New-York tribune., 1879-10-16
STATE RIGHTS ~ QUESTION.
AN IMPORTANT SUIT ARGUED BEFORE TIE UNITrD
STATES SUPREME COURT.

| AN IMPORTANT SUIT ARGUED BEFORE TIE UNlIrD
STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Oct. l5-The following busi-
ness was Ia the United states supreme Court
| to-day: No 3-OIignal ex parte-The Commonwealth
ol Virginia petiuOner.-Thls case comes before tho
United supreme Court upon application from
the Governor OF Virginia for writ Of mandamus, 10
compel Judge Rive OF the United states Circuit Court
for the Western District or that state to 10 tho
state authorities two criminals whom he has takea
out OF their custody Tor ro-trial in hs
court. The facts In the case briefly fol-
lows Burwell and Lee Reynolds tcolored) jointly
indicted In the County Court OF Patrick County Va IN
Janua-y, 1873 for murder After several trials, tho
case OF Buwo Reynolds resulted in hung jury. and
that of Lee Reynolds his brother in verdict OF guilty
Of murder IN the second degree Lee Reynolds YVES
sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment In the Peni
tenary, and both were temporarily remanded 20 tho
county Jail. shortly thereafter. iu November, 1875
Judge Rives granted petition Tor the removal OF both
cases the Circuit Court ri the United states for the
Western District OF Virginia. upon the ground that
the application OF the prisoners. while on trial
In the state Courts for jury corr
posed ia part Of their has been denied; and
that they had thereby deprived of the equal pro-
lection of the law" guaranteed To them by the Four
teenth amendment lie. therefore. ordered writ OF
babeas corpus cum easd be issued and the United
States Marshal by virtue thereof took tue prisoners out
Of the custody OF the stale officers. and held them for
retria in the United States Circuit Court Upon this
state General Assembly OF Virginia passed
"A iont resolution directing the Governor to iDsii-
tute mandamus proceedings IN the Uni.ed States
supreme Court to possession OF tho
prisoners and prevent their ro-'ral before
a Federal tribunal The subject matter OF the cOntro
ver-y thus raised Is the abstract OF Jurisdiction. The
compalnt that judge ltivcs has invaded the
rigu rights Of the state. The question presented IL,
which has Jurisdiction 20 try these prisoners the State
ar the United States AttorneyGeneraI Field and
Juage Robertson. behalf of tao State. argue that
these are in which the Commonwealth OF VrgiDa
is party IN It's character as a soyereign
state, and that an inferior Federal cOurs ere
etSd by act OF Congress can never. under any
circumstances be clothed with power O. deal with
or to deeido any question OF controversy with her
respecting or arising OF her soyereigny II she Is
nueuabl. to any judicial tribunal uuder the Cousu-
ton tAat tribunal the UDiied states supreme Court
They argue furthermore, that the latter has no
control over the state us courts except when Fed
eral question is brought before 4 hy writ oi error irom
The STATE Court resort. The State courts and not
the United States Courts are tue exclusive tiDunais
FOR the trial oi offences committed within the state ana
| against t.e laws
Counsel for the petitioners further maintain that see
lion Gal OF the Revised statutes upon when Jusge
RYcs based bis action does not confer the jurisdiction
or color. whole iD part IS not one OF the tights
which the statute IN question secured, IL merely sA
tended To the oOlorod race rghis ALREADY sNung abu
| eni,yrd by White citizens. aud provided that taese
| rishis should not be denied 10 cooIed citizens.
| Attorney General Dcvens and ". Nii0ngEby IN op-
posng tue petition for mandamus uTge, first. that the
Supreme Court has Jurisdiction IN ihe present case
itsef party the prOceedings IN tAe ,ltcuu Court
tnat petition cannot therefore Se considered as
IN 0f an appellate Proceeding there
fr M ami that State cannot institute an gina snt
| m tne Supreme Court IA eontfovssy IKE ths
befween itself and its citizens ibey argue thai
Nil eases Involving Federal question pay be oTouens
under The supervision OF the Federal Judicial poMei
even though state be party. This point Is afsura
by the counsel opposition 10 the petitioner al eonsu-
nnle length aud With Ia citation Of authorities lhey
d,c.a the rigat of general Federal supervision over
tne criminal law Of STATE but MAINTAIN ~ constlIu
tiopalty when Federal question i involved ana Mnch
the equal protection Of the laws Is denied Dy Toe stats
10 any class Of lie citizens Tue argument VIII DC con
cudcd tomorrow by Judge Robertson, cn behalf oi mo
| petitioner.