The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1875-09-15

; each one was required to have a nom
e or employment by 1st day Of Januar
: 1866.
: In New jersey, Pennsylvania, Come
ticut and Rhode Island, when they WI
set free, they were not allowed tn
t privilege of selecting homes ut all. The
Y were required to remain with their oil
masters and serve without pay-thos
already born when emancipation TOO
2 place, for life, and those born afterwards
/ from twenty-one to twenty-eight years
: In the British West Indies an appren
: tlceship Of the freedman, to his torme
= owner, of from five to seven years va
; required. The Legislature Of 1865 CAV,
to the freedmen, the right to select thei
own employers and to receive the wage
of their own labor, only requiring. tina
they should have homes and an employer
by day named.
Again the States before named lust a.
effectually prohibited negroes from having
real estate, as did the Legislature Of
Mississippi, Tor how could they have
real estate, when they were bound to
remain with, and serve, their former
owners for the terms before stated.
But if it be said that it was harsh to
require the freedman, then just emauci-
pated, to have employment, it will be
found that this was much less harsh
than the legislation of the Northern
States The truth is, that all white
people who had known anything of negro
slavery, doubted that, when set free.
they would voluntarily work and support
themselves, and it was feared that pau
perism would be largely increased by the
emancipation of even few negroes.
Massachusetts prohibited any owner
from even emancipating his slave, unless
bond and security were given, that he
should not become a charge On the town,
stating as a reason therefor, that great
charges and Inconvenience had accrued
to divers towns by the setting free OF
negro and mulatto slaves" Ohio, Indi-
ana and Illinois prohibited free negroes
and mulattoes from coming into, and
settling in those States without such
bond being given, and they imposed heavy
penalties on any person who would har-
Dor, employ or give sustenance to such
negro. And finally, after many years
experience with this class of people,
Indiana and Illinois by Constitutional
provision, prohibited the removing to
and settling within their borders of free
negroes and mulattoes, on any terms what
ever.
Oregon, (Which was settled almost
exclusively by Northern men) likewise,
by similar Constitutional provision,
prohibited the immigration of free ne
groes and mulattoes, and deprived all
such SO setting in the State, of the power
to hold real estate, or to make any con
tracts within the State or to maintain suits
in her courts.
Rhode Island, more imam JnIrty years
after slavery had been abolished there,
would not allow licenses to keep Il tavern
or any kind of public house to be granted
to negroes or mulattoes, nor would she
allow a negro or mulatto to sell liquor
as the agent or employee Of a white per-
son.
1t is objected to the legislation of 1863,
that the orphan children Of deceased
freedmen were required to be appren-
ticed, and that in binding such out, the
Court was required to give the prefer
ence to the former owner if found suit
able.
This provision in the laws of 1868 was
much more liberal than similar provisions
in Northern States. Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
in their statutes abolishing slavery, pro-
vided that the children of living freed
men, not orphans merely, should remain
bound to their former owners till they
were twenty-one years old in some Of
these States, and till they were twenty
eight in others.
The Mississippi Acts of 1860, required
colored apprentices to be taught to read
and write, but the Illinois statutes, whilst
requiring white apprentices to be taught
to read and write and to know arithmetic
provided that colored apprentices should
only be taught to read.
1t is again objected to the legislation Of
1868, that our colored friends were I'M
necessarily degraded by the provision in
relation to their being witnesses. This
provision allowed them to be witnesses in
all cases where colored people were inter
ested, or had been injured, although
white people were also interested in the
suit or proceeding. This was ample TO
protect the rights of the colored people in
all eases where they had any interest. If
any were injured by their exclusion from
being witnesses in cases where whites
only were interested, it is clear that only
the whites themselves were the sufferers.
But this law is more liberal than that
which obtained in the Northern States
for many years after slavery had been
abolished there.
In Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Kansas,
negroes and mulattoeS were not allowed
to testify in any case in which white
person was interested, although free
negroes and mulattoes were also interest
ed.
In many States they were not allowed
to serve as Jurors In all the New Eng
land States, such qualifications were
REQUIRED and such a mode of selection
adopted, as almost necessarily excluded,
all negroes from iuries. In Pennsylvania,
/ Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Min
{ ~ = i l.
and mulattoes were expressly excluded
! from the jury service, and in all others,
they were practically so excluded.