NEGRO EXCLUSION BILL.
Mr. LANDERS called up the bill S. 140, to enforce the 13th article of the Constitution.
Mr. WOLFE moved to re-commit to a special committee of three, with instructions to strike out all that enables the negro to testify in his own behalf.
Mr. MARCH moved to amend by giving the right of appeal from the Clerk to the Common Pleas or Circuit Courts.
Mr. LANDERS made an ineffectual motion--yeas 17, nays 29--to lay on the table.
Mr. DUNNING (Mr. Williams in the Chair). I desire to ask whether, by the provisions of that bill, the negro is rendered a competent witness in favor of himself?
Mr. WOLFE. Not directly, but indirectly.
page: 202[View Page 202]Mr. DUNNING. When he is sworn by the Clerk of the Court to answer whether he has properly registered himself; that is the only point in which I desire to see him made a witness. Notwithstanding I have as little love for the negro as any other gentleman on this floor, I desire to do justice to all.
Mr. WOLFE. It does not only permit him to testify as to whether he has registered, but whether he has been a resident of the State.
Mr. DUNNING. Well, sir, if when the negro is called upon to testify, the Clerk of this Court has not got sense enough to ascertain whether that negro is telling the truth or no, I do not know but what the negro ought to have the right to a certificate. I do not desire to see the negro made a witness upon the trial of an indictment against him, nor upon the trial of any criminal prosecution; but as to the fact whether he was a resident of the State at the time of the adoption of the Constitution I am willing he should testify; and I am willing, sir, that it should be conclusive as against the man who employs him. This I say while I have not a drop of Abolition blood in me, nor a sentiment that beats in unison with the doctrine of making the negro my equal, or the equal of any white man on the face of God's green earth. What were the purposes of the Almighty in making some men black is not for me to know; but I do not want to treat him as if he were a brute, or as if he had no feeling. I do not wish to treat him as if he had no rights other than the rights that might be claimed by a horse. But, as has been said, we may go too far in this matter, sir. I shall not be governed in my vote by any question of expediency as to whether it is policy to vote to keep him out. I go for carrying out the provisions for the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which as received the sanction of over 90,000 free voters in this State. If it operates oppressively upon the black man it is the fault of those who framed the Constitution, an there has never been offered any provisions in the General Assembly for the purpose of changing this feature of that Constitution. No, sir, this anxiety has been manifested only since this war has been inaugurated. I say there are good reasons to make stringent laws now. I want to give the negro what will be a protection against the cruel features of the bill; and when I have placed myself right upon the record, if the wisdom of the Senate shall deem that the measure should be stricken out, I shall nevertheless, vote for the bill. I never want to see the face of the negro unless I know that negro has a master or a mistress; and I am opposed to the emigration of negroes or contrabands in this State He was anxious to see a bill passed on the subject that would be sufficiently stringent to carry out the views of the framers of the Constitution, and he thought the bill without the amendment would effect that end.
Mr. RAY thought that there was a misapprehension in regard to the testimony of the negro. It only gave him the right to testify, leaving the credibility to the Clerk of the Court. Parties interested were not deprived of the right to offer testimony to contradict it.
The motion to re-commit was rejected--yeas 14, nays 32.
The amendment was also rejected--yeas 19, nays 28.
Mr. CLAYPOOL said that the law seemed to be modeled after the dog law, and in order to make it assimilate nearer that famous law, he would move to recommit with instructions to amend so as to provide "that it shall be lawful to kill any such negro or mulatto found in this State after the first day of July, A.D. 1853 who shall not be licensed under the provisions of this act."
The motion was rejected--yeas 10, nays 35, refusing to vote 2.
The bill then failed for want of a constitutional majority; yeas 24, nays 23.
