Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1846-09-01
The Ne-rO ~ ldencc Law.

| The opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. in
the case OF Jordan vs. Smith. III the 18th volume
Ohio Reports. $50. Is Q strong ono 10 show the liz
justice md absrrdltv of the Law of this State
prohibiting black and Inulatio persons from giving
evidence IN cases whore white person is 4 party.
The opinion of Judge Hitchcock Is clear and
strong In tho course Of his long experience a,
/ tho bar and on the bench. ho had 'nevcr known n
! case where this law had hoen found subserv lent
TO Jus!ice. On the country lis uniform effect has
been % prevent Justice both public and private. =
Notwithstanding this official declaration of our
Oldest Judg on thc Bench of tho Staie---of man
and Judge, whose experience and oppcr:un
TO know the effect of tho law, exceed that of any
other man in the State, the law remains a bio,
| upon the statute book, and tho Locofoco press
hur their anathemas against Mr.. Bebb. for speak
! ing out hike man IN favor OF Its repeal.
| The case was this: Jordan sued Smith on a
sealed noo for Sil5. The defendant, pleaded
non est factum with an affidavit under the statute
in order TO put the plaintiff TO prove the execution
of the note Tho subscribing witness and tho
defendant wero neg roes. the plaintiff a white per
son. The proof vas objected TO because he was
| negro; tho affidavit 10 tho plea by tho
defendant.
Judge Hitchcock gavo the opinion of,ho Court
in Bank. Ho said
This section Of the statute is follows: No
black or muatto person persons, shall he rcaf
1
any court of record, elsewhere in this State in
any cause depending matter of controversy.
where either party IS whto person. or in any
prosecution which shall be instituted in behalf Of
this Stnte against any white person. Now 1t
would seem to me. there could DO no doubt as to
tho intention of this section. The object is 10
prescribe an additional rule as 20 tho competency
of Witnesses. And III presc riding that ruo no
| attention is paid 10 the moral character Of tho
witness. ke chs acto
IT the color Is not right, the man can not testify
ho truth shall not DO received from a black man
to settle controversy whore white man is 1,
party. Let man DO Christian or inft.ol. let
him be Turk. Jow or Mahomcdan let him DO
OF good character or bad; even let HIM BIO sunk
TO the lowest depth Of degradation; no may be Il
witness III our courts, if he is not black I'm
negro or muatto, no must DO excluded from NV
ing evidence in a cause depending whcro a white
man Is party.
"Supposo we wero TO give this statute tho con
s'ructon insisted upon by tho plaintiff. VIVA,
would be the consequence. Ii would moro com
pietoiy put tho black man in tho power of tho
white. Tho whte man may plundor tho
negro Of his property; no may abuse his person.
he may take his life; he may do tins in open day
light, IN the presence of multi,udes who witness
the TRANSACTION, and he must go acquitted, unless
perchance thero happens to bo some white man
present. But so construo this statute, as that
black man cannot, when sued upon a writton IN
s'rnneEt. swear &c the truth Of his plea, and YOU
call IN tho courts of justice aid and assist in
carrying Out system of oppression. white
man would have nothing to do but to forgo tho
note and commence the suit Tho law saws bo
shall not be bound 10 prove it, unless tho plea 10
sworn to. Bot tho plea ca mot be sworn to- because
tho defendant Is black man, and no other but tho
defendant himself can swear to tho plca.-Tho
consequence IS, tho forgcr, through tho instru-
mortality OF court of Justice, renps tho frni,.
Of his vilainy, not IN punishment. but in a iudo
Fnen' which enables lam TO deprive his noiglbor
Of this property.
SIN the opinion Of ma iority of tho Court tho
defendan, had a right TO to tho truth Of he,
plea and tho plaintiff must provo the execution ,f
this note.
ain the opinion of tho Cont, there is no ev;.
dcnco TO sustain tho plaintiffs action. Sill wo
have no rational doubt that no has good cause of
action. and ought TO recover tins money! Tho
only difficulty IS to provo IT. And the only ro,so,
ho cannot provo IT, IS that ms witness - re nder,d
incompetent by the operation Of the law OF 1907.
And, IN this case that law produces precisely tho
same results, as II does ~ every other cosc nm,
which 1t 10 brought TO bear In all nv exporionco
both at he bar, and rs member Of Tins Corr.
/ cannot rccoiject single case IN which this IN "
has been found subservicni to the ends cf Justice
On the contrary, It's uniform ef1ec, has Leen ,o
prevent justice, both public and private
Judge Read dissentcd from Tho Court IN the do
clslon admitting tho defendont to swear to tho
truth of her plea. IN all other respects the Judges
of The Court wore unanimous.
PEEsEi TERRAIN SrATISrIcs.-Frora tho n YorL
Evangelist, and the Prcsby ioran Herald. VIC
gather the following statistics OF this derom,na.
ton OF Christians. both New and Old School IN
the United States
New Schcsl. Old School
Synods, 90 ~
Presby RES, los lis
Ministers, 1880 1913
Liceniates, AL 2ls
Candidates, so $50
Churches 1881 oo.i