The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-03-13

y
narty. The statutes of The State of Missouri |
have also imposed analogous restrictions. In
deed. NAV say that all the States in the Union
have deemed il expedent TO exclude negro tesli-
mony.
The foregoing hasiy sketch has been made for
The purpose of showing that the tendency of
legislation in the different States Of this Union
stands in direct opposition to the admission OF
such illegal evidence. And upon what ineligible
principle can this departure from the rules OF
evidence be justifeda You say, in your letter TO
Mr.. Burras, Of Nor h Carolina, that when the
Federal courts sit in State where, by its own
laws, colored persons prohibited from test y
ing against white persons they are excluded in
these courts, and where the State laws admit
them in the State courts, they are admitted in
the Federal courts" Is this your justification
Will you inform US which Of the States allow
free negroes to testify in court Of justice against
white man, and thus deprive him Of his life,
liberty, and properiys will remark, er majore
cautela, that, by the laws Of the several States,
| and the decisions Of the State courts, ,y,M fer
| exceptions, negro testimony is rejected as mad
Missile evidence. 1t must be observed that
! there is no act OF Congress which prohibits the
admission OF tree negroes as witnesses in courts
martial; neither is there any act Of the Nation
al Legislature inhbitng the admission of such
| testimony in the courts of the United States.
Then il must be admitted that the laws of the
several States, prohibiting the admission of negro
testimony, are to control the decisions of the
Federal tribunals. Lieut.. Hooe, being citizen
Of the United States, was triable by the laws Of
| the States, all of which exclude the testimony
of negroes
t The Gath section of the act of 1889, organic
ing the Federal Judiciary, declares that the laws
Of the several States shall be recognized rules
| OF decision in the courts of the United States
| Then IT the la VIC Df tho Sfafpc the fnSti.
mony of free negroes, by what reasoning can
your friends justify the decision of the court
martial! BY what system of reasoning is the
| monsrous proposition to be sustained, that those
| laws are TO be diregarded, and the wide field OF
discretion is TO be resorted to, and every species
| OF testimony is to be legalized, however much il
may be at war with the rules of evidence, the
sensbities Of the nation, or its general and
| fundamental policy. Since, then, the principles
and spirit of the State courts and the Federal
courts, as far as their decisions go, remarkably
correspond, 1t should seem, out of regard TO con-
tormity and analogy the consideration of what
| those decisions have been, ought TO have great
| influence in the determination of questions, es
pecially since other rule adapted 10 our situa-
| ton can be advanced congruous with the princi-
Piles already established.
| If it were not for the grave and respectable
sanction which this decision has received, one
would think that it is almost too plain for argu
ment; that it is at variance with the genius of
our institutions; that it subverts not only without
necessity, but wantonly and perversely, the fixed
| and invarable policy of several States of the
Union, and violates every rule which that policy
| has from time to time produced That it is dis
credited by analogy; that it discountenanced, in
way the most unequivocal and explicit, by the
laws of the States; that it has no warrant whatso-
ever in the language of the acts of Congress that
SO far as the opinions of distinguished jursts,
whose labors are worthy of respect approached |
the point, they are against this new concet, and
that direct authorities can be produced in opposi-
ton tot. There can be no room for doubt or con-
fusion on this subject but by misconceiving and
dlstorting the obviogs and incontrovertible sense
of the laws of the States And upon what ground
of legal propriety is it in these times, that prnci
pies, reprobated by our laws, condemned by every
State in the Union, and uniformly discountenanced
by the State courts, all at once to be taken I'M
der the peculiar guardianship of the Federal Gov
eminent, SO as to be supported by casustical con-
structlons, and fine spun imagnalions, in opposi-
ton to the laws Of the States, which have been
adopted for the Wisest and most beneficial pur-
poses, whose comprehensive language plainly |
reaches them, and within whose operation they in
disputably fall--prnciples, which have long since
been viewed, as inconsistent with our circum-
stances, nmical to our institutions, and irrecon-
cIIabe with the genius of our people,
As the States have deemed it expedent to ex-
clude negro testimony, will ask upon what intel
ligible principle the advocates of your re-
election justify this departure from the establish
ed rules of evidence! If the States, with few
exceptions, have prohibited the admission of color
ed persons, and the Federal courts are bound to
observe the laws of the States in their decisions,
and en- consequent, courts martial, when the acts
OF Congress are silent, | ask, how will you escape
the inevitable conclusion, that the court martial
in this case, in refusing to conform its decision to
prior adjudications, and in abandoning the sound
rules heretofore held inviolabe, and approving of
the sentence of the court, and refusing to direct
modification OF it, and thus sanctionng the mon
strous principle of admitting free negroes to tes-
tlfy against white person, have you not violated
the rights of an individual, and tramped upon the
laws and Constitution of the country!
will, however, fortify what have urged up
on tins head by an analogous case which will
lea N pr0und for hlo 1onhf