The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-06-01
Jurors anta ahc Givi.-akAg nIs Eiii.
from the independent.

bill proposes that Congress shall do IS lat j,
nearly every particular lieg outside ~ Liz
jurisdiction, aud what should bes.:..es,--' .-
states. ..ec}ion Of the
Take. for examr,~. .,,s Nv We now propose
bin, the onl,- v,.e, o. rn,in,ys. -
!" :. s' Sscf;on 1. That DO citizen, possessing
at ri her Qualifications which are or may he
nrcscr;hed nv law. shall he diSeual'tcd TOT
snrv;ce a, grand or petit juror IN uny court
=, m. I'uteI sr,tcs, CT Of any State, on ac.
,annt of race. color, or previous condition OF
Sorvi,r,,c: ard ans officer o: other person
charged with any duty in the selection or
snmmoniny OF Jurors who shall exclude or
hi, 10 SUMMON any citizen ter the cause
aforesaid shall be deemed guilty OF misue.
mesnor and be iinei not more THAI Fl .O0o..
There can be no question as 10 the coEs''-
tltional right Of Congress TO enact such Ia"
IN reference TO tue organization ana reSn,'''
ton OF United states courts. las IL also the
right to extend the law TO courts c!ca'caanu
organized under State lawsf We 'hipk nov
anv more than il has the ri ht 10 regulate
tbc organization OF State legislatures.
The eniy g.ouud upon whtca INC cla''''
of such RICH: can be based IS tue l!nou'ae
of the fourteenth amendment, Whlch says
,hat "po State sha! make or enforce any
law which shall ahrldge the privileges or
;mmunifies of citizeus of the United States
ror sha any STATE deprive any person Oh
life, liberty, or property without due pro-
cess Of law, nor deav to any person within
its Jurisdiction the equa! protection OF the
laws; and which also saystnat Congress
shall have poxer to enforce by appropriate
legislation toe provisions OF this article
Unless this language suStains the jury leSls-
ation in respect TO State courts proposed IN
this bin 1t is not sustained ut all by the
Constitution OF the Uaited States. There Is
no pretrnce OF any ller grouGd upon "hich
TO rest it.
Is it, then. true that the right to serve as
a Juror in State courts is one OF tnos,
:. privileges or iE!muni,ics OF cl'iz'ps oi
the United Stlte>% which the 'ourtceHtn
,m,ndu.cn; sass s,!i! 10: DC abridged oy
state Iecisla!ion! j. the Jiry rlgnt-rot
The rirh: o: trml by jnrr. but the r:ghtto be
= iurnr-nre Of tnc>a privileges? To our
understanding. il Is clear that mere cltiZeh.
ship. hel her taa. u' Il State or OF the unlte0
States, does not OF itsei! carry Win
il the right to b" a juror under either
Jurisdiction. any more than i carries
with it the right 10 be Governor
or CONGRESSMAN. n juror is Tor Inc
time being public Ofliter, appointed under
qualifications specified by law and in way
designated by la7'. to perform public ser
vice in the administration Of justice. The
law makcS him part OF It's ludlc'al ma.
chinery. His service is none toe less Official
because temporary. lie Is rs really al CHI.
Ger of the law toT the time DeIng as the Sherln
or the Judge on the bench. lie Is legally APP
pointed TO the service, and when he en'cfs
the illry-boX put under OATH. his service Is,
moreover, cOn.lu;>ory lii respect 10 MN.
Being duly appointed according 10 law, lie
must serve, Unless excused, or suffer a pen
atty.
Now we can easily understand the doc
trine Of jury duty Imposed by law; but we
cannot 50 readily understand the doctrine C!
!, illry right 10 the sense Of fundamental
right necessarily attjchcd to citizenship
There is no such right in this country, and
there never has been. All the States, from
time immG mortal have provided for the Sc
lection of jurors from the body of citizens,
Just as they have provided for the selection
of conStahleS and sheritf> from the same
body. They pave. 10 their discretion. deSig.
nated such qua itications Of age, Sex, pro-
perty, intelligence, and character as to ex-
Guide from the jury service lirgc classes
of citizens. and, indeed, limit it to small
class rs compared with the whole. They
have proceeded upon the theory that
the service is not at inherent right Of CHI
zenShip at all, but simply duty imposed On
those selected in conformity with law 10 per-
form it. In limiting this jury duty to CON-
small class, have they abridged
those great privileges or immunltes which
are the common attributes of all citizenship?
Is there anything in the usage or law of this
country TO sustain the idea that The jay SER
vice is one OF these privileges or immuni-
ties Nothing whatever; and hence the
fourteenth amendment has nothing to do
with the jury question, and especially does
not bestow upon Congress the power to in
tcrfere with the discretion of the States in
determining this question. 1t is u question
for each State to settle for Itself, according to
its own ideas of Justice and public policy.
The laws OF this State, for example, eX-
cludc females from the jury-boy, and also
all persons who are under tWenty-one and
above sixty years OF age. They also exclude
all persons vino nave not a certain property
qualification. and equally those who are not
" of fair character, OF approved integrity. Of
sound Judgment, and well informed In
some States persons not able to read and
write are disqualified from jury service. All
these persons, however, are citizens; ana
the fourteenth amendment guarantees TO
every one Of them all d" the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United States"
Has Congress, then, the right to say that no
citizen, having all other qualifications, shall
be disqualified for jury service in a State
court on account Of sex, or Of age, or for the
rflin n,lftf IF Nv Tt,.t
as much right us it has to enact the jury
feature of this bill, and no more. That is
to say, it has DO such right at all.
The point we make is not that colored
citizens as such should be excluded from the
jury.lst, or as such included. The States in
their jury laws should ignore the question of
States should do the same thing. This, how
ever, has nothing to do with the question
whether Congress has the constitutional
right to restrict the discretion OF the States
on this subject. The theory of this bill in
respect to jurors in State courts, as in re-
spect to most of the items contained in it,
involves such latitudinarian Interpretation
of the powers of Congress as would, if car.
ried out and applied to other matters to
which it is equally relevant, GUST the whole
jurisdiction OF the States and consolidate all
powers finally in the General Government.
The argument of those who opposed it in
the Senate was answered by votes, and not
by argument. The Republican party is
drifting in the direction Of an unconStitu-
tional centralism; and those will ultimately
prove its best friends who resist this tend
ency. The error, though different from the
exploded doctrine of secession, is no less an
error, no less false to the Constitution, and
no less danwerons to the best interests of the