Page:Race distinctions in American Law (IA racedistinctions00stepiala).pdf/266

 that where a Negro, Indian, or person excluded on account of mixed blood was a party in the case, his opponent should be excluded. Nevada,[31] the same year, gave Negroes the right to testify, but not in favor of or against a white person, and also provided that the credibility of such Negro, black, or mulatto person should be left entirely with the jury. Washington,[32] in 1866, provided that no one should be incompetent as a witness "by reason of having Negro blood." But in 1869, the legislature[33] said that Indians or persons having over one-half Indian blood should not be competent to testify in an action or proceeding to which a white person was a party. West Virginia[34] passed a law in 1866 that no person should be incompetent as a witness on account of race or color.

During the first years after Emancipation, the States were very doubtful of the Negro's fitness as a witness. In saying, as many of them did, that he could be a witness only in cases in which a Negro was a party, they were following the "Black Laws" before the War, to which reference was made in the chapter on "The Black Laws of 1865-68." That they were doubtful of the testimony of the Negro is shown by the provision of the act that the Negro's credibility should be the subject of a special charge by the court and that his testimony should be given orally. It has been seen that some of the States soon repealed their laws discriminating against the Negro as a witness, and that others enacted statutes allowing him to testify upon the same terms and conditions as a white person. In some of the States, the records do not show that the right to testify in court has yet been given to the Negro. But it must be taken as settled that, even in those