|
|
|
tained in Maryland was considered as one of the prin-
ciples on which slavery rested. It was thought that the
testimony of the slave would impair his proper subordina-
tion to his master, and also that the master might, by his
control over the minds of his slaves, affect their testi-
mony so as to operate injuriously on the interests of
others. It was a part, and as he believed, justly a part of
the system of slavery. Slavery being gone, it is no part
of policy or expediency to retain this principle in our sys-
tem of government. The negro now comes back as any
other man, and on the same footing in this respect. The
legislation of Maryland now declares that interested par-
ties are no longer excluded. If a party has all the inter-
est on earth at stake, he is still at liberty to testify. The
whole tendency of modern legislation seems to be to wipe
out all obstructions to the admission of testimony, leav-
ing it to the jury to judge of the credibility of witnesses.
The power to discriminate between the false and the true
is entirely within the province of the judge and the jury.
No harm can be done either to the white or the colored
man, provided the tribunal which is to judge be composed
of white men. He (Mr. C. ) did not advocate the admis-
sion of negro testimony for the sake of expediency, or
with a view to conciliation, but for the simple reason that
he conceived it to be right.
Mr. Nelson took issue with Mr. Carter, denying that the
question at issue was whether the negro should testify in
our courts. The negro was never considered as part and
parcel of the people of this country. The speaker referred
to the opinion of Judge Taney, in the Dred Scott de-
cision, that the "terms of the constitution of the United
States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the peo-
ple, were not intended to include the negro. " If this be
so, was he entitled, as of right, to the rights appertain-
ing exclusively in this country to the white race? Al-
ready the Legislature has the power to give the negro
this privilege; or, if this is not sufficient, declare this
power in some other part of the fundamental law, but not
in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Alvey asked that gentlemen should not wander
from the subject. The naked proposition was, whether
negroes shall testify. He did not think the article under
157
|
|
|
|
 |
