Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-10-22
WASHINGTON.
Political Questions Pending In the SUI
preme Court Colored Juror Case from
West Virginia--The Question of Removal
of Offenses Against the State to Federal
COurts--M miscellaneous.
OoLoRED JURORS.

COLORED JURORS.
| WASHINGTON, Oct. 21.-No. 7B3, Taylo
Strender, plaintiff in error vs.. the State o
West Virginia in error, from the Supreme
Court of Appeals of the State of West Vir
ginia. Argument concluded by ATTORNEY
General Devens for plaintiff on error. Thi
is another of tho colored jury daD6s Differing
from those previously argued chiefly by
virtue of the fact that discrimination agains
negroes in the selection of jurors is in the
present case made by State law instead Of
by the discretionary power of the State judy
es. The ground covered by the arguments
is very much the same as that covered in
OK parte the Commonwealth of Virginia
argued last week.
REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE.
No. 72o. State of Teppessee, plaintiff, VS..
Jas. M. Davis, upon division of opinion in
y. 8. circuit court for middle district of Ten
nessee. Argument was commenced. This
case arises out of an indictment in a Tenes-
see State court of defendant, Jas. M. Davis,
q deputy collector of internal revenue, for
the murder of Jas. B. Haynes, citizen of
Tennessee, in August, 1878. Davis filed his
petition for certiorari in the q. s. circuit
court for the middle district of Tennessee,
alleging among other things that the killing
wss done in self-defense to save his own life,
and that at the time of the act for which he
was indicted was committed he was an off,
Ger of the United States, to-wit: deputy
collector of internal revenue, and was en-
gagged in the discharge of his official duties.
Upon return of the certiorari, the State of
Tennessee, by its attorney general, moved
that the case be remanded to the State court
in which the Indictment was found. The
motion was heard before Hon. John Baxter.
circuit judge, and Hon. Conally F. TriQe,
district judge, presiding. The judges were
divided in opinion upon the following ques-
tions, which they have ordered certified to
this court for adjudication:
First-Is an indictment of q revenue Off
cor found in State court for murder under
the facts alleged in the petition for removal
in this case removable to the court under
section 643, revised Statutes of the United
States?
Second-If removable from the State
court is there any mode and manner of pro-
cedure in the trial prescribed by act of Con-
gress?
Third-And if not, can a trial of the guilt
or innocence of defendant be had in the
United States circuit court?
The main question to be discussed is in
the words of Attorney General Deven's brief,
substantially the same as that which has for
over half century been debated in Congress
and before the country, viz. whether the
United States constitution is form of
government created by the people and act
ing directly from and upon the individual,
or it is merely a compact or league of sover-
eign States. Those who insist that the gen.
eral government is purely federal and not
national in its character, are logically COM
PEELED to deny the right to remove any cause
from the State to federal courts, and to de-
clare the act of 1879, section twenty, uncon-
stitutional, because if any right of removal
exists it must extend alike to civil and crimi-
nal cases, and whether it shall extend az we'll
to the time and manner in which it shall be
exercised, whenever federal laws or their
execution is concerned, is question of ex-
pediency and not of power.
The attorney general of Tennessee, in be-
half of the State. maintains
First-That the words "criminal prosecu-
ton" in section 643, revised statues, have
reference to acts of revenue officers, therein
declared to be offenses, and not to prosecu-
tions for murder, which is not an offense by
the revised statutes, except on the high seas,
etc.
Seoond-That if Congress intended by said
section to remove trials from State to fede-
raj courts, the act is unconstitutional. There
is neither an express nor an implied
power in the constitution giving to federal
courts jurisdiction of crimes which are of.
fences alone against the State.
Third-If the section were constitutional
the United States circuit court could not try
case of murder because they have no COM
mon law jurisdiction in criminal cases, and
because Congress has not by legislative act
made murder crime or affixed punish
ment except for murder upon the high seas,
in the District of Columbia, and in forts,
arsenals and dock yards.
Argument will be continued tomorrow.