Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-01-20
SHALL THE NEGRO Testify.

This question is of rs deep importance
to the white people Of Tennessee as to the
negroes themselves. 1t concerns the negro
as a free person, whose rights to property
and personal security would, without legal
competency to testify, lie utterly unprotected.
The arguments have been often made, and
their re-tatement is now scarcely necessary.
II il be deemed best, the right to bear wit
ness in Court might be restricted to cases in
which the negro is party to the record
whether the other party may be white or
black-and excluded in cases where white
people only are concerned. This would
give the negro such security as the courts
could afford, both in person and property;
and would give him nothing but what
is justly his due. If in his dealings
with the negro, the white man en-
deavors to circumvent or perpetrate in
justice upon hin, let him have his remedy
As a slave he had the protection of his mas
ter and Of the laws; if he is 10 be deprived
of both in state of freedom, his condition
and fate will be miserable indeed. Nobody
need be injured by giving him the privilege
10 testify. If he swears falsely, his testimo-
ny will be excluded in making up the de-
cision, and he will incur the additional haz-
ard of prosecution and conviction for per-
jury. A law comforting the right to testify,
does not declare that the statement of the
witness shall be taken and held as absolute
truth, any more than in the case of white
man; and the legal acumen of the bar will
find little difficulty in sitting the testimony
and laying the real truth before the courts in
such cases. In a large majority Of cases the
negro will, we v, nture to predict, suffer ter
ribly under the severe cross-fres of opposing
lawyers-and no damage will result to jus
tice or to the interests Of society by giving
him the right TO his oath in court.
We have refrained from obtruding our
opinions upon the present Legislature, for
the reason that with that body such opinions,
however correct or proper, would possibly
have tendency TO defeat rather than accom-
plish their purpose. We now express them
not merely as ours, but as those of a large |
majority of the people Of the State, as far as
we have been able to ascertain the public |
sense upon the subject.
The question also concerns the white man
in very vital measure. As a matter &C fact |
the negro does testify. For this purpose
special courts are estabnshed-tribunals
which are unknown TO the Constitution and |
laws of the State. They are established in
our midst without our consent to bestow
upon the negro right which has been hith-
erto denied him by the authorities Of the
State. These courts will, we are assured,
remain with US so long as they are necessary
for the purpose. They are a sort of judicial
fungus on the civil jurisprudence of the
State, abnormal in character, and injurious
in tendency. There is no appeal from their
decisions; they have bayenets to execute
heir DEGREES; presided over by men who
are not chosen by the people, and wholly in
dependent of State authority, and of the
people at large. That such species of Ju-
liciary is totally incompatible with the ten
,r and spirit of our institutions no one can
ieny. We speak of them purely in the
light of principles. However just and up
light their decisions may be,their very ex-
stence is at war with the theory and prac-
ice Of the State government The Consti-
ution has defined in what tribunals the
judicial power shall be lodged, and
n which il shall be exercised. There
Iegro courts are not among them. They
hould be dispensed with, and all the rights
which they vouchsafe to the freedman
hould be given him through the regular
constitutional courts Of the country.