432 



KENTUCKY. 



the House considered the resolution as useless, 

 by reason that the State representatives in 

 Congress would certainly vote against that 

 bill without it ; others contended that the pre- 

 amble should be severed from the resolution. 

 They were, in fact, separated, and put to the 

 vote, each by itself, on the 15th, with this re- 

 sult : on the resolution, yeas 68, nays 12 ; on 

 the preamble, yeas 71, nays 7. 



While the Legislature was thus expressing 

 its condemnation of the bill before Congress, 

 and taking measures for its defeat, the people 

 of Central Kentucky were expressing their 

 approbation of it, and taking steps toward 

 securing its passage. Among other things, 

 a large meeting was held at Lexington, on 

 the 13th of February, in which resolutions 

 were adopted, " approving the introduction of 

 the bill by Mr. Sherman in the United States 

 Senate to charter the Cincinnati Southern 

 Railroad, and urging the Kentucky Senators 

 and Representatives in Congress to carry out 

 the wishes of the people thus expressed." 

 These resolutions were transmitted to the 

 State Representative in Congress from that 

 district, as were also the memorials numer- 

 ously signed by his constituents in Fayette, 

 and others from other parts of his district. 

 He laid those documents before Congress, and 

 they were referred to the committee having 

 the bill in charge. But, though he was an 

 ardent favorer of the Southern Railway enter- 

 prise, and deeply regretted that the Kentucky 

 Legislature had failed to agree on some proper 

 measure chartering it, he assured his constitu- 

 ents that, notwithstanding the petitions, reso- 

 lutions, and memorials, which he had received 

 and presented to Congress, he felt constrained 

 to vote against the measure." Of this he gave 

 his reasons at length, in a written answer to 

 them, all based on the principle and necessity 

 of opposing the Federal Government's inter- 

 ference in the domestic affairs of the State ; 

 adding that he was ready, if desired, " to resign 

 his position, and allow the people to elect a 

 representative who will obey them in regard 

 to this character of legislation." 



A measure was brought before the General 

 Assembly at this session, and in favor of which 

 the people generally appeared to feel deeply 

 interested, to allow negroes to testify in the 

 courts. A State law, enacted at the time when 

 the relation existing between them, and the 

 whites was that of slaves and masters, recog- 

 nizes negroes as competent witnesses in cases 

 where persons of their own color are concerned, 

 but not in cases where a white person is a party. 

 Although that relation between the two races 

 exists no longer, the negroes being now free, 

 and legally recognized as citizens, yet the law 

 has been retained on the statute-book. 



Besides its intrinsic justice and its beneficial 

 effect in checking lawlessness, the admission 

 of negro testimony against the whites was 

 considered as a means to harmonize the now 

 discordant action of the State and Federal 



courts by inducing the latter not to assume 

 jurisdiction in cases belonging to the former. 

 As matters stand at present, the Federal courts 

 take exclusive cognizance of all suits, both 

 civil and criminal, in which a negro is con- 

 cerned, the white party being compelled to 

 follow the negro and appear before the U. S. 

 court, whether near or far, not rarely at a 

 great expense and loss of time, besides other 

 inconveniences. It is urged that the fault 

 rests wholly with the State, and that the Fed- 

 eral Government takes the negroes under its 

 protection, because they have none to expect 

 at the hands of the State in which they live, 

 since she denies them the exercise even of the 

 right of testimony which necessarily belongs 

 to every man by nature, and to every citizen 

 by law. That this is the reason why the Fed- 

 eral courts assume jurisdiction in cases where 

 negroes are parties, which of themselves would 

 otherwise belong to the State courts, is af- 

 firmed in express terms by the United States 

 District Attorney in Kentucky, as appears 

 from the following correspondence : 



LOUISVILLE, ^..February 13, 1871. 

 Colonel G. C. Wharton, If. S. District Attorney : 



DEAR SIB : Will you do me the favor to state upon 

 what grounds, according to the decisions of the Dis- 

 trict and Circuit Courts of the United States for the 

 District of Kentucky, those courts entertain jurisdic- 

 tion of criminal proceedings involving injuries to 

 negroes ? Very respectfully, 



J. F. BULLITT. 



LOUISVILLE, KY., February 13, 1871. 

 lion . Jostiua F. Bullitt, Louisville, Ky. : 



SIR : I have your letter of this date, in which you 

 ask me to state "upon what ground, according to the 

 decisions of the District and Circuit Courts of the 

 United States for the District of Kentucky, these 

 courts entertain jurisdiction of criminal proceedings 

 involving injuries to negroes ? " In reply, I have 

 the honor to state that the sole ground of jurisdiction, 

 as I have understood the rulings of the courts, is, 

 that the colored people are denied the right to give 

 evidence in the courts of the State against white 

 persons. 



I have several times heard the Hon. Bland Ballard, 

 District Judge for this district, say, in charges to 

 grand juries, that the Courts of the United States 

 would not have jurisdiction in cases such as you have 

 stated, when the Legislature of the State passed a 

 statute giving to the colored people the same right 

 to testify in the courts of the State as is now enjoyed 

 by white persons. 



I will further state that the court has held that, in 

 every indictment under the Civil Kights Bill, it is 

 best to make the following averment in order to give 

 the court jurisdiction of the case, to wit : " That 

 the said A. B. was then and there a citizen of the 

 United States, of the African race, having been born 

 in the said United States, and not subject to any for- 

 eign power ; and who was then and there, and is 

 now, denied the right to testify and to give evidence 

 against ^the said C. D., who is a white person, and 

 concerning the said crime in the courts and judicial 

 tribunal of the State of Kentucky, which said denial 

 was, and is, solely on account of the race and color 

 of the said A. B." Very respectfully, 



G. C. WHAETON. 



Judges of the State courts also, if they re- 

 fused compliance with the requisitions made 

 on them by the Federal courts, and asserted 

 their right to retain cases in which negroes 





