The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-20
Virginia MISCEGEsATION.

Judge Hughes in his ruling refusing to
grant the petition of Edmund Kinney, the
Virginia miscegenationist, for writ OF habeas
corpus rendered decision substantially az
follows:
The question so seriously involves the rela-
tions OF the Federal courts to the laws of the
States that he would be excused for giving
lengthy explanation Of the matter Section
753 OF the United States Revised Statutes pro-
vides that the writ OF habeas corpus shall In
no case extend to prisoner in jail In violation
OF the United States law.
Section 755 authorizes the writ to issue "un-
less 1t appears from the petition itself that
the applicant is not entitled thereto"
The writ therefore is not issued as matter
of course fit appears from the petition it.
self that the constitution, or a law OF the
United States has not been violated then OF
course the writ must not go out.
The Federal courts are forbidden to issue
said writs In favor OF prisoner In jail under
conviction OF State court, unless the case
comes under section 753 Revised Statutes.
The question OF Issuing the writ does not
turn upon any OF the constitutional amend
provision OF the Federal constitution has been
violated by the State Of Virginia In this case
The Federal constitution provides that no
State shall abridge the rights OF citizens OF
fr m abridging the rights of It's own citizens.
This is lett to the discretion Of each State.
The trainers OF the Constitution did not in
tend to restrain the rights OF the States In
regulating their civil INSTITUTIONS and G1,ef
powers OF the States) OF course extend to the
control Of the domestic relations OF all classes
OF citizens OF a State.
The State Of Virginia forbfds the inter-
marriage of whites and blacks under penalties
OF two to five years imprisonment Ia the
penitentiary. II Virginia were In mid-ocean
the rights and privileges OF her members OF
society could no more be restrained by the
Federal constitution than now However
harsh State law may be they can only say:
Hoe qul1em per4unn dnfMt est, sed atd tes
scripta est.
Congress has made no law relating to mar
riage. 1t has no power 10 make laws regu-
latlng the domestic relations OF citizens Of a.
State; it would be unconstitutional for 1t to
do so.
It was held by the United States Supreme
Court, Dartmouth College case, a Wheaton.
629) that the clause Of article i section 10 Of
the national constitution, forbidding State
from passing any law impairing the obliga-
tfons OF contracts, that 1t did not embrace
marriage. 1t Is therefore clear that section
1877 United States Revised Statutes Is not
violated by the marriage laws OF Virginia.
The parties going to the District OF Column
bia from Virginia to contract this marriage
does not make this case different from what
1t would have been had they married La Vir-
gina. Ii they had been citizens Of the Dis
trict the case would have been essentiallv
different. But the citizen coming into the
State even then could not bring the privileges
OF another State or district conflicting with
the laws Of the State In which he came to re-
side.
On the whole he was Of the opinion that
the law Of Virginia, under which the prisoner
is confined in prison, does not violate the con-
stitution or any law OF the United States, and
that he had no jurisdiction to grant the relief
prayed for In prisoners petition. Hence the
writ was denied.