The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-06
Judge Rives.

Judge RIyEs Is determined to be noto-
rious il be cannot be celebrated. lie has
directed that several county judges shall be
tried at Lynchburg during this month for
the so-called offences for which he, judi
ciaI usurper. had them indicted in his court
last year. The Supreme Court OF the
United States ordered him 10 restore The
negro mur derers whom he had taken under
his wing to the courts OF the State. Ii told
him--what he ought to have known,
and what every lawyer fit to be a judge
does know---that neither the statute which
be relied upon to sustain his usurpation,
nor any other law Of the United States,
NOR the fourteenth amendment, was
violated by the county judge who re-
fused to put negroes upon the Jury which
tried the REYNoLDsEs. The Constitution OF
the United States, that court says, will not
allow man to be excluded from jury be-
cause be Is q negro; but neither does 1t re-
quire that man shall be put upon Jury
because he Is negro, nor that o negro shall
be tried by fury composed partly Of me-
groes. So far as this point is concerned,
the decision Is all that II ought TO be. 1t al
lows no man to claim mixed jury, and no
man TO claim to be juror by right. In a
word, the court says that no man can claim
amixed jury, and no man can be excluded
from Jury, because be is negro.
Such being the decision OF the Supreme
Court, what will be the result OF the trials
in Judge RIvEs's court OF the county judges
who have been indicted therein Nothing
except the expense and annoyance. The
decision alluded to above covers their cases
also. The Supreme Court holds that Judge
Coles was indictable in Judge RIvEs's
court Tor not performing ministerial duty
In the manner in which the Federal Consti-
tuition requires 1t 10 be performed. That
Is to say, II Judge Coles violated tine Fede.
raj Constitution In making up list Of ia.
rors. II was right to indict him for that vic.
/, lation In q United States cnurt. He was
not entitled 10 be discharged under writ
OF habeas corpus. Ia other words, il
Judge COLES is guilty OF the charge
made against him, he may be tried for
It. But ne to whether he has been guilty
Of any offence or not. the court OF course
said MT word. But il did say to Judge
RIyRs 10 the decision first above referred to
that II Judge Coles has done nothing but
refuse to pat negroes upon jury list, be
has violated no law. nor the fourteenth
amendment. II that Is all that he has done,
he cannot be punished; but as the indlct-
ment charges him with an offence against
the law Of the United States, we decidethai
he may be tried Tor 1t. and thata jury must
say whether he Is guilty or not. That Is all
there Il Of 1t. Thanks to Senator Thur
NAN, no Federal marshal has nowthe power
TO pack 3uries In the United States
courts. II Is an intelerable Outrage I'M
doub'ediy TO subject our State officers
20 the expense and trouble OF tria
In those courts; but II can't be helped
so long as the party Of hatred aud aaalevo-
icnce Is in power. However. the unboughl
and unbiased verdict Of an honest Jury
need not be feared. That will proxeunce
Not Guilty" every county judge whom
Judge RIyes shall try to punish because he
has been bai1led In his attempt to have fwo
or three negro murderes brought bctare
bis negro juries for trial.