The Weston Democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1875-current, 1880-03-20

the definition Of an Offences, whcth'
er by II rule Of Il common law or by
statute, includes generic terms (as
it necessarily must), it is not sutli.
cicnt that the indictment should
charge the offence in the same
generic terms as in the definition,
but il must state the spccies-.it
must descend to PARTICULARS
| (p. SS.) This doctrine is fully
stated and illustrated i'll the Cruik-
shank case. both in the prevailing
and dissenting opinion.-(92 U. s.,
55S and 56S.) Tested by it, the
indictment hero is but Il
STRING OF WORDS,
presenting no specific offence, and,
therefore, not justifying the issue
OF any process for the arrest and
imprisonment of the petitioner.
1t is difficult to understand how
an indictment so defective could
have been drawn by the public
prosecutor unless We accept as an
explanation of it the extraordinary
statement Of counsel that the dis
trict judge instructed the grand
jury to the effect that whenever it
appeared that Il State judge, in
discharging the duty imposed upon
him by the law Of the State to pre-
pare annually Il list. of such inhabi-
tants Of his county as he should
"think well qualified to serve as
jurors, being persons of sound
Judgment and free from legal en-
ccption," had never put colored
persons on the jury lists, it was
to be presumed that his failure to
do so was because of their race,
color or previous condition of
scrvitude, and that it was the duty
of the grand jury to indict him for
that offence. In tho face of this
ruling no defence could be made
by tho accused, although ho may
have exercised at all times his
best judgment in the selection
of qualified persons, unless he
could prove, what in most cases
would be impossible, that in n
county many thousand inhabi-
tants there was not q person quail
fed to serve as juror. With this
ruling there could he no necessity
of allegating in the Indictment
anything beyond the general fail
IRE to put colored persons on the
jury list, a fact which could not
be disputed, and it would sufficient
ly inform the accused that hc
must be prepared, in order to re-
but the presumption of guilt, to
prove that there were no persons
Of the colored race in tho county
qualified 10 act us jurors. 1t is
difficult to speak of this ruling
in the language Of moderation.
Ny second position is that the
fourth section Of the act Of 1873, so
far ms it applies to the selection of
Jurors in the State courts, is un.
conditional and void. Previous to
the late amendments it would not
have been contendcd, by any one
familiar with the Constitution, that
Congress was vested with any
power to exercise supervision over
The conduct of State officers in the
discharge of their duties under the
laws of the State, and prescribe q
punishment for disrcgarling its
directions. 1t would have been
conceded that the selection of
Jurors WIS a subject exclusively fJr
regulation by The States; that it
was for them to determine
who should act as jurors i'll
their courts, from what class they
should be taken, and what quuIiii,
cations they should possess; and
that their officers, in carrying out
the laws in this respect. were re-
sponsible only to them. Thu.
States could moi have abolished
jury trials altogether, and required
all controversies to he submitted to
the courts without their intcrven-
ton. The Sixth and Seventh
Amendments, in which jury trials
are mentioned, apply only to tho
Federal courts, US has been repeat
cdl.y adjudgcd.
The government created by the
Constitution was not designed for
the regulation Of matters OF purely
local concern. Tho States require |
no aid from any external authority
to manage their domestic affairs.
They we're fully competent to pro.
vide for the due administration Of
Justice between their own citizens
in their own courts, and they nced
cd no directions in that matter
from any other government, any
more than they needed directions
as to their highways and schools,
their hospitals and charitable in
stitutions, their public libraries, OF
the magistrates they should appoint
for their towns and counties. II
was only for matters which con
ccrncd all the States, and which
could not he managed by them in
their independent cupaeityIor man,
aged only with great difficulty ant!
embarrassment, Tint u general and
| ,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,nt ,p,ts In5irt,u