The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-26

such circumstances the jurisdiction Of the State
lit by the necessary order, and per consequences
hthat the Circuit Court can M IN no case acquire
che removal No authority is cited for This po-
stippn except the % case s,s Of the railway company
Turning 10 section e41 of the Revised Statutes
Of the United States, We find that 1t is necessary
that the petition should show cause for reraoval
Of the law. "Such suit or prosecution may be re-
moved for trial into the the next circuit eours;
dent e t. the removal % Who @ Is to Judge Of the
suffice2cy of the allegations Of fact OF the pets-
ton reBsd on to obtain the removal, Certainly
s ng of sueh peon ii ahss
RToeeedines in the state cogrts shall cease. cease
whetheli this be saeh petition as is contem-
plated b Y the law? Constituting the language OF
s % et he BReg 81 son
4 the court must inquire whether such case has
been presented as divesss it OF further power i'm
Does The petition seyforth allegations # fact
sufficient to fsathorize the removai2 Is It shown
that petitone - are denied or cannot enforce in
providing for Inc equal ciyii rishts 81 Citizens
rot isdietion Of stae United &atesf
No State shall make q enforce any law which
cftigsns Of the Unitsd States nor stall any sta,e
deprive any person OF life, liberty sr property
gn fp9 R sas aen sa
Of its laws 9ectfen1, fourseenth arnendment.
constitution OF the United States.
The Congress shall have power to enforce. by
apprepriate Legislation, the, provisions of this
article" Section s. same article
"AiI persons within the jurisdiction OF the
United States have the same right. in every
State and Territory 10 make sad enforce con-
m asd es bens gye o al aa
erty as is enjoyed by white citizsss, and shall Be-
subject to like punishment. pains. penalties.
and nd no other;" Section 1877 Rev; stat. o s.
and sets forth no averraent Of wrongs done or
apprehended.
Jury and the public mind 70 an extent to result
in the denial of their rights in this court. under
snE Jury o aT is bsr snd rahs nsa s m
this court in, consequences, Of the inadequate
remnedtes % that end provided ...
the court deems the recent decisions Of Judge
Bradley in the state OF Texas vs. Gaines.
III is clear that in order 10 entitle to a re-
moval of the cause the case must show the de-
IT bs Of Egh By s h @ s Is
deprived Of such a right and that the right Of
Theh ne , m Is thus deprived Is n an ana & equal
white citizeps."
right Not by the laws themselves, but By the
pre5adiceo and nd enmty. OF the people. ls that that
does It describe 's and 9t define those who are with
in the meaning OF the act? 1t defines them as
persons who are denied or cannot enforce IN
the courts, or judicial tribunals OF the State or
. locality, where they may be- any of the rights
secured to them by the first section of this act.
/. Persons who are denied any of the rights
secured to them by the first section OF the act.
, 2. Persons who cannot enforce in the courts
D Does the denial of rights or the inability to
enforce them In the courts refer to denial by
: the laws, usages and customs OF the State. and
to an inability to enforce rights in the courts In
consequences of Inadequate, remedies to that
tions of right. such as personal or class preju-
f dice or political feeling and the ffke2
, removal is thus guaranteed to every citizen of
the United States. as well white as black; and It
. every citizen who is. prosecuted in Statec court
8 can, on his own obligation, remove his case to
the United States courts. it will present a power
fu temptation to tigants especially a1 .s OF the
will be flooded with cases, in which one OF the
9 parties imagines or says that he cannot have G
that this is the true construction of the statute.
. Besides. If it were it might be open to very
aprfon Tba hghes ab Toud be eens
r since the adoption Of the fourteenth amend-
r ment; An examination OF the amendment aeIIt
Of the citizen Is guaranteed, otherwise than, as
nafa s andst the rR o%
ever is rendered from the =; view ,n
rghs @ OF We think It IS to o. pro-
t tect against legal disabilities and legal impede
ments to the free exercise OF the rights secures.
and not to private infringements Of those rights
t by prejudice otherwise. when the laws.t them
2 selves are impartial and m sufficient; ..,u
:; Of its provisions to operate in favor Of white
citizens and against citizens Of African descent.
esan aeG o P law and no o a The
. finds no such intent in, or possibility OF effect
9 from. the operation Of the law o,..oa,
8 jury commissioners and the selection Of Jurors
is very nearly Identical With that prevailing M IN
The act in question was originally passed by a
Republican Legislature s in ls7t and on Il hs & re-
Of IL es bs ae on In eoara
:, venes neither the letter nor the spirit Of the
! fourteenth amendment nor OF the he, civil rights
/ its own ruling in the matter OF the challenge to
the present array in the case OF r. g. Harris.
n WAS, the Jury list selected irnpartially
: The allegation is that there are no eolored
hoW many III names so Of eoored citizens
: placed in the jury wheel. We are not informed
that 9 the tsIn In the
Makes lottery tSae g Of the drawine but certainly
3 Of names, for the Wheel BY race distinc-
), jury Jury list. the names placed there should
It be those OF compe ent jurors-and that is all.
It s true that the law requires an impartial se-
= of that word seems to the court to signify that
the Legislature intended that the comm mission-
g ers should exercise their functions without
q bias. without reference to personal friendship
It or enmties, without reference to the character
d of cases to be tried. or the persons to be tried.
If but with sole regard to the qualifications. of
@ parties for jury duty"
|. FlThere is no question that the fourteenth
8 amendment is directed to the State and not TO
; the individual citizen. The State has still the
9 right TO enforce its own police regulations in it's
own tribunals. Should the State pass statutes
y In conflict with the provisions Of the amend
n ment individuaIs could obtain redress BY he
'. means provided by law. This act No. 56. i5 not
o such statute and its existence and enforce
Is ment give no right TO petitioners rnder section
it s41 section 1877 Of the United States Revised
n Statutes. ttSee Slaughter house cases. Wall 81
70 Sovereignty for the protection OF the rights OF
Is lie and personal liberty within the respective
j. States rests alone with the States Il Otto 542
is United States VS.. Cruik- hanks ct all ..s
Q. Ii IT be true that this, court and its o1icers
IN have been guilty Of manipulating the law so as
lf to denriYn the Trial