Viewing page 102 of 328

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

0101

detention. For the following reasons.

1st Admitting that the Mayor had jurisdiction in the proceedings against Wicks’ the property of Pitt could not be taken to satisfy a fine imposed on Wicks, and there was no action or proceedings against the property of Pitt. nor did the Ordinances of Portsmouth authorize any

2nd I did not think under Circular. No. 5. Freedmens Bureau the Mayor of Portsmouth had jurisdiction of the action or proceedings against Wicks for breach of Ordinance. If the mayor was correct in his construction of that Order then the Civil Courts would have jurisdiction in all cases between Negroes and in all criminal actions against Negroes. (because in those cases the testimony of Negroes is received under the laws of Virginia.) which is contrary to the 7th paragraph 

3rd If the Mayor had jurisdiction in the proceedings against Wicks there was hardly a breach of the Ordinance of Portsmouth by a citizen driving a horse and wagon through the City: without taking on or discharging loading within the City limits.

In regard to the other matters in the enclosed paper mentioned I know nothing except from report. While at Norfolk I learned that the Mayor of Portsmouth assumed the right to try Negroes for breach of City Ordinances and other offenses committed within the City limits and that he was stopped from doing so by Bvt Brig Genl Mann.

Moses Stevens
Capt 6 NY H Arty late 13
Late Asst Judge Freedmans Bureau

Transcription Notes:
ADDED REF # AT TOP -- PER SI INSTRUCTIONS