Six Miles to Charleston by Bruce Orr Page B

criminals who have lately suffered the penalty of the law. Fisher, one of the principal leaders of the gang, having declared under the gallows, as I understand, that “Colonel Cleary called him and the other prisoners in gaol [sic] , by name, to Peoples, the countryman, and prosecutor, whom they had robbed and severely beaten, so as to enable him (Peoples) to identify the said Fisher, and others—and that his (Fisher’s) blood was on Colonel Cleary’s hands;”—in order to remove improper impressions, which some persons might be disposed to attach to the expressions of a dying culprit, I have, by advice of several friends, been induced to request you to give publicity to the following questions, put by me to the gentlemen whose names are subscribed to the answer subjoined, and whose respectability is well known to the people of this community.
    I know not who was behind the curtain, and prompted or advised this calumny; but I do aver, that from no person have I ever received more general and repeated expressions of gratitude than from this unfortunate man, who continued to do so, even to the very moment that I gave up the office, but whose subsequent conduct proves that the fear of punishment does not always bring about the work of reformation.
    I am, respectfully, Yours,
    N.G. Cleary
    It appears that the sheriff, Colonel Nathaniel Greene Cleary, is the person that John Fisher accused. Fisher accused Cleary of identifying them to Peoples by name so that Peoples could identify them as his assailants and robbers. John Peoples was from Georgia and would not have known any of these persons by name. It is kind of interesting that, if you recall back in Chapter 3, there was a handwritten list of names of the Six Mile Housemen in a completely different handwriting than the actual statement of Peoples. Apparently John Peoples was concealed behind a curtain and watched as each person was brought down before him to be identified. John Fisher claims that Sheriff Cleary verbally named him and the others Peoples identified. This is interesting because he did not know the names, but a list of names including the Fishers had been provided to him on his statement. This makes John Fisher’s claim extremely plausible.
    In a second letter, Cleary addresses the issues of the accusations.
    To Col. Gordon, Archibald Lord, N. Slawson, and others
    Â Â Â Â Â  Saturday Morning, Feb. 19,
    G ENTLEMEN,
    As you were present with me and many others, when I took Mr. Peoples to the gaol [sic] for the purpose of identifying the prisoners taken up by me at the six mile house, I will thank you to answer the following questions:—
    1. Did I, or not, direct the gaoler [sic] to bring down the prisoners, one at a time, and were they not so brought down?
    2. Did I, or not, call the name of Fisher, or any other prisoner, after he or they were so brought down and before he or they were identified by Peoples?
    3. Did not Peoples promptly and unhesitatingly identify Fisher?
    4. Was there any the slightest act on my part which would, in your opinion, have led you to think that I had used any means or devised any plan by which Peoples could have led to identify Fisher?
    5. Was there not most perfect circumspection used by me in bringing the prisoners down before Peoples, and what is your opinion of my conduct upon that occasion?
    6. How many citizens or others, do you think were present at the time Peoples identified the said prisoners? I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
    N.G. Cleary
    The third letter in the series contains the responses to Cleary’s inquiries.
    To Colonel N. G. Cleary,
    Sunday, Feb. 20, 1820
    Dear Sir,—We received your letter, and with pleasure answer the questions therein contained.
    1 st question. We answer—You did so direct, and they were accordingly brought down upon the lower floor.
    2d. You did not call the name Fisher, or any other name.
    3d. He did immediately identify Fisher and