Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-10-14
The Right TO Grtucise Mr.. higgins
Action in the Neal Case.

tuib ASSAULT lion, huu, uiscuhsinB IL Win
Republican lawyers who profess to share
the idea, we have not heard any sufficient
reason to warrant the air of
injured innocence and wounded pro-
fessional dignity which Mr. Higgins
assumes and which his friends assume for
him. AIR. Higgins was assigned by the
court to conduct this case and so, even
more than ordinarily, represented the
State of Delaware in his capacity as
counsel and therefore one of the officers
of its courts. He raised the question of
the validity of an indictment and convic-
ton by jnries containing no Negroes
before the State judges composed, as Is
well kno Sn, of men of both political
parties and, after n patient hearing and
the fullest possible assertion of the force
aud effect of tho amendments of the
Federal constitution those judges unaRi-
Rl0Hyly decided that the United States
statute based on the constitutional amend.
mont had not been violated, and that his
client had had fair trial in accordance
with the laws OF this State and of the
United States, MIR. Higgins chose, of his
own motion, to appeal from this decision
to two'judges of the supreme Court of
the United States, 10 have the case taken
practically out of the jurisdiction of the
courts of this State, and his act was pub
lie act subject to public criticism without
improperly, much less any indecency.
But laying aside all considerations
Immediately personal TO Mr.. Higgins, his
act properly brings up as a matter for
public discussion and consideration the
whole question as to the tendency of
! Federal legislation which makes such at
tempted interference with the jurisdiction
of q state over its own citizsns possible.
/ Grant the validity of the Constitutional
4 amendments which no one denies, grant
their entire wisdom and propriety which
many do deny and still it is not claimed
that of themselves they make
necessary any such action. 1t is
legislation based on what many
consider strained construction O. their
provisions which is appealed TO by Mr..
Higgins True that construction has
been sustained by party majority in the
Supreme Court in a decision which our
State judges unanimously declared did
not apply to the case now under
consideration, but the Supreme Court
did not decide that Congress was under
any Obligation to pass such a law, and
merely that it was within its power to dc
so If il chose. The prcpriety of the party
action by which such law was enacted is
As proper a matter for public consideration
as that o: any other law aver passed, anC
the effects Of such legislation on the peact
aud dignity of the State of Delaware may
be- properly considered on the stumy
and in the press MIR. Higgins chose of hi
own m0tiGn to attempt to apply that legis
lation to the curtaiiment Of the jurisdic
ton of this State over criminal acts com
mitted on its territory, and it is shee
nonsense to say that the people of Della
ware have no right to look beyond hi
e possible success to examine the probabl
result aud to consider that, along wit
otner things, in deciding whether the
y care to sustain the party responsible 70
r. the legislation which Mr.. Higgins seeks I
} utilize aud which he, rs a member of this