Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1859-09-23
Geo. W. Williams and his SIanderers

We have SO often refuted the lies Of the Lo-
cofocos, and explained the vote of Dir. Will
liams on the bill in relation to the ntermarriage
of the whites and blacks, that We hardly deem
it necessary to say any thing further in rela-
ton to it, but the Gozette's persistent efforts
to misrepresent him, probably, renders it ne
cessary.
The bill is in the following words
SECTION /. Beat enacted By the Senate and
House Of Representatives of the Commonwealth
of Pennsy iUania in General assembly met and
it IS hereby enacted By the authority Of the same,
That from and after the passage of this act, it
shall be unlawful for any black ,coIoSed or gel
toD man to marry a white woman, or black
colored or yeLtote woman to marry white man.
SEC. 2. That any person or presons who shall
marry in this Commonwealth contrary to the
first section of this act, and any justice of the
peace, alderman, clergyman, minister or other
person, who shall join in marriage any person
contrary to this act, and every person lcto shall
be present al such marriage, shall be deemed
gulttg of miSdemednor and shall upon con-
viction thereof in any court Of quarter sessions
cretion of said court any sum not exceeding
five hundred dollars; which shall 60, one half
to the prosecutor, and the other half to such
county as may have jurisdiction of this case
and shall bo imprisoned in the county jail of
such county any time not exceeding one year.
To show that this was not a party question
we will insert the names of the Locofocos who
voted for the postponement of the bill, along
with MIR. Williams. They are Messrs, Custer,
Dismant, Galley, Goepp, Hill, Mil, Quigley,
Roher, Stoncbeck, Warden. Wilcox, Wolf and
Woodr;ng- IL Those who voted against the
postponenent, were Messrs. Bertolet, Boyer,
tClearfeld,) Fleming, Glatz, Gray, Quitman,
Hottenstine, jackson, Laird, Oaks, Shields,
Smith, (Berks,l and Stuart-13!
This is the vote for which Mr. Williams is
censurcd by the Locofocos of this County. Ii
was not party measure at all, as is clear from
the votes of the Loeofoco members upon the
same question -13, one half, voted as did Mr..
Williams, and l3, one half, voted differently.
1t the bill was party measure, why did not
all the Locofocos, or at least majority of them
vote against it 2 The votes of the Locofocos,
themselves, then, clearly shows that there must
have been some honest difference about it, and
that It was not looked upon as a party question.
Besides, the leading Democrats of the House,
Messrs. Mill, Goepp, Quigley and others, vo-
ted like Mr. Williams. Their reasons we're the
same as Mr.. Williams. To see the absurdty
of the law, it is ouly necessary to read it as
above. According to its provisons,i it is uulaw~
ful for white person to mary coLored or gel
loC person, altougA the colored or yelLoac person
may not haze one drop of negro blood IN his
oeans' 1t is well known that many persons of
purely white blood have rather dark skin,
and yet bow absurd to prevent their marriages,
as this bill would have Gone, by fine and I'M
prisoumept. Mr.. WILLIAMS is OPPOSED
AS MUCH AS ANY ONE TO WHITES
AND NEGROES INTERMARRYING,b but
to secure his vote as well as great many others,
Democrats and DEPOSITION, the bill should have
been gotten up in different style. Mr.. Mil,
Goepr. and other Democrats, along With Mr.
Williams, honestly believed the bill unconsti-
tutionai, and having sworn to support to con-
stituilon, regard for their oaths, compelled
them to vote as they did. Others who voted
for the bill, (for in fact the vote on the post
ponement was the test vote on this matter.1
might have honestly differed with Mr.. Mil,
Goepp and Williams, and we do not fault them
for their votes