The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-05
The Rives Case.

The following paragraphs explain them
selves:
The decision Of the Supreme Court in the
Rives case Is IN perfect accord with the
opinion expressed by this Journal when the
question presented therein first came into
public notice. III IS In effect that while O
coIored man has a perfect right to serve on
q Jury, there Is no way OF compelling Q
Judge to make up jury in whole or in part
Of coiored men. ga mixed jury" says
the court, :" is not essential to the equal
protection Of the laws" 1t is amazing that
any man who has attained to the dignity
OF The Federal bench should have for mo-
ment entertained the opinion that it is
Philadelphia Times.
Judge Riyes will now have feeling sense
OF his unwisdom. What will be undertaken
nexti--Richmond Dispatch.
A carefuI reading Of the decision of the
Supreme Court OF the United States in the
case referred to will show both these jour-
mails that they have sadly mistaken its pur-
Richmond Hh,g.
"a careful reading" OF the decision OF
the Supreme Court shows that the WHO
has sadly mistaken its purport." II the
opinion Of that court had touched no other
points than those raised by Judge RrvEs,
We should have had nothing TO say in con.
demnationsof the courts action. OF course,
- we hayesuot seen the;iul opinion Of the
court, we cannot be entirely sure that its
decision has not been -risreported. We
have, however, read Judge FIELDS dissent
ing opinion. and from il, as well as from
the report insthe papers of.the courts deeI
sion, we infersthat this decision was exactly
what the Philadelphia 1fnes says in the
above-guoted paragraph that 1t was. Here
d. the language Of the Court as it was sen,
ont from Washington last Monday:
80 The Consultation and laws OF Virginia
% not exclude colo red citixens from ser.
sloe on iuries. The petition fer removal,
therefore, did not present casesor removal
uuder the 04lst section. The defendant in
this ease moved inihe State court that the
pextTs be 50 modified that one-thisd or some
proportion Of the jury should beoomposed
OF his own race. The denial OF that
motion was not denial OF adfght Sc
cured u him by any law, pr0xlaing for
the equal civil rights OF citizens of the
United States, or by ,sny statute, or by
the fauneenth amendment. A mixed
Jury IL particular caseds not essential TO
the equal protection q the.ia Itis Alright
70 which any coIored maa Is entitled that
Ia the seseefsen Of iuries TO pass upou bis
life, Iiterfs, or property there shall he NO
exclusion OF his race, and no discrinips-
1ion against then because of his color. But
fbat Is di6ereet thing from that which
ssas claimed ~ u right and denied 10 the
Slate coutt-vxv2 right to have the Jury
composed Ia part OF colofeA men. Ffoa J
fhe-e principles Y fellows thai the Federal |
court had no rlghkfpi jurisdaetion Of the |
caees and tbst tie wxk Of mandauus for the
RESIGNATION OF TIE ptsoners TO the State
aufesssf'es must b. EraRied, and de Court
4 Issvjdept from ~ shove tha Judge
4ivRSs ground was sGk from under him
entirely. BE took the position that the ne |
gre ~ untitled 70 have jary composed !
partly q peeroes. The Court says that be
M rel entitled 70 such 4 jury. The Court
pt5s. 40, swphstieaily that the denial OF the
pofion = ksve Jury composed partly Of
pe<yet3 Ma snot denial Of right se-
pnrtd g kIo ~ any taw providlng Tor The
pg1eI elyn Jtfbts q citizens d che United
!lll1 - N nv statSls, o. BY Ms four
!1(Hf} 1Dent)ssR( ? Ii / word, Judge
~ ~ 4rose iren beglnning 10 end.
: ~ ~ eeus3 saya eQses og homielde