Viewing page 32 of 348

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Judicial functions under the State, have refused the testimony of Freedmen, or made a distinction to their prejudice, under the law, the proper course was to have brought the matter to my notice, and I should have applied the remedy. You are in error in supposing that it is discretionary with the officers of the law to disregard the law. You will probably answer, that in some cases they have done it, and you may recite the case of the Justice of the Peace in St. Martinsville, who you allege, refused the testimony of Freedmen - but as already observed, had that case been brought officially to my notice, it could have been remedied without the necessity of your establishing a special tribunal of the Bureau to try the Freedmen of that Parish.

Under the laws of the State, no distinction is made, in the the Courts of Justice, between the free negro, and the white man. He is entitled to the same justice and until the contrary was shown, it was more fair for you to assume that the law would be enforced, than to anticipate the opposite, which you do in your circular, by calling on all civil officers of the State having judicial functions, to report to you their opinion in the matter. To yield to this demand, is to make the judiciary of the state responsible to you instead of the laws of the State and for which reason, I cannot advise a compliance with that part of your circular, though I believe the mistake