The Farmville herald. [volume] (Farmville, Va.) 1890-1934, 1905-11-03

NANNA SO Aftf fNa+t'f
have been wronged.
Then it was that Judge Hundley, in
order TO force Judge Lewis TO declare
his real sentiments and so discredit
him with his negro audience, put to
him this question:
"There is now a bill before the Leg
stature 10 prevent intermarriage be-
tween whites and blacks; do you op-
pose or do you favor such bill ~
Judge Hundley says that he had not
the remotest idea that Judge Lewis
would respond otherwise than that "a
a white man he was opposed TO inter
marriage between the races, and
therefore in favor Of the pending bill.
Judge Lewis was evidently embarrass-
ed, but he faced the issue and replied
that he was opposed TO the bill, be-
lieying il to be unconstitutional, and
believing that whites and blacks should
he left free TO contract marriages with
one another If they so desired.
Such is the charge that Judge Humid
ley has brought against Judge Lewis.
There is no intimatiOn that Judge
Lewis expressed himself as being in
favor Of such marriages; the charge is
he was opposed TO the proposed pro-
hibitory law on the subject, PREFER
ing To leave the matter to the choice
and taste of the parties.
There is a circumstance that may
shed some light ON this matter which
has not heretofore been adyerted TO-.
In 1875 Edmund Kinney, negro re-
siding in Hanover county, was mar
ried in Washington city To white
woman, also from Hanover. He and the
woman returned to that county TO live.
In March, 1879, they were indicted
convicted, and each sentenced to five
years imprisonment in the peniten-
tiary. On May Is, 1879, application
for writ Of habeas corpus was made
by the negro TO the United States Dis
trict Court. Judge Robert w. Hughes
presiding. Judge Lewis, then United
States Attorney, appeared for the petit
toner and argued that the Act Of As
sembly making such marriage felony
was unconstitutional and void; that
marriage was a civil contract, and that
under the ''ciVil rights" law, negroe,
had full power 10 contract with white
persons as well as with members Of
their own race; he also stated that
Massachusetts, had long since repeal
ed her prohibitOry law on this subject
Attorney General Field appeared in
this case OH behalf Of Virginia. The
above account Of this case is taken
from the Richmond Dispatch Of May
IA, 1879.
In the beginning Of this contro-
yersy, when the charge was first
made against Judge Lewis, he could
not remember whether he had ever
had a debate with Judge Hundley at
Chesterfield Courthouse, and said that
If there had been such discussion it
was not in 1873, but In September,
1881. Afterwards he admitted that
it was in 1877 or 1878, and not in
1881. subsequently he made this adj
mission:
ut may he that when Judge Humid
ley asked the question which he is
said TO have propounded to me, an
swered that, in my opinion, the pro-
posed statute was Of doubtful consti-
tutiOnality.n
We no more believe that Judge
Lewis would deny a statement which
he knew TO he true, than we believe
that Judge Hundley would deliberate
ly make a false statement. 1t is a.
question OF memory between two
truthful men, but the circumstances
indicate that in this matter Judge
Hundley's memory is accurate, and
Judge Lewis memory is somewhat at
fault.
The only other witness called is Mr.. !
:. ;. Z. Patteson, who was present
and heard the discussion Messrs. |
William A. Jones and j. Taylor Ely !
son say that Mr.. Patterson recently |
told them that his recollection Of the
debate was substantially the same rs
Judge Hundley's. Subsequently Mr. |
Patteson said that he did not remem- |
her the exact language used by either
speaker on that occasion, but he was
certain that the subject Of intermar-
riage was discussed, and that Judge
Lewis said either that he would not
vote for bill to prevent intermar-
riage between the races, or that such
a measure was Of doubtful constitu-
Mr.. Patteson does not deny or con
Ifadlct Judge Hundley's statement or
deny that ii is accurate
Such is the summing up Of the case.
The weight Of evidence is clearly I'm
favor OF Judge Hundley. His own d.
rect affirmative statement, confirmed
BY Mr.. Patteson's substantial agree
nent on the material point-opposi-
ion to the measure forbidding mis-
,egenatiOn-should he sufficient, but
Judge Lewis own admission removes
Ill reasonable doubt. Still futher con
irmation is had, II any should be nee
'ssary, by the attitude of Judge Lewis
n the Kinney case the following year.
The conclusion is irresistible that at
hat time Judge Lewis was opposed to
he law forbiding intermarriage be-
ween the races, and we have no rec
nd Of his having ever changed his
mind on this subject.
We do not believe that he fayors or
dvises such marriages, but we have