Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1840-09-03

We publish Mr.. Van Buren's letter to a
gentleman of North Carolina, indicating his
course in the case Of 1t. Hooe. 1t is really
singular production, and exhibits its author
in his usual attitude, when beset by difficult
ties, of trying to ride all sides of the sapling.
He says the simple question presented was
whether the admission of the negro testimony
ought to be allowed to invalidate the finding
of the court, &c. And this he decided, he
tells us, on the ground that the testimony
was not material to the finding of the court;
that Lit. Hooe was found guilty of the char
ges on which he was convicted on other and
unquestoned evidence. Now, with all due
Difference to his excellency,we deny that that
was the simple question-or the question at
all, so faras the people Of the South are con-
cerned. TWAS whether negro testimony was
admissible against white men before courts
martial That was the question raised be-
fore the Court by 1t. Hooe, and afterwards
carried up by him to the President. He was
not called upon, then, to disscct testimony,
and weigh probabilities, but to decide great
principle-'are negroes entitled to give evil
dence against white men1" That was the
true Issue. Did the President intend to de-
eide that, when he said he saw ssnotliing in
the case to authorize his interference Z" He
says not-but at the same time he plainly in
Inmates TO us that he considers NEGRO rEsrI-
MoNy LEGAL. Then why did he entertain the
other question at all OF what consequence
was 1t what the effects of the negro testimony
IN Hooe's case were, if the testimony itself
waslegal and proper? And why did Mr.. Van
Buren, trouble himself with so idle an inoui-
ry? Can any of his friends tell US, The
subterfugei is apparent-he was afraid to come
up to the point. But, he tells us-in mere
gratulty it would seem, however-that there
is no act of Congress which ssprohiGits' the
admission of colored persons as Witnesses
that he believes the practice of admitting
them has been uniform-and he has "not
found that the question has ever before been
brought up for decision" Pray, Mr.. Van
Buren, where was the case Of the cadet in
Gen. Jackson's time? Where the case of
sailing master Handy, who objected to negro
testimony being brought against him, and was
sustained by the court ? Where the case OF
LIT. Murch, of the Revenue service, in your
own time, who was convicted on the testimo.
ny OF five negroes, and whose sentence, in the
race OF remonstrance, was approved by you ?
The question not brought up before for decis-
ion, aye! We should like to sec the instances
mentioned in which it has ever been tolerated.
We have it on high authority that no such
practice has ever prevailed in the army-and
1t has remained, so far as we know, for the
Northern man with Southern PRINCIPLES tn
give countenance to it's introduction in the
Navy. This is a question of great interest
to the people of the South, and Mr.. Van Blu.
rem need not expect to satisfy them by the
halfway sentiment that he see ssno sufficien,
reason" why the rule which prevails in the
judicial, should not be extended to the militia.
ry tribunals. of the country. They want nc
balancing of hairs, on such point; and can
excuse none, in man protesting Southern
principles.
nj