The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1880-03-13
Colored Men as Jurors--Supreme
Court Decisions.

Court Decisions.
Decisions We're rendered on Mon
day of last week, in the Supreme
| Court of the United States, establish
ing the rights of colored citizens as
jurors. In case from the State Of
West Virginia. on writ of error to
the Court of Appeals Of that State,
the majority Of the Supreme Court
decide that the statute of West Vir-
ginia which excludes the colored men
from juries is in conflict with that
clause of the fourteenth amendment
which prohibits any State from deny
ing to any person within its jurisdic-
ton the equal protection of the laws,
and that a colored man, tried and
convicted of murder in the court of
that State, was entitled to have his
case removed for trial into the Circuit
Court of the United States, under
section 641 of the revised Statutes, by
reason of such denial Of equal pro-
lection. The contrary Judgment of
the Court of Appeals of West Vir
ginia is reversed and the case remain.
ded, with instructions to reverse the
judgment of the lower courtin which
the plaintiff in error was refused the
right of removal and WAS tried and
convicted. This decision, it may be
observed, may apply to all classes of
colored men convicted in the courts
of any of the counties of this State,
under the present jury law, which
confines the selection of jurors to the
''aOhite male taxable inhabitants or
residents" of said counties. The jury
law applicable to Baltimore city
simply says taxable male inhabi-
tants," emitting the word "white."
and is not open to the same objection.
1t is to be presumed that the Legis-
lature will lose no time in striking
the word "white" out of the general
jury law.
. In the case Of Judge Ccles, of Vir-
ginia, an original case, heard upon
petition for habeas corpus and certi-
orari filed by judge of a Virginia
State court. who had been indicted,
by direction Of Judge Rives, in the
United States District Court, for ex-
Guiding all colored citizens from SER
vice upon iuries by reason Of their
race, color. &C.. and in violation of
the act of Congress Of March 4, 1876,
the majority refuse the petition and
uphold the jurisdiction of the Federal
court. In the construction put upon
the constitutional amendments the
opinion of the court, which, as also
in the preceding case, was delivered
by Justice Strong, goes beyond pres
vious decisions. 1t holds that the
prohibition against discrimination by
the State by reason. Of race, color, &C.,
extends to and includes all branches
of the State government, and all
agencies of that government, eXecu-
tive, legislative ard judicial. The
case Of State judge excluding color
ed men from jury service is held,
therefore, to be within the provision
of the act of Congress furnishing such
an offense, which act is declared 10 be
constitutional. In this case there is
no law of the State excluding colored
men from jury service, but the fact
oftheir exclusion by a judge, TO whom
by law the preparation of the jury
lists is committed, is held to be none
the less an offense, punishable under
United States law, on that account.
OF course the effect Of the decision is
simply to sustain the indictment and
jurisdiction of the Federal court. 1t
does not touch the question of Judge
Coles guilt or innocence of the of
Tense for which he is indicted. This
decision, it may be observed, will
reach and include the case of the
judges of the Supreme Bench, charged
under the present law with the prep
aration Of the jury lists in Baltimore
city, as we'll as that of the judges OF
the circuit courts in the counties.