Race Distinctions in American LawStephenson, Gilbert Thomas
History
Race Distinctions in American Law
Stephenson, Gilbert Thomas
African Americans -- Politics and government; Law -- United States -- History; United States -- Race relations
In 1866, a white man in Kentucky was indicted for entering the house of
a Negro and committing larceny. At the time a Negro in that State could
not testify against a white man. A Circuit Court[594] of the United
States decided that it could take jurisdiction of this case under the
Civil Rights Bill of 1866, holding that the Negro, as a citizen, had the
right to be a witness in court. This appears to be the only case in
which the Federal court has adjudicated upon the right of a Negro to
testify.
A law of Alabama[595] of 1865 made Negroes competent to testify only in
open court and only in cases, civil or criminal, to which a freedman,
free Negro, or mulatto, was a party. This was reënacted in 1867.[596] In
1886, a white man in Mobile was tried for the murder of a Negro. All the
witnesses for the prosecution were Negroes, and all for the defendant,
white people. The question of the color of witnesses was raised, and the
city court of Mobile charged: “... it is immaterial whether the
witnesses were white or black, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt
that black witnesses are telling the truth, it is as much your duty to
convict on their evidence as though they were white.” There was an
exception to this charge, but the Supreme Court of Alabama[597]
overruled the exception. The present law of Alabama seems to be that the
color of the witness is immaterial in determining his competency.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas,[598] in 1869, held that by the Civil
Rights Bill of 1866 the laws prohibiting Negroes from testifying became
inoperative. No other case on the point seems to have arisen in the
State.
The Constitution[599] of Florida of 1865 permitted Negroes to testify
only in proceedings founded upon injury to a Negro or in cases affecting
the rights and remedies of Negroes. A statute[600] of the same year,
relative to testimony in general, provided that the testimony of Negroes
should not be taken by deposition in writing or upon written
interrogation, or “otherwise than in such manner as will enable the
court or jury to judge the credibility of the witness.”
The Constitution[601] of Georgia of 1865 made it the duty of the general
assembly to provide laws prescribing in what cases the testimony of
Negroes should be admitted in the courts. This is the only reference to
the Negro as a witness found in the Georgia statutes or court reports.
Kentucky,[602] in 1865, provided that Negroes and mulattoes should be
competent witnesses in all civil proceedings in which Negroes or
mulattoes were the only parties interested in the issue, and in all
criminal proceedings in which Negroes or mulattoes were the defendants.
In 1867, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky[603] held that the law of
Kentucky prohibiting a Negro from testifying against a white person was
still in force and was not rendered inoperative by the Civil Rights Bill
of 1866.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account