The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1879-11-04

State and county.
That said commitment charges that
your petitioners were convicted for
failing to work on public road, and
sentenced therefor.
That your petitioners appealed from
said sentence.
Your petitioners therefore humbly
pray your Honors TO- grant them u
writ of h06edS corpus to bring your
petitioners before your Honors, that
the cause Of the commitment being
known and seen, such further pro-
cccding may bc had thereon as are
agreeable to law and justice.
And your petitioners will ever pray,
etc. Il. II. CLARKE,
A. NJ. MACKEY,
Attys. tor Pets.
Mr.. Reynolds then read tho return
Of the sheriff t. the writ, as follows:
TO Ja.o. u. Neil and 4. Il. Robertson,
EsYutres, IN and for the County
and State ovoresoid:
I,Jno. Is. Davis, Sheriff of the Coun-
ty aforesaid, do hereby return to you,
the said Trial Justices, that before the
coming to me Of the answered writ,
the said jeff. j. Posey rand others,
naming thcm] were committed TO my
custody, and arc now detained, by
virtue Of commitments to me delivered
by B. T.. Elkin, Esquire, Il Trial JUS
ticc in and for the County and State
aforesaid, which several commitments
are herewith submitted and produced.
Nevertheless, have the bodies Of the
said jeff. j. Posey land others, nam
ing them before you at the day and
place within mentioned, as am with
III commanded.
This thirticth day Of October, in the
year of our Lord eighteen hundred
and seventy-nine.
JEo. B. DAVIS, S. L. G.
The argument was opened by Mr..
Mackey, for the prisoners; Mr.. Rey-
nolds presented tho case OF the State;
and Mr.. Mackey was heard in reply.
We have not space to present even
synopsis of the arguments Of the coun-
sci. The prisoners counsel claimed
their discharge Oh bail, as matter Of
right. The State resisted the discharge
upon number Of grounds, the chief of
them being that the Justices were with
out authority, under the statutes, to
grant bail in the case.
The chief question in the case seems
to be whether the defendants gave
proper notice of appeal from tho sen-
tcncc Of Trial Justice Elkin. On this
point there seems to be some misunder-
standing between Justice Elkin and
Mr.. Clarke, the prisoners counsel, and
rs we are not in possession Of all tic
circumstances of the case, we prefer to
make no statement.
After the argument, tho Justices en-
engaged in consultation, and then stat
cd that their conclusion in the case
would be announced OH Saturday
morning.
On Saturday, tho decision Of the
Justices was announced, and the ap-
plication refused. The prisoners were
accordingly remandcd to the custody
of the sheriff.
We have been at some pains to u.s.
certain the facts of this case. It seems
that the parties convicted had of their
own motion, worked q road that is not
used, was not highway, and when
afterwards summoned by. the road
ovcrsecr refused to 60 to . work. For
this refusal they were duly tried, con-
victcd and sentenced. What motive
prompted these colorcd men to refuse
obedience to the law, we are not in
formed. If they acted under on honest
misapprehcnsion we have no doubt
that upon that being made to appear,
it would have had due weight with tho
Justice before whom their case was
tried. But if, as wchavc been informs
ed, they refused to work because of the
appointment Of a-xsew overseer Ga gcn-
tlcman, by the way, specially qualified
for the position) thoy showed def
ance of law atonce criminal and dan
gerous. They, with all others of
whatever class or condition, must learn
that the law must be oboycd, and that
there is ample power in the courts to
enforce such obedience. There was,
perhaps, a time in South Carolina and
III Fairfield when the law seemed pow
erless to command obedience. But
that day is past-past forever. Tho
sooner this fact is recognized by every
body, tho better will it be for oil tho
people.