The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-01-23
Judge Rives' Action in the Reynolds
Cases The Constitutionahty Of the Law
Under which he Acted-His Critics and
their Indecent Manner Of Discussing
a Purely Legal Question.
pANY1LLE, January Is, 1879.

Purely Legal Question.
DANvILLE, January IS, 1879.
Editors Talley Virgimiam:
| Whist reading the unjust, and, in majority of
cases. indecent attacks upon the distinguished
Judge of this Judicial District, which have filled
| the columns of many OF the Democratic papers
OF this State for the last four five weeks, con-
| fess that my indignation has been very much
| cited, but that is as nothing to the feeling OF
wonder and establishment with which have been
| filed by the ignorance and presumption of those
who have been attempting to lead public opin-
| ion.
| A stranger coming into the State and taking
up one OF our daily papers, and happening to see
one of the er cathedra editorials upon this Rey-
nolds case, or one of the speeches OF our legsla-
tive solons, or a communication from certain
lawyer, who evidently regrets that Chief Justice
Marshal was so unfortunate as to die before the
| aforesaid lawyer could teach him something about
constitutional law, would at once imagine that
| Judge Rives had committed an act of treason
against his native State, before which the treach-
cry OF Benedict Arnold would pale into utter in
| significance. He would wonder how the people
| could restrain themselves from rising en-
and at least demanding, with Just Indignation,
| that this unjust Judge" should be at once i'm
peached and removed from the bench which he
had so disgraced. He would wonder say that
they, the people. had left this matter be called
to the attention OF Congress by the least infuen-
| tial OF with few exceptions) weak and unin-
iuential delegation. But what would be the as.
constituent of the aforesaid stranger, it, upon in
quiry, he learned the facts, viz: That his Honor,
Judge Rives, had simply exercised what he be-
Flieved to be his plain duty under the law OF the
| land.
Now, Mr.. Editor, the facts in the case OF Bur-
well and Lee Reynold are about as follows: About
fourteen months ago Lee Reynolds, a negro then
not fifteen years old, stabbed and killed one A. c.
Shelton, white man, In a difficulty in which
tackled BurwelI and Lee Reynolds while they we're
| at their work. The evidence shows that Burwell
REYNOLDS, when he was attacked, retreated all the
| heavy stick, and that Shelton was proceeding to
beat Burwell Reynolds when Lee, coming to the
assistance OF his brother, stabbed Shelton with
tobacco knife and inflicted wound from which
Shelton afterwards died. Both Burwel and Lee
Reynolds were indicted for murder. Lee was
convicted OF murder in the first degree, and Bur
| well OF murder in the second degree. Before the
trial, however, rather upon the commence
ment of the trial, these negroes, through their
counsel, moved the State Judge to reconstruct
the venire, by placing upon it some men of their
| own race alleging that they could not expect to
get an impartial trial by a jury composed en-
tirely Of alien to them in race and color This
and asking nothing which could not have been
granted according to the laws of the State-in
| IaCC ASKING only WQdC JuSU construction OF the
laws Of the State would seem to guarantee to
| them-was, however, denied, and thereupon they
filed their petition under section GAL of the q. s.
Revised Statutes, asking for removal OF the case
to the United States Court.
| This petition was also: denied them, though
the Judge in denying it could only do SO by DELHI
erately and wfully multiplying law OF Congress-
for the law says: upon the filing OF said petition
all further proceedings in the St.,te courts shall
cease, and shall not be resumed except as hereaf-
ter provided" Here we have the spectacle of one
| Constitution nf q Gfafn md
the laws made in pursuance thereof which laws
are declared to be the supreme la,o Of the land, re-
| the law. But not one word of rebuke have we
seen for this unfaithful Judge from these same
hoarse over Judge Rives alleged transcending Of
| his powers. y-t
removal came before his Honor, Judge Rives,
and there were only two questions for him to de-
| eide: .nase7
lst: Was the law OF Congress CONSTITUTIONAL
| 2nd. Had these parties, Burwell and Lee Rey-
nolds been denied the equal protection of law. or
which belonged to them by virtue of their being
| citizens Of the United States?
Now, as to the first point most OF the articles
which have read, which argue that this law is
unconstitutional, claim, first that the ought
& pE to he sra OF
to the petitioners, that then it might have been
taken to the Supreme Court Of the United States.
Secondly, they claim that any law which confers
upon the United States courts the power to super
wise the action of State courts in dealing with her
Guo tdIe, uluSU De uQ-
| constitutional.
| Now, as to the first proposition, admit that
Congress would have had right to legislate if
| the I4th Amendment had been only an inhibition
upon the State but Judge Rives learned critics
seem to have overlooked the fact that the power
| to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth
| Amendment, by appropriate legislation is ex-
pressy given to Congress The last section OF that
Amendment reads as follows: 1.-THE Congress shall
have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions Of this article. Now, Congress
has fit to enforce some of the provisions of
this article by what Congress considered appro-
pirate legislation, and in doing SO have chosen to
alleges that he is denied or cannot enforce IN the
judicial tribunals OF the State any right secured
Of csns u e States
| upon all proceedings in the State court shall
cease. and that the case shall be taken to the
United States circuit court which shall then say
whether any such right has been denied the petit
TONERS. If no such right has been denied, then
such right has been denied, it must be tried in
| the United States courts.
Chief Justice Marshall has said in the celebrated
case of McColloch VS.. the State of Maryland, re-
| ported in Wheaton, that where power is given
power, and the legislation tends towards the ends
had in view by the grant Of power, that it is not
| for the courts to say whether other and better
means might have been adopted 'Jor Congress is
the sole judge Of the character of the means to be
adopted. In other words, the only thing the
given by the Constitution power to legislate upon
the subject under considerations and, secondly,
does the legislation tend towards the ends had
| in view by the grant of power to legislate?
| Now, it seems to me that the whole matter OF
the constitutionaity resolves itself down to this:
| That Congress- having the express right to en-
force this 18th Amendment by appropriate legis-
lation, has exercised that right Just as Judge
Marshall has said it had right to do and there is
nothing in the career of the learned Judge who
adorns the bench of the United States District
any one to believe that he would set himself up
to override the judicial opinions of Chief Justice
cornerstone OF whose political creed is that most
dangerous OF political heresies to wit State SOW
constitntionaify Of the law under which he acted,
| had only to determine whether Congress had the
power to legslate a3a then whether The legsla
| by the grant OF power. Who will deny, in face Of
the fifth section Of the 18th Amendment,that Con-
And who will deny that the legislation did tend
| towards the end in view?
Now, think no one will blame the judge for
not declaring the law unconstitutional, especially
as it well settled principle that law must not
| full cases, but before law can be pronounced
unconstitutional, its incompatibity with the
| Constitution must be clear" See Fletcher VS..
| Peck, Cranch.
| We now come, it seems to me, to much nicer
and more delicate question, to wit Whether the
| petitioners, Burwell and Lee Reynolds, had been
denied any right guaranteed to them by the l4th
Reok9 or 81 ~ ne I ss II
1t seems to very clear that at least one right
| was denied to them which was guaranteed by the
| laws passed in pursuance of the l4th Amendment,
| and that was the right to have the proceedings
tition until the United States circuit court could
| say whether any right had been denied to them
by the Judge OF the State court refusing to them
some representation of their race upon the jury.
If this be so, it is clear to my mind that the petit
TONERS, Burwell and Lee Reynolds, have had no
| legal trial at all.
| But the main question now comes up: Were
these petitioners denied account OF their color
| or race, any right which belonged to them as
| American citizens?
| submit that no one who has read the history
| OF the 18TH 18th and 18th Amendments and the
| Amendments themselves, can for a moment
| doubt that it is OF the rights of citizen of
the United States such not to be Disseminated
against on account of his race. If there is such
the history OF these amendments. taken together
with the amendments themselves but have not
the space in this article, which is already much
| longer than intended.
Now, then, if We admit las all must) that it is
one OF the rights OF citizen of the United States
not to be Disseminated against on account of his
race-that is, in other words, that all citizens OF
\ the United States are guaranteed that they shall
not suffer any disadvantage, before the ldao ac
count OF their race, can any man in this Common
| wealth, no matter what his prejudices are, truth
fully say that this guarantee is carried out when
the iuries OF the State are habitualy chosen from
one race to the entire exclusion of the other race
And in this particular CASE is it not clearly dis
elimination against these petitioners on account
OF their race to try them by jury composed en-
t1rely OF alien to them in race and color
| And, in agueing this case it must be borne in
mind that it could not have been by accident that