The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-10-27
WM. OAMKROE . co., Pa6IIsheTs.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2y. ISs5-
Able Letter from HOn.waiker Brooke.


cases referred to. As freedmen and labo
q ers, they necessarily have the right 10 ma
contracts and acquire properly, aud IN n
enforcement Of these contracts, and as |
the protection Of their property, their righi
are the tame as those OF the white mann
, more aud no less Now it is impossibl
70 conceive Of a perfect right without
remedy 10 enforce it. Remedies are en
ioreed by courts Of justice Evidencs il IN
means By which courts of justice arrive a
the truth, and the truth is what their iudg
ments are, or ought TO be, based upon. An,
. yet 1t Is proposed 10 deprive this class o
people, (the freedmen, Of the means of ad
ducing the truth-the foundation Of Al
correct Judgments-in all Controversies II
which tney are concerned with white men
lt VIII not do to say that they can produc,
white testimony in their behalf In ninety
nine cases out Of hundred Of violated
contracts, or injuries to person and proper
ty, negroes alone viii know anything about
the matter, except the perpetrator or ner-
petrators Of the alleged wrong. Suppose
for instance, the employer charges a freed
hand with more lost time than is true and
JUST The employer can testify for himself;
the other party, the negra, is denied this
privilege; and not only that, but he cannot
call on his co-labOrers TO speak for him. who
have been with him day by day in the field.
and Of course know mere Of the matter than
anybody else, not even excepting the em-
ployer himself In how many instances
could the testimony Of third parties (white)
be produced ? ---
| Again, suppose few evil-minded white
men (and God knows there are enough and
more than enough in the country should
combine 10 rob q negro of the little money
he may have acquired by honest industry
the night time is chosen for the adventure;
they proceed to the " quarters''-the deed is
done-murder may be added TO robberp-no
| white man is there to witness it, and though
htty negroes may see il all, the perpetrators
/ go unwhipped Of justice FOR lcant Of euidenee.
instances Of this sort, Of the highest degree
/ Of probability, and which we know are like
/ ly to occur, might be enumerated, but
enough has been said to show that without
| competency on the part Of the freedmen to
testify in the class Of eases referred TO, the
policy Of the amended constitution, as set
! forth in the clause quoted, viii not and can
not be carried out. Suppose again that any
one class OF white people, lawyers, planters,
or doctors, were excluded from the witness
box, could it be said that the excluded class
were fully protected in all their rights Of per-
son and property Sue a man for anything
pertaining TO his particular business, and
mis- witnesses are generally those Of his own
calling, because they generally know more
about the matter in dispute than any Others |
A physician indicted or sued for malpractice |
calls in his brethren of the profession to tes- |
tiiy as 20 the correctness of his course. Il |
is his privilege, and not that of the witness, |
and wIthous it he might be exposed to the |
malignity Of any quack or mountebank who /
might choose to assajlhim. Enough on this |
point.
A great error prevails, Mr.. Editor, as 90 |
what is called the right or privilege of testi- |
flying. As / have lust intImatsd, if tits
privilege al all, il is that of the party call |
ing the witness, and not that of the witness /
himself Whist is the object Of testimony? /
Certainly TO enable the court to arrive at q
correct judgment. If testimony is with
held, the judgment Of the court is likely 10
be wrong-at least there can be no certainty
in it. Admit it, and the chances Of true
Judgment are greatly increased, for while
all testimony Is not truth, it is the province
of the court 10 eliminate aIl the truth from
the mass, and formits judgment accordingly
But it is said, witnesses may lie, and that
this class Of persons are peculiarly addicted
to this habit. Grant It But it is the great
excellenee Of jury trials that juries are the
judges, not only Of the weight Of testimony
but of the credibiiity Of the witnesses, and
it is for them 10 say whether this sta ement
/
dence, good, bad and Indifferent, is placed
before them, and it is is their business to
Gull out the good and leave the bad behind.
Certainly it is better to do tbis-tO trust
their knowledge of human nature and Of
the springs of human action, than to close
the door entirely TO one side, aud leave
them to act on the partial and incomplete
statement Of facts presented by the other
Many suppose that witness cannot be
iiseredited by jury, unless his character
has been directly impeaehed. This is a
great errsr. The jury hsve right, and Il
IS their duty, to take into consideration his
,onditiin in life, his looks, his profession,
bis manner Of testfying, his relationship 10 |
either Of the porties whether of kinship or
lf feehng), his means of knowledge: in /
short, all those uameless things which often
and instinctiYely enable us
10 form correct judgments Of men and their ,
motives. In doing this they have the as
distance Of the cOart, and of counsel on both
Iidss, and It is very seldom, indeed, that
alsehood can successfully run the gauntlet
# such tribunal. /.
Another great error is, that the right Of ,
is 6 political one-an accident Of +,
,itizenship and closely allied to the right to
it on iuries and 10 the right Of suffrage.
This error is easily refu.ed, by reference to I
he fact that children Of ten years, Of sufh :
'ient intelligence, women, foreigners, who {
lave lust landed on our sheres, citizens and !
esidents Of other climes, who never have, c
md possibly never will, visit our shores ,
N these ere competent TO testify, either !
,ra lly or by deposition, and yet no ques- !
ion Of citizenship, or suffrage, is involved. ,
The only question Is, have they intelligence I
,nough to tell what they know, and TO ap- I
,rscia3e the obligation Of an oath2 !
N Al
.ourt and jury to decide. The witness can 1
ay for himself whether his religious belief I
S Of nature 10 impress upon him the bind i
ng obligation Of an oath. Mere than this, :
my party % q suit hss right by tsrit Of /
GbeGs corpus testlFcGHduHs, 10 take from I
my prison or penitentiary in the State, the
most degraded convict, Except one convict
u Of pefjury,) even though he should be
iBiiiier p0rtHEs, and place him in the wit
less box, his credibiiity 0f oourse, 70 be Z
judged Of by the jury who hear him. This
'ohtlusively shows that competency as a
witness involves neither citizenship or po-
ltical of social equality.
The ruth is, that rigid rules Of evideHee,
certain classes Of individuals as =
incompetent. have been undergoing great
.hanFe, both in this country and in Eng I
aud. Men Of wealth aud high standingin
ociety were excluded because they might
,e remotely interested in the SUIT, rs beng s
ecurjtv for costs, or some such trivial cause. {
me law assumed it as All ineontroverfible I
act that every man would lie as a witness,
{ he was interested in The suit 70 the amount /
# 3 tingle esllt. No iRqpiry. copld 5s made
IS to his character, or tne extent Of his in
erssf. :. He WasSaxcltlded As Ons Of q class. ,
More than half a century ago, Jeremy Ben j
ham. q philosopher and nos q lawyer. in +,
ais philosophical treatise on the nature Of :
.yidence, shewsd The absnrdity Of the rule
II competeucy-the rale excluding an indi- /
vidual because be was Of particular class,
he interested class or any other. He de- ,
that the only thing 70 be looked
L was the faedi5ifity Of the witness: and !
shsther BE Interest, or anything else. az
isatsd this, the jury were to Judge. About /
twenty years ago, Lord Brougham took
40 the subject, and in his essays on :
sw reform, enforced the views Of Ben ,
ham with great ability. He was success
fol. Engiaud abolished the eehpeteney /,
-ule. Several oithe states Of the Union fol / .
lowed her example, and in the code Of 1857, ,
Mississippi, % very great extent, did the
same thing, going 80 lar as 70 do away with ,
The com psteney rule even a. to parties 70 )
suit. The whole subject Of testimony IS 1
elahorately invest gated BY Lord Hsrdwiek /
IN ths great case % Qrmichund vs.. Barker, |
'Ist Atkins reportsl which originated in the
East Indies. The question then for thehrst
time presented % an Euglish court was,
whethera Hindoo, not being a Chrisfian,
could testify against an Englishmau. That ]
rrssi Jadge, aftsr an able argument and
Traat daiibsration held that any one, Wheth-
Il Christian or heathsn, rho had intslli-
eence enough 20 express bis ideas, eud who
according q the ceremonies Of his peculiar
relieiou, Would aehnoWledEe The sacred OBJ
lissfion of an oaths was e5mpstsnt 10 tes-
tify. IHH
Bat, M. Editor, fear ] an trespassing
On your paflsnee. One consideration more,