Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-10-16
State Rights.

States Supreme Court upon an application
from the Governor Of Virginia for writ of
maadamu5 10 compel Judge Rives Of the
United States Circuit Court Tor The western
district of that State to return to the State
authorities two criminals who have bsen taken
out OF their custody fur retrial 10 his owo court.
The subjec! matter OF Iha controversy thus
raised is tho abstract one OF Jurisdiction. TIVE
complaint il that Judge Rive5 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? At.
lorney General Field aad Judge Robertson, on
behalf of the State, argue that these are cases
in which tho Commonwealth of Virginia is
party III lis character as sovereign 5 ale, and
that az iuturitr federal court, created by act OF
Congress. can never, under sn7 circumstances,
DO clutaed with power to deaf With Safe or
TO decide any question Of controversy with her
respecting or sli;l1g out Of her sovereignty. If
she is aDeDab,e to any judicial tribunal nuder
tie cousIitulel. that .ribuaal is tho United
States Supreme Court. They argue, iur,heI'
mcrs, that even the latter hes 10 cortrJl ever
The State CT It's courts except when federal
question IS brought before il By wit Of error
ron the State ooult of last resource. Ths
State courts, AID not the Unted Ststes courts,
| Grc exclusive tribunals tor the tria! Of otfcnses
committed Wthin the State aud against It's
laws. Counsel for tho petit oner further main.
tain that section Gil Of tho Revised Statutes,
upon which Judge Rivas based his action, does
| not confer the Jurisdiction claimed. The right
| TO have Is Jury OF particular race or color, in
| whole or in part, is not one Of the rights which
the statutes IN question secured. Ii merely
| extended to tho colored race rights already ex-
| isli0g and CT Eyed By white oiuzeas, and pro.
vldcd that these rights should not BIS denied
to colcrcd cii!z.Ds. FiaaIIy. c,unse! fer the
| petitioner declare that the State of Virginia
| has not denied t) a5y rae, or ooior the equal
protection OF her laws, that the aoliou of Judge
| RiVes should DO declared null and void, and
that the writ OF tnsulamus prayed for is the
OILY appropriate aud complete remedy, o. there
| seems 10 be no right Of appeal or writ Of errcr
| from this court.
Attorney GtnsFa! D,veps a1d ". Willoueh
By, 10 opposing the petition for 9 mandemuF,
| urge first that the Supreme Court has DO juris
d!cllGn 10 the present case; that tho Common
wealth o. Virginia refused to mako itself
| party to the proceedings ia the Circ1i Court;
| That this pc i.on oaunot therefore DO consider
cd Gs anything 10 the nature Of 90 appellate
Institute 40 original suit 10 the Supreme Courl
10 controversy like tnis between itself and its
| own cl!Z ;os
They argue, s4c)pd, 10 defense OF judge
Rivcs's action under the act Of Msrch s. 1915,
every person has right to . trial by Jury con-
st!tuted without disc Elimination against his own
! raos or ouOr, aud that 10 the present case that
right has been denied White men NAV have
jury OF their Pm race ard cclor, negroes can
not. White men clnnOt DO subjected to any
| preJudlc, against them on account of their rsoo
! or color; negroes may be. 1t wss JUS; this dis
crlmnGlou which The fourteenth amendment
| was designed to prevent.
They argue, third, that sl.hough the duty Of
extending to ell persons within the State the
equal protection Of its laws was originally IS.
| sumed by the States, and still remains there,
yet, # any State does deny or permit denial
OF this right Of equality, AID if suoh denial is
based upon the ground Of color or racs. then
the power of the Uuited States may cutorou this
guaranty OF equality t) the exteDt that it is
denied. The fact that State is one of the
parties 10 such case is mmater;a'. AL cases
lovolViog ted:ral question may be brought
| uUdar tho supervision If tho federal judicial
| power, even though State DO party. TITS
point is argued by counsel in opposition to tho
petition at considerable length. and with full
citation Of authorities. They disclaim the right
| of general federal supervision over the Grim
| lnal law Ole State, but mslotain its consttuloI-
| atty when federal question il involved. aud
when the equal protection Of tho laws s te lied
by State to any class Of its cilz,rs.
The Washington correspondents Of tic BaI!i-
more Sue, 10 Noticing this trial, say:
The s5ur. listened with more than usual
lntEraSt thn sind hn i,,.-
tees from time % time uropUunded iuttrrpsa.
tories to tho counsel. Questions put to Attor-
Dey General Dnveps had the effect 10 weaken
very maoh the position assumed by him. lie
wss con;eudlDg that uco0rdiug TO tho recon.
suuctlon glsaton Of Congress the colcred
meo whose case was bsfOre the court had the
u1doubted right 10 demsud trial befors iury
OF their own race. MIR. Justcs Fold re marked
that there had been c2mplairt 10 some quarters
IT a: the Chlucs, IN certain pori ,us of the
UOltcd States were deprived oil undoubted
rights to which they We're entitled. He desired
TO Inquire if the Attorney General held that
they had right TO demand to be tiled before g
jury 81 their Own race? The Attorney General
hesitated moment, aud then replied, Yes, he
thought they bad. Chief Justice Waite said,
Then you Thick that 40 lrishman has right
to demand trial before q jury of Irishmeo ?"
Mr.. Dereua said. Yes" that while the Con
a!ltulional amendments Wero expressly designed
Tor the protection Of the colored race, yet all
other races had won tbs right also 10 DO pro-
tected uader them. At this expression s:Ruih-
can't slances were exchanged by the many mem.
hoIs Of The bar present, for it IVES seen ct oacs
what curious results would follow II every Irish
man, every German. every Englishmau, every
FrenchnaD, and every Italian who has become
ritizen CT the Ulited States should demand,
when brought to Trial Tor effencas to bo tried
before a jury OF his own race. Further on in
the course Of bis argument Mr.. justice Brad
Icy Inquired Of the Attorney General whether
there YES auY evidence to STOW that at the |
time OF the inpcnne!iug OF the Jury objection
was made 10 behalf the prisoners 10 the fact
that the jury was composed entirely eff white
meo, and Sir. Devens responded that be did |
not know that auy objection bad been aic."
The argument will be concluded to day By |
Judge Robertson on behalf OF the petitioner.
The Fairfax Delegate.
EAIRrAY r. TT 0,tohar L. Ip-n