Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-03-05

sovereignty against Violator ol It's own
law Vas, when usurped there IL no
other word for i'll by u United States
court under law Of Congress, stricken
down by the sanction of six judges OF
tine Supreme Court of the United
States. This is a practical assertion OF
the doctrine that United States
revenue officer is not subject to
the criminal administration OF a
State for murder. committed within ITS
domain, but is exempt from trial by a
State court, to which all other citizens
are liable. Tn $ is the doctrine OF equal
protection Of the laws provided for in
the Fourteenth amendment. As laid
down by the Supreme Court, revenue
officials of the United States are not
amendable to State power, though they
violate its laws, and though they com
init murder, arson and theft, all they
have to do is to sugar they belong To
this privileged class and demand to he
brought before United States court.
The Pod then proceeds to review the
other cases in their order as follows:
The second case was closely allied to
the first in its relation to the State and
Federal authority. In Virginia two col
orcd men had been tried IN a State
Court. After new trial had been
granted they applied Tor removal Oi
their cases la the United States Court.
Judge Riyes decided il could be done,
and the Supreme Court disagrees with
him, not as "a the law, but merely rs To
the time, holding that in this case the
applicants were too late IN their demand.
The Rives doctrine, fully sustained by
the Court, is that any person, whether
an officer OF the United States or
not, making affidavit that he can
not have fair trial, but Tears u
denial oi his civil rights under the Con
stitution and laws OF the United States,
san, at any time before his case lscalled,
avoid trial in a State court Tor his crime
against a State law, and he taken before
a Federal Judge for such disposition as
the latter may make. These two dcct
ions, added together, take from the State
Judiciary the authority Ia try, except
with the criminal \ consent, all civil or
military officers or persons acting with 3
color Of authority, aud all colured people
who make affidavit that they cannot be
fairly tried; constituting n large priyil-
eyed class who may defy State authority
and lind refuge from punishment I'M
der the shadow OF the wing OF Federal
power.
Having Nv these two cases put the
State Judiciary hons dU combat, MIR. JUS
tice Strong, acting Tor himself and five
other Republican judges, proceeded To
invade the province OF the legislative
department Oi the State OF West Nir-
GINA by declaring that that State could
not constitute juries in her own courts
OF irhiIc persons only, and therefore the
conviction OF colorcd man by such u
Jury was unconstitutional
The mode Of reasoning by which this
conclusion was reached was not un-
worthy OF that type OF judges who, un-
der blas, however consciously der
ived from strong partisan prejudice, in
geniously devise methods To make the
worse appear the better cause.
The Fourteenth Amendment declares.
that nc State shall deny Ia any person
1.-THE equal protection Of the laws
This equal protection cannot be- aiiorl-
ell tn a colOred man ii colured men are
not eligible To- iuries. Therefore, the
law Oi West Virginia, which excludes
them, and Judge Coles, who excludes
them in the other State of Virginia. al
though not in pursuance of any statute,
deny To them the equal protection of
the laws. This is sophistry, miScallcd
judicial logic, by which the Federal
usurpation OF STATE power is sanctioned.
THE iallacy has been well exposed 10y
Mr.. Justice Field. III a colorcd man is
denied equal protection because hiS race
is excluded from lurics, how Is It With n
nOn.ireeholder. when none but free
holders are qualified jurors7 How with
women, with children, with aliens OR,
again, il the equal protection OF law to a
cOlOred man requires that his race shall
not beexeluded from the iury-box, can
he swear that he has that protection ii
the Judges are all white, or the legisla-
tors, who made the Law he yio-
lated, are all white, or IL tue voters
who elected them are all white?
How, in short, can laws passed
by white people only give equal
protection to the negro ii that law can
not be equitably administered unless a
negro be on the jury2 Unequal laws
may be made by whites II without col
Ored aid they are presumed to be un-
equally administered. ID this clause OF
the EOurteenth amendment requires
negro constituent in jurieS, why does it
not require the same constituent in the
legislature, and 50 down To the source
Of pOWer2 What kind OF a doctrine
would this have been considered by
Marshall, fancy or Chaser Ii any
thing be certain in these uncertain
times, il is that no such Interpretation
eau fairly BE- given to the Fourteenth
Ii IL can be, why WAS
the Fifteenth amendment adcpted2
ID negro suffrage Was secured by the
Fourteenth, what need ofthe Fifteenth?
And IL logic choppers shall say only 10
make assurance dOub.y sure, why, then
was the Fifteenth amendment limited
so cautiously TO suffrage alone3
The equality OF protection spoken Of
a. MAS finely put by Judge Field in his
which sounds like the bugle
blast Of the Monticello statesman Of
1850, rallying the friends OF constitu-
tional liberty against constellation con-
slsts in the security OF personal rights,
absolute and indeieasible. and not in the
yesting OF new powers in Congress or the
OF essential powers from the
States. The civil rights Of the citizen,
always and everywhere eniorcible, were
secured without abridging in the least