Viewing page 277 of 309

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

is just as guilty of crime should the offence be for the stealing of one cent, as for one million, though the punishment is greater or less in proportion to the amount stolen.  It will be observed that in almost every case the conviction has been for the shortest period of time allowed by law.

For your information and that of the authorities who are charged with the well being of the free people, I will state, that under our laws no person, white or black, can be prosecuted in our courts for a criminal offence without having counsel to conduct their defence.  If they are too poor to employ counsel, or do not do so, it is the duty of the court to appoint counsel for them, unless such party should see proper to make their own defence.  And I mention it as a fact, honorable to the Judiciary of this State, that it is the general custom in all such cases to appoint the most able and experienced members of the bar.  I venture the assertion, with great confidence, that not a single convict was tried without having reliable and respectable counsel to defend the case, and in no instance, where a reasonable showing was made that witnesses material to the defence were absent, have they been hurried or forced into trial without them.

To show how tender the courts have been of the rights of this class of persons I will mention a fact which should be known in connection with the case of the freedman Richard Perkins - somewhat noted because of his escape from jail, protection by the Bureau from rearrest and trial by the State authorities, on account of alledged cruel treatments and neglect while in jail (which charge has been refuted)