The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-10-20
Sssase Mi b I'D Court lose OF the
srgfn hi COL ia Jnk Cases.

Issase nlsiI d IA s oar lose Of the
Srgfni s COL Sd Jnea Cases.
The Iarguiaen 1.-The VsfginIa colored
,iurop4ases Were coDtiudeG IN the Unltea
States Supreme Court Fridays tne w s. esI
virginia up Ass;sl.
aEtrAatorpeS,G General Sptth3 On + resYming
big arghdieHt fni Che hdesds corpus, Gaze OK
'yJaage~ssofess couuf s.s
made. the, ;poigt .that the petitioner was
uudeft an inuietn1enf found by D. court OF
competent Jurisdiction strictly in accord.
aace with the sfssute, md tt;at rtBs Court
could not go behind thst proceeding
writ OF error being tho only remedy,
|, aud that abe .hhba1s corpus couio
not hss used 10 anticipate it,. Mr. jus.
tice Bradley remarked that the ACT
the petitioner was committed for was
ore for y hictj he ought not to have been
indicted. then this Court would qnssh the
commitment md. discharge the prisoner
/ The writ of .ha6eas corpus being really IN
the nature OF writ OF error. bir. Smith
lrepiied that n,writ OK error might oEing UP
the same questions as q h1oeds corpus, yet
| 1t was addressed to q different sur,sa'cIioh'
| In the same section, and IN Ine' SANG tau.
guage, the. authority to hear Wits OF ndoeoS
corpus isfYested in district 1uoee anu ia
this Court. to determine wnesher mau 10
held under color of Iaw, and whether the
! INV ia constitutional. The amendments
| to the Constitution were certainty in
force, and Congress was surely au-
thorized to enforce =. their provisions.
The argument that they did not e&-
tend to the privileges of persons. as stare
but only as United States citizens, was de-
ricd hyr the fifteenth amendment, when
prohibited the States from making iaws'to
prevent the voting Of the race for whose
benefit the amendments and subsequent
| statutes were passed. He claimed that the
position OF the Government was. not That
| defendant could claim TO have his own race
on the jury, but only to protest against their
exclusion. Tue section Of the ciyil-rights
bill against the enforcement OF any law OF
discrimination was held to include the acts
OF the ministerial or judicial officer who
draws the Jury. which was case OF acting
under law not on the statute-book, but
nevertheless law. @@..s sE.
Attorney-G General Deveus, in commenc-
ing his argument, held that'if, as indicated
By Mr.. Justice Miller. the Court should. de-
| eide to review the actions OF the court be-
| low. be would ask that the ma tier should
not be passed upon as hastily as wrlts OF
hadeas corpus were usually disposed OF,
| but the whole question gone into. BY tue
| thirteenth amendment slavery was a0oi-
ished, but law which divides people into
classes and deprived one Of these OF some
| rights recognizes dominant class, and says
| that this alone should administer the law,
| thus practically violating the spirit OF this
| first OF the series OF amendments. Tue
| mobiles OF France formerly had the construc-
ton and administration Of the laws, and
o,o vvopIh dnpy that Waa a, Glen
| toward slavery, aud the case now in point
was step toward seryitude, the people OF
! the humber class being to certain extent
made serving class. THIS amendment did
not alone provide that this people should
not be bought and sold, but that no dis.
| tinction OF that nature be made. Judge
| Devens corrected The idea that he had said
| in reply to Mr.. Justice Miller that on atrial
| 0! a Chinaman or IriShman he could de.
mand to have on the jury men OF bis own
race. He did say that if they were quail
| fed they should not be excluded. Ii
the thirteenth amendment intended
that the condition of inequality should
be abolished it covered the case,
but be would not rest his case
there. The army, which was charged with
the enforcement OF tue proclamation OF
emancipation, found certain black Codes"
rs they were called, as discriminating
against negroes. destroyed them all by order
OF the mmander-in-chief, but the matter
under discussion showed that, though now
uuwrltten, they were still current. justice
Field here remarked that foreigners were
excluded from the Jury, but equally pro-
tcctcd by the law. The Attorney-General
assented to this, but said that negroes were
citizens OF the country, and entitled to
take part in the admins tratlon OF the
laws. Justice Field asked how q men,
Der of the Legislature could be pun
ished for voting for law in cou-
PREVENTION OF congressional statute. The
reply was that the exact method would
have to be the subject OF some delbera-
ton, but in the case OF State coming
money the coiners only would be proceeded
against, though they were authorized by
their State. The people who actually vio-
late the Constitution were the ones to be
punished under the law. He did not un-
derstand that this court could deal with
State as a State. only incidentally. US IN
questions of boundaries. Referring TO the
San Francisco ChiDese-queue. case, he SAID
that the sheriff who was sued for cutting Oh
the hair of prisoners plead that he acted on
a law of the city, but all action was MAIN
tanned against him, because the acton itseli
was violation Of the Constitution. justice
Swayne asked whether if any number OF
persons went to the officer whose
duty it was 10 summon iuries and
saw: "Sir, I am eligible. place me on
Jury" and he should refuse, would ne be
punishable? Would that not be the case *
it was a right? Judge Devens said not.
The complaint he;e was against the dis
crimination as against class. Trial by
Jury was fundamental right OF the citi-
Zens OF the country. II ceased 10 be- so,
however, where the dominant race as
.umed the right of alone sitting on iuries.
At the time OF tue Magma Charta the people
OF England was divided into two classes
Norman aud SaXon-but no distinction was
made in their rights to sit on juries. II the
gentleman who is the subject OF this petit
ton has Disseminated on account OF color
in his selection OF Jurors, be has placed
himself within the legislation againstit, and
is amenable TO the law. -. yt.r..
Judge W. j. Robertson, in closing the ar
eument in behalf Of The petition, said that
the Constitution and laws OF Virginia never
had made any distinction, and If the gentle
man in question (Judge Coles bad made
discrimination on account OF color he had
acted in violation OF these and was liable TO
punishment by the State courts. HIS gum
was here presumed by tho other side. and
It bad been said that il on trial he could
prove that he had not that illegal motive,
but proper onc-snch as want OF lntelll- |!
gence, integrity, or other qualification on
the part OF the negroeS-he was TO be ac-
quilted. Such was the instruction under
t11- -, n Il |