Yet, I feel that we are in honor bound to secure to the helpless people we have liberated a "republican form of government," and that we betray our trust when we hand these freed people over to their old masters to be persecuted and forced to live and work according to their peculiar southern ideas. It seems to me that we are forgetting the helpless and poor in our desire to assist our subjugated enemies, and that we are more desirous of showing ourselves to be a great and magnanimous nation than of protecting the people who have assisted us by arms, and who turned the scale of battle in our favor. We certainly commit a wrong, if, while restoring these communities to all their former privileges as States, we sacrifice one jot or tittle of the rights and liberties of the freedmen. The mayor of this city has had complete charge of all municipal affairs since the issue of General Slocum's Order 10, (quoted in the order I have before given.) He has been compelled to admit negro testimony by the provisions of that order. In cases that come before him, when it is necessary to admit it he goes through the form of receiving it, but I have yet to hear of one instance where such evidence affected his decision. The testimony of one white man outweighs (practically) that of any dozen freedmen. The admission of negro testimony will never secure the freedmen justice before the courts of this State as long as that testimony is considered valueless by the judges and juries who hear it. It is of no consequence what the law may be if the majority be not inclined to have it executed. A negro might bring a suit before a magistrate and have colored witnesses examined in his behalf, according to provisions of general orders and United States law, and yet the prejudices of the community render it impossible for him to procure justice. The judge would claim the right to decide whether the testimony was credible, and among the neighbors that would surround him, in many places, he would be bold, indeed, if he believed the sworn evidence of a negro when confronted by the simple assertion or opposed even to the interest of a white man. I recently heard a circle of Mississippians conversing on this subject. Their conclusion was, that they would make no objection to the admission of negro testimony, because "no southern man would believe a nigger if he had the dammed impudence to testify contrary to the statement of a white man." I verily believe that in many places a colored man would refuse, from fear of death, to make a complaint against a white man before a State tribunal if there were no efficient military protection at hand.