OCR Text |
Show . ' ----- ---· 58 NO'rEF! ON presence of the convict who has served out his time in tho penitentiary, of which class of persons, I take it, there arc some in New England. Nay more; he 'may do it in the presence of his own wife; she can testify neither for him nor against him. I remember being present at a. lecture delivered before the Lyceum in Billerica., Massachusetts, some fifteen years ago, by John C. Park, Esq., of Boston, in which, speaking on this subject, he brought forward a supposed case, by way of illustration. A man had been murdered, and two brothers, A. and J3.. were arrested on the charge and brought to trial. i'hc evidence, which was circumstantial, was very strong against them, but they undertook to prove an alibi. A. had been married but the week before, and n. was to be married the week after, to a sister of A's wife. B's betrothed was brought into court, and testified that on the evening in question B. was with her at her house, and be was accordingly acquitted. A's wife was ready to testify similarly in behalf of her husband, but her testimony could not be received, and as there was no other r ebutting evidence, he was convicted and.executed. Hero was a hard case, resulting from tho bad working, in a particular instance, of a genern.l rule, which the e:;.::pericnce of ages and the collective wisdom of all Christendom have llronounccd good. Yet I have not heard that any effort hos been made to banish it from New England jurisprudence. I have said that tho wife can testify neither for her hus· band, nor against him. It is the same with tho colorea ma:n; be can no more testify for the white man than against him. One white roan may murder another in the presence of any number of colored men, provided there be no white man present, without the possibility, so far as the testimony of eye-witnesses is concerned, of being brought to justice. The rule, therefore, operating not unfroquently to the pre· UNCLE TOM'S CAlliN. 5D jullice of the whites, we cannot for a moment suppose that it woul1l have been adopted but on the most undoubting conriction of its necessit.y. But suppose the rule were repealed and tho testimony of the colored man admitted agttinst the white; wha.t weight would it have, tltink you, with the jury? 'Vha.t weight has the testimony of seamen with a Northern jury? Read the remarks on this subject in Appendix, II., and compare the sailor with the colored man, and the shipmaster in the-mer· chant service with the slave-holder, and then say whether the repeal of the rule would be of any service to the negro? I trow not. "I beseech you, pity the mother who has all your afl'cctions, and not one lcg:Ll right to protect, guide, or educate the child of her bosom!" (lD.) Yes, pity her, but remember that in pitying her, you are pitying l\Irs. Stowe, for slte "has all your affections, and not one !eyed right to protect, guide, or educate the child of her bosom. Her husbnnd.ha8 the power, by law, and if he woro the mnn to do it,-I beg his pardon for the supposition, for I kn_ow him, and there is not a kindcr·hearted man living. But 1f he were the man to do it, he might take from her the cltilJ of her bosom anll send it n,wny where she would never sec it ngain, at least while he was living; he has the legal right to do it, antl it is the legal right that we arc considering. As to the moral right, no one claims it on either side tlw.t 1 am aware of, except in those cases where the mothe:· is manifestly incompetent, from insanity, or other equally incnpacitnting cause, to ha.vo the charge of it. I have now, I believe, gone through the whole list of tho author's objections to tho slave-code; I have taken np her allegations, one by one, and have shown that some of then·. have no foundation in fact; that others are against enactments which prercnt more suffering than they cause; and |