Educational laws of Virginia

by Margaret Crittenden Douglass

I here closed my remarks, after saying that if any counsellor present was disposed to speak in my behalf, he should receive my grateful thanks; but, no one responding, I passed into the jury-room, to await the result. I was informed that the Prosecuting Attorney made but a few remarks, not urging a conviction very strongly, but, of course, as in duty bound, correctly stating the law, in the case, to the jury. A number of gentlemen present came to me and tendered their congratulations on my address to the jury. I had spoken in a loud and distinct voice, duly emphasizing my words that they might have their full effect. I had spoken for nearly three-quarters of an hour, and felt somewhat exhausted, but by no means unnerved.

It was not long before I was informed that the jury were not likely to agree immediately upon a verdict, and I therefore returned home. They had some difficulty in coming to a unanimous verdict, and it was not until the morning of the third day that they rendered one of Guilty, but fixing the fine at one dollar, instead of one hundred. This verdict was to have been expected. There was no denial that the law, as it stood, had been disobeyed by me, and a verdict of guilty on the charge, as preferred, was therefore inevitable. The jury had it in their power to reduce the fine to a mere nominal sum, which they did, also fully believing that the judge would exercise the same discretion, and entirely remit the imprisonment attached to the offence. This was also the universal belief as well as general desire on the part of the community. I was not sent for on the rendition of the verdict; and, the court, having to adjourn, my sentence in form was deferred until the 10th day of January, 1854.

In order that the fidelity of my narrative may be attested by the evidence of the Virginians themselves, I will here insert an article that appeared in the Petersburg Daily Express, dated November 30th, 1853, and which was made up chiefly from the Norfolk Daily News. It was headed “Her Own Lawyer,” and I give it verbatim:—

“Quite a novel and highly interesting case has recently been tried before Judge Baker at Norfolk City. A Mrs. Margaret Douglass, formerly of Charleston, S. C., was arraigned one day last week, on a charge of teaching negro children to read and write, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

“By some means or other, as we learn from the ‘Daily News,’ a report had been previously circulated that the lady had determined not to employ the services of counsel, but to rely solely upon her own legal abilities in conducting her defence. This, as a matter of course, filled the court-room with persons anxious to witness the novel spectacle, and when she entered the court-room and took her seat among the lawyers, a most profound sensation was created.

“The jury had no sooner been empanneled, than the lady, without waiting for the examination of witnesses, or the opening remarks of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, proceeded in a clear and melodious voice, to the consideration of the charges set forth in the indictment.

“The surprise of the whole legal fraternity was so great, at this sudden revolution in the time honored practice of the Courts, that she had progressed considerably into the merits of the case, before his Honor recovered himself sufficiently to inform her, that it would be more regular to suspend her remarks until after the examination of witnesses was concluded. The lady readily assented to the proposition of his Honor, and the witnesses for the Commonwealth were called to the stand. By their testimony, it appeared that, some months ago, information reached his Honor, the Mayor, Simon S. Stubbs, Esq., of a school for the education of blacks, being in successful operation in the city of Norfolk, under the superintendence of Mrs. Douglass. A warrant was immediately issued, with directions to the officers to bring all parties concerned before him, in order that the matter might be investigated. Upon repairing to the residence of Mrs. Douglass, the officers found some eighteen or twenty youthful descendents of Ham engaged in literary pursuits, all of whom, with their teachers, Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, were taken into custody, and carried to the Mayor’s office. After a full investigation of the matter, his Honor decided to dismiss the complaint in order that a Grand Jury might have an opportunity of giving it consideration. At the meeting of the Grand Jury a true bill was found against Mrs. Douglass and her daughter, but the latter having previously gone to New York, process could not be served upon her. On the part of the defence, the lady examined several prominent and respectable gentlemen, members of the Church, for the purpose of showing that the practice of teaching blacks had been sanctified by the customs of the members of the different churches in the city in having Sunday-schools exclusively for that purpose. It did not appear from the evidence of any of the gentlemen called upon by Mrs. Douglass, that they had actually seen negroes taught from books in any of the Sunday-schools of the City, but the fact, as stated by them, that nearly all of the negroes attending the Sunday-schools could read, gave rise to a violent suspicion that many of the ladies and gentlemen of our city, moving in the higher circles of society, had been guilty of as flagrant a violation of the law, as could be imputed to Mrs. Douglass and her daughter.

“At the conclusion of the evidence, the attorney for the Commonwealth kindly gave way for Mrs. Douglass to continue her appeal to the Jury, which was done on the part of that lady, in a manner that would have reflected credit on Miss Lucy Stone, or any other member of the ‘strong minded’ sisterhood. She disdained to deny the charge preferred against her, or to shirk the responsibility in any way whatever, but gloried in the philanthropic duties in which she had been engaged. She denied, however, any knowledge of the existing laws upon the subject, and confidently expected that the jury would not pronounce her guilty, for having committed no other offence than that of being betrayed into error—if such it was—by what she had deemed distinguished precedents. Having concluded her address she retired from the court, and the case was briefly concluded by the Attorney for the Commonwealth.

“The jury, being unable to agree upon a verdict the first day of the trial, were adjourned over until next morning, when they found the defendant guilty, and fined her one dollar.

“The Beacon says, the Judge in passing sentence, according to the statute, will condemn her to imprisonment for not less than six months.”