The Governor says, “Pereira was at liberty to depart at any moment that he could get a vessel to transport him beyond the limits of the State.”  How are we to reconcile this with the following sentence, which appears in the next paragraph:—­“While these proceedings were pending,” (meaning the action instituted by the consul to release the prisoner,) “the sheriff of Charleston had my instructions not to give up the prisoner, even if a writ of habeas corpus had been granted?” According to this, the sheriff assumed a power independent of and above the Governor’s prerogative.  We have attempted to picture the force of this in our work, and to show that there are official abuses cloaked by an honorable dishonesty, which dignifies the business of the local factor and vendor of human property, and which should be stayed by the power of the Executive.

The singular fact presents itself, that while Judge Withers was deliberating upon the question of granting the “habeas corpus,” the proceedings pending, and the Governor’s instructions to the contrary before him, the sheriff takes it upon himself to smuggle the prisoner out of port.  Now what was the object of this Secret and concerted movement?  Was it “kindness” on the part of that functionary, who has grasped every pretence to enforce this law?  We think not.  The reader will not require any extended comments from us to explain the motive; yet we witnessed it, and cannot leave it without a few remarks.

It is well known that it has been the aim of that functionary, whose “characteristic kindness” has not failed to escape the Governor’s notice, to thwart the consul in all his proceedings.  In this instance, he engaged the services of a “shipping master” as a pretext, and with him was about to send the man away when his presence was essential to test his right to the habeas corpus, and at this very time, more than two months wages, due him from the owners, lay in the hands of the consul, ready to be paid on his release.

The nefarious design speaks for itself.

The consul was informed of the proceeding, and very properly refused to submit to such a violation of authority, intended to annul his proceedings.  He preferred to await the “test,” demanding the prisoner’s release through the proper authorities.  That release, instead of being “a few days after this,” as the message sets forth, was-not effected until the fifteenth of May.

Let the Governor institute an inquiry into the treatment of these men by the officials, and the prison regimen, and he will find the truth of what we have said.  Public opinion will not credit his award of “characteristic kindness” to those who set up a paltry pretext as an apology for their wrong-doing.

If men are to be imprisoned upon this singular construction of law, (which is no less than arming the fears of South Carolina,) is it any more than just to ask that she should pay for it, instead of imposing it upon innocent persons?  Or, to say the least, to make such comfortable provision for them as is made in the port of Savannah, and give them what they pay for, instead of charging thirty cents a day for their board, and making twenty-two of that profit?