Prop. 5.—No colored man can be evidence against a white man, &c.
This is an almost universal rule of slave law. The advocates of slavery seem to regard it as a necessary consequence of the system, which neither admits of concealment, nor needs it. "In one or two of our states this rule is founded upon usage; in others it is sanctioned by express legislation."
So long as this rule is acted upon, it is very plain, that all regulations made for the protection of the slave are perfectly useless;—however grievous his wrongs, they cannot be proved. The master is merely obliged to take the precaution not to starve, or mangle, or murder his negroes, in the presence of a white man. No matter if five hundred colored people be present, they cannot testify to the fact. Blackstone remarks, that "rights would be declared vain, and in vain directed to be observed, if there were no method of recovering and asserting those rights, when wrongfully withheld, or invaded."
Stephens says: "It seems to result from the brief and general accounts which we have of the law of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, though I find it nowhere expressly noticed, that slaves there are not, in all cases at least, incompetent witnesses. But even in the French Windward Islands, the evidence of negro slaves was admitted against all free persons, the master only excepted; and that in criminal as well as in civil cases, where the testimony of white people could not be found to establish the facts in dispute. The Code Noir merely allowed a slave's testimony to be heard by the judge, as a suggestion which might throw light on other evidence, without amounting of itself to any degree of legal proof. But the Sovereign Council of Martinique, humbly represented to his majesty that great inconveniences might result from the execution of this law, by the impunity of many crimes, which could not he proved otherwise than by the testimony of slaves; and they prayed that such evidence might be received in all cases in which there should not be sufficient proof by free witnesses. In consequence of this, the article in question was varied so far as to admit the testimony of slaves, when white witnesses were wanting, except against their masters."
