The daily Mississippi clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1866, 1866-04-25

sg The New York Times anticipates diff
! Guilty in the working of the Civil Rights
| Bill, and illustrates it by a supposed case,
| thus:
Suppose that negro is charged with
| highway robbery in a State the laws of
| which have made that offence punishable, if
| committed by white man, with five years
| imprisonment, and with ten years impris-
| onment if committed by a negro. Here
would be clearly case, as we understand
| it. for the injustice of which this third sec
| ton Of the Civil Rights Bill was designed
to furnish a remedy Accordingly 1t pro-
| vides that the United States District and
| Circuit Courts shall have jurisdiction "of all
| causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons
| who are denied cannot enforce in the
| Courts of judicial tribunal of the State or
| locality where they may be, any of the
| rights secured to them by the first section
| of this act = one of those rights being that
| of being subject to like Punishment, pains
| and penalties and to none other" The fair
| effect of these provisions would be to give
| the Courts of the United States jurisdiction
of the case of highway robbery committed
| by the negro, which we supposed at the ont
| set. But it is one thing for Court to have
| jurisdiction of an offence, and another thing
| for it to have "A law to administer in relation
TO it. and in relation to highway robbery
| there is no law of the United States what
| ever mat IS a matter WntCn mas hilucltO
| been left entirely to the laws and Courts of
| the States.
To meet this defect apparently, this third
| section further provided that in all cases
! where the laws of the United States care
not adapted to the object, or are deficient
| in the provisions necessary to furnish suita-
Bile remedies, and punish offences against
| the law, the common law, as modified and
| changed by the Constitution and statutes of
/ the State wherein the Court having juris-
diction ofthe cause, civil or criminal, is held,
/ SO far as the same is not inconsistent with
/ the Constitution and laws of the United
/ States, shall be extended and govern the
| said Courts in the trial and disposition of
| such causes, and if of a criminal nature, in
| the in1ietion of punishment on the party
| found guilty" Suppose also that the Uni-
! ted States Court, having jurisdiction to try
| the ease, because of the discrimination
1 against the accused by the State statute
| proceeds TO try and convict him What
/ punishment shall be inflicted on him 2 At
| common law the punishment of highway
| robbery Is death. Ii would hardly eomport
| with the purpose of the Civil Rights Bill to
| impose that punishment. Thenegro would
| be apt TO think that he was better of in the
| State Courts and so the third section says
! the common Law as modified aud changed
/ by the constitution and laws of the State
| The Court then must take the common law
/ as modified by the State statute en- highway
/ robbery. So that il would seem that all
/ that the United States Courts could do,
| would be to carry ont the very statute
whose unjust discrimination was the coca
sion OF It's having the jurisdiction of the
1