The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1850-03-13
For The Shirt of DemOcrncv

.. For Me Spirit OF Democracy.
Mr.. EDIToR:-In the United Slate:
Monthly Law Magazine, for the presen
month, pages 227 and 228, is found the
report of the case of the State of LouIsI
ANA against Levy and Drayfous, indicted
in the First District Court of that State fol
stealing. LOUISIANA has probably as large
a slave populatian. in proportion to the
number OF whites, as any other State. The
question in this case arose upon bills o
exception taken to the "opinions'' of the
District Judge. The prisoners were white
and the District Court permitted colored
acitness to testify against them. The case
was taken to the Louisiana Court of Ap-
peals upon complaint of error; and now
the reader probably anticipates that the
decision of the District Court was speedi-
ly reversed--just nothing of the kind. The
Judgment was speedily CONFIRMED. The
appellate court decided that "Free colored
persons are competent witnesses to testify
in cases in which the rights Of white per-
sons are concerned"
The Judge, who delivered the opinion
of the Court of Appeals, says: "We have
been referred to decisions in the Courts OF
South Carolina and Maryland, in which it
has been held that free persons of color are
incompetent to testify in cases in which the
rights of white persons are concerned. 1t
is urged that the rule is founded on the
degraded condition ofthe African in States
where slapery exists and should equally
prevail in this. The decisions 10 which
we have been referred can not be consider
ed as authority in our courts. They ap-
pear to be based upon Statutes, which ex-
pressly prohibit free persons of color not
only in criminal but also in civil cases, in
which white persons are parties. No such
prohibition exists here" The Judge then
goes on to give some further comments on
Carolina law and then adds: sour legis-
lation and jurisprudence, upon this subject
differ materially from those of the slave
States generally, in which the rule con.
tended for prevails. This difference of
policy has no doubt arisen from the differ
ent condition of that class of persons in
this State. At the date of our earliest leg
islation as a territory, as we'll as at the
present day, free persons of color consti-
tute numerour class. In some districts
they are respectable, from their intelligence
industry and habits of good order. Many
of them are highly educated and the in
stances are by no means rare. in which
they are large property holders. So far
from being in that degraded state, which
renders them unworthy of belief. they are
such persons as Courts and Juries would
not hesitate to believe under oath. More
over this numerous class is entitled to the
protection of our laws; but that protection,
would, in many cases be iLlusory and the
greatest offences, against their persons and
property, might be committed with impu-
nifty by white persons, if the rule of exclu-
sion contended for were recognized. They
are also included in article 1850 of our
civil code as persons competent to testify
in civil cases. This is the language of|
Court in the Slave State of Louisiana.
! will quote few words from the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of Ohio, deliv-
cred by Judge Hitchcock, at Columbus, in
the year of our Lord, 1916, in the case Of
Jordan VS. Smith, 4th Ohio Report, page
202; "The white man may now pllnder
the negro of his property; he may abuse
his person; he may take his life. He may
do this in open day light, in the presence
of multitudes who witness the transaction.
and h. .mdst 60 acquitted, unless per-
chance there happens to be some white
man present" Again in subsequent
part Of his decision, the same Judge says:
SIN all my experience both at the bar and
as member Of this Court can not re-
collect a single instance, in which this law
has been found subservient to the ends of
justice. On the contrary its uniform effect
has been to prevent justice both public and
private" Judge Hitchcock was not be-
trayed into this warmth of expression by
any love for the particular case, for the |
plaintiff, a white person, was wronged out
of just debt because he could not avail
himself Of the testimony Of black witness,
whom the whole Court believed, to be hon.
est and faith-worthy.