Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-06-30

slave OF any other character. But as all the
other colonies had introduced slavery the Ile0-
pie Of Georgia were finally teupted by the
slave dealers to Try the institution. and thew
yielded 10 the alnrenents Of the people Of
adopted it.
have already shown that Massachusetts
sent cargOes Of rum 10 Africa and brought car
goes of slaves to some Of the West Indies ana
the Southern colonies; and / further showed
that they raised slaves for the market as long
as they found IL profitable. Then in purchasing
slaves from Massachusetts we purchased due
proportion OF mnlatt9eS. it seems the pr0por-.
ton there was very large one, and we rot
the mulattO institution as we got the slavery
institution from Massachusetts, by pur-
chase, when we bought slaves from
her. She was not careful about the
color Of the slave. whether he was a Scotch
man, an lrishman, an Indian, q negro or a
mulatto. The only question with her was
whether he would bring the money She held
him as slave and she offered him for sale as
a slave. When the expulsion act in I7Ss was
passed eNpeliing Tree negroes and mulattOes
from Massachusetts IL might have seemed to
some people little unnatural to expel the
mulattoes, do NOT say they were akin to the
people OF Massachusetts. It may have been
that climatic influence had changed their
color until they bore q likeness to the good
people Of that State. The cold bleaching
winds OF Massachusetts or some other cause
had very lar gely modified the ebony ke color
of the African in that State. and had Infused
compound Of yellow. that they were no
longer called negroes, but mulattoes.
unnasuraily, were expelled from Massa-
chusetts they doubtless took refuge in the
Southern States, and their descendants there
have multiplied, still transmitting the modi-
neu color inherited from climatic influence or
other cause in Mass achusetts. ANY casual
observer who win 90 into Massachusetts, and
Georgia will see that the proportion the
mulattOes bear To the number OF negroes IN
that State is much greater than the Dropor-
ton IN Georgia. Doubtless the wonderful
effect OF climate. III the climate Of Massa-
chusetts does not change, there seems to be
danger that the pure African blood viii en-
tlrely run out and the yellow hue will be
the predominating color of the race So
wonderful is the effect OF the Massa-
chusetts climate upon the color Of the African
race that II has even followed them into their
retreat in the mildef atmosphere of the South
About tWenty-one or two years ago an i'm
mense cold wave from Massachusetts and 9TH
er Northern States bore down upon the South
envelOped In smoke and streaked with fire: as
frigid and lnh0spitabie as the freezing winds
Of Massachusetts winter. This cold wave
rested four long years upon the South, and
1t bleached with yellow large numbers Of the
young of the negro race in that section, and
they are now called muiattOes The race was
first bleached by Massachusetts when thew
were slaves there. They have since been
bleaehed over again from Massachusetts since
they left there.
The census Of 1880 does not show the pro
portion that the mulatt0es bear IN Georgia
and Massachusetts to the black race: | do not
find 1t in the census Of 1870; but in looking
back to the census of 1860 / see they were
taken separately. and | want TO refer to it.
In 1860 Georgia, as you know, was a slave
state. What proportion did the mulattoes
bear to the negroes, or the blacks, as the CEN
sus designates themf There We're in 1850 ac
cOrding to the census, 425, POS blacks and 600
mulattoes, being little above per cent of
the colOred race in Georgia who were mulat-
toes in 1860. Now, how did the count stand in
Massachusetts,? In Massachusetts, at the same
period there were 6,53l blacks and 3.O7I nm
lattoes, being almost so per cent. of malattoes
| MNglqRhnGnffQ n : nit,
number OF blacks and only a little over per
cent. in Georgia. So much for slavery in Mas
saehusetts and Georgia, and so much for the
origin and existence of mulattoes there The
Senate will remember that | did not intro
duce slavery into this debate.
Now, Mr.. President, a few words in replv 10
another part OF the speech of the honorable
Senator from Massachusetts,. He stated in
substance the other day when this question
was last under discussion that the
laws of Georgia were substantially the
same as the Utah bill in refer
ence to the right of husband and wife to tesgi
~ against each other in criminal cases, or
their obligation to do so. The Senator has
grossly misstated the law of my State. / will
not say Intentionally, for think the book was
handed to him on the spur of the moment and
he probably had not time to examine IL care
fully. The only fault find with him Is that
he did not examine it before he made the as
sertlon, What is the first section of this bin
that he says is very similar to the laws of NV
own State? 1t reads as follows:
''That in any proceeding and examination
before a grand jury, a Judge, Justice. or a
United States Commissioner, or court in any
prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlaw-
full cohabltatlon, under any statute of the
United States, the lawful husband or wife Of
the person accused shall be a competent wit
ness, and may be called and NAV be comnelIed
to testify III such proceeding, examination
or prosecution without the consent Of the hus-
band or wife. rs the case may be-"
That is The first section of the pending bill
The Senator from Massachusetts insisted that
the law OF Georgia was substantially the
same. Before | take my seat | must show
that he grossly mIsstated the law of Georgia
on that subject. The law of Georgia was The
same as 1t was in most of the other States
| prior to the act of 1866, which was passed
| ny our Legislature and which is copied
almost literally into the code, but as | have
| the pamphlet acts of the Legislature before
| me propose to read from that instead of the
| code, simply remarking before read that i'm
no case prior 20 That time could husband or
| wife be witness against each other they could
| IN no case be compelled to testify against each
other; they were not to be called. Parties to
the record were not witnesses; parties who
/ were infamous OF convicted offelOny were not
| witnesses; parties at interest were not Wit
nesses. In word, the old rule OF evidence
| substantially that we are all familiar with OBJ
| tanned. In 1866, the Legislature of Georgia
| passed this acts
AN act to declare certain persons competent
| witnesses as IN the act set out and for other
| purposes.
PREAMBLE.
| WHEREAS the inquiry after truth in courts
/ or justice is often INSTRUCTED by incaDacifies
| created by the present law, ami it is desirable
| that full information as to the facts in issue.
| both IN civil and criminal cases. should be laid
t before the persons who are to decide upon
| them, and That such persons should exercise
| their Judgment on the credit of the witnesses
| adduced for the truth of testimony.
| SECTION |. BE a. enaeted, etc., That in all
! cases hereafter tried, no person offered as a
/ witness shall hereafter be excluded by reason
/ OF incapacity from crime or interest. or from
being party, from giving evidence, either in
1 person or by deposition, according to the prac-
nee or the court. on the trial of any issue
| Joined or of any matter or question, or on any
| inquiry arising IN any suit, action or proceed
| ing, civil or criminal, in any court or before
| any Judge, jury, Sheriff, Coroner Magistrate
| officer or party, having by law or consent OF
| partles authority to hear, receive and ex-
| anime evidence; but that every peraon AZ
| offered shall be competent and conpeIlabIe 10
/ give evidence on behalf of either or any Of
| the parties to SAID suit, action or other pro-
ceeding except as hereinafter excepted"
Ihat Is the general rule now. 1t re-
peals the old law of evidence and
| makes all persons, other than the
exceptions thar follow, competent wit
| crediblllty with the jury. Then these excep-
| tions were made:
''Progided, That when one of the original
| parties TO the contract or cause of action IN
issue and on trial dead, or is shown to the
court to be insane, or when an executor or
administrator Is party in any SUIT on a con-
party snail not be admitted to testify in his
own favor.
"SEC. 2. Bot nothing herein contained shall
render any person, VINO in any criminal pro-
ceedlng Is charged with the commission of any
lndlctable onense, or any ofense punishable
on summary conviction, competent or com
pellable, to give evidence for or against him
sell or herself, or shall render any person
compellable to answer any question TENDING
to crlminate himself or herself orshall in anv
criminal proceeding render any husband COM
petent or compellable to give evidence for or
against ms wiie, or any wife competent! or
compellable to give evidence for or against
her husband; nor shall any attorney be COM
penaDle to give evidence for or against his
client.
''SEc. 3. Nothing herein contained shall an
ply 10 any action, suit, or proceeding, or bill
IN any court OF law or equity instituted in
consequence OF adultery, or to any action for
breach OF promise Of marriage"
That is the act of 1856. OF this latter mart
the Senator from Massachusetts undertodk 70
make change of the law of Georgia so as to
permit husband and wife TO testify against
each other; but when You notice the act alto
gether the first section changes the old law
and makes everybody competent EXCEPT those
who are excepted in the following sections
and one OF the following sections has the provi-
SION tnat nave Just read-that nothing here
In contained shall apply to any action, suit or
proceeding, or bill III any court of law or
equity instituted IN consequences of adulterv.
or to any action for breach OF promise Of mar,
rage" therefore 1t left the law exactly "a
It stood before on that question, and provided
That nothing In the act should apply to those
two cases.
What was the law before that act was
passed! The law was that neither husband
nor wife could testify in any action concern
ing adultery, and the law was that in An
action for breach of promise of marria0e
neither OF the parties could testify. 1t leaves
the law on those points exactly as it stood at
common law. In case of an action for aduI-
terry or either OF the other causes mentioned in |