The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-03-17
The Decisions Ofthe Supreme Court of the
United States on the Political Issues.
WHAT NOW !?

which the Democratic party, lor Tie
reasons set forth in the dissenting opin-
ions, by Justice Field, maintains belong
exclusively to the States. One Of these
cases (from Tennessee) is that OF q
revenue officer Of the United States
who had killed a citizen of Tennessee.
He was arraigned for trial in the courts
of that State whose law he had offended
and whose citizen he had killed. Under
the act Of Congress of March l, 1879,
the accused, by his own affidavit, averred
that he had killed the citizen while
executing his duty as Federal revenue
officer, and feared he could not have a
fair trial in the State court, applied
to have his case removed to the Federal
court, which was done. The State ap-
piled to have it sent back; and the Su-
preme Court of the United States has
decided that the case should be tried in
the United States court that the State
court has no jurisdiction of the case
though it is the law of the State that
has has been violated.
In Virginia two colored men had been
tried for murder in State court. AT
ter new trial had been granted they
applied for a removal Of their cases to
the United States court on the ground
that there were no colored men on the
jury Judge Rives, the federal judge,
decided that it could be done, and the
Supreme court disagrees with him, not
as to the law, but merely as to the time,
holding that in this case the applicants
were too late in their demand. The
meaning af the decision is that any per-
son Of color, making affidavit that he
cannot have a fair trial, but fears a de-
NAL of his civil rights under the Consti-
tuition and laws of the United States,
can, at any time before his caseis called,
avoid trial in State court for his crime
against State law, and be taken before
Federal Judge for such disposition as
the latter may make
Another case from Virginia is that of
j. d. Coles, who as Judge of of coun-
ty was required by the laws of that
State to prepare annually a list of
such inhabitants of the county "as he
shall think well qualified to serve as
jurors being persons of sound judgment
and free from legal exception. From
this list jurors are drawn. Judge Coles
was indicted in the U. s. District Court
under instructions from Judge Rives,
for having failed to place persons Of
color in the list from which jurors were
to be drawn. He applied for writ of
haBeas corpus, alleging that the L. S.
District Court has 40 jurisdiction and
his Imprisonment, was unlawful. The
State of Virginia also presented a SINH
lar petition alleging that an officer I'M
der her government had been arbitrari-
Iy and illegally interfered with in the
discharge cf his public duties The
Court held (Justices Field and Clifford
dissenting that the prisoner had viola
ted the act Of Congress Of 1875, entitled
IAN act to protect all citizens in the
enjoyment of their civil and legal
rights, and that therefore the judge of
the county had been legally indicted
and is subject to trial for his alleged
offence in the United States District
Court, and his petition for release was
refused. The meaning Of this extraor-
binary decision is, that matters ofpurely
local concern is not 10 be left with the
States, but are subject to the regulation
Of the United States-that the States
shall not exercise the power to decide
upon the qualification OF Jurors. The
scope Of the decision is that the internal
of the States, in every
detail, is subject to the jurisdiction off
the federal government in violation of
the clause of the Constitution Of the |
United States declaring that all powers
not delegated 10 the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by It |
to the States, are reserved to the |
States.
The other two cases are upon the
United States election laws. One is
hat of Augustus F. Clark, judge of
elections in Cincinnati, in 1873, who was
lrrested, tried before the United States
Circuit Court and condemned to impri-
onment on charge Of having violated
State law. His duty was to deliver to
he clerk of the Court poll book, put
lnder cover and sealed, and the offence
harged was that he allowed the seal and
over while ia his possession and before
eliyery to be broken. 1t was not
harged that any alterations were made
n the poll book affecting the result or
cunt of the vote for Congressman, but
be Circuit Court held that nevertheless
e vas amenable to the federal power
or falling TO keep the cover and seal of
be poll book intact, as the State law
royided. The ground of appeal is that
State officer, acting under State laws,
nd not shown TO have violation any
,deral law or to have wrongly afec- !
ID the result Of the federal election, is
OF amenable to the process OF a Federal
curt. The other case is that Of Sic
old, Tucker, Burns, Coleman and t
owen, all judges of election in Balti- :
ARE in 1873, who were convicted in the t
nited States Circuit Court of hinder e
g United States Supervisors and cleo /
on marshals in the performance of a
leir duties, the convictions being under :
ctions 1914, 1922 of the Revised !
tatutes. and the ground of appeal to t