Year: 1865

testify as witnesses Is just now oelDg some-
what discussed, and is likely to be a
prominent question before the Legisla-
ture. TIE question will present itself to
that body in two aspects, first, as a ques
ton of power under the constitution as
amended, and secondly, as a question OF
policy, provided the Legislature should
believe it has authority to prohibit or re-
strict such right to testify. ~J1f *


1t is supposed the Legislature will have
but little or no discretion left on this
s16ject, in view of the provision OF the
constitutional amendments which not
only abolish slavery, but declare that
"the Legislature shall provide by law for
he protection and security of the persons
and property of the freedmen of the
State. and guard them and the State
from any evils that may arise from, their
sudden emancipation" This is now the
language of the supreme law of the State,
and it will become necessary for the Le-
gislature to measure its force and extent
with the view to ascertain their own





on the authority Of pre- cedent that this
language does, of itself, give protection
| to person and property, for it is the busl-
ness or purpose Of a constitution to de-
clare organic principles as the foundation


and limitation to the powers of govern
ment, which are to be carried out i'll de-
| tail by the Legislature. And when these.
| principles can have practical force and
effect without legislative aid, they become
at once active and operative as laws with


out further action. Thus the former
| Constitution of this State declared that


the introduction of slaves as merchan


die or for sale, should be prohibited after
the lst day OF May, 1888, which was only


mandatory to the Legislature, as no penal
ties or forfeitures were pl lescribed for
violation of the provision. The adjudi


cations on this provision fully settled that,
although it was mandatory to the Legis-
lature, yet the principle of the constitu-
ton became operative and took effect as


an active principle without legislative


aid. This is precisely the case now pre-
sented. Here is a provision that secures


to the negro the right 10 prote ction of
person and property; the principle OF


protection is there. Could the Legisla.
ture, either by action or non-actiop, de-
feat this principle? Can the Legislature


say that the negro shall not be entitled to
sue in the courts of law? 1t is supposed


not such right is established by an active


constitutional principle, as no one can be
said to be protected who has not this


right. And the reason why the Legisla-


ture cannot say so is, because the princi-
pie of protection is a paramount law,


being part of the constitution above the


power of the Legislature. Can the Le-
: gislature say the negro shall not testify
where he is interested? If SO, he does
not receive protection for his person or
, property according to the standard OF


our lau all parties are competo4t


witnesses in their own cases. That is es.
tablished as the measure of protection to
E which any one is entitled. Is the negro
protected if he have less, and if So how


much less? If We once establish degrees


of protectit n, according to legislative dis


cretion, he may be deprived of all sub.
stantial protection which it is presumed
is not what the convention intended no


doubt the convention intended to act
honestly and in good faith towards the
r negro, and when they promise him pro
lection, it is supposed they meant full pro
lection according to law. Suppose the
question should arise before judicial


tribunal before the Legislature acts, OF
suppose the Legislature should never act


how would such tribunal regard this con
stitutional principle, and how could il


mete out protection? 1t is supposed il


would regard the constitution as ope.
rative of ITSELF and having no other


standard of protection except such as


the law prescribes in regard to white per


laws as criterion. Full protection is
, just what the law gives every person, and
court would no doubt act upon this


principle. If the convention intended
| W 4II1lI INC ubIouub Vi pTOtSCtlOu Gue
negro should receive, it should have said
so, and having failed to say so, the pre-


sumption is that full protection was in
: tended to be secured to him. Can any


man be said to be protected who cannot
: sue in the courts of justice for Injuries


done to his person or property? Surely


not. Tbeni negroes may sue, how are
r we to getrid of that provision in our Law


which makes parties to suit competent


witnesses 1t certainly applies to al


persons who may sue.


We must also bear in mind thai
the constitution abolishes slavery
g forever, the effect of which is TO abol
: ish all laws which originated out o.
: the system of slavery as laws of policy
The whole slave code, covering thirty
!. pages of the Revised Code is completely
, abolished by this constitutional provision
o and not a vestige of it remains in force
for it all has relation to slavery. Ever
the laws in relation to free negroes are in
the main abolished. From this it 70 low!
q that the negro occupies a different rela