Year: 1869

ant Opinion by a California Judge,


The following account of a decision by Cali
fornia judge, setting a precedent as to the ad-
instability of q Chinamans testimony, will be
read with interest. Says the San Francisco Alta
of the Th inst


Yesterday, in the Fourth District Court, the
trial of the cause of Alfred j. Welch VS.. All Humid
ct al was commenced before His Honor Judge
Sawyer. This action was brought for an alleged
breach of an agreement, by which the defend
ants stipulated with the plaintiff to pay 91'25
per cord tor wood cut from plaintiffs land, and
guaranteed to keep not less than fifty wood
choppers at work on said land. This the plain
tiff alleges the defendants have not done and
hence the suit. The damages are laid at
$62, 500.


The testimony being closed on behalf of the
plaintiff, Mr.. r. IL. Lloyd, as attorney for the
defendant, placed All Humid upon the stand
Messrs. White and Heath attorneys for the
plaintiff, objected to All Humid giving testimony.
They urged that the statutes of the State eX
cluded Cinnamon from giving testimony against
a citizen. Mr.. G. II. Lloyd, who was evidently
prepared for the objection replied at great
length. He quoted first section IL of the first
article of the declaration of rights contained in
the Constitution of the State of California,
which provides that all laws of a general
nature shall have a uniform operation"
Mr.. Lloyd contended that the laws giving
residents the right to defend suits founded upon
wrongful claims we're general in their nature.
Every resident, whether Mongalian or Caucasian,
was liable to be sued and was entitled to de-
fend such suits. The law was therefore gen
eral, and being so, must, according to the law
of the State, be uniform" in its operation. Then
he quoted the seventeenth section of the said
first article of the Constitution of California,
which provides that foreigners who are or who
may hereafter become bona tide residents of this
State shall enjoy the same rights in respect to
the possession, enjoyment, and Inheritance of
property as native-born citizens" He contended
that foreigners could not be said to enjoy the
same rights in respect to the possession" of
nj nould facfify in ri m
such possession in a court of law. OF what
value could property in money or land be if
any citizen were entitled to come and swear
away the right to possession" of it without
being answered by the person who owned the
property, and who alone perhaps, could answer
on the point? He contended that If the State
laws were read in all their fullness and scope,
they conferred upon Cinnamon the right to pro-
tect their persons and their property by giving
evidence in courts of law. But he relied mainly
upon the Fourteenth Constitutional amendment,
which declares that mo State shall deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor deny any person within its
Jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"
If, said Mr.. Lloyd, man comes and swears that
the property you possess does not belong to you,
it will not surely be contended that you had
"equal protection under the law" unless you
are allowed to swear that it does belong to you.
On that point he confidently rested his case.


Judge Sawyer said he had no doubt that the
State law took away from Cinnamon the right to
testify III buCu CdSCS db bulS, OuL lb WIS GQudily
clear that the fourteenth Constitutional amend
ment, which overrdes all State laws, confers the
right to testify in protection of his life or his
property. He was aware that the Police Judge
had decided otherwise; but that was a matter in
which that Judge had to decide for himself and
in no wise concerned his (Judge Sawyer's)
opinion. He admitted that a different opinion
might be held as conseentlously as he claimed
to hold his. Still he believed the Judge to be
mistaken. Was it to be argued that if two Chi
namen were walking along, and a white
man comes up and Stays one of the Cinnamon,
that the other is to be precluded from giving his
testimony? If he were SO precluded, how could
it be argued that all had equal protection" of
the law? If a man swears an unfounded claim
against your property, the only way you eau
protect the property is by swearing that the
claim is unfounded. If you are not allowed to
do that, how can it be said that you have the
''equal protection of the law" which the Consti-
tuition declares is the right of all men?


The Judge accordingly ordered the examina-
ton of All Humid to be proceeded with, aud at
the close of his testimony the further hearing of
the case was adjourned until this morning.