The Placer herald., 1863-08-01
The Negro Testimony Legislation of the
last California Legislature.

people as to the action Of the last Lessla-
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
disbeleve, that our Abolition Legislature
has thrown down the barrier, 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 facts.
The Civil practice Act, regulating Courts
Of Justice in this State, as amended May
18th. 1854, provides as follows in reference
to witnesses:
"Sec. 394 The following persons shall not be
witnesses: l. Those who are of unsound mind at
the time of their production for examination. 2.
Children under ten years of age who, in the opin-
ion of the Court, appear incapable of receiving
just impressions Of the facts respecting which they
are examined. or of relating them truly 3. In
dians or persons having half or more Of
indian blood, and negroes, or persons haring one
half of negro blood in an action or proceeding
to which white person is party. f. 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 a
law of our State, unchanged except by
amendment to remove obscurty of meaning,
and had given general satisfaction to white
men, for the benefit of whom, the American
Union and American Constitutions were
created. But our Abolition phianthropists,
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 introd dured one
by 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 1863:
"Sec. 394. The following persons shall not be
witnesses: l Those who are OF unsound mind
at the time OF their production for examination.
2. Children nnder ten years OF age, who, IN the
opinion of the Court, appear incapable of receiv-
ing just impress ons OF the facts respecting which
they are examined or of relating them truly. 8.
MongOlians. Chinese or Indians, or persons having
one half or more of indian blood, in an action or
proceeding where white person is 4 party. 4.
Persons against whom judgment has been render
ed upon conviction OF felony, nnless pardoncd
10y the Governor, or such Judgment has been
reversed on appeal.
The bill was approved March l6tb and
took effect 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 aud
political elevation with the white man.
Pending the considerations of the bill in
the House, Mr. Es,ee, Of Sacramento, a
Republican. but not believer in the equality
Of races, offered the following amendment:
"Provided, that no verdict shall be found upon
the uncorroborated testimony of negroes; and in
cases OF trial by jury, it shall be the duty of the
Court to instruct the jury to disregard the tes-
timony of negroes, unless corroborated by other
evidence"
This amendment was voted down by a
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 10 more extended
favors to their protege, the "inevitable
darkey"
Mr.. Warwick, Of Sacramento "demanded
the passage of the bill as an act of partial
Justice to the colored race, to be followed by
a still fuller measure of justice hereafter
Mr. j. J. Owen, of Santa Clara, in a
carefully written speech upon the subject,
said that 'he believed all men born under
the protecting agis of the American flag
were entitled to equal political prioileges, and
although that principle was not involved
in the bill under discussion, vet he iIy
supported the measure because 1t apaS one
step in the right direction.'
He further said, in the course OF the debate,
to show his excellent appreciation of the
race, that "he knew negro in Santa Clara,
who was one of the most intelligent and
worthy men in the county, and who was the
superior Of more than one-third OF lhe
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
tion as insulting to the intelligence Of the
Assembly.
Mr.. Yue, of Placer, opposed and voted
against the bill, not because be was inimica
to it, but for the reason that it did not mete
out full justice to the negro. He said that
she regretted that the discussion bad been
so long protracted, but conceived 1t his duty
to define his position He would oppose the
bill, among other things, because 1t 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.. YuIe, with this record is
again before the people for their sutfrages,
and desires promotion to 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 innnrance- hutfOOuerY. and lnEOnslstenCY