The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-03-02
ATTHE CAPITAL.
TAYLOR Strauder Obtains a New Lease Of
LIfe-The Supreme Court Reyerses
the Decision OF the Lower Court
Other Decisions = Congres.
Slonal Committee
Gossip, &c.
TAYLOR srRAuDER's CASE.

WASHINGTON, March 1.-The Supreme
Court has given decision in the case o
Taylor Strauder, plaintiff in error vs.. the
State OF West Virginia. The question in
volyed was the constitutionality Of the acI
Of the West Virginia Legislature, the
law OF 1928, chapter AZ, excluding col
ored citizens from jury service in the
courts Of that State. This court holdsthat
when colored citizen is tried for his life
by jury from which the citizens OF his
own race are by State statute expressly
excluded, ne is denied the equal protection
Of law guaranteed by the third clause ofthe
fourteenth amendment TO the Constitution
and that the State statute denying him
such right is repugnant to said Constitu'
tional provision. The judgment OF the su-
prene Court OF Appeals Of West Virginia
is reversed. Justice Strong delivered the
opinion; Justice Field dissenting.
SYNOPSIS OF TIE DECISION.
A later dispatch says: strauder, the
plaintiff in error IA negrol, was indicted
in the Circuit Court OF Ohio county, West
Virginia, in October, 1874, for murder.
When his case came up for trial he filed
a petition for its removal to the United
States Circuit Court on the ground OF the
exclusion Of colored citizens from juries
by an act Of the Stale Legislature Of March
18th, 1858, which was virtually denial Of
bis right to equal protection under the
laws. His petition was denied. The case
went to trial and he was found guilty and
sentenced. Upon an appeal to the Su-
preme Court OF Appeals OF West Virginia
it affirmed the judgment. The case was
then brought here upon writ OF error,
the plaintiff in error maintaining
that the act Of the State Legis-
lature which excludes colored men
from juries is in violation Of the Four
teenth amendment to the constitution,
and he was entitled to have his case re-
moved to the United States Circuit Court
This court after fully considering the
Fourteenth amendment, its nature, inten-
ton and scope, holds:
First That the statute OF West Virginia
which in effect singles out and denies the
co!ored citizens the right and privilege Of
participating in the administration OF the
law as Jurors because OF their color,
though qualified in all other respects, is
practically brand upon them affixed by
The law, and is a discrimination against
that race forbidden by the amendment.
Ii is denial OF equal protection Of the
laws to the race thus excluded, as the con.
stitution OF juries is very essential
part OF protection. The trial by jury is
intended to secure jury,of body OF men
composed OF peers or equals OF persons
whose rights it is to Select and summon
10 determine, that is oil persons who have
the same legal status in society that he
holds.
Second-That where, as here, the State
statute secures to every white man the
right OF trial byia jury selected from and
without discrimination against his race,
and at the same time permits or requires
such discrimination against the colored
man because OF his race, the latter Is not
equally protected by law with the former.
Third.-That Section GAL OF the Revised
Statutes which provides for the removal
Of A case from State to Federal courts,
when the defendant, for any reason, is
denied In State courts any right secured 10
him by any law providing for the equal
rights OF citizens OF the United States Is
not in conflict with the Federal Constitu'
ton.
OTHER DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
No. s original exparte, Commonwealth
Of Virginia, petitioner. This was a peti,,
tion tor a writ OF mandamus to compel
Judge Riyes, OF the United States District
Court for the Western District OF Virginia
to restore 10 the State authorities two
eolored persons named Reynolds, indicted
in the State courts for murder, and taken
hy Judre Riyes out OF possession oil the
Slate officials, and held for trial in Fed
eral Court, on the ground that they 1.-THE
prisoners) had been denied In State tn
bnnals such O trial by competent jurors
without distinction OF race or color as the
laws OF the State guaranteed to them. tns
action Of Judge Rives in removing the
case OF the prisoners 10 Federal Oourt u
basnd on section 64l Of theRevised Statutes
This Court, in long and carefully, pre-
pared opinion by Justice Strong, consider
this section in connection with sectlon'
1917 and 1918, and holds,
First-That the object o these statutes
ma of the Constitution which authorize
them. was to place the colored race u
respect of civil rights, on level with th'
whites. They made the rights and res
ponaib:lity, civil and criminal, oil the twt
races, exactly the same: r..
Second Tho prohibitions Of the -Four
teenth amendment have reference 70 stat
action exclusively. and not 10 any actor
NJ nriyate individuals. SeGtIon No.. W
was also intended for the protection ol tn
colored race against State action ant
against that alone. nm.
. Third-A State may act through dilier
ant agenciDe. either by its legislative, It
execntiye or the judicial authorities, an
, Ithe prohibitions OF the amendment eA y
ltend to all actions OF state aenylhh
,leosGl protection Of the laws whether y .
lactionby ono Of the agencies or oyanothe
tIJongress. BY virtue Of the 5th section :
Itbe Fourteenth amendment IT may en-
| ioree prohibitions when they arg 1lsre
Sarded by either Legislative, the execr
live or judicial department o. state
/, The mode OF enforcement is ieft 70 us dls
, cretion, II may secure o right th1t 70
,. snforce its recognition by removing "
case from the State court IN which II
Q into a Federal court where II VIII p
Z acknowledged. =
,, FourthSBut the Fourteenth ament
. ment Is bropder than the statute whte
o authorizes the removal, section GAL, ma
I, lbe denied 10 a defendant The removi
|. I.lauthorized by the statute IS femov' ,
the trial or after the hearln
9 lsudicisllY. commenced. Section GIL. has .
II spp!icsbfs,ty. 1t was lot intended !
. zach such sases, They were LETT 70 IL
: teyisory power Of this eo4rt. ,,...
o Therefore the denial Of inability 70 70 q q
I. force In the judicial tribunals Of TIE stat
IS the rightslsecured to defendant by %
ls law, providing for equal Giyii Iignts SS o. .