Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-04
r,ouasiana Returning Board.

Notbiug new was Developed il .uo trial OF
Anderson, in New Ofloaos. last Saturday.
A dispatch from New Oiaaui says that Gov
J. Madison Wells. IN accorcaucc with 90 II
rapremept, surrendered to Sheriff HcustoH' at
Rigolets station, on the New Orleau0 aid Mo-
bile Railroad, where he has been soiourniog
since his departure from New Orleans about
week ago. The Governor will return to New
Orleans to day and give bail Tor his appearance
when wanted.
A man registered ct the Riggs House, in
WASHINGTON, yesterday. it ls supposed as q
Joke, and afterwards disappeared.
Judge Bradley has decided adversely upon
the application of the Louisiana returning
board requesting that their trial, which is now
pending, be transferred from the State to the
United States Circuit Court, claiming as rca-
son for the change that they cannot secure their
equal civil rights under the State Circuit Court.
Ia his opinion Judge Bradley expialus at some
length the manner 10 which appeals may be
taken from tho Stale Court 10 tho UDltcd
States Circuit Court under revised statutes.
He saws, after reciti0g various ways in which
| this appeal may be asked should have 30
hesitation, therefore, to allow the writ Of Ger
tionari, if | we're satisfied with the insufie;eRcy
Of application as regards the law complained Of,
| passed March Is, 1877, prescribing The solec.
lion aud drawing of jurors | have carefully
examined its provisions and all unable TO Fec
anything in it open 10 any constitutional o5jcc-
ton. 1t provides for appointment by the
Judges of principal courts in New Orleans CT
two commissioners whose duty it is made 10
select mpartaly from the citizens of the parish
qualified to vote, the names OF not less than
| 900 good men, competent to serve on iuries.
| These pames are to be placed in box, aud trom
thence is to be drawn the general panel Tor
each term. This is the principal feature OF
| the law. Substantially the same method is
| ia use in several other States. The commits
sioDers, it is true, may abuse their trust, but 30
system can be devised that will pot BE- liable to
abuse. The allegations with regard to the marip'
ulation of the law 10 such manner as to secure
a Jury nimical to petitioners and with regard
to the existence or general prejudice against
| them in the minds OF the court, the Jurors, tho
officials and the people are not within the pur
view of the statute authorizing q removal. Fine
18th amendment to the constitution, which
guaranteed equal benefit OF laws on which the
present application is based, only prohibits State
legislation vioaive of said rights, and it is not
directed against individual lnlringCmcats there.
Of The civil rights bill Of 1866 Was broader
in its scope, undertaking to vindic2ta these
rights against individual aggression, but still
only when it came under the color Of some law,
statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, and
where that provision in this law which is trans
ferrcd to section 6, page Al, If the revised STA
tutes, gave the right to remove to the United
States courts cause commenced 10 STATE
court against person who is denied or cannot
enforce any Of the rights secured by the ac5 il
had reference to, denial Of those rights or i'm
pediments to their enforcement arising from
some State law, statute, regulation or custom,
1t is only when some such hostile State lcgisla
ton can be shown to exist, Interfering With the
party's right Of defense, that he can have his
case removed to the federal courts. This be
ing my view Of the act it follows that canuo
grant the application.
The Judge says IF am wrong, the rcti
TONERS having claimed the right ct removal,
and it being denied by the State Court, may
carry the case, after 6oal judgment Of TIKI
highest court of the State, to tic Supreme
Court of the United States, aud obtain it:
Judgment on the question"