Year: 1865

wisest and best men of the country,
should differ as to the best course of pol
icy to be purs ued in regard to the popu
lation of which this Institution was COM
posed.


If it were possible for a people at once
to discard all influence OF associations,
habits, and ideas that have come down to
us, from generation, to generation, then


indeed might we be able, more clearly to
see, and more fully to appreciate the new
relation in which we stand to the freed
men, SO recently our slaves; then with


less difficulty, might we be able to dis,
cover more clearly the rights necessary to


be granted, for the protection of their


person and property, rights, once SO
carefully guarded from the eencroachments


of others, by their former masters,


prompted, as they were by interest
and attachment. The right OF protection


10 both person and property, is granted


by every civilized nation on earth, to all


over whom laws extend, and only


abridged to individuals, in proportion, as


they may be excluded from the courts of


law, as witnesses in consequence OF some


act eonnectedsagainst the laws, or the un-


bending obligations of an oath, nor Is this


right OF prote ction to persons and pro-


perty denied by the most ardent oppo-


nent of negro testimony. But unfortu-


nately for their position, that whilst they


admit the constitutional right of protec


ton of person and property of the freed


men, they propose to withhold the very,
and only means by which these rights


can be enforced, the right to testify in the
courts of Justice.


This is proven by the ex ample Of all


civilized nations, tor however they may


restrict the right of suffrage, the right to
Iestify in the courts is held sacred, and
guaranteed to all, and that without the
fear on the part of any Lord or potentate
that the exercise of such right will raise
either the serf of Russia, or the collier OF
England, to social or political equality
with themselves. Bat why deny this
the most humble ofall civilized nations :?


Is it because they have served us and our
fathers faithfully in the past Is
and bloody war, they proved so faithful
and loyal to the interest of their mas
ters !? No Is it because in all, or most
of the large cities of the South, the free
negro population, invested their money





as soldiers in the cause of the Confed-
eIacy Is it because there is any
natural antagonism or just cause of
races of the South The present
and early impressions of hundreds of
thousands of the white race of the South,
the history. the facts, and arguments OF
the last two hundred years, say, no. Is
hon -, l.,
believes that the right to testify in the
courts will raise the blacks to social or
political equality with the white people
on the other hand by the
that their want of capacity and
moral status render them unfit to appear
upon the witness stand. Then whence
arises the opposition to this simple, nat
ural and unsophisticated right of
freedmen with all other men to testify in
the courts of justice; a right without
which neither their persons nor property,
nor those of the white man can, under the
present surroundings, be fully protected.
Can it be from the fact that freedmen will
swear so shrewdly false, that a Judge,
jury and lawyers of white men, can
neither detect the perjury nor properly
appreciate the evidence? This can scarce


y be believed. Then in none nor all
Of these causes combined, the opposition
to negro testimony can be philosophi-
cally accounted for. Can it be traced to
any other cause than the general re>
uctance of surrendering old habits, old
associations and Old ideas on the one
hand and taking one more step with the
sbolitionist on the 9th er? If | am right
n this conclusion, then, in the most
way let me say to all who have
hese matters in charge, to rise superior
10 those old, but now obsolete and minor
and grasp the great question
rs it stands practically before the country
o>day, and extend a right to people, |
who are by no means responsible for the
present state of things, right by which |
llone they can be protected, thrown, as
hey are, upon their own resources and |
to come in contact with |
III sorts of men in labor and trade, and |
ubject to all the abuses that an honest |
Inference Of opinion, cupidity or vicious
less may dictate. But after all that has, |
nd still may be said upon this question |
# negro testimony, does not the Consti- |
ution require that freedmen shall be fully |
in their person and property, |
nd can this be done without allows |
ng their unrestricted testimony in |
be courts. 1t would be scarcely more |
ifficult to prove that the half com.
osed the whole of thing, than to
isprove this proposition. To acllnowl-
dge right, and withhold the only and |
nlversal means by which that right lex
ept by accident) can be employ ed, is a
in terms. The right of pro
ection, and the right to testify. mustego
and in hand. If you withhold the one,
is impossible but that you abridge the
ther. This is one of those self-eVident
that battles even proof itself.
t is universal in its operation, and in the
cry nature of things cannot be other
Use. Suppose it to be admitted that
lct, known in jackson to-day, must be
to New York in a few
ours, or in the shortest possible time
What would be thought of the person
laking the admission, if he were to uE-
ertake to prove that the telegraphic wire
as not necessary to accomplish the end,
nd that by the art of hocus pocus, or
ome other way, he could send the mess
ge more speedily to the point designated?
Iow would it not seem strange that any
ne shonld be called upon to disprovc the
rt of hocus poGus, on the one hand, and
} prove, on the other, that the only means
yer yet invented or known for the trans>
lission of messages, in so short a tim9,
etween distant points. was by the use of
,legraphF And yet, as universal, unde-
liable, plain and selfevident as these
cts would seem to be. still thew are not