The Placer herald., 1863-07-25
The Negro Testimony Legislation of the
last California Legislature.

peopIe as to the action of the last Legisla,
ture in admitting the testimony of negroes
and mulattoes in the Courts against white
men--and it is true, that many persons
usually we'll informed upon the current
events of the time, either wholly deny or
disbelieve, that our Abolition Legislature has
thrown down the barriers, and admitted this
class of persons into our Courts upon an
equality with whites To disabuse the minds
OF such men we proceed to give the facts.
The Civil Practice Act, regulating Courts
of Justice in this State, as amended May
18th, 1854, provided as follows in reference
to witnesses:
"Sec 1874. The following persons shall not be
witnesses: l. Those who are of unsound mind at
the time Of their production for examination y.
Children under ten years of age who, in the OPT
nion of the Court. appear incapable OF receiving
just impressions of the facts respecting which they
are examined or of relating them truly. g. In
dams or persons having one-half or more OF In
dian blood, and negroes, or persons hduhng enc
half of negro blood, in an action or proceeding
to which white person is party 4. Persons
against whom judgment has been rendered upon
a conviction for felony. unless pardoned by the
Governor, or such judgment has been reversed
on appeal"
From the organization of our State Gov
ernment up to last winter, this had been
law of our State, unchanged except by
amendment to remove obscuriy OF meaning,
and had given genersl satisfaction to white
men, for the benefit of whom, the American
Union and American Constitutions were
| R,,t A Ab,li,ion ,bil lapt hropiSfS
upon finding themselves in the majority in
the Legislature, brought forward bills to do
away the negro disability clause of section
394 There were two bills introduced-one
bv Senator Perkins, Of San Francisco, that
admitted both Negro and Chinese testimony.
His party friends, however, would not consent
to the admission of Mongolian testimony
against white men, but amended the section
to read as follows, as will be found upon
page 60, of the California Statutes, of 1868:
| Sec. 1894 The following persons shall net be
witnesses: |. Those who are of unsound mind
at the time Of their production for examination.
2. Children under ten years OF age, Who in the
opinion Of the Court, appear incapable of receiv'
| ing Just impressions of tie facts respecting which
| they are examined, or oil relating them truly. 3.
Mongollns. Chinese or Indians, or persons having
one half or more Of Indian blood in an action or
proceeding where a white person is party. 4.
| Persons against whom Judgment has been rem
dered upon IA conviction for felony, unless par
doned by the Governor, or such judgment has
been reversed on appeal"
The bill was approved March 10th, and
took effec, from that date.
The reader will observe, that in this bill
the negro disability clause was removed,
thereby placing him upon an equality with
the white men in our Courts, either in civil
or criminal cases. and thus opening the
door, as was intended to his social and
political elevation with the white man.
Pending the consideration of the bill in
the House, Mr.. Es,ee of Sacramento, a
Republican. but not believer in the equality
Of races, offered the following amendments:
"Provided, that no verdict shall be found upon
the uncorrOborated testimony of negroes; and in
cases oil trial by jury, il shall be the duty OF the
Court to instruct the jury to disregard the tcs-
tmony of negroes, unless corroborated by other
evidence"
THIS amendment was voted down by
large majority.
The bill called out vigorous discussion
from both friends and opponents, and some
Of its Supporters plainly indicated it to be
but the entering wedge TO more extended
favors to their protege, the "inevitable
darkry.'
Mr.. Warwick, of Sacramento "demanded
the passage of the bill as An act of partial
justice to the colored race, to be followed 10y
a still fuller measure of justice hereafter
Mr.. j. J. Owen, of Santa Clara, in
carefully written speech upon the subject,
said that "he believed all men born under
I.ta 81 IL, A q.
oere entitled to equal political priveliges, and
although that principle was not involved
in the bill under discussion. vet he heartily
supported the measure because 1t WaS one
step in the right duection.'
He further said, in the course of the debate,
to show his excellent appreciation of the
race, that "he knew negro in Santa I lara,
who was one of the most intelligent and
worthy men in the county, and who WAS the
superior of more than one-lhrd of the
members OF this House in point of ability
and requirements" This was too much
for even an Abolition Legislature, and Mr..
Owen was required to withdraw the declara
ton as insulting to the intelligence of the
Assembly.
Mr.. Yule, of Placer, opposed and voted
against The plll not Oerause he was lnlnCal
to it, but for the reason that it did not mste
ont full justice to the negro. He said that
"he regretted that the discussion bad been
so long protracted, but conceived it his duty
to define his position. He would oppose the
bill, among other things because it did not
accord to the African race the full status of
manhood. 1t would only conjure up the
spirit of liberty, to make the oppressed race
feel all the more keeny the disabilities still
remaining" Mr.. Yule, with this record is
again before the people for their sutfrages,
and desires promotion 10 the Senate chamber,
where he doubtless designs, if possible, to
"accord the full status of manhood" to the
negro.
Tom Shannon, Of Butte, the embodiment
, of ignorance, butfoonery, and Inconsistency,