Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-04-25

palIy of officers born in Slaveholdang
states. overruled the objection and ad
mitted the testimony. This decision
was no doubt made on the ground, that
no disqualification Of legal nature,
which could only exist by law Of Con-
gress, was shown.
1t would appear unnecessary to consi-
der this objection for another very i'm
portan! reason, which is, that it is appa-
rent from the face of the proceedings that
the evidence of the negroes may be en-
tn ely rejected without affecting the SEN
tence of the court. The testimony of the
other witnesses examined on the trial,
was abundant!y sufficient to produce the
same result. j. K. PAULDING.
Ertroct from The District .Atto7aey's
letter, 28M Ja1ne, 1910.
In this case, however, it seems quite
unnecessary TO consider this objection
to the evidence of the free colored sal
Tors. For The testimony thus objected
to may be entirely rejected without effec-
ting the sentence of the court. They
were examined as to the second charge,
and OF that the accused was acquitted.
They were examined on the 4th spe-
ciiication of the 1st and Sd charges, and
on no other specifications Of either of
those charges. The accused was found
guilty of those specifications to some ex.
tent; but there was other evidence under
those specifications as full and particular
as that Of the two coIored Witnesses
But 1t is still more plain, that the accused
suffered nothing from their evidence, be-
cause he tcas found guilty Of both the first
and third charges. on other specifications
IN relation 10 phich neither Of these aoitnes-
ses gaze any evidence achateoer;; so that
he has been found gully By The court, on
both these charges, acithoui resorting TO
the rejected testimony Of the colored aUit-
zesses. | have observed nothing irregl-
lar or illegal in any other proceedings of
the court.
How far the above statement of facts
90 to sustain the assertion of the Obser
yer, that Mr.. Van Buren, sanctioned
negro testimony for the purpose of con-
yictlng Lieutenant Hooe' land how much
truth there is in the patriotic exclama-
tion-lno doubt the writer's mind was
filled with holy horror at the thought l.
San American officer casdiered by the ev-
idence of a negro!'-we leave the candid
reader to judge.
The second reason of the Observer for
believing that he is trying to curry favor
with TIE Abolitionists,' is the recent
course of some Of the northern democra-
tic members, in opposing the rule rejec-
ling abolition petitions. What are the
facts in the case ? Mr.. Cave Johnson
of Tennessee, who, seeing that the 21st
rule could not be retained, because por.
ton of the northern democrats and south
ern federalists had united with the north
ern federal members, was willing to
compromise with what was substantially
the rule Of the Senate, with one varia.
ton. He wished to lay the petitions on
the table, and neither refer, report on,
nor discuss them.' On bis motion to that
effect, he stated, that
Con the motion of his honorable friend
from Virginia, to lay the whole subject
of the reports on the table, and by this
means leave the 25th Tor 21st) rule in
full force, as it was one of the rules of
the last congress, which had been pro-
yisionalIy adopted when they were call
on to vote on this subject, TO retain the
21st rule.) OF the members from his
state Crennessee) three Of the wings vo
ted against saving this a5th rule. From
the state of Kentucky, three of the whg
party al SO voted against laying the sub
lect on the table: and from the state Of
Georgia, he was sorry to find that one
of his friends voted in the same way.
He then went on to say, that on the
vote to which he was referring, he found
that four of the whig members from N.
Carolina also voted against the motion to
lay the subject on the table. From the
state of Maryland, he found four wing
members; from the state of Virginia two;
and from the state of South Carolina one
member; all voting against the retention
of this rule, which was deemed so essen
tial to the preservation Of southern
rights. In this way, there were nine
teen votes from the savehoIding states
against the motion to lay on the table,
! and consequently against the retention
of this rule.
Upon the subject Of the vote upon Mr.
JobDson's proposition the Enquirer says:
sBut Mr.. Johnson's amendment was
rejected by vote Of 145 to So. A mo
ton was also made By Mr.. Belser to lay
the subject on the table, and lost, rs to
10Y. The House then proceeded with
the amendments of Mr.. Dromgoole.-
All his rules were adopted but tie esd
and 96th rules. The esd rule lin his
hatch of amendmentSl went tn cut off tbe