The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-11-01

The Point In StFaudeF's Case.
The RgisT Of yesterday reiers again to
Taylor strauders case, and quotes as FOL.
J lows from the argument recently submit.
! ted by Attorney General White 10 the su.
preme Court oI the United States in de.
Tense Of the West Virginia law combining
jurorship to white mems
Gas Attorney General White said in his
argument In the Supreme Court, IT is the
right oi trial by Jury that Is conferred BY
the Constitution oi the United States, but
nowhere the right to have the Jury com.
posed OF any class, condition or color
Trial by jury Is 4 right, but service Rs
q Juror has ever been considered as duty
imposed by law upon the citizen"
"0ur Jury law c0niers no right upon the
citizens ot the State TO act as jurors; but
by its very terms II only imposes duty
q service-dpon all white male persons
who are twenty.one years Of age, and not
over sixty, and who are citizens OF this
State, by making them with certain OK.
ceptionB) liable 10 serve as jurors;' and It
not only Imposes that duty, but when
that service and duty Is performed 1t Is
paid for"
"What abridgement Of right is there in
this law which only imposes an onerOus
service upon the white mAn2'
"The right 10 hold Office Is right con-
terred upon every citizen; SO is the right
Of trial by jury; but by no law, constltu-
tional, statute or common, IL there right
to do service as q juror conferred"
Withall respect to the Attorney General
Of West Virginia, we beg leave to say that
the intent Of Article II OF the Constitution
Of the United States and OF the Civil
Rights bill was not to regulate any duty
or liability Of citizenship, but to secure
the full and complete protection Of life,
person and property to all citizens Of the
United States in all the States Of the
Union. We should think that the learned
judges Of the Supreme Court must have
smiled little in their flowing sleeves rs
they listened To tho point elaborated by
our Attorney General when he dwelt
on the question Of liability TO
service as juror, as II that was
tho point in Straudsr's case. They
know that the Civil Rights bill never con-
templated any interference whatever with
any Of the responsibilities Of citizenship.
They knew that all the duties Of that re.
lAtion could be safely left to State laws,
and therefore that 1t was only the rights
and privileges Of United States citizen.
ship that needed to be guarded and pro.
tected from the Determinations OF State
legislation. They knew that Congress
had in mind the prejudlces notoriOusly
prevailing in the Southern States against
the negros new relation Of ireemanship
and citizenship when 1t passed the Civil
Rights bill and enacted that ''citizeRs Of
every race and color, without regard to
any previous condition Of slavery or In
voluntary seryitude," &C., ''shall have the
same right in every State and Territory in
the United States" to "the full and equal
benefit Of all laws and proceedings for the
security Of person and property as Is en-
joyed by white citizens. and shall be SUBJ
ieCt to like punishment, pains and penal
ties. and to none other, any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation or custom, TO the
contrary notwithstanding"
Now, We need not argue at any length
that Congress intended to protect every
right Of the newly made citizens oi color
by the passage Of this bill. They did not
intend to leave the life, liberty or property
Of colored people to any inequality Of
protection whatever by virtue Of any
State law. In the nature Of things the
matter Of trials at law must have been
very prominent before Congress in the
passage Of this bill. What could be more
important than protection from race pre-
judices In a trial for liie7 To the color.
ed people Of the South It was a vital mat.
ter 10 have fair show In jury trials, and
who will say that in 1855, at the Lime Of
the passage Of the Civil Rights bill, a
colored man could have as impartial q
trial before q Southern jury, exclusively
composed oi white men, as before 4 jury
composed in part Of men Of his own race
Let US reverse this whole matter. Let
us suppose that the colored voters Of Mis-.
sisSippi, who outnumber the whites, had
elected majority Of the Legislature in
that state, and had passed law that no
white man should serve on jury. Who
will say that the passage Of such q law
would have give white men a fair show in
court2Who willsay that this would be Civ.
Ing them that "full and equal benefit Of all
laws and proceedings for the security Of
person and property" contemplated by the
Civil Rights Bill? Certainly not Attorney
General White or the Wheeling Reyitter.
No, indeed Very far from 1t, Well now,
the colored citizen OF the United States
stands in the eye Of the law on perfect
political and legal equality with Attorney
General White, or the editor OF the Regis.
y ttr, or the President Of tho United States.
There Is not one whit Of difference. Con.
; gress did not intend that The citizenship
conferred by the Constitution ot the
United States should be a mockery in any
State OF the Union, as II certainly would
have been II they had left the protection
Of tho oolOred citizens In trials by Jury IN.
. provided for. ltis Just as lawful therefore
}. under tho Civil Rights Bill 70 disqualliy
8 white men from jurorship in West Viz
, Rinia, because they are white, as TO dis
It qualify rOlored men, because they ar
: colored, for that hill protects "eittstn' Q
Q epery race and color" against any dlscrimin
alton whatever by State laws that ma!
! affect iniuriously their rights Of person o
. property.
n The Iron Market.
Etlbburgh NauuisetaFSrot Yesterday.