Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1867-11-07
.JUDGE GTLPTNS OPINION

Purely as q question OF law and logic, we
regard the recent opinion Of the Court OF
General Sessions of this State, adverse to
the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act,
as faulty and unsound Whether the time
for the opinion was appropriate, the act it.
self consistent with the previous course of
the Court, or its intent favorable or other
wise to the broad principles of the govern
mcnt, it is not our purpose to discuss, but
simply to show that the Court erred in ex-
GLIDING the testimony of the colored witness,
Derry,until it found State precedent to ad-
nit it. Judge Gilpin said the Act of Con-
gress, so far as il assumed TO regulate the
admission or rejection of evidence, in this
State, matter controlled by the State law,
was imperative and void. Is that good
law?
The Civil Rights Act of Congress is based
upon the Thirteenth Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States, the provisions
of which are the Supreme law, anything in
the Constitution or laws of Delaware TO the
contrary Notwithstanding. That Amend
ment, after providing that-"Ncither Slavery
s'nor involuntary scryiiude, except as a pun
'.ishment for crime, whereof the party shall
''have been duly convicted, shall exist with
sin the United States or any place subject
.'to their jurisdiction adds,
'sC0ngreSs shall haze poWcr TO enforce
this article By appropriate legislation.'
Such legislation we claim the Civil Rights
Act to be- II so, it is constitutional law,
and the Court of Delaware is wrong. What,
then, is appropriate legislation p
Evidently such as is necessary to''accom-
plish the object intended by the first clause.
Such as would give it full virtue and efficacy.
That there might be no slavery under some
new name, some different form, some acute
manipulation Of local law. No apprentice
ship in the spirit Of slavery no serf system
no peonage.
The object intended by the first clause the
Amendment was TO secure the cmancipatcd
race, the full and perfect condition of free.
, men. In order that they might lack nj
essential of that condition, this "appropri
ate legislation was provided Now it mus
be evident that for man to be freeman Ii
must have complete possession Of every civi
right, Of every species Of protection undo
the law Whether this implies also, thu
exercise of suffrage is not considered. BIZ
il does aocessitate equality ,oith tie high
est freeman IN euety tegat assurance o
SAFETY, and therefore any legislation Of Con
gress, which has for its object the security o
those Civil Rights, is plainly within the ex
press provision of the National Constitu
ton.
Ii follows that wherever any State, from
whatever cause, inspired by II previous Ell
shaved condition Of portion Of its peopl
or otherwise, has been, preyious to the ador
ton Of this new provision of the Constitt
ton, and the legislation consistent ther,
S with, In the exercise Of powers, which no.
4 come in conflict with the authority of Cor
gress, thus duly granted by the Constitl
! ton, the State power must yield and sui
{ side. 1t gives way before the new influence
i eXertcd by the superior authority.
uul IL just liit tust III tiiiH
right to every process Of law enjoyed by an
:, freeman of Delaware is essential to the pc
il session Of that which the National Constitl
Y ton has conferred upon the freed people
n the State. The right to testify is one
n these. The law of this State prohibiting
q freeman from testfying as prosecuting wi
20 ness in a criminal case, for injuries inilict,
10 upon him, when certain other freemen a
presents derogatory TO the rights Of perso
ii al security which now belong to all perso
a, alike. 1t not only jeopardiscs and endange
absolutely his security of person and propt
II ty, but il puts him upon lower level til
Il that Of other persons. 1t impairs his CO
diton as freeman which the National &c
i stitution assures him, and is consequen
: unconstitutional, null, and void. BY all Ii
4 and all logic it dies beneath the breath of
i Civil Rights Act of Congress.
"a But the Court rejected the testimony
~ the colored witness, so far as that Act v
concerned, and declared that it could not
M gulale testimony within this State. In Il
VI opinion, il was, as we have shown, cniir
!