_Shonesmack_, and not Scheumack, was given in the published list in consequence of a typographical error. But Scheumack declared that the published name must mean him, and the same publication was “having a very deleterious effect against him in his own county, Kemper.” Why was Scheumack so very sensitive? Why did he take on himself the published name of _Shonesmack_? Why was the publication having a very deleterious effect against him in his county, Kemper? An innocent man by the name of _Scheumack_ would hardly have troubled himself much about Shonesmak. A man living honestly, honorably, and respectfully in his own county would not have taken any umbrage at all from the publication. Around here, there are quite a number by the same, or very similar, name, yet none of these complained against the publication having a very deleterious effect against them. Those who foam, and rave, and curse the hardest, are generally the object on whom suspicion falls the heaviest. But this is not all, immediately after the publication of the pamphlet complained of, he wrote his John R. Garland letter, in which he described himself with the most perfect of accuracy as being occasionally absent for some time, and then returning with horses and mules, and other sorts of property which nobody besides himself could account for, etc. Let it be borne in mind that he denied writing this letter on oath on the witness stand, when the conclusive proof came next that he undoubtedly was the author of it. The counterfeit papers, with feigned authority from the Probate Judge of Kemper county, his several designs on the life of the defendant, with many other of his actions which are more than suspicious, all go to establish the fact that Copeland made no mistake when he gave his name and designated him as a “big dog” among the clan. Ye, Governors, Judges and prosecutors, learn from the old adage: “Tell me the company you keep, and I will tell you who you are.” But there is something left behind of a still darker and more enigmatical character as to the mockery in processes of law belonging to the case.