Mr. Durkee had said in Congress, that a negro was condemned to be hung in Charleston for resisting his master’s attempts upon the chastity of his wife; and that such was the sympathy expressed for the negro, that the sheriffs offer of one thousand dollars could induce no one present to execute the final mandate.  Now, had Mr. Durkee been better acquainted with that social understanding between the slave, the pretty wife, and his master, and the acquiescing pleasure of the slave, who in nineteen cases out of twenty congratulates himself on the distinguished honor, he would have saved himself the error of such a charge against the tenor of social life in Charleston.  Or, had he been better acquainted with the character of her police, he certainly would have saved the talent of Mr. Aiken its sophomore display in that cumbrous defence.  In the first place, Mr. Durkee would have known that such attempts are so common among the social events of the day, and so well understood by the slave, that instead of being resented, they are appreciated to a great extent.  We speak from long experience and knowledge of the connection between a certain class of slaves and their masters.  In the second place, Mr. Durkee would have known that any man connected with the city police—­save its honorable mayor, to whose character we would pay all deference—­would not for conscience’ sake scruple to hang a man for five dollars.  We make no exception for color or crime.  A qualification might be called for, more adapted to our knowledge of it as it has existed for the last four or five years; but we are informed by those whose lives and fortunes have been spent for the moral elevation of the city police, that it was even worse at the time referred to.

The reader may think we are making grave charges.  Let us say, without fear of refutation, they are too well known in the community that tolerates them.  As a mere shadow of what lays beneath the surface, we would refer to the only independent speech we ever listened to in Charleston,—­except when self-laudation was the theme,—­made by G. R—­, Esq., in one of her public halls a few weeks ago.  Mr. R—­is a gentleman of moral courage and integrity, and, without fear or trembling, openly denounced the corruption and demoralization of the police department.  Even the enemies of his party, knowing the facts, appreciated his candor as a man, while they denounced the publicity, (for his speech was paraded by the press,) lest the fair name of the queen city should suffer abroad.  A beautiful farce followed this grave exposition.  The board of aldermen, composed of fourteen men of very general standing, remained mum under the accusation for a long time.  Its object was to show up the character of a class of officials, whose character and nefarious arts have long disgraced the city.  But in order to make a display of his purity, Mr. C—­, a gentleman entitled to high moral consideration, chose to make it a personal matter; yet, not content