The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-10-24

- ,oCTO Der "a, lSse.
,...,s,ates sapresae Coars and
fse Gntse. &saScsls.Arxnmosrsa Oh
the S.,ssarssoss and Attorney-Ssen-
judge nsS...prebables Action OF the
erai PEE sp,s. Efrecs OF Ssate-D ebt Vote
oour..a.,al sfections--.PaEe McCas-
% s,,crn of Bustelss.
Us oi aence Of the Richmond Dispatch
tecrrespGWuv' ,sn,saroS. October %, 1879.
s. r.,..S S,ates Supreme Court opens
TIE oH: ..s a. ,,nusua! array OF important
ibis Ia' Most Of these arise under the iegis-I
causes. The Republican party and the eli
Rtioh o. w. y,arfisar Judges to set aside the
forts Va PROSTITUTION aud utterly destroy ati
Fcde'" an,hor;,y and jurisdiction. FIRST
safe ~, ~ hearing on the petition for a.
CAME a , against Judge Alexander
faaseu" Tho removed into the Federal
RWes, .,s eases Of two cotored men, Burwe'i
eonft W, REYNOLDS, who had been Jointly
snG - Ear murder: the pretenee OF such
ino'e hefps that there had been dis
reis1 ,at,on in respect to the race Of the
cr ns""b ny failure to pnt, negroes ON the
pss S,n try them. In this cause the United,
lui! A,tornev-Generas (Mr. Dcvens) ar-
s'ses s - contest the petition for man
pcalsu y. a,S wss aided by Mr. w. viii
G amsS, The application for a saanda,nas
: pug" "ivosated by Mr.. Acknowledgement
I'D and Judge ". ]. Robertson, counsel
The state OF Virginia. DAD not near
~, ,sr,rumert in this case and reSret IT,,
n ", n the supreme ourtindses especially
V .n%rs,nlmented Judge Robertson's argument
~ ,hr first day. and told me that nao
oG good deal by not bearing It.
TIE second Virginia case is that OF the
uo.;,iou BY the State for writ OK ha6eaS
]nrS in the case OF Judge Coles, who has
CO... e@pj ;na,c,ed in the United States Court for
Mood discrimination against colored men
ssslscIing iuries. The Indictment is
n ~ under the act Of March 1, 1875. and
~, 1oI ronst,,utionality OF that act is directly
Waived The argument in this case was
nnanad bv a very logical argument BY the
S.",a Acknowledgement, Mr.. Field, which
,ras listened to with much attention
ND resoect by the Court. he de-
st ;"a hot the act OF March /, 1875,
,ras constitutional, and denied also that the
Constitution gave negroes the right to sit
an ;uries. The next speaker was United
Statss Assistant Attorney-GeneraI Smith,
n, behalf Of the Government. Nearly the
whole OF his argument was directed to show
I'M, the Supreme Court could not take iurls-
a,r.on OF this cause. lie even went so far rs
"a argue that it did not matter whether the
s,a;uie OF March, 1916, was constitutional
ornot. that even il was unconstitutional ],
the SUPREME Court could not on an appli-
cation ior hqbeas corpus look to anything
Int the regularity OF the proceedings in
the court below, and II they were formal
and regular, the court holding the prisoner
could not be iaterfered with. But this line
Of argument drew on the Assistant Attor.
ney.GeneraI fire Of questions from Judges
BRADLEY, Field, Harlan, Miller, Clifford, and
Strong. who manifested very plainly their
dissatisfaction with his views. In fact. Mr..
Smith bad a rough time Of II. From the
fact that Mr.. Smith devoted so large Il part
Of his time to the argument on jurisdiction,
would seem that he did not feel much
confidence in the strength Of his case
on the other points involved. | regarded
the questions and remarks OF the Court rs
settling the question that the Court would
take jurisdiction Of the case ia any event.
Acknowledgement DeyeGs spoke the next
dav on the same sidc-namely, for the Gov
eminent. He touched only lightly on the
Jurisdiction point. but spoke to the con-
s.itutionality OF the statute OF March, 1875,
-
conferred both by the thirteenth and four
tenth amendments. He gravely appealed
10 the practice of the shoulder-strap cap
,ains and leutenants OF the United States
army during the reconstruction era Of 1865
and 1866 in putting negroes on juries in
order 10 convince the United States ST.
preme-Court Judges that this was the true
construction Of the thirteenth amendment.
But the speech Of Devens was anything but
an argument. 1t was only stump-speech,
and poor one at that. He is cookbook.
ing man and smooth, easy speaker. As
he is United States Attorney-Generai, the
Judges listened to him with respect, but
tier did not by questions, or in any way
give indications Of being Impressed by his
argument.
Judge Robertson, who closed the discus
sion, has been here often enough to plead
before the Supreme Court bar to acquire ;
high standing. He made on this occasion
an arr" Mt which is one Of the very best
both IN matter and manner that have ever
beard made before the Supreme Court. His
argument vas close, compact, and logical
1t really left nothing to be said. wa:
pleased TO observe that all the judges, in.
Guiding even such extreme Radicals as Jus
tees Miller and Strong, paid him the closest
attention. 1t is not difficult to see when an
attorney has the ear OF the judges whe-
Their they are disposed or not to adopt
his conclusions. l regret that there is nc
mode Of reporting the debates before the
Supreme Court for the press. Nearly
all the reports that 90 forth seem to be
doctored by the ACCOMPLISHMENTS office,
In this way the speeches Of the Attorney
General and Assistant Attorney-General
weak and fiabby in point Of argument as
they are, have been flaunted abroad, while
the greatly superior arguments Of Messrs
Field and Robertson have been mostly sup
pressed, and what was published Is erro
neously stated. I should do injustice Il
these gentlemen II, without notes or copy
even OF their briefs, l were merely from
memory to give an outline OF their argu
ments. But they have been heard BY thu
Court, II not by the people OF the United
States, and fortunately the case is 10 be de-
cided, not by an angry, ignorant populace
but by sworn and learned Judges OF the
law.
1t has been hastily assumed that the deci-
sion in the Virginia cases will turn on the
question whether the right to serve on !urics
Is guaranteed by the United States Consti-
tuition. II there were no other causes before
the Court at this time involving this ques-
ton as to jurors, think it quite likely that
the Court would decide the acts OF Judge
Rves 10 be illegal and the act Of 1875 void,
because it destroys the autonomy OF the
States and strikes down the State judiciary.
1t might hold, without deciding whether
tae right TO serve oniuries was conferred by
Inc Constitution, that the means employed
mt - init