The New York herald., 1879-10-16
FEDERAL VS.. STATE AUTHORITY.

THE MANDAMUs CASE OF THE STATE OF vIn-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WAsHINerox. Oct. Is. 1879.
The following business was transacted in the
United States Supreme Court to-day
No. 8 (original parte). the Commonwealth Of
Virginia. petltioner-rhis case comes before tho
United States Supreme Court upon an application
from the Governor of Virginia for writ OF man
dalnus compel Judge Rives. OF the United States
Circuit Court for the Western district of that State
to return to the State authorities two criminals
trial in his The facts In the case are
briefly follows:-Burwell and Lee Rey.
the County Court of Patrick county Va. in January
1s7s for murder After several trials. the case Of
Burwell Reynolds resulted in hung jury. and that
Lee Reynolds. his brother. in verdict Of guilty
of murder in the second degree Lee Reynolds
in sS ba.
temporarily remanded to the County Jail. Shortly
thereafter, in November 1878. Judge Rives granted
petition for the removal of both to the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the Western district
of Virginia. upon the ground that the application OF
the prisoners while trial in the State courts for
jury composed in part of their own race had been
denied and that they had thereby been deprived Of
to them by the fourteenth amendment. He there
fore ordered writ or habeas corpus cum
caasa to be be issued: and the United States
the custody OF the State officers and held them for
retrial in the United States Circuit Court. Upon
passed joint resolution directing the Governor to
institute mandamus proceedings in the United states
Supreme Court to possession of the prisoners
and prevent their retria before federal tribunal
ARGUMENTS THE vIRGINIANs.
The subject matter Of the controversy thus raised
is the abstract ono of jurisdiction The complsint
is that Judge Rves has invaded the sovereign rights
of the State The question presented is. Which has
jurisdiction to try these prisoners-the State or the
United States. Attorney General Field and Judge Rob
ertson behalf OF the State, argued that these are
cases in which the Commonwealth Of Virginia is 8
nqrfv in ifS Aa a
inferior federal court created by act OF Congress-
can never. under any circumstances. be clothed
with power to deGl with State or to de-
eide any question OF controversy with her
respecting or arising out OF her sovereignty. Il
constitution that tribunal is the United States Su
preme Court. They argue. furthermore. that even
except when federal question Is brought before
it by writ OF error from the State court
Of last resort The State courts. and not
tho United States courts, the exclusive
tribunals for the trial of offences committed within
the State and against the laws. Counsel for the PEE
tioncr further maintain that section 641 Of the Re-
vised Statutes. upon which Judge Rives based his
action. does confer the jurisdiction claimed The
right to have jury of particular color. in
tho statute in question secured It merely extended
to the colored race rights already exstinx and en-
joyed by white citizens, and provided that these
rights should not be denied to colored citi-
zens. Finally. counsel for the petitioner de.
denied to any race or color the. equal
protection of her laws. that the action Of Judge
hlves should DO declared null ana VOID tnAt
writ OF mandamus prayed is the only appropriate
and complete remedy. there seems to be righb
of appeal or writ of error to this Court.
CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL. AUTHORITfEs.
Attorney General Devens and W. Willoughby in
opposing the petition for msndamus urge-frst.
that the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction In the
present that the Common wealth OF Virginia
fused 10 make itself party to the proceedings in the
be considered anything in tho nature of sp-
pelate proceeding therefr0nn, and that . State
cannot institute an original suit IN the Supreme
Court in q controversy like this between itself and
Judge Rives action under the act of March g. 1875.
that every person has right to trial
by jury constituted without discrimina-
tion against his color. and
denied. White may have jury of their own
and coor-negroes cannot; white men cannot
be subjected to any prejudice against them
count OF their race or color-negroes may be- was
amendment was designed to prevent. They
argue. third. that although the duty Of
extending to all persons within the State
tho equal projection Of its laws was origi.
remains there. yet if any State does deny permit
denial OF this right of equality and il such denial
is based upon the ground OF color race thon the
power of the United States may enforce this guaranty
equality to the extent that 1t is denied The fact
that State Is of the parties in such case il
immateral. All cases involving federal question
may be brought under the supervision OF the federal
Judicial power. even though state be party. This
point is argued by the counsel in opposition to the
petitioner at and with full citation
OF authorities. They disclaim the right of general
federal supervision the criminal law of State,
but maintain its constitutionality when federal
question Is involved and when the equal protection
of the laws is denied by the State to any class Of its
citizens.
The argument will be concluded tomorrow By
Judge Robertson on behalf OF the petitioner.