The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1874-02-20
IMPORTANT DECISION.

! We obtain the following report of ar
important decision rendered by the
Supreme Court, from the PicaNune:
In the case of Cornelia Hart, tutrix
ct ais. VS.. Hoss and Elder, on rehear.
ing, Chief Justice Ludeling, who read
the opinion of the court, stated tina,
the important questions to be deter.
mined We're:
/ 1. What effect did the civil rights
bill have upon the status of Corneli,,
Hart and her children, persons OF
color?
.. Did the law Of Louisiana, in 1867,
exclude or prohibit all other modes OF
acknowledgment for the purpose of
The legitimation of children by sub
sequcnt marriage, except those made
III notarial acts, i'll the registry of birth
or baptism, or in the act of marriage ?
3. Did e. G. Hart and Cornelia Hart
legally acknowledge their children be-
fore their marriage?
l. The effect of tho civil rights bill
was to strike With nullity all State
laws discriminating on account of race
or color. 1t gave plaintiff the right to
enter into contract of marriage with
4 white man, and legitimate her chill
dren born previous to it. Shc has the
same right to make u contract as n
white woman, and marriage is a civil
contract. G. c., 81.
=. The Code of 1926 declares children
born out of wedlock may be 1egitima-
ted by marriage of their father and
mother. A formal act is not necessary.
That code, article 221, requires an act
before notary to acknowledge an
illegitimate child, and uses these words:
"No other proof of acknowledgment
shall be admitted 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 a
notary, but cannot affect children
whose status was fixed i'll 1870. &C.
944.
In 6 y. 157, Dupre vs.. Carutl,crs, it
was held that article 221 was not pro-
hibitory as to white children, and
quotes Lange VS.. RichouX, La, $40;
see also Jones VS.. Hunter, 5 Rob- 336,
3. 1t is in evidence that tho parents
acknowledged the children before mar
riage. They lived together from 1864
to 1863, when the father, who treated
them as his children, died.
Former decree adhered to.
Justice Morgan and Wyly disscntcd,
the latter reserving the right to file his
reasons hereafter.
Justice Morgan in his dissenting
opinion, which is Il very able one, says
that from the year 1854, to tho day of
his death, in 1860, Hart lived in con-
cubinage with Cornelia. Sho was Il
colorcd woman and his slave; by her
he had several children. In Novcm-
Der, 1867, he married her. None of
the children were born after tho mar
rlagc. They were all born while the
mother was 4 slave. Subsequently to
their marriage, the children were bap-
tScu as tho children of Hart. Under
the state of facts, tho first question to
be disposed of was can children born
from parents SO situated be lcgitimatc?
Art. 2t7 of Civil Code of 1925, Statute
of 2ith March, 1881, p. Sc, and G. c.
%, are quoted to show that if the par
ties could not have contracted mar
riagc when the children were con-
crived, the latter cannot be lcgitimatcd.
The civil rights bill does not oblitcratc
State laws. 1t gives to all citizens of
the United States of every race and
color, etc, the right to make and en-
force contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to free and equal bcnc-
fits of all laws for the security of per-
son and property.
Marriage is acivil contract; inhcr-
itancc is regulated by law. White per-
sons and of color may by this act con-
tract marriage and children inherit;
but, says Justice Morgan, "I deny that
the act in question protcsscs to rcgu-
late the lcgitimation of children, or
that it provides how the fact of Icgiti-
nation shall hc established, or that
it prctcndS to alter our laws on the
subject of inheritance. I treat the
plaintiff and her children precisely as
if they were white and free born; but
l say that they arc governed by the
same laws that white persons are, and
l say that, as the law prohibited her
marriage with Hart ut the time their
children were conceived, and Us the
law in existence when they were con-
ceivcd declared that no child could be
fegitimatcd who was conceived when
its parents could not contract marriage.
the children of Hart and the plaintiff
could not be lcgitimatcd.'
After quoting numerous authorities
in support of his opinion, Justice Nor
gan goes on to establish the fact that