The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-03

FROM OUR REGULAR CORRESPOND DENT.

WASHINGTON Feb. 2, 1873
TO REMOVE THE RETURNING BOARD TRIAL
TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Judge Bradley, Of the Supreme Bench and Presiding
Justice OF the Fifth United States Circuit which In
cudes the State OF Louisiana, has refused the
application OF the members Of the Returning
Board for transfer OF their case from
the State Court 10 the United States Cir
cult Court. In his opinion Judge Bradley explains
at some length the manner in which appeals NAV be
taken from the State Court to the United States Cir
cult Court, under the Revised Statutes He says
alter reciting the various ways in which this appeal
may be asked:-l should have hesitation, there
FORE to allow the writ OF certorari II were
satisfied with the suficiency Of the appca-
ton. As regards tho law complained Of, passed
March 49, 1877 prescribing the selocslng and drawing
jurors, have carefully examined !ts provisions and
am unable to anything in II ofen 10 any consttu
tionai objection. II provides for the appointment.
by the judges Of the principal courts in New Orleans
OF two Commissioners whose duty 1t Is made select
impartiay from the citizens OF the parish qualified
10 vote the of not less than one
thousand good and competent men TO serve
ON juries These names to DO placed In box ana
from thence Is to be drawn the panel for each
term This the principal feature Of the law. Sub
stantialy the same method Is IN uso in several
other States. The Commissioners, 1t Is true may
abuse their trust, bat system DO devised that
Will not DO liable to abuses.
The allegations with regard to tho manipulation Of
the law IN such manner rs TO secure jury inimical
10 the petitioners and with regard 10 the existence OF
general prejudice against them In the minds OF the
Court, the jurors, the officials and the people,
are not within the purvsw of tho statute
and
mont TO the constitution. which guarantees
the equal benefit of the laws on which
the present application is based. only prohU.s State
legislation volative OF said rights 1t Is not directed
against individual infrin gemens thereof Tho Civil
Rights bill OF 1866 broader 10 It's scope, under
taking TO vndcate those RI hts against Individual
aggression, but, still, only when committed under
color Of some law, statute. ordinance rcgua-
ton or custom. And where that pro-
vision in this law, which is transferred TO
section O. page Al, OF the Revised Statutes, gave tho
right 10 remove to the United States courts cause
commenced In a State court against person who IL
denied cannot enforce OF the rights secured by
the act It had rce rcnce to denial OF those rights
impediments their enforcement arising from some
State law, statute, regulation custom. II is only
when such hostile State legislation be shown
to exist interfering with the parys right Of defence,
that he can have his cause removed TO tho federal
court
This being my view of the act It follows that can
not grant the application. If am wrong, tho reti
TONER'S having claimed tho right Of removal and 1t
being denied by the State Court. may carry the case,
after final judgment of tho highest Court Of the State
to the Supreme Court OF the United States, and obtain
It's Judgment the question The application Is re-
fused. JOSEPH P. BRADLEY, Associate Justice.
The papers Of the application we're submitted 10
Judge Bradley In tho middle Of the week, and have
been under consideration by him until to-day when
he reached the decision as above II IS understood
that before concluding It he invited tho opinions Of
his brother Judges on tho Supreme Bench. and the
decision may therefore, be said 10 have the force, vr
tualy, Of q decision OF the United States Supreme
Court