The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-07-14
The Civil Rights Act Again Pro
nounced Uncons titutional.

There have been several Judicial decl-
sions rendered in different States pronounc-
ing the Civil Rights act unconstitutional.
Another has been recently given by Judge
HARBEsoN, of Kentucky. In Common
wcalth's case the States attorney offered
the evidence Of two negroes against white
man charged with felony, citing the Civil
Rights act Us his authority for their compc-
,eucy as witnesses. The judge held the
case under advisement for consideration,
and on the following day delivered the
following opinion: I'VE quote only part
Of it,
81, is much TO be regretted that the
Legislature of Kentucky failed at its last
session to pass an act (such as that passed
BY the Legislature of Georgia. giving the
right to free negroes TO testify in such
cases, and rely upon the judges of courts
and iures 10 estimate the degree of credi-
blity TO be attached TO their statements.
Slavery being now abolished, there is no
longer any reason for or policy in keeping
up The stringent laws formerly enforced to
discriminate vigorously between the white
and negro population. On the contrary,
every dictate of policy points to the neces-
SKY Of 80 lcgslating as TO elevate the ne
ggu in his own estimation, and thereby
g.yc him an incentive to assimilate him.
s.li, a. near as he can by his conduct, to
the whites. This, however, Is matter with
which his court properly has nothing to
do, lis dGty combining it strictly to the al
ADMINISTRATION of the law as it is, leaving the
action of the Legislature to the influence
of u liberal and enlightened public senti-
mcut. But believing that the act OF Con-
gross relied upon is unconstitutional, the
same duty of administering the law i'm
prriou>ly requires that this court shall re-
fuse IL obedience. If this court should
enforce that act, it would be allowing
precedent by which Congress could pro-
coed 10 give suffrage to the negroes, annul
all State laws prohibiting intermarriage
between negroes aud whites. and et1ectual-
Iy destroy the intended barrier between
State and Federal power, and rapidly lead
To that consolidation of power in the Fede-
raj Head which would render it the impe-
rial dcspotism against which We were so
earnestly warned by Washington and other
great founders of the Republic as the ne
ces>ary death of the national liberty and
prosperity.
For these causes the court refuses to
receive the testimony of the negroes as
offered as witnesses in this cause"
Judge THOMAS, Of the Alexandria cir.
cult in Virginia, recently declined to con-
slider the provisions Of the Civil Rights act
in his court, declaring that he was the
judge of Virginia court, and bound to
administer the law as it stood. He had, he
said, nothing to do with Federal laws. In
the Hastings Court Of this city, a few days
ago, a case was brought before the court
BY the agents or officers Of the Freedmen's
Bureau under the same Civil Rights act. 1t
SO happened that the court had not refused
TO receive negro testimony in that case !;
yet it might have happened other
wise, since our law does not authorize
negro testimony to be received in all cases
in which white mans testimony is good.
We trust that our judges and justices will
examine this law, and if they find it to be
unconstitutional, will say soplainly. 1fthey
find it to be constitutional, let them say
that also. Truth need not fear the light !:
aud the judiciary need never fear to de-
liver opinions sound in law.