SINCE the foregoing was written, Governor Means, in his message to the Legislature of South Carolina, refers to the laws under which “colored seamen” are imprisoned. We make the subjoined extract, showing that he insists upon its being continued in force, on the ground of “self-preservation”—a right which ship-owners will please regard for the protection of their own interests:—

“I feel it my duty to call your attention to certain proceedings which have grown out of the enforcement of that law of our State which requires the Sheriff of Charleston to seize and imprison colored seamen who are brought to that port. You will remember that the British Consul addressed a communication to the legislature in December, 1850, on the subject of a modification of this law. A committee was appointed by the House and Senate to report upon it at the next session of the legislature. These committees reported adverse to any modification. On the 24th March, 1852, Manuel Pereira was imprisoned in accordance with the law alluded to. The vessel in which he sailed was driven into the port of Charleston in distress. This was looked upon as a favorable case upon which to make an issue, as so strong an element of sympathy was connected with it. Accordingly, a motion was made before Judge Withers for a writ of 'habeas corpus,' which was refused by him. These proceedings were instituted by the British Consul, it is said, under instructions from his government, to test the constitutionality of the Act. I think it here proper to state, that Pereira was at perfect liberty to depart at any moment that he could get a vessel to transport him beyond the limits of the State. In truth, in consideration of the fact that his coming into the State was involuntary, the Sheriff of Charleston, with his characteristic kindness, procured for him a place in a ship about to sail for Liverpool. Early in April, Pereira was actually released, and on his way to the ship, having himself signed the shipping articles, when, by interposition of the British Consul, he was again consigned to the custody of the sheriff. A few days after this, the British Consul insisted no longer on his detention, but voluntarily paid his passage to New York. This was looked upon as an abandonment of that case. The statement of Mr. Yates, together with the letter of the British Consul, are herewith transmitted.

“While these proceedings were pending, the Sheriff of Charleston had my instructions not to give up the prisoners even if a writ of habeas corpus had been granted. I considered that the 'Act of 1844,' entitled, 'An Act more effectually to prevent negroes and other persons of color from entering into this State, and for other purposes,' made it my duty to do so.

“On the 19th May, Reuben Roberts, a colored seaman, a native of Nassau, arrived in the steamer Clyde, from Baracoa. The Sheriff of Charleston, in conformity with the law of the State, which has been in force since 1823, arrested and lodged him in the district jail, where he was detained until the 26th of May, when, the Clyde being ready to sail, Roberts was put on board, and sailed the same day.

“On the 9th of June, a writ in trespass, for assault and false imprisonment, from the Federal Court, was served upon Sheriff Yates, laying the damage at $4000.

“The Act of 1844, I take it, was intended to prevent all interference on the part of any power on the face of the earth, with the execution of this police regulation, which is so essential to the peace and safety of our community. Had the legislature which passed it ever dreamed that the sheriff was to be subjected to the annoyance of being dragged before the Federal Court for doing his duty under a law of the State, I am sure it would have provided for his protection. As no such provision has been made for so unexpected a contingency, I recommend that you so amend this Act of 1844, that it may meet any case that may arise.

“It is certainly wrong to tolerate this interference with the laws enacted for the protection of our institution. In the general distribution of power between the Federal and State Governments, the right to make their own police regulations was clearly reserved to the States. In fact, it is nothing more nor less than the right of self-preservation-a right which is above all constitutions, and above all laws, and one which never was, nor never will be, abandoned by a people who are worthy to be free. It is a right which has never yet been attempted to be denied to any people, except to us.

“The complaint against this law is very strange, and the attempt to bring us in conflict with the General Government on account of it, is still more remarkable; when, so far from its being at variance with the laws of the United States, it is only requiring the State authorities to enforce an Act of Congress, approved February 28th, 1803, entitled, An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their importation is prohibited. By referring to this Act, you will see that the plaintiff in the action alluded to was prohibited by it from entering into this State. I deem it unnecessary, however, to enter fully into the argument. If any doubt should be entertained by you, as to its constitutionality, I beg leave to refer to the able opinion of the Hon. J. McPherson Berrien, delivered at the time he was Attorney-General of the United States, which I herewith send you.

“On the subject of the modification of this law, I am free to say, that when Her B. M.'s Government, through its consul, made a respectful request to our legislature to that effect, I was anxious that it should be made. It was with pleasure that I transmitted his first communication to the last legislature. I would have made a recommendation of its modification a special point in my first message, but that I thought it indelicate to do so, as the matter was already before the legislature, and committees had been appointed to report upon it. Another reason for the neglect of this recommendation, was the then excited state of party politics, which might have precluded the possibility of a calm consideration of the subject. But for the proceedings instituted in the premises, I would even now recommend a modification of the law, so as to require captains to confine their colored seamen to their vessels, and to prevent their landing under heavy penalties. For while I think the State has a perfect right to pass whatever laws on this subject it may deem necessary for its safety, yet the spirit of the age requires that while they should be so formed as to be adequate to our protection, they should be at the same time as little offensive as possible to other nations with whom we have friendly relations. But since an attempt has been made to defy our laws, and bring us in conflict with the Federal Government, on a subject upon which we are so justly sensitive, our own self-respect demands that we should not abate one jot or tittle of that law, which was enacted to protect us from the influence of ignorant incendiaries.”

We are under many obligations to Governor Means for his remarks upon this subject. We esteem his character too highly to entertain an idea that he would knowingly make an incorrect statement; but, with a knowledge of the facts, we can assure him that he was misled by those whom he depended upon for information. And also, though his name deserves to stand pre-eminent among the good men of Carolina, for recurring to that frightful state of things which exists in the Charleston prison, that he did not receive a correct statement in regard to it. In this want, his remarks lose much of their value. Subjects and grievances exist there which he should know most of, and yet he knows least, because he intrusts them to the caretakers, who make abuses their medium of profit.

Under the influence of that exceedingly suspicious, and yet exceedingly credulous characteristic of a people, few know the power that is working beneath the sunshine of South Carolina, and those who do, stand upon that slaveworn ostentation which considers it beneath notice.

We have no interest nor feeling beyond that of humanity, and a right to expose the mendacity of those who have power to exercise it over the prisoners in Charleston. That mendacity has existed too long for the honor of that community, and for the feelings of those who have suffered under it.

It may be true that this case was considered a favorable one to try the issue upon, but no elements of sympathy were sought by the consul. That functionary to whom the Governor has attributed “characteristic kindness,” said, in our presence, and we have the testimony of others to confirm what we say, that if Judge Withers had granted the habeas corpus, he would not have given up the prisoner, but rather gone to jail and suffered the same regimen with the prisoners. Had he tried the accommodations, he would have found the “profits” more than necessary to appease common hunger.

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?

Had the Governor referred to the “characteristic kindness” of the jailer, his remarks would have been bestowed upon a worthy man, who has been a father to those unfortunates who chanced within the turn of his key.

In another part of his message, commenting upon the existence of disgraceful criminal laws, the management and wretched state of prisons, he says, “The attorney-general, at my request, has drawn up a report on the subject of prisons and prison discipline.” Now, if such were the facts, the reports would be very imperfect to be drawn up by one who never visits the prisons.

We are well aware that he called for this report, and further, that the attorney-general, in a letter to the sheriff, (of which we have a copy,) propounded numerous questions in regard to the jail, calling for a statement in full, particularly the amount of fees paid to certain functionaries; those charged to the State, and the average number of prisoners per month, from Sept. 1851, to Sept. 1852, &c. &c. That letter was transmitted to the jailer-a man whose character and integrity is well known, and above reproach in Charleston-with a request that he would make out his report. He drew up his report in accordance with the calendar and the facts, but that report was not submitted. Why was it not submitted? Simply because it showed the profit of starving men in South Carolina prisons.

We have the evidence in our possession, and can show the Executive that he has been misled. We only ask him to call for the original statement, made out in the jailer's handwriting, and compare it with the calendar; and when he has done that, let us ask, Why the average of prisoners per month does not correspond? and why the enormous amount of fees accruing from upward of fifty “colored seamen,” imprisoned during the year, and entered upon the calendar “contrary to law,” was not included?

It is a very unhealthy state of things, to say the least; but as the sheriff considers it his own, perhaps we have no right to meddle with it.

All this clamor about the bad influence of “colored seamen” is kept up by a set of mendicant officials who harvest upon the fees, and falls to naught, when, at certain hours of the day during their imprisonment, they are allowed to associate with “bad niggers,” committed for criminal offences and sale. If their presence is “dangerous,” it certainly would be more dangerous in its connection with criminals of the feared class.

Take away the fees—the mercantile community will not murmur, and the official gentry will neither abuse nor trouble themselves about enforcing the law to imprison freemen.