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

nv my RANDOLPH TUCKER on THE vlR.
~, :. t,sps - GREAT CHIEF WITH No
=, orggs-rEEs or UNITED STATES
l.',,es--IoeAS on The rIlz-JoHN-P0R-
S,sc,ss--RgroRTs AGAINST WAR CLAIMS
IS ocvsKr BorIING's NAME AGAIN BEFORE
rag SENATE
r,ram our Regular Correspondent
~ .sgrxoroS. March A sensation was
.,sd among the Democrats OF the House
a.v when the Ways and Means Commit
-. he A majority OF one, voted to indefi-
s;,s,v nostpone the proposition to reduce
,1s do,y on sugar, and also that to reduce
he tariff on steel rails. Mr.. Tucker had
,,ovsd 10 IKE the duty on steel rails Sli
nar ton instead Of $40. but before the vote
nn,,d no taken on 1t The whole subject was
n,stponed indefinitely. The bills for the
reduction OF the duty on type. paper, &C.,
shued the same fate by like majority. and
then the tariff bill Of Mr.. Morrison to re-
duce the duty on all cottons, woolens, and
METALS 10 so per centum al rdforem was in
definitely postponed, as was also the pro-
p,sition to appoint special committee OF
sre 10 revise the tariff. Messrs. Carlisle,
Thicker: Morrison. and Mills voted against
this sweeping action, which leaves the tariff
asit il, but they were powerless TO prevent
il, TIE duty on steel rails will remain at
SOS a ton. The Democrats who opposed
the reelection OF Mr.. Randall as Speaker
mint 10 this result as vindication OF their
judgment.
WHAT Mr.. TUCKER SAYS OF THE DECISIONS.
asked Hon. John Randolph Tucker to-
day what he thought OF the decision OF the
supreme Court 10 The Virginia aud other
ca.es, and he replied rs follows:
THE TENNESSEE CASE.
In the Tennessee case the Court decided
that where a revenue officer OF the United
States makes affidavit that he committed
murder or any other crime against the State
in the discharge of his official duties, he
MY on his own motion be tried in the Cir
cult Court OF the United States, and State
court clnnot try him. The State must have
ils law vindcIted bv a United States court.
and cannot be trusted TO try United States
United states court, and the State must
trust il for vindicating her law; but her
court cannot be trusted to do Justice to an
accused citizen, il he be United States
officer.
THE PATRICK-C0USTY CASES.
In the Virginia cases Of Burwell and an
other negro the same doctrine was held as
t, colored people. They may be tried by a
circuit court OF the United states if they
make oath that their equal rights will not
be respected by State court. Thus there
is large privileged class appraised 10 the
country-revenue officers Of The United
States and c0lored people-who are priyi-
legged TO be tried in either State or Federal
court. as they may elect, while the white
people who are not revenue officials have
no such choice. This is the "oqual pro-
lection Of the laws" Of which We hear so
much.
TIE WEST VIRGINIA CASE.
In West Virginia case the law OF West
Virginia allowing only white people TO be
put on juries was declared unconstitu-
tional, and conviction Of negro By
ed was reversed. Thus Congress annuls a
State law as to the constitution of iuries,
aud the Supreme Court sanctions it.
THE CASE OF JUDGE COLES.
In the case o! the United States Us. Coles
it was held that Judge Coles could be tried
and punished Tor mol putting colored people
on iuries, as the law OF Virginia allowed it
and the law Of Congress required il. The
question Is not whether colored people
should or should not be put on juries by
State law, but whether Congress can order
II and regulate the mode of constituting
iuries. The Court held that Congress can
do so under the fourteenth amendment, and
yet the greater right Of suffrage was not in
GUIDED under the terms OF The fourteenth
amendment, else there would have been no
need OF the fifteenth amendment. The
adoption OF the fifteenth excludes the infer
ence that the Constitution-makers thought
The fourteenth amendment gave suffrage or
any other political right 10 the colored peo-
pie, and therefore as ii didn't, and the fif.
tenth amendment only gave suffrage, it
follows that the right OF Congress 10 regu-
late juries In State courts is not granted TO
Congress by the Constitution or It's amend
ments. Justice Clifford dIssented, in long
AID able opinion, in the principal clse, aud
eoncurred witt Judge Field in his impress
siye dissenting opinion.
THE RESULT OF THE FOUR CASES.
The result Of the four cases, Mr.. Tucker
SAID, is that the Federal courts strip from
the State courts Jurisdiction over crimes
committed against State. In the Coles
case Federal jndge drags a State Judge
from the seat OF justice and arraigns him at |
his bar for the trial Of his motives under |
Tue probe OF presumption Of guilt which |
would be welInigh impossible for The sc-
easad 20 rtbut. The principles OF the deci-
siol sanction the possession OF power by |
congress which, pressed to It's Legitimate
consequence, would put all officers OF the
s'ste government under the supervision Of
ias Federal court and subject all the State
oiesrs TO criminal prosecutions before Fede.
siiudges and Fed raj inrIes. II these deci.
A0ns, said Mr. Tucker, are not arrested by
public opinion the federation system IL at
'ao' and centralized, absolute govern
nent Is at hand.
WHAT HE SAID OF JUDGE yISLD's OPINION.
DIR. Tucker SAID Judge FIELDS opinion In
aese cases Is sirikingIy abr, and Is charac-
ffIzfd BY A iudicia1 -4lcnuanco u.hich re-