Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1866-02-01
From the Nashville Union & American.
Shall the Negro Testify?

poi ldiiCO " tiie WLilc People VI
Tennessee as to the negroes them
selves. 1t concerns the negro as ;
free person, whose rights to prop
erty and personal security would
J without legal competency to testi
fy, be utterly unprotected. The
r arguments have been often made
and their restatementis is nowscarce
ly necessary. If it be deemed
best, the right to bear witness in
Court might be restricted to cases
in which the negro is a party to
the record-whether the other
party may be white or black-and
excluded in cases where white peo-
pie only are concerned. This
would give the negro such securi-
ty as tha courts could afford, both
in person and property; and would
give him nothing but what is just
ly his due. If in his dealings
with the negro, the white man en-
deavors to circumvent or perpe-
trate injustice upon him, let him
have his remedy. As a slave he
had the protection Of his master
and Of the laws; if he is to be de-
prived of both in a state of freedom
his condition and fate will be mis-
cradle indeed. Nobody need be
injured by giving him the privi-
lege to testify. Ifhe swears false
ly, his testimony will be excluded
in making upthe decision, and he
will incur the additional hazard 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 a white
man; and the legal acumen of the
bar will find little difficulty in sift-
ing the testimony and laying the
real truth before the court in such
cases. In large majority of ca
ses the negro viii, we venture to
predict, suffer terribly under the
cross-iires 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 intru-
ding our opinions upon the pres
ent Legislature, for the reason
that with that body such opinions,
however correct or proper, would
possibly have tendency to defeat
rather than accomplish their pur-
pose. 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 slso concerns the
white man ina very vital meas
ure: AS a matter of fact the ne
gro does testify. For this purpose
special courts are established
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 q right
which has been hitherto denied
him by the authorities ofthe State.
These courts viii, 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 injuri-
Gus in tendency. There is no APP
peal from their decisions; they
have bayonets to execute their de
crees; presided over by men who
are not chosen by the people, and
wholly independent of State au-
thority, and Of the people at large.
That such species of Judiciary
lis totally Incompatible with the
tenor and spirit Of our institutions
no one can deny. We speak of
them purely in the light of princi-
Piles. However just and upright
their decisions may be, their very
existence is at war with the theory
and practice of the State govern
ment. The Constitution has de-
fined in what tribunals the judi
cial power shall be lodged, and in
which it shall be exercised. There
negro courts are not among them,
They should be dispensed with,
.and all the rights which they