Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-10-09

- f.on,,n.s Tn, instances in which tins princ'c
NJ has been DIRECTLY lad dow u 10y lhr ShPir'" H. L,
a.. n = 49,. =, numerous that Nua can sS"'> :! "
" ~, ,,, Did not thry say, ~ rainier cast
,,n r,btrry IN an act al Congress, must ne
understand the sense ~ winch = = :, y,
60, :, co,,uoo iutc'" Is Whra,nn, 6H) Dil thry not
49, - a I..us ease, that they adopt The pt'nc'p!es o,
~ rtsh courts .rrSp ci,nm the operation ana eject
NJ erl II aud ok int" their o'oh> "r e f"'.S pre-
scrbl,,u the manner which !, IS 10 , nS'u oy u.
-,, :, II, would avail ms,l! U IL e frtrrs, i'')
f sr.,kIug in the case Of Martin rs. Mott, OF u''S
ry subject Of courts martial (i2 Wheaton, 3d. they
s,y TIN, where there positive enactment U. ''Su
late their modes OF proceeding, they are o"u'iu " -
low, not the laws OF the particular States "u' ~.
tnn,arv military law; anfSt y well Sh'"" ~ ,
casr winch occurred when NJ. Br'ritn was ''''ss
:.,.rus of the United States he decided mat cer'a"
t.p,>ions could not hr admitted before c,""' -
,ia because 'the rules al evidence 'S"cS -,
common Iu,n courts If criminal jurisdiction o." ~ ~
tI,rz. II. There point Whatever '""'e .' 60,
,,I.d ~ ,b. ,ra,. Indication the courts "t me
United Stirs ,,-
,ru, by the time you ere called upon to resume you,
LEGISLATIVE duties you Will be calm enough 10 see'
candid enough to acknowledge, that the "ny 'e"i'u.
for III evll Is IN Congress, aud that you w'is nave ~
tuence enough with your Abolition associates IN .a'
bndv Ia make the provision of the judiciary act aPpea
bic To the courts martial -
On The second branch of my opinion you nave
SAID but little, and do not appear to have cohs'eeie
OF the first of these colored witnesses, you say ''
..h. testified of the charges OF when Mt iio
80 Sod ru,,tv You saw the same of the other,
and add that Ill is true, other witnesses also esn'u "
,hr same CHARGES but that does mol affect the pP'
in thu slightest degree; for when the court woulu m
ceive such testimony as competent, no man ''u'u "
but they attached more Importance 10 lhe -
the black than the white witnesses Tour '''','"o'
is correct, but you state your premises TOO
as 10 have application To the case, ana ~ "'""
ap,nrent that YOU neither examined WIN any caF''
either the opinion you were co"demnns' or 'ne re-
cord of the 1t IS true tiat these c"i"fta VIZ
,fI4,lfn q
- h;ch Sir IInie was found guilty. But II IS
also true as ny opinion states aud the record shows,
and of which you take no notice, that MT. ti"oe
,yas found guilty Of different specifications, under
Two of the charges, on white ana nnooleclo'aot e,
d.nce alone, and that the coored witnesses, as I"
these specifications, gave no evidence. As lawyer,
rnu know that no court would interfere with the md
inq Of jurv because illegal evidence was admitted on
one count Of an Indictment If the accused was iouho
guilty Of other counts to which the Illegal evidence ca
apply, but which were iouhu upon P'oPei a'u |o'
Now 1h,s was the case here. These colorcd witness
&c we., examined as 10 the two specifications OF the
sacond charge and as these specifications and con-
saouenty the whole the second charge, Mr. Hooe was
acquitted No interference, therefore, with IN" hnd'ng
of the court necessary proper as Ia th's charge
pace - If the record, shows that Mitchell gave n"
evidence under the first and third charges, except as
10 the fourth specification OF each OF ti'se cha
Page - shows the same to Waters, The other CO.
lorrd witness. -,
The finding Of the court, IN page b3 shows tna' ''r
Hoe "uad guilty ia part OF the third spec 'ica''"
and cf the whole of the fifth specialization OF the hrs'
charge and the col"red witnesses iaa not les'"eu a.
10 either Of these specifications.
The same page shows that Mr.. Hooe was ionna
guilty of the fifth specification OF he thra charge anu
neither Of the c"lorrd wtnessrs tesuhrd as TO 'ha'
spccficatron So that If the court erred IN admitting
til. color-d testimony, still there was tndng as TO
two of the charges that could not be affected by that
evidence for made "n distinct specifications, !"
which the colored witnesses not testify, but when
were proved exclusively by white ana competent WI"
ness,,s 10 whom objection was made.
Tlis view WAS distinctly presented IN my OPINION, ~
the following passage, page %:
ain this case, however, II seems quite unnecessary
10 consider tins objection: for The testimony thus OBJECT
ed TO- NAV be entirely rejected, without affecting the
sentence of the c"nrt They examined as 10 the
second charge. and that the accused was acquitted
They were examined on the fourth specifications OF
the first and thrd charges, aud on no other sprcca
t,nns of either of those charges. The accused was
found guilty Of those specifications 10 some extent but
there was other evidence under those specifications rs
full and particular tia, :" the w." c"or@h witnesses
But il IS still iii PLAN That the accused suffered n"t
,me from their evidence, because h- WAS found nty ."
both Tia, first and tn I'd charges on other spec hch"ns,
N relation To which nrth these Witnesses gave any
evidence what.rcr $, that he has been found guilty
by the court on both these charges, without rrsnrting
TO the objected testimony of The c"l"rrd witnesses
Ii this be- sonnd, y"u cannot c"n'r"ver' the con
cusn,I draw from II. II uSnund. WIZ Har" YOU Mt
exposed it; You have taken some pans. and stated a
pnr OF the evidence, t" show that the hnH;ng "i me
court NAV have been affected by the c"lord evidence,
and answered ouile satisfactorily ground that nobody
had taken Bur of The ground upon winch the finding
Of the court and r approving 81 the sentence, ano me
non int oih Prrsden, were distinctly put ana
justified Won say MT word May not SAFELY con
cuir that II yas either rcauss y"u had not examined
The or the record iannd the ground thus taken
unaSSailnble3 | conclude by recommending 10 Eonr
cons drra,ion another oprn"n on the case II IS
tina, ui c. c. Baldwin, Esq the Editor Of IN" L"Hing-
ton (Nlryina) Gazette. 1t does ham high credit as
a LAWYER, an Editor, and CONSISTENT, candid an
honorable Wing beg leave TO annex en- extract from
1t:
ss2d By the common law, and the uniform practice
in the navy under H. negroes competent witnesses
against white men They are not permitted TO testify
against white in Virginia because that very pro-
pcry forbidden by an express law "i IN" state lhry
sre good witnesses many OF the Tree states
They were then competent legal witnesses IN the case
The question then arses what right has the Fedora!
Executive 10 repeal the laws of the land mrre because
h, nav deem them incxpedlent Are our Wing friends,
are the irecmen ths land prepared 10 surrender ms
and desp"tic authority into the hands oil the
Federal Executive: Yet THIS IS the very principle m
volved the for the Pres Ccat is universally CEN
Sured Nv The Wing press because he would repeal
The law oiihc land authorizing negroes To Te evidence
against white men.
.sAs Wing, a n Republican, intensely Jealous OF
Federal encrnac hiients, nay, more, American
Freeman, We, for one enter protest against such
i monstrous usurpaun of power BY the Federal Ike
cutive
"Let MS not be misunderstood We are not advo-
Gates for negro evidence against white ne. On the
contrary, strongly opposed 10 it, But let the
ioahsome the disgracrful, The degrading law he
pealed b. Congrcss--by the Representatives, Of the
pcople-no, by The Federal Executive. What freeman
can tolerate the bare idea of Executive legisation;-
Give this power TO your Executive, and he despo
ana you his slaves"
.Wa have been told bv some of our friends that il
vas very imprudent in us express this opinion that
j, might be used injure the Wing cause To this We
have two brief replies FIRST We shall always do
Justice we trust even TO worst enemies, tho the
Heavens fall We score that pusllaun"uS, criminal
prudence, which, for party purposes, would cnnnle-
nance Injustice even TO foe. We taught by
maternal pe,y. that honesty was the best policy, that
,hr r;eb' was always the most pradeai: and may The