Viewing page 32 of 263

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

comes up, how, with negro testimony forbidden by positive State enactment, can the State Official admit such testimony?  The federal laws and orders on the subject are [[generally]], and I think conscientiously regarded, as [[? ink blot]] the state tribunals; and to enforce [[?ink blot]] by Military power upon those tribunals certainly would not promote conciliation.

But the whole difficulty is met by turning over the whole subject [[strikeout]] matter [[/strikeout]], civil and criminal, to a Provost Court.  This would be a United States Court, and being a United States Court, would administer United States laws, those relating to the testimony of colored people as well as others.  Thus a most troublesome and disturbing subject would pass, I dare think, with almost universal acceptability, from State to federal jurisdiction.
   
But to render the plan effective, you will readily perceive, I doubt not, that it would be necessary to constitute these Provost Courts of men of the first order of Character and ability and of considerable legal acquirement so as to secure, [[strikeout]] and [[/strikeout]] uniform justice and perfect impartiality between white and black.  A thing only to be had at the hands of persons of this description and that will be indispensable to the success of any system that shall be adopted.
   
It strikes me, on the whole,  (and I speak from much observation) that in the radical change

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-01-31 12:21:33