THE Captain of the Janson had settled his business, and was anxious to return home. He had done all in his power for Manuel, and notwithstanding the able exertions of the consul were combined with his, he had effected nothing to relieve him. The law was imperative, and if followed out, there was no alternative for him, except upon the ground of his proving himself entitled to a white man's privileges. To do this would require an endless routine of law, which would increase his anxiety and suffering twofold. Mr. Grimshaw had been heard to say, that if an habeas corpus were sued out, he should stand upon the technicality of an act of the legislature, refuse to answer the summons or give the man up. No, he would himself stand the test upon the point of right to the habeas corpus, and if he was committed for refusing to deliver up the prisoner, he would take advantage of another act of the legislature, and after remaining a length of time in jail, demand his release according to the statutes. So far was Mr. Grimshaw impressed with his own important position in the matter, and of the course which he should pursue, that he several times told the prisoners that he should be a prisoner among them in a few days, to partake of the same fare.

Judge Withers, however, saved him the necessity of such important trouble. To those acquainted with Judge Withers it would be needless to dwell upon the traits of his character. To those who are not, we can say that his were feelings founded upon interest-moving in the foremost elements of secession-arbitrary, self-willed, and easily swayed by prejudice-a man known to the public and the bar for his frigidity, bound in his own opinions, and yielding second to the wishes and principles of none-fearful of his popularity as a judge, yet devoid of those sterling principles which deep jurists bring to their aid when considering important questions, where life or liberty is at stake-a mind that would rather reinstate monarchy than spread the blessings of a free government. What ground have we here to hope for a favorable issue?

Thus when the consul applied for the writ of habeas corpus, the right was denied him, notwithstanding the subject was heir-inherent to all the rights of citizenship and protection, which the laws of his own nation could clothe him with. To show how this matter was treated by the press-though we are happy to say the feelings of the mercantile community are not reflected in it-we copy the leader from the “Southern Standard,” a journal published in Charleston, the editor of which professes to represent the conservative views of a diminutive minority. Here it is:—

“CHARLESTON, APRIL 23, 1852. “Colored Seamen and State Rights.

“Our readers have not forgotten the correspondence which some time since took place between His Excellency Governor Means and Her British Majesty's Consul, Mr. Mathew. We published in the Standard, of the 5th December last, the very temperate, dignified, and well-argued report of Mr. Mazyck, chairman of the special committee of the Senate, to whom had been referred the message of the Governor, transmitting the correspondence. In our issue of the 16th December, we gave to our readers the able report of Mr. McCready, on behalf of the committee of the other house, on the same subject.

“We have now to call the attention of the public to the fact, that the practical issue has been made, by which the validity of the laws in regard to colored seamen arriving in our port is to be submitted to the judicial tribunals of the country. For ourselves we have no fears for the credit of the State in such a controversy. The right of the State to control, by her own legislation, the whole subject-matter, can, as we think, by a full discussion, be established upon a basis which, in the South at least, will never hereafter be questioned. If there be defects in the details of the regulations enacted, the consideration of them is now precluded, when the issue presented is the right of the State to act at all times in the premises.

“The writ of habeas corpus was applied for before Judge Withers, during the term of the court which has just closed, by the British consul, through his counsel, Mr. Petigru, in behalf of one Manuel Pereira, a colored sailor, who claims to be a Portuguese subject, articled to service on board an English brig driven into this port by stress of weather; the said Manuel Pereira being then in jail under the provisions of the act of the legislature of this State, passed in 1835, emendatory of the previous acts on the subject. Judge Withers, in compliance with the requirements of the act of 1844, refused the writ of habeas corpus, and notice of appeal has been given. Thus is the issue upon us.

“We have but one regret in the matter, and that is that the case made is one where the party asking his liberty has been driven into our harbor involuntarily. Great Britain, it is true, is the last power which should complain on this account, with her own example in the case of the Enterprise before her eyes; but we do not, we confess, like this feature of the law. We have no doubt, however, that this fact being brought to the notice of the executive, he will interfere promptly to release the individual in the present case, provided the party petitions for the purpose, and engages at once to leave the State. But we shall see nothing of this. Mr. Manuel Pereira, like another John Wilkes, is to have settled in his person great questions of constitutional liberty. The posterity which in after times shall read of his voluntary martyrdom and heroic self-sacrifice in the cause of suffering humanity, must be somewhat better informed than Mr. Pereira himself; for we observe that his clerkly skill did not reach the point of enabling him to subscribe his name to the petition for habeas corpus, which is to figure so conspicuously in future history, it being more primitively witnessed by his 'mark.'”

An appeal was taken from this refusal, and carried before the appeal court, sitting at Columbia, the capital of the State. How was this treated? Without enlisting common respect, it sustained the opinion of Judge Withers, who was one of its constituted members. Under such a state of things, where all the avenues to right and justice were clogged by a popular will that set itself above law or justice, where is the unprejudiced mind that will charge improper motives in asking justice of the highest judicial tribunal in the country.

In the year 1445, a petition was presented, or entered on the rolls of the British Parliament, from the commons of two neighboring counties, praying the abatement of a nuisance which promised fearful interruptions to the peace and quiet of their hamlets, in consequence of the number of attorneys having increased from eight to twenty-four, setting forth that attorneys were dangerous to the peace and happiness of a community, and praying that there should be no more than six attorneys for each county. The king granted the petition, adding a clause which left it subject to the approval of the judges. Time works mighty contrasts. If those peaceable old commoners could have seen a picture of the nineteenth century, with its judiciary dotted upon the surface, they would certainly have put the world down as a very unhappy place. The people of Charleston might now inquire why they have so much law and so little justice?