The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-10-30
The Bloodhound Business.

Few Southerncrs, we fancy, will care
to thank Mr.. John Thomas Butler for the
extraordinary "vindication" of their char
actcr which he has undertaken, with the
help of his pack of playful bloodhounds
and the thrifty negro who consents, for
consideration. to be "treed" as often as
a paying crowd of Northern spectators
demands O repetition of the edifying
show. In fact, nobody in South Carolina
will be disposed to complain if MIR. But
Ter should appropriate the "vindication"
as exclusively for his own benefit, as he
does the dollars of the wondering New
Workers. which it incidentally harvests.
The evil of slavery consisted in just such
horrible possibilities as form the real at
traction of his bloodhound show. But it
is an outrageous libel upon the whole
community Of those who were once slave
holders to encourage the inference that
the pursuit Of runaway slaves with dogs
was ever habitual, or even common, in
the South. 1t was proceeding that ex-
cited as much horror among the Southern
people at large as it would have done in
any other civilized part of the world,
and not one stakeholder in ten thou
sand ever dreamed of resorting to
so repulsive a barbarity. How the
bloodhound business was regarded in
this State the record plainly shows. In
1854 South Carolina, through her Courts
and her Executive, was called upon to ex-
press her reprobation of just such q per-
formance as Mr.. Butler is now so pleas
antly illustrating. In the seventh volume
of Richardson's Law Reports, p. 327, will
be found a full report Of the case of the
State against Thomas Motley and VIM.
Blackledge, who were tried in 1853 tor
the murder of an unknown negro. We
give the case as it is officially reported.
"On thetrial of Blackledge it was shown
that negro man calling himself Joe, and
who said he belonged to Manigault, was
taken up as a runaway by one Grant, on
July 4, 1858; that during that night, Row.
ell, in company with Blackledge, called
upon Grant, who transferred the posses
sion of the negro to Rowell, he under
taking to take charge of him until
Grant could take him to jail at Walter
boro'. This proof was not made on the
trial of Motley. The next day, July 5,
according to the testimony on both trials,
the negro, unknown to any of the witness
es, was seen in possession of the three
prisoners. They had number Of dogs
with them. They called the negro Joe,
and he answered to that name. They
said they had whipped him because he
would not tell his masters name; but
he repeatedly said that he belonged to
Manigault. Three witnesses testified to
the cruel and barbarous treatment to
which the nergro was that day in their
presence subjected by Motley and Black
iedge-two Of the witnesses thought that
the treatment was sufficient itself to kill
him; the third, that if sent to Jail he
must have died. A physician, who heard
the evidence, testified that the negro
would have died from the abuse he re-
ceiyed, as detailed by the witnesses.
"The witnesses described Joe to be
black negro, hair very kinky, about five
feet six inches high, and twenty-five
years of age.' When they left, he was
alive and in the possession of the prison.
ers. Circumstances, given in evidence
on the trial, led to the belief, that, after
the witnesses left, the negro escaped, or
was permitted to fly by the prisoners,
was pursued by them with their dogs,
overtaken and killed not far from the
place where last seen by the witnesses.
On the 18th or 18th of July, Motley and
Blackledge were arrested. Blackledge,
by persuasion and hope of immunity, was
induced to make confession. On the
trial of Motley, the witness was allowed
to state only so much of the confession
as led to the discovery of the bones and
hair of negro concealed behind log in
swamp, not far from the place where
Joe was supposed to have been killed.
These remains were not identified. The
bones were those of man whose size
corresponded with that of. Joe, as de-
scribed by the witnesses. On the trial Of
Blackledge, his confession was brought
out BY himself without objection on the
part of the State. 1t was to the effect,
that after the witnesses left, the negro es-
capped, was pursued with the dogs by
Motley on foot and Blackledge on horse
back, was overtaken and killed by Mot
ley, and his body concealed behind the
log where his bones were afterwards
found"
Theiury convicted the prisoners of mur-
der. An appeal was made to the Appeal
Court, and the case was elaborately
argued by distinguished counsel, and
among other points it was urged by the
defence that the evidence reduced the
charge from murder to manslaughter, or
to Killing in sudden heat and passion,
inasmuch as the negro was pursued as
runaway, which pursuit was lawful"
The Appeal Court, after disposing of the
technical grounds, thus expresses itself
as to the defence.
"The third ground, that the evidence
reduced the charge, from murder to kill
ing in sudden heat and passion, requires
but passing remark. However lawful
the pursuit and apprehension of fugi-
tive slave, the conduct of this prisoner,
and of his associate in guilt, affords an
exhibition of wicked purpose and gross
recklessness of human life rarely met
with. The brief is examined in vain for
any evidence of provocation on the part
of their unfortunate and unoffending VIC
tim, or for the usual indications of
mere purpose to reclaim and restore a
runaway to his rightful owner. Tho ec-
traordinary and dangerous agencies used in
the original capture, the cruel and protrac-
ted abuse ofths slave sohen in their po,cer
and possession, preclude all such ertcnuation,
sought to be inferred, IN the absence Of proof,
because of an alleged attempt to escape.
However such disclosure may awaken the
bitter invective and calumny of Ignorant
and deluded opposers Of our institutions,
such means, for such an end, ncuer aciH fnd
pindication nor e.rcusc amongst oursefres." J"
The prisoners we're sentenced 10 be
hung on the Sd of March. 1854; They
had been removed from WATERFORD to
Charleston, where the Court sat, TO be
present at the hearing of their appeal, as
was their right On the e5th of January
the Attorney General, Mr.. Isaac W:
Hayne, stated to the Court that he had
-