Viewing page 157 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

not admissible; I do not know that they expressed fully their reasons, but they decided not to admit them; they did not express any reason, simply saying they would not receive the evidence; Commonwealth vs. Hammond; the evidence was offered in favor of the Commonwealth; the court committed the prisoner for trial from the evidence adduced from them; the statute of Virginia prescribes what evidence may be received; the effect of the decision was to restrain the State, and not the prisoner; the Civil Rights bill was not read, or produced, but it was referred to in the argument; no copy of the law has been furnished me for the use of the court.
The next witness examined was John S. Tucker, Esq. - I was in the Corporation Court on February 25th; I was one of the prisoner's counsel in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Hammond, Chas. H. Porter represented the Commonwealth; Hammond was charged with larceny; a white witness was introduced and proved that Hammond came to her house in January or December, remained two days, and left early in the morning, without giving notice. After discovering his absence, she missed several garments; it was also proved by the same witness that she recognized one of the articles at the jail, but up to this time there is no proof that the articles were found in the possession of the prisoner.
The Commonwealth's Attorney offered three negro witnesses to prove that they had bought some of the articles of Hammond.
The counsel for defense objected, on the ground that the laws of Virginia did not authorize it. The Prosecutive's Attorney argued that the State law did authorize, but if there was any doubts on that point, the Civil Rights bill certainly authorized the admission of negro testimony; and advised the Court as a matter of experience to admit the evidence.
The council for the defense insisted that the Court was bound and sworn to execute the Constitution and constitutional laws of the United States, and the Constitution and constitutional laws of Virginia; and that the Court had nothing to do with expediency.
J. Parker Jordan next testified.
The substance of his testimony was a corroboration of the testimony given by H.M. Bowden, Esq.
Charles H. Porter, Commonwealth's Attorney, then gave a statement of facts, substantially the same as that given by Mr. Bowden, then testified as follows:
The council upon the other side objected to the examination of the colored witness, Polly Wilson, on the ground that the statute of Virginia did not authorize it. In reply, I claimed that the testimony should be admitted on two grounds: 1st. That the statute of Virginia, chapter 24, 1865 and 1866, admitted it; and 2d, that if there was any question of that, there could be none under the act of Congress, commonly known as the Civil Rights Bill. The commitment alleged that the larceny was of the goods and chattels of a person or persons unknown. The act authorizes evidence of colored persons, where injury to the rights of colored persons is involved, which might have been the fact in the case at bar. The Civil Rights Bill was not produced; neither was it asked for. The counsel for the prisoner stated that the Civil Rights Bill was unconstitutional; but declined to argue the point. In reply, I stated that I would not argue it, as time would not admit. I also stated that the time had come when it was not expedient or politic to resist the will of Congress.
The Recorder then announced that the Court rejected the testimony. A.L. Hill was the only member of the Court in favor of its admission.
The testimony and examination before the Commissioner then closed of the day.
The Commissioner discharged A.L. Hill, Esq., but recognized the remaining members of the Bench in the sum of $500 each to appear before him at 10 o'clock on Friday morning.
At the appointed hour on Friday morning, the members of the Bench appeared before the Commissioners. 
After hearing, the Commissioner bound over the Members of the Court of Magistrates in the sum of $1500 each, to appear before the next session of the United States District Court, to answer the charge prefered against them.