The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-04
FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.

The RETURNING BOARD TRIALs-HOw JUDGE
BRADLEY's 1EcIsIoN is REcEIvED-PERTI-
NEWT QUESTIONS Bv THE QUrDNUNcs
The refusal by Mr. Justice Bradley of the petition OF
the four members OF the Returning Board to have
their transferred from the State Cour. to the
United States Court became known here to-day and
created great excitement In political circles.
There is general belief that the Returning
Board. and especially Wells, could uphold a
tale and will do If they pushed
10 the wall which would DO unpleasant 10 others THAI
themselves, and there IS an uncommon quantity of
idle and more or less malicious, gossip aaoat here
about what Wells could toll II no would. IL must be
fsaid that tho administration itself to b.amo
for this Tho gosslper, if he finds himself in
the presence OF ncredulous listeners, always puts
iiorth as a ciincher this remark -
Is III Wells and Anderson have nothing to conceal,
why has the President devoted he IS TO the idos
making tho civil service respectable kept man like
Wells in his place Surveyor OF the Port and made
Anderson Deputy Collector! Whv, when Wells runs
away from Justice and abandons his duties, does the
President still Keep him in that placer" And 1t must
be confessed that these easily
,swcred. .Ais sU tsist - t
1t is understood that Mr. Justice Bradley rejected
the petition Of the Returning Board only after
suaton with his brother judges and that they con-
denied. Residents OF New Orleans who have just
come here say positively that the jury which IS try
ing Anderson Is composed of thoroughly reputable
and well known citizens, and they add that derson
will probably be acquitted ta
The President Is reported this evening 10 have said
10 Il republican who called on him urge him in
terfcrc some way, because OF possible unpleasant
disclosures, that he would not interfere even If he
could aud that II any ono has done wrong no ought
10 be punished and should not BIO shielded.
I'd TEXT OF JUDGE BRA DLnY's DECISION i
The following Is the text of the decision of Judge
Bradley on the petition OF the Returning Board,
which petition was based on section GAL of the Re.
viscd statutes
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UHIrED STATES, DISTRICT OF
LouisASA-ln the petition OF j. Madison Wells,
Thomas e. Anderson, Louis Kenner Gordon
Cdsanave Tor writ oil certorari the Superior
Criminal Court OF the parish OF Orleans, &c-lhs pc
iiton states that the Attorney General Of Louisiana
assy and elonOasi u uHerSes and .I' PUBLISH xsi
coun'crieed public record-to wit, the returns
from .he parish Of Vernon Of election held Tor
7,n Q; November, 1876, knowing the be false.
altered and coun erietod; that tho petitioners were
arrested ana gave bail anu that their trial is liked for
1t -iurtner states that on tho 2sd day Of
January 1878, pursuant to the laws OF
The United states and particularly section
Gal OF Revised Statutes they Glod a petition in
the said Superior Criminal Court for the removal OF
the SAID Information and proceedings the next Cir.
cult Court OF tue United States Of this circuit and
districi for trial, that the facts which APP
piicatlon made fully stated and set out in
SAID pctioh daly verified Nv oath, in accordance with
sad section GAL
The petitioners claim that by the presentation of
taiu petition 10 tie Criminal Court the causc stood
removed and thai the SAID Court mad authority 10
proccea iurtho in the But thoy that
Court and lis officers and The Attorney General disre
gaTGcd said petition and proceeding with the
cause IN contempt OF the authority OF tho United
CRIMINAL Court is appended to the present application.
GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
The'princlpnl iacts stated eaid petition ms O
ground Tor removing tho arc that by reason of
the prejudice existing against the petitions In tho
court N and in the public mind IN tho parish
oi Oreans ond Throughout the State, on account or
their having becn the returning officers
OF The election held in November, 1876,
anu republicans IN politics ana aching IN
the and compilation OF the returns
al said election out OF which the present prosecu
ton originates IN consequence of winch tho most
viidic,,vc prejudice exists In the law making and law
administering authorizes OF the State against Them
they bcIeve that they WIN be denied tleIr rights ~
ctIzens IN the said before any jury that
may to cmpnnciled therein under the exist
ing jury law Of tho state and that
q they VIII not BIO ennblcd TO enforce their
rights IN said court in quencc the Inadequate
remediesto that end provided. hey further alego
that the jury law was passed March 10, 1877, aud
that, IN so lar as II provides appoi lnent Of
jury commissioners and the method oil selecting the
Jury, II was INTENDED for operates 10 iuvor OF
whitc c'tlzehs ana against those OF African
descent and that under II jury has been drawn
cflcCJ
md Intention OF the law beng exclude
persons OF African descent and other unprcjudicod
persons from the jury ana to substitute III their place
prejuiiced white ten, and thereby deprive two of
the petl ouers kcnncr and (wbo are coored
mem, OF atrial ny their peers and brng them to
teal by white aud prjudced jury ~ the exclusion
mcp OF thcir own color; and All the petitioners aver
that through and by The machinery oi SAID jury law
artiuiy coDtrlved the purpose, The State olicers
aud The and Its officers and have SO nanip-
ulated said law (as II is capable OIL rs 10 deprive
petitioners OF an impartial jury, and have organized
"A N Int III nann ysnya
fair ana impartial trial thereby. or by that Court and
would be deprived OF the Iuii anu equal benefits of
The laws ana proceedings for tho scsuiy Of their
persons IL Is cusc They contcpd that the Jury law
Is Ia violation Of the constitution OF the United states
and Of the equal civil rights Of the petitioners
QUESTIONS BEFoRE THg COURT
Tho application now made TO tho Circuit Court and
presented TO me raises these questons--
FTst-Was the mere presentation OF tho petition
for removal sufficient TO arrest the jurisdiction OF tho
state eou,s or had that court tho right examine
Second-Ii the Court had the right to examine into
the suicIency OF the application. has tho Circuit
Court tho right TO rcexamne the same and II found
sufficient, 10 ISSUE writ oil certorarI or other wit
tor the removal Of the proceedings from tho State
c0urtY
Taiyd-If tho Circuit Court has the right: did tho
petition In thiscaso present sufficient grounds for ro
moving the CASEY
answered IN the Affirmative Tho state Court surely
Is not bound TO shut Its Dyes and yield to every ap-
pIication that comes TO u.
TIE RIGHT REMOVAL.
Though removal when auihorIzod) Is matter of
sn. S nas DG Ssc right aS1 vb ss o0Ss
application to remove comes within tho mean.
ng OF tho law. have doubt, however, |
that Circuit Court, by virtue OF Its superior right
try the or subject 10 rcmova is entitled to
assert It's jurGdcton by proper process directed to
The state Court This view Is corroboratod by cortaIn
Rxpresi provisions OF the statute. Section ZIG |
Of the revised statutes declares that tho |
United States Courts may issue all writs |
which may BIO necessary Tor the OF their re-
spccve Jurisdictions ann agreeable to the usages
principles OF law; and In the very case under
tim Idc,lh v Of
Statutes the defendant be aciual custody on
process issued by the State Court and have performed
all tho acts necessary TO a removal OF ms cause,
The clerk OF the Circuit Court Is authorized TO |
issue habeds corpus cdtsd, which the Marshal Of
The United states Is authorized TO servo, by tak,og
Tho body OF tho defendant INTO his CUSTODY, TO DO
dealt with In tho Circuit Court according 10 law and
tho orders OF said Court or at invtaon OF any judge
thereof This Is the proper writ for removing botn
the and tho person such a or course
writ should not be issued by tho clerk without being
allowed by aJudgc OF the court, which Is tho regular