The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-11


In state court Is entitled TO have jury
composed partly OF negroes. AT negro
meeting held In this city Qbc report does
not cay whcn) the following was adopted
"whcreaS we rejoice at the recent deci,
sjou OF the Supreme Court OF the Unteu
States In favor Of Judge Rives. Judge OF tne
Western District OF Virginia, competing
the enforcement Of the fourteenth and nj.
tenth amendments 10 the Constitution "a
the Halted States, aud recognizing the r'got
and duty OF cmpanelliDg colored men on tue
Yuries al sll the courts Of this stare, anu
now. oIasmuch as the right granted unoe,
the amendments has thus been nap''aineu
nv the highest tribunal In the land, we earn
esfly recommend that every coioreo peIsou
10 be tried In any court OF virginia soaii 1e,
mand before the commencement oi n'' u'''
that the jury shall be mixed"
They earnestly recommend that every
negro criminal shalt before the commence
meut Of his trial demand" that the jury
shall be mixed! That demand Is mixture
Of impudence and ignorance. AS we nave
raneated,y said, the Supreme Court OF the
United States, whilst deciding IN severa'
cases that negroes cannot be exciude1 from
iurjes because they are negroes, ala win
eoual or greater emphasis declare that negro
criminals cannot demand iures composed
partly OF negroes. No negro defendant mas
q right. either before or after the commence
ment OF his trial, 10 " demand' shat me)ery
shall be mixed." We have before us an
official copy Of the opinion OF the supreme
Court in the RIvEs case. From it we quote
the following unambiguous language:
"Nor did the refusal of the court and OF
the counsel for the prosecution to allow
modification OF the venire by which one
third Of the Jury, or portion OF 1t, should
be composed Of persons OF the petitioners
own race, amount TO any denial OF right
secured to them by any law providing Tor
the equal civil rights OF citizens OF the
United States. The privilege Tor when
they moved, and which they also asked
from the prosecution, tDlS not right 9tcen
or secured TO them or 10 any person 6y the
lao of the State, or on any act OF Congress,
or 6y me fourteenth amendment OF the Con-
sntuti0n. 1t is right to which every CO.
lored man is entitled, that, in the selection
of Jurors to pass upon bis life, liberty, or
property. there shall be no exclusion OF his
race, aud no discrimination against them
because OF their color. But this Is different
thing from the right which ii Is asserted was
denied 10 the petitioners by the State
couri-yiZ., right to have the jury COM
posed in part of cOlored men. miIed
jury in particular case Is not essential 10
the equal protection Of the tdaoS, ana inc
right 10 IL is not giuen by any tdD OF ITgS-
ginia or BY any Federal statute. 1t is not,
therefore, guaranteed by the fourteenth
amendment, or within the purview OF sec
ton GAL"
Language could not be more urmistaka-
BILE. It affords no ground upon which even
a pretence OF doubt could be based. NO
Virginia Judge can find in this language any
excuse for prostituting the jury system OF
this State. No negro is entitled to negro
Jury. nor to mixed jury. The Supreme
Court says emphatically that no law. Federal
or State, gives any negro such a right.
Nay: 1t goes much farther, and declares
that ga mixed jury" "is not essential to
the equal protection OF the laws"
But these Richmond negroes evidently
suppose that the Supreme Court has de-
cided that il a negro criminal makes de-
mand before his trial for mixed jury, he
must have IT. In respect OF this matter,
also. they have deceived themselves. The
Court siWply decided that section GAL OF
the Revised Statutes Of the United States
authorizes cases 10 be removed before trial
from the State courts to the United States
courts II the facts set forth in the petition
of the defendant are such as 10 justify
such removal. "By the express require
ment OF the statute" says the Court, 'his
petition must set forth the facts upon which
<he bases bis claim to have his case removed,
and not merely his belief that he cannot en-
force his rights at subsequent stage OF the
proceedings" A few lines from the opinion
OF the Court will set the negroes right upon
this point also. The Court says in one
place
"The petitioners further represented that
they had applied to the judge Of the (State)
court, to the prosecuting attorney, and to
his assistant counsel, that portion Of the
Jury by which they were to be tried should
be composed in part OF competent jurors Of
their oton race and color, but that this right
had been refused them"
Now what does the Court say of this petit
tioni We quote:
"The petition OF the two colored men for
the removal OF their case into the Federal
court does not appear TO have made any
case for removal il we are correct in our
reading OF the act OF Congress" "The
complaint is that there were no colored
men on the Jury that indicted them, nor on
the petit jury summoned 10 try them"
1.-THE assertions in the petition for removal
that the grand jury by which the prisoners
were indicted, as well as the jury sum-
moned to try them, were composed wholly
of the white race, and that their race bad
never been allowed 10 serve as jurors in the
courts OF Patrick in any case in which
colored man was interested, fell short Of
Sho,oinq that any ciuil right oas denied. or
that there had been any discrimination
against the defendants because Of their CO.
Tor or race"
We think our colored friends will be able
to see now that Judge RIvEs has not been
sustained In ruling that negro criminals are
entitled to mixed iuries. The decision is
clear on that poiat. Ii jury is fairly Sc
lected, and no negro is excluded because he
Is negro, the Supreme Court demands
nothing else from the State courts. And as
no particular negro could possibly establish
the fact that he was excluded from jury
because he was a negro, we are not yet
ready TO excuse our Virginia judges If they
shall conclude to entrust important cases to
juries composed partly Of negroes. Let us
not make these outrageous decisions any
..,o.an ktau thar ara