 are admitted to be operative. Upon what
ground can the General Government claim o spe-
eial exemptionp No more can she escape the
police regulations than could she evade the quaran-
ksie lave. -.s- e 8
II the State has the right to protect herself
against infection contagion, arising from physi.
herself against disorders arising from the NOR al
causes? OF what is necessary in this behalf she
must be the exclusive judge.
Ifthe United States have the right to keep these
free persons in a slave port for one day, why not
lhe right to keep them there q month or any iu-
ae einite time? Ifthey have the right to keep them
Sithin one mile Of the city, Why not within a few
yards! Ifin Castle Pinckney, why not within the
cry itself-in une arsenalf To keep these free
I@rsons of color thus within the limits of the
SAte is to offer a subject OF consideration which
msy lead to discontent aud disturbance among that
population which it is the object of the act of 1883
tokacp in peace.
The act OF Congress makes no difference between
p3t of a slave State and that Of free State, and
this it may we'll have contemplated subordina
tiA to the State law in the execution of its own
lay.
thsh musS prevail / think that which was last ir
its making, and that which claims to be Q police
regulation. Ia conclusion, 1t seems to me that IN
Sta8s where negro slaves exist, to them must be
left ths manner In which free negross entering
theAIein must be dealt with. t.
Aerefore think that the Sheriff of Charleston
DistHct is required to take into custody the fret
negrSes now at Castle Pinckney.
In view Of these conflicting opinions, the Sheriff
determined to demand the surrender by the u. s
Marshal of the negroes in his possession, to tbs
State authorities, and addressed a note TO thai
officer making the demand. The note was lait
before the U. s. District Attorney, who replied Il
il. iufoaning the sheriff that he had instructed ths
Marshal not to deliver them up. The Mercury
Says
whilet these proceedings we're in progress, infor
nation sas brought to the Sheriff that the negroes
were removed from Castle Pincknsy to Fort Sum
ter, few miles further from the city. We learn
that in view Of their not being 10 the way Of the
evils contemplated by the law Of this State. which
10 the opinion Of the Sheriff, rendered it his duty
to prooeed against them, and being unwilling
under all the circumstances, to force conflict o
jurisdction between the State and Federal Govern