Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-02

of four weeks, and devoted the entire after
noon to reading of opinions. Tao following
decisions were rendered:
No. 80. S. W. Gates ct al, plaintiffs In error,
Vs. James l.. Goodloe, executor, etc, IN error,
TO the supreme court of Tennessee.
The question presented in this case is wheth-
err the lessees of certain real estate in the city
of Memphis, which was seized by federal
troops upon the occupation OF that
city in 1862, was discharged from liability to
the lessons for non performance OF contract
during the time that such property was under
control of the United States forces. This court
holds that the lessees are discharged and ie-
cognizes the rule that the non performance OF
a contract will be excused where it Is OCCASION
ed by an act done by public authority. Inc
decree of the lower court is therefore reversed
with costs, and the cause rcmanded with direc-
lions to enter decree in conformity to this
opinion.
No. 10. The Northwestern Union Packet COM
pany, plaintiff in error, VS.. The City OF st.
Louis, in error, to the circuit court of the
United States for the Eastern district OF Mis-
souri,.
This was n suit to recover payments of wharf
age made by the plaintiff in error to the city
in 1879, 1871 and 1872, for the privilege OF
loading its steamboats, at the improved wharf
ed by the plaintiff in error that municipal or
dipauces requiring such payments are III
corfjct with that provision of the led
eral constitution which forblds States
to Law any impost or duties on imports or ex-
ports, OF to lay any duty on tonnage. Ihis
court holds that the ordinances In question, 80
far Us they provide for wharfage fees not eX-
ceediug in amount what is fa;r compensation
for the improved facilities provided by the
city at its own cost are not in conflict with the
Federal constitution. In this holding the
court simply adheres to its decision In the
Packet Co. VS.. Keokuk, 50 U. S. 81. Tho Judg-
ment of the lower court ID affirmed with costs.
No. 753. Taylor Strouder VS.. State of West
Virginia, in error to the supreme court of
appeals of West Virginia.
Strouder. the plaintiff in error, negro, was
indicted, in the circuit court of Ohio county,
West Virginia, in October 1871, for murder.
When his case came up for trial he nied Pc
tition for its removal to the United States
circuit court, on the ground that the exclusion
of colored persons from the jury. by act of the
State legislature of March II, 1863, was virtu-
ally denial of his right to equal protection OF
the laws. This petition was denied, the case
went to trial AID he was found guilty
and sentenced On appeal, the supreme
court of appeals of West Virginia affirmed the
Judgment. The case WAS then brought here
upon writ of error. the plaintiff IN error
maintaining that the act of the State lesisia-
ture, which excludes colored men from Jurles
is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution, and that he was entitled to
have his case removed to the United states CIR
cult court. This court after fully considering
the fourteenth amendment. its nature, lnten-
ton and scope, holds:
First-That the statute of West Virginia,
which in effect singles out and denies to col
ored citizens the right and privilege of partici-
patinC in the administ ration of the law as jul
rors because of their color though qualified in
all other respects is practically brand upon
them affixed by the law, and is discrimina-
ton against that race forbidden by the amend
ment 1t is a denial of equal protection of the
race thus excluded, since the constitution OF
juries is very essential part OF the
protection which the trial by jury Is
intended to secure. The very idea OF a jury Is
a body of men composed of peers or equals of
persons whose rights it is elected or summoned
to determine, that is of persons having the
same legal status in society as that which he
holds.
Second-That whereas here the State stat
utes secures to every white man the right OF
trial by jury, selected from and without dis
elimination against his race, and at the same
time permits or requires such discrimination
against the colored man because of his race,
the latter is not equally protected by law with
the former.
Third-That section Gil, revised statutes,
which provides for the removal of case from
State to federal courts when defendant for
any reason is denied in the State courts any
right required secured to him by any laN pro-
viding for the equal rights of citizens of the
United States is not in conflict with the feder-
al constitution. The judgment OF the lower
court is reversed with costs and the cause re-
manded, with instructions to reverse the ldg-
ment of the circuit court of Ohio county.
ALI fha Il III
Clifford and Field dissenting.
No. 5. Original ex parte, commonwealth of
Virginia, petitioner.
This was a petition for writ of mandamus
to compel Judge Rives, of the United Ststes
district court for the western district of Vir-
gnia, to restore to the State authorities two
colored prisoners named Reynolds, indicted in
the State courts for murder, and taken by
Judge Rives out of possession of the State
official and held for trial in the federal conrt
on the ground that they. the prison rs,
had been denied in the State tribunals, scch a
trial by competent jurors, without distinction
of race or color, as the laws of the State guar
anteed to them. The action Of Judge Rives in
REMOVING the case OF the prisoners to the fed
eral court was based section GIL, revised
statutes This court, in long and carefully
prepared opinion by Justice Strong, considers
that section in connection with sections 1877
and 1878 and holds:
First-Thnt the object of these statutes, as
of the constitution which authorizes them, was
to place the colored race In respect of civil
rights on level with whites. They made the
rights and responsibilities, civil and criminal,
of the two races exactly the same.
Second-That the prohibitions of the four
teenth amendment have reference to State &C.
ton exclusively and not to any action of pri-
yate individuals. Section No. 64l was also in
tended fer the protection of the colorcd race
against State action and against that alone.
Third-A State may act through different
agencies, either by It's legislative its executive
or it's judicial authority, and the prohibitions
of the amendment extend to all action, of the
State denying equal protection of the laws,
whether it be an action by one of its agencies
or by another. Congress. by virtue of the
fourteenth amendment, may enforce the pro-
hibitions wherever they are disregarded, by
either the legislative the executive or Judiciary
departments of the State. The mode of en-
forcement is left to its discretion. 1t may Sc
cure the right, that is enforce its recognition,
bv removing the case from the State conrt in
which it is denied into a federal court, where
it will be acknowledged
Fourth-But the fourteenth amendment is
broader than the statute which authorizes re-
moval Section GAL does no. apply to all cases
in which equal protection of the laws may be
denied to defendant. The removal authorized
by the statutes q removal before trial, or
final hearing to judicial infraction of the