Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-03-09

-
| imposed upon one than such as il pre-
scrfbed 10 all for Ike offences.
IT sEeuaEs TO ALL PERSONS THEIR CIVIL
RIGHTS
upon the same terms; but II leaves POI
litical rights, or such as lrise from the
form Of government aud its administra.
ton, as they stood previous TO iis adop.
ton. II has no more reference TO them
than Il has 10 social rights and duties,
which do not rest upon any positive
law, though they are more potential In
controlling the intercourse OF individu-
ais. In the consideration OF questions
growing out Of these amendments much
confusion has arisen from failure TO
distinguish between the civil and the
political rights OF citizens. Civil rights
are absolute and personal.
POLITICAL RIGHTS.
on the other hand, are conditioned and
dependent upon the discretion Of the
elective or appointing power, whether
that be the people acting through the
ballot, or one OF the departments Of
their government. The civil rights OF
the individual are never 10 be withheld,
aud may always be judicially enforced.
The political rights which he NAV en-
Joy, such as holding Office and dischsrg-
Ing public trust, are qualified because
their possession depends on his fitness,
10 be adiudged by those who whom So
ciely has clothed with the elective au-
thority. The Thirteenth and Four.
teenth Amendments were designed 10
secure the civil rights Of all persons,
OF every race, color and condition,
but they left TO the States 10
determine 10 whom tho possession
OF political power should be Gu
trusted. This is manifest from the fact
that when 1t was desired 10 confer poll
teal power upon tho newly.made citi-
zens OF the States, as was done by inhib-
ting the denial 10 them OF The suffrage
on account OF race, color, or previous
condition Of seryitude,
ANEW AMENDMENT WAS REQUIRED.
The doctrine OF the District Judge, for
which the counsel contend, would lead
to some singular results. II, when q
colorcd person is refused oi % criminal
offence, the presence OF persons OF his
race on the jury by which he 10 TO DO
tried il essential TO secure TO him the
equal protection OF tho laws, 1t would
seem that the presence Of such persons
on the bench would be- equally essential,
II the court should consist Oi more than
one Judge, rs in many cases II may and
II il should consist of single Judge, that
such protection would be impossible. A
similar objection might be- raised 10 the
composition OF any appellate court 10
which the case, after verdict, might DO
carried.
THE position that in cases where tho
rights Of colorcd persons are concerned,
Justice will not be done 10 them unless
they have mixed jury, Is founded upon
the notion that in such cases white per-
sons will not be- fair and honest jurors.
III this position be- correct there ought
not 10 be any white persons on the jury
where the interests of colored persons
only are involved. That jury would
not bc an honest or fair one, Of which
any ol It's members should he governed
in it's judgment by other considerations
than the law and the evidence. aud that
decision would hardly be considered
lust which should be reached by q sort
Of compromise, IN which the prejudices
OF ono race were set of against the pro-
iudiccs Of tho other. To DO consistent,
those who hold this notion should con-
tend that in cases affecting members oi
the colorcd race only, tho jures should
be- composed entirely 81 colored persons,
and that the presiding Judge should DO
Oi the samu race. To this result the
doctrine asserted by the District Court
logically leads. The jury De mciieidtr,
iiuJudc anciCntly allowed In England
for the trial Of nm alien, was expressly
authorized by statute, probably as much
because Of the difference ollanguage aud
customs between him and Englishmen,
and the greater probability OF his dc.
fence being more fully understood, an
because II would le heard
IN MOEE FRIENDLY srtRIr
by jurors Of his own country and Ian.
gupgc.
II these views ~ 81 the purport and
meaning oi the Thirteenth and Four
tcenta Amendments 10 the Constitution
be correct, there In no warrant for the
act OF Congress under which The indict-
ment In this case was found, and the ar
rest aud imprisonment Of the petitioner
was unlawful, and his release should be
ordered.
Tie case Is one which should not be
delayed for the slow process OF trial
in the court below. aud q subsequent
appeal, in case 81 conviction, 10 this
court ~ be- heard years hence. The
Commonwealth II Virginia has repre-
sontcd 10 us that the service Of her
| judicial officer are needed In her oourta
Tor the administration Of justice be.
tween her citizens, and she asks that
the highest tribunal OF the Union will
release him from his unlawful arrest, Ia
order that he may perform the duties
OF his Office. Those who regard the in
jepeddcnco Of the States In all their
reserved powers and this includes the
| independence OF their legislative, Judi
cial, aud executive departments -as o.,
seuiial 10 tho successful maintenance ol
our form government, cannot iail r.
view with the grayost apprehension ioi
the future, the indictment, In court oI
the United States, Of q judicial officer OIL
a State for the manner IN which he la,
discharged his duties under her laws
and Of which sue makes no complaint
The proceeding
Is A aRoSs OFFKSsE To TnE STATE;
II IL an attack upon her sovereignty Ia
matters over which she has never sur
rendered her jurisdiction. The doctrln,
which sustains IL, carried 20 It's Logical
results, would degrade aud sink her "a
the level Of mere local municipal cor
poration; for II Congress can render m
officer Of State criminally liable Tor tb,
manner ia which he discharges hi,
duties under her laws. Il can prcscrib,
the nature aud extent Of tie pcnalt,
10 which he shall bc subjected
on conviction; II may imprisou
him for life or punish him by
removal from Office. And u Il car
make the exclusion Of persons from
jury service on account Of race or coloI
a criminal offence, u can make theft
exclusion from office on that account
also criminal. and, adopting the doc
trine Of the District Judge IN this case
the failure 10 appoint them 90 Office vii
be- prcsumptivc evidence OF their exclu
Il -. AZ =. a !.