Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-01-31
Important Military pecision-A Negro =
Competent Witness.

Ilnporfnnt Military necision-A Negro q
Competent Witness.
A case Of considerable interest came
before a COurt-martial which convened at
Danville, KY, on the 14th inst, for the
trial of VIM. Harness, citizen charged
with shooting at q negro boy, ian officers
servant within the camp of the Sd Di-
vision Of the Army of Kentucky. Col.
J. P. Baird, of the s5th Indiana, was Pres
ident Of the Court and Lieutenant Colonel
Crane, Of the same regiment, Judge-Ad-
vOcate. On the trial, the Judge-AdVOcate
offered the negro boy as witness against
the prisoner, who objected to his admis-
sion on the ground of his color. In over
ruling the objection, Col. Baird delivered
a well digested opinion, in which he held
that the customs Of the Courts of the State
Of Kentucky were not binding upon Mil
itary Courts, from the fact that Military
Courts must be guided by the ruling of
the common law and not by the law of
a State. A crime committed in Louis
lana might be tried by Court-msr-
tial in New York. In such case, he
might be convicted by the testimony of
a negro, whereas, if tried in the former
State, he might escape conviction although
equally guilty, through the inability of
the negro to appear against him. Military
Courts are movable; trial may be COM
menced in one State and finished in anoth-
er, and thus the laws Of two States, per-
haps conflicting in their provisions, would
be brought to bear upon the same trial.
Manifestly Military Courts cannot take as
their guide the laws Of the State wherein
they are held, but by the usages and Gus
toms of war among civilized nations, and
these usages and customs are regulated by
law. In the United States
the common law Of England on the subject |
of evidence has been generally followed |
by all writer's on military law, and this
common law makes no distinction between |
races or eolors. And so far from the i'm
preston which the prisoner held that un-
der the common law slaves are not COM
petent witnesses, being true, that law de-
nies the whole doctrine Of slavery, and
clearly refutes every PROPOSE
ton upon which slavery was based. There
fore, there being no act Of Congress contra
~ to such ruling, it was held that negroes
we're competent witnesses in Military
Court.
Colonel Baird says:
"And negroes would be competent wit
1esses in civil courts Of every State in the
Union if there was not a State law pro-
libiting them, for the common law Of Eng
and prevails in all the States Except
Louisiana in ell cases where it is not con-
by written express State laws,
and by that common law negroes are COM
Detent.
"But we are not without precedents upon
his point D. Fellows was tried by a
,ourt-martial in New York, in 1888; he
,ffered a negro as q witness in his behalf;
his was objected to, and after deliberation
he court decided he was competent, and
he negro was sworn. And this ruling
vas approved by the reviewing authority.
" The same question arose in the case Of
Lieut.. Hove, of the navy, who was tried be-
ore court-martisl in 1889, in Florida
Two negroes were offered as witnesses
.gainst him. He objected, and raised the
ame point involved in this case. he in
listed that as the negroes were incompe-
eht BY the laws Of the State Of Florida,
he court martial should follow that law.
The evidence was admitted, and Lieuten-
mt Hove appealed to the President of the
United States, urging the same objection.
3ut the action Of the court was approved, | I
nd the sentence carried into effect by the
laval Department. under the, sanction of
he President, who in the absence of the
General, took the opinion Of Mr.. ,
ley, the District Attorney Of the United
tates for the District Of Columbia. Mr..
ley said, the officers Of the eourt-martial !
Tere bound to admit the witness, unless
ONE legal disqualification was shown. :
his could only be done by law of Con-
ress.5
And in admitting this negro as a wit !
ess, as under the law we feel bound to
o, we do not conceive that we violate the I
ights or feelings of any citizen of Ken /
lcky, nor that we treat the laws of the .
tate with contempt or disrespect. The
anne decision would be made by this court :
l Indiana or Illinois. 4
" The objection is oVer-ruled; the wit I
ess will be sworn, and his color will 60 '
, hia cradibility-