Martinsburg weekly independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1873-1875, 1874-05-16

rauikner ana MT. T.. j Eaulkner,
Jr., represented the State, and
Messrs. Blackburnand Lamon the
prisoner.
In our report of yesterday we
stated that removal of the case to
the United States Court was asked
for by his counsel, in accordance
with the XIII Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.
1t should have read in accordance
with what is known as the Civil
Rights bill, which was passed I'M
der that amendment. Ills honor
Judge Hoge decided the question,
delivering very closely-con-
nected and well-digested opinion.
The substance oft was as follows !:
In the view take Of the ques-
tons arising upon this petition, 1t
is not necessary to consider all the
arguments presented In the discus
sion by counsel. Without discus
sing tho constitutionality of the
Civil Rights Act, or the jurisdic-
ton Of the Federal Courts in cases
Arising under it, and the right of
removal when the rights intended
to be protected by its provisions
are affected, the simple inquiry re-
mains: Does this petition present
q case which is within the scope
and intention of that act? The
purpose Of that act was to afford
protection topersons of the colored
race by giving to the II. S. Courts
jurisdiction OF cases, the decision OF
which might injuriously affect
them, either In their personal or
property rights, whenever they are
denied in the State courts any Of
the rights assured to them in the
1st section of the act.
After reading this section he
said:
Now does the CASE presented
by this petition come within the
provisions of the act? lis any
right, assured by 1t, denied to the
prisoner If by the laws OF West
Virginia, discrimination Is made
against certain citizens, because not
liable to serve on juries, such dis
elimination is not against the petit
TONER. IE asin the case inaS Wal
lace, it is held that under the Civ
il Rights Act, witnesses denied the
right to give evidence, were not
affected by criminal prosecution
in which they were precluded from
tcstifying, how can it be made to
apply to case simply involving
the organization Of juries? The
petitioner will tried here precise
ly as any other citizen, of any age,
sex or color. He has the same tri-
bunal before which he must APP
pear he. has the same right to
challenge, and the benefit of the
same constitutional provisions for
obtaining witnesses through the
process Of the Eourts. No right
granted to a white man is denied
to him There is no privilege or
indulgence given to other citizens
which he does not share. Indeed,
according to every tradition and
experience Of this court, the more
friendiess and helpless his condi-
ton, the more carefully assured to
him will be every right belonging
to one In his unfortunate posi-
ton.
But to look at the question from
another point Of view, that seems
to be an erroneous argument which
assumes jury service to be right
or afriUilege. Its a duty required
by the State from some OF its citi-
zens. 1t is analogous to military
service (; and, indeed, most of the
exemptions by which certain
classes are relieved from the onus
Of this duty, are identical with
those which excuse from military
service. j think there is certainly
force in the suggestion, that the
principles involved in this petition
apply equally to other classes and
that minors or women who are ex-
cluded from jury service, might
present similar petitions, in like
circumstances, with as much prop
riety as one of the class to which
the petitioner belongs.
1t may be added that If Congress
has the power to interfere with The
organization of juries in the States,
such power has not been exercised
"a conclusion which Is shown by
the fact that some such provision
is understood to be feature Of
the additional Civil Rights Bill,
now under consideration.
But, to repeat the ground which
seems decisive of the question,
the internal. domestic provision
which limits the selection of jurors
to certain persons within nreScrih-