The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1874-02-27
Supreme Court
A CASE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. ON Ac-
COUNT oFTHE PRINCIPLE IT SETTLES.
JUSTICES MORGAN AND WI CON-
STRAINED TO DIFFER FROM THEIR
BROTHERS,
lPicaYune Eel. l1th.l

in the case of Cornelia Hart, tutrix
ct ais. VS.. Hoss and Elder, on rehearing
Chlef Justice Ludeling, who read til,
opinion OF the court, stated that the i'm
portant questions to be determined
were:
/. What effect did the civil rights bill
nave upon the status of COrnelia Har
and her children, persons of color?
Z. Did the law OF Louisiana, in 1857
exclude Oh prohibit all other modes o
ACKNOWLEDGMENT for the purpose of thu
legltlmation OF children by a %subsequen
marriage, except those made in notaria
acts, IN the registry Of birth or baptism
or in the act Of marriage?
3. Did E. C. Hart and Cornelia Har
legally acknowledge their children be.
fore their marriage?
1. The effect of the civil rights bill
was to strike with nullity all State laws
discriminating on account of race OF
color. 1t gave plaintiff the right to On.
ter into q contract of marriage with
q White man, and legitimate her chill.
dren born previous to it. She has the
sam right to make a contract rs q white
woman, and marriage is a civil contract
C. c., 81.
2. The Code of 1895 declares children
born out of wedlOck may be legitimated
by marriage of their father and mother.
A formal act is not necessary. That
code, article 221, requiresan act before q
notary to acknowledge an illegitimate
child, and uses these words: "No Other
proof Of acknowledgment shall be ad-
mitted in favor of children of color
This did not apply to white children,
then. Article 227 declares the mode of
proof as to them. The Code of 1868
made no distinction. The Code of 1870
requires an act before notary, but can
not affect children whose status was
fixed in 1870. C.. C. 94.
In @ A. 157, Dupre VS.. Caruthers, it
was held that article 221 was not pro-
hlbltory as to white children, and quotes
LANCE VS.. RichOux, 6 La, SO; see also
Jones VS.. Hunter, 5 Rob. 1886.
8. 1t is in evidence that the parents
acknowledged the children before mar
rage. They lived together from 1854 to
1863, when the father, who treated them
as his children, died.
Former decree adhered to.
Justice Morgan and WHY dissented,
the latter reserving the right to file his
reasons hereafter.
Justice Morgan in his dissenting opin-
ion, which is q very able one, says that
from the year 1854, to the day of his
death, in 1869, Hart lived in concubin-
age with COrnelia. She was q colored
woman and his slave; by her he had
several children. In November, 1887, he
married her. None of the children were
born after the marriage. They were all
born while the mother was a slave.
subsequently to their marriage, the
children were baptized as the children
Of Hart. Under the state of facts, the
first question to be disposed of was can
children born from parents so situated
be legitimate? Act. 217 of Civil Code
of 1895, Statute of oath March, 1881. D,
So, and c.. C. 95, are quoted to show
that it the parties could not have con-
tracted marriage when the children
were conceived, the latter cannot be
legitimated. The civil rights bill does
not obliterate State laws. It gives to
all citizens of the United States of every |
race and color, etc, the right to make
D enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, |
give evidence, and to free and equal
benefits of all laws for the security of
persons and property. .~.st. !
Marriage is a civil contract; inherit |
is regulated bylaw. White persons
and of color may by this act contract
marriage and children inherit; but, says
Justice Morgan, " deny that the act in
question processes to regulate the legiti-
nation OF children. or that it provides
the fact of legitimation shall be es-
tablished, or that it pretends. to alter
our laws on the subject of inheritance.
| treat the plaintiff and her children
precisely as if they were white and free
born but / say that they are governed
by the same laws that white persons are,
and [ say that, as the law prohibited
her marriage with Hart at the time their
children were conceived, and as the law
IN existence when they were conceived
declares that no child could be lGgitima-
ted who was conceived when its parents
could not contract marriage, the chill
lren of Hart and the plaintiff could not
De legitimated.n 7E =".
After quoting numerous authorities in
support of his opinion, Justice Morgan
yoes on to establish the fact that the
had not been properly acknowl-
and with luminous force shows
hat the law is plain before him to main
ain n contrary doctrine in his dissent
ng opinion. 1t is worthy of perusal by
members of the bar, and this reporter
egrets his inability to give it in full, it
quite length
MAsoSIc.-The Most Excellent Grand !;
Of the State of Louisiana COM ,
nenced its twenty -seventh annual con
location at 10 o'clocka. m., on Tuesday,
he 10th inst, at Grand Lodge Hall in
his city, Most Excellent Grand High :
'riest Joseph p. HornOr presiding.
Royal Arch Chapters were !
epresented. After listening to the very =
BILE report of NJ. E. G.. Fl. P. Hornor, !
nd the transaction uf ON routine ,
BUSINESS, the Grand Chapter proceeded
D the election of Grand officers. The .