|
|
|
vinced that it ought to be referred to the General As-
sembly, who will be much better prepared to reflect the
wishes of their constituents than this Convention.
Mr. B. argued that while a large discretion was reposed
in their representatives by a generous people, yet the as-
certained will of the people ought not to be disregarded;
and in view of the superior advantage of the Legislature
in knowing the will of the people, this matter should go
to them. Give them full power over the question, and
they will reflect the will of the masses. The privilege of
the State to avail itself of the testimony of the white has
stood upon no higher authority than statutory enact-
ments since the first days of the republic; but the rule is
now proposed to be changed, and negro testimony is to
have its imprimis in constitutional being, subject, how-
ever, to legislative repeal or change. Thus, the same
breath that gives it existence raises a doubt of its pro-
priety, and recommits it to the Legislature to determine
whether it shall remain.
The question of negro testimony was an experiment,
and he submitted that the constitution was not the place
in which to try experiments. Why this impatience—this
new-born zeal? We had always had free negroes in the
State, and if this matter of testifying in the courts stood
upon the high ground of imprescriptible right, why has
it been so long held in abeyance ? for a right does not de-
pend on numbers or conditions. He did not regard the
right of testifying in courts an individual right. No one
could put the claim upon imprescriptible right. The
right is with the State, and to avail itself of the testi-
mony of the citizen is the prerogative of the State in up-
holding the majesty and power of the law and to vindi-
cate its just purpose in the punishment of crime. To the
citizen it was a civil privilege—and the withholding of it
no wrong, except so far as it might raise invidious dis-
tinctions between individuals, otherwise equals. Mr.
Barnes concluded by picturing what he believed the fu-
ture of the negro.
The amendment was rejected by yeas 16, nays 49.
The order was then adopted by yeas 48, nays 19.
170
|
|
|
|
 |
