The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-10-22
An Interesting Case Before the United
States Supreme Court.

States Supreme Court.
WAsHINGToN, Oct. Is No. 4, original. ex
ID. Coles petitioners, argument was com.
menced by James G.. Field, attorney general
OF Virginia, for the petitioners, and continued
position to the petitioners This cause. like
the preceding one of the Commonwealth of
Virginia against Rives, involves the gus stlon
of colored jurors and the legality of Virginia
State judges in excluding negroes from jury
Judge of Pottsylvania county. virginia
was indicted In the district court OF the United
States in the Wes'ern district of that state
for alleged unlawful discrimination against
the duly qualified colored citizens in the selec
ton Of grand and petit Jurors to serve IN his
deputy marshal last March, and held to
answer in the United States district court In
this court upon petitions for wrirs of habe;s
corpus and ceretiorari, on the GROUND that his
the United States and of the sovereign rights
of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney
the petitioners, argued that the question for
consideration is. whether or not the fourth
tional. If not, then, upon the principle OF Of
| the Yerger and Longe cases u Wall, y, and 10
| Wall, 1860, this court should order Coles to be
is unconstitutional, and that no court OF the
| United states can exercise any jurisdiction
authority to pres cribe the manner in which
jurors shall be selected, and the qualifications
its judges to account for their official
acts. II, under the law of March l.,
be held criminally responsible in tue courts OF
| the United states for their official acts, then
the administration of justice by the states In
their own tribunals Is at the mercy of Con-
grsss. II Congress can fine judge for his iu-
diciaI acts, 1t can imprison him during mis-
whole term OF service or depose him from
office. II 1t has the power claimed for IL over
judicial officers of State, it has like power
vote for a law supposed by Congress TO be In
violation of any provision OF the constitution
ficers who may undertake 20 exc
cute II. In short. he argues,
a consolidated despotisn, the despot being the
congressional majority OF the DAY. Attorney
Gener smith Vino openen dn, tas tbst this
court is not auth orized TO issue writ OF haDeas
corpus In this case as an o. ny Vir
ginia has filed a petition therefor; that thii
court possesses no such supervisory power owe
inferior Federal courts as is claimed 1or IL by
the petitioners. and that it can exercise nj
appellate jurisdiction, since there is nothing Il
the court below. He maintained that i
is the right of the district court In Tn
statute in question is unconstitutional or not
and that no provision Is made for q by antlci
pstion OF its determination. To say that tn
a | statute to be examined is unconstitutional i
4 TO assume vital question Involved In IN
: sSon,d not be had here. in anticipation of th
decision of the court below. In TACT, ne main
q tanned, it rests exclusively with the lowe I'VE
4 court, except where the error or appeal lies
= II is idle. he agued. 10 say that there is n
|" determination against the colored men be
:, cause the statnte makes none, or becaus
), white men are tried by white jurors. III a
l. colored men are excluded by Juds
II Coles from jury lists made up
: him solely on account of race, color G
!, previous condition, this is Discrimination
q and one mace by a State through its oni
l. agent that can make it. Finally, he argued
IL whoever deprives one of his right to be place
10 upon jury, or deprives the accused or htigar
=; of his right to be heard before an impartla
Ii legally drawn jury, commits an offense will
n in the purview of the fourteenth amendmer
n and of the legislation hereunder. The arg
]. ment will be continued tomorrow. Ten
twelve other State court judges were tndicte
. in the United States district court Tor u
9, same offense with which Judge coles
a. charged, aud their cases will be decided by Il
le opinion of this court in the present cause.