New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-01-13

the anomaly, that IN this progressive age and
country the seat Of the National Government
should have for its code Of laws the statutes Of
Maryland as they stood sixty years ago-many of
them sntiqusted and obsolete and repealed in
Mar land itself-with only such scanty modifca-
tons Is Congress has now and then found time to
enact. There is, for instance, at this moment,
nOminaliy at least, in force in the District the
Maryland Blaspherny act based on the famous act
d" concerning religion originally enacted at
the suggestion of the Proprietary IN 1919.
BY this Bls.phemy act II provided, among other
Things that to deny the Holy Trinity, the Father,
{" Son and Holy Ghost, or any Of the persons
thereof" shall subject the offender. for the first
ofense. to hsve his tongue bored through and be
fined twenty pounds, or, in default Of payment to
be imprisoned six months; while for the second
ofense he shall be stgmatized' BY branding IN
the forehead with the letter B. BlaSphemer] and
BE- fined forty pounds or, iii default of payment, he
imprisoned twelve months For the third ofense,
by the MARY land act he is to suffer death without
benefit Of clergy, though, by general act of Con-
gress, designed TO restrict the number of capital
puni.hmeDt., the penalty Of death under this aiid
other old Mslyl land statutes has been committed
into Imprisonment in the Penitenary for not less
than ten nor more than twenty years.
It's little odd, certainly that such law should
have been allowed to stand for near sixty years on
the statute book of the Disrict-those sixty years
including the precise period Of Southern sO-caled
Democratic ascendancy in thf National Government
during which period it has been much the fashion
at Washington to decaim against the narrow big
otry aud religious intolerance of NeWEngland, and
10 hold up the old Puritan fathers and their enact
ments on the subject of religion to indignant repro
baton.
But although the Maryland code, as it stood in
1901, contained some autiquated absurdities, from
which it has since been purged so far As the State
of Maryland is concerned, it also contained some
liberal provisions, especially on the subject of
Slavery, which we hope to see perpetuated at
Washington, though Maryland has wiped them
out. BY the law Of Maryland as it stoot in lS51,
the importation Of slaves into the State was pro-
hibited, and all slaves 50 imported became thereby
free. This aw is still in force in the District So
that no slaves can be brought tbither for the pur
pose of being permanently held there, except from
the State Of Maryland What is the provision Of
the new code upon this point Does it or does it
not allow the free importation Of slaves into the
District or if any restrictions are imposed, what
are they? Does the new code indorse the recent
act of Congress prohibiting the slave trade in the
District doea it, by emitting any provision on
that subject imphedly repeal that act
The idea of a code for the District is not new
thing. 1t has been undertaken before but the at
tempt has hitherto failed, from the difficulty involved
in the existence Of Slavery in the District, this
having been one Of the penalties which the nhabit-
ants have been obliged to pay for the enjoyment of
that luxury. We hope the difficulty has not now
been got over by atotal surrender ofNorthern prej
udicc" this question, yet one of the provisions
Of the new code, as reported by our Washington
correspondent leads us to apprehend that such, at
least TO certain extent, may have been the case.
The new code, it seems provides that "eyery per-
" son who has any negro blood shall be deemed to
{" be negro" unless othersise expressly provided,
and subjected in consequence to all the disabilities
imposed by the code upoA negroes, such as being
incapable of voting at any eecsion, of being elected
or appointed to any Office of profit or trust or of
being allowed to testify in any case, criminal or
civil, to which white man is party,
Now this we are sure, is new provision intro
duced by the codifers, and not found in the old
MARY land enactments, which contain no provision
on the subject 1t is contrary, also, to the statute
law of Virginia, Kentucky and other OF the more
northern Slave States, which provides that i'll the
fourth degree from a negro ancestor the faint of
African blood shall wholly disappear, and the par
ties shall be esteemed white The idea of stig
matiziDg with perpetual disabilities those from
whom all visible trace of African descent has van
shed, is u South Carolina notion which we should
be very sCrTy to transported northward, and in
troduccd, with the sanction Of Congress, into the
code Of the District Of Columbia. Wholly apart
from any question of personal injustice, looking
at the matter in merely practical point of
view, such provision is highly Objectionable.
There is a maxim of the common law, and
very wise one too; De minimiS mon curGt hI-
the law does NOS take note of minuta. Even
granting the theory of the natural inferiory of the
African race, it is pressing the matter to ridcu
lous extent to hold that impcrceptible intermix
ture of negro blood shall nullify all the rights
inherited from succession Of white ancestors,
some of them perhaps Members of Congress, if not,
indeed, Presidents Of the United States. There
are men in this city, occupying the most respecta-
bic positions, whose evidence under such a law
could not be received in the District Besides,
such provision, as is proved by law proceedings
frequently occurring in Louisiana, where the same
rule prevails, tends to involve the Courts in side
INQUIRIES of the most intricate and dubious nature
wholly apart from the real merits of the questions
coming before them. 1t is quite bad enough to