The daily gazette., 1880-03-05
From the New York Herald.
The Fourteenth Amendment
- Casaa

The three cases just decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States In.
vol ed the most important question that
has yet been brought before that trib-
unai under the fourteenth amendment
TO the ted, raj constitution. The issue
raised was vital in itself but the import
ance of the opinions is increased by the
fact that this is the first time that the
Supreme Court has interpreted the
meaning of that constitutional provision
in its special bearing on the right of
colored citizens. Important questions
| growing out of race or color have been
passed upon by the lower courts, and
three or four controversies under the
fourteenth amendment bad already been
decided by the Supreme Court but the
QUESTION OF color under that amendment
was first brought before the highest
judicial tribunal of the country in the
cases just disposed Of. Much interest had
also centred III these actions for the rea-
son that it was extremely doubtful what
would be the decision of the Court. In
every opinion that this tribunal had de-
livered on the meaning of the fourteenth
amendment the judges had divided. In
two cases the minority mustered four Of
the nine justices and was headed by the
Chief Justice. The majority that is,
the Court--drew distinction between
the rights of citizen of the United
States and the right of citizen of
State and held thai the fourteenth amend
ment prohibited State from denying
or abrldging the former but not the lat
tie. Furthermore, lower counts had held
that neither laws preventing the inter-
marriage of blacks and whites nor laws
requiring separate schools for colored
were in violation of the constitution OF
laws of the United States. Under these
circumstances the ablest constitutional
lawyers were unable to say with GER
tainly what position the Supreme Court
wuld take on the question raised 10 the
cases which have just been decided.
The three cases which were argued
last fall were distinct and presented in
dependent minor or technical issues; but
the main question or fundamental prin-
ciple Involved was the same in each and
Ill. This was whether the sysJematie
exclusion of colored citizens from the
jury box is a violation Of the fourteen tn
anne ndment. The Court holds that it IL.
In West Virginia this exclusion is ex-
pressly made by statute, whose consti =
tu.ionslity has been affirmed by the Su-
DrAme Court of that State The Su
preme Court Of the United Ststes now
IeveIBts this judgment and declares that
the statute il a p ain VIOLATION ofthe four
leenth Amendment. In Virginia, where
the other two cases arose colored Jurors
are not disqualified by stat ute, but it has
been alleged that they have been pur-
posely and systematically excluded by
the county judges charged with the
summoning OF Jurors. About year ago
United States District Judge Rives caus-
Ell number of these judges to be indict-
ed under the act of Congress of 1875,
which makes the Intentional rejecti on
of jurors oD account of co lor q INSIDE
meanor punishable by fine. The Com
monwealtL OF Virginia maintained that
tbis statute was an unwarranted inter
ference with Stae rights ard unconstitu-
tlonal. But The Supreme Court decides
that II was fully authorized by the four
tttn'h amendment, and that the Jury
officers Of every State are bound to obey
II.
The third case was decided on techni.
cal grounds, but the decision is In bar
mony with the principles tfirmed In the
ler two. The Courf declares 4 that the
fourt, enth an endment Is broader than
the sia ufe now in force. This statute
The Court held, did not meet the case al
bar. Ou this ground the decision was in
favor of the State. But In this opi MON az
well rs in the other two the Court affirm
ell The general principle that the four
teehth amendment was intended TO pro.
tect the jury fights of colored citizens
against the hostile action of n State