The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-03-17
WASHINGTON. March |. 1880

WASHINGTON, March l, 1880.
No. 753. TAYLOR Strauder VS.. the State of
West Virginia in error to the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Strau-
der, the plaintiff in error, negro, was in
dicted in the Circuit Court of Ohio county,
w. Va, 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 upon the ground that the ex-
clusion of colored citizens from juries by the
act of the State Legislature of March II,
1868, was virtually a denial of his right to
the equal protection of the laws. His petit
ton was denied, the case went to trial, and
he was found guilty and sentenced. Upon
appeal the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia affirmed the iugment The
case was then brought here upon a writ Offer
ror, the plaintiff in error maintaining that the
act of the State Legislature, which excludes
colored men from Juries, is in violation of
the fourteenth amendment of the constitu-
ton, and that he was entitled to have his case
removed to the United States Circuit Court.
This Court, after fully considering the four
teenth amendment-its nature, intention
and scope-holds
FirstLThat the statute of West Vir-
GINA, which, in effect, singles out and de-
MES to colored citizens the right and privi-
lege 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 discrimination against that
race forbidden by the amendment. 1t is a
denial of the equal protection of the laws to
the race thus excluded since the constitu-
ton of juries is a very essential part of the
protection which the trial by jury is in
tended to secure. The very idea of a jury
is body of men composed of the peers or
equals of the person whose rights it is select
/ ed or summoned to determine-that is, of
persons having the same legal status in So
ciety as that which he holds.
Second-That where as here the State
statute secures to every white man the right
of trial by jury selected from and without
| discrimination against his race, and at the
same time permits or requires such discriml-
nation against the colored man because of
his race, the latter is not equally protected
| Ivy law with the former
Third-That section GAL of the Revised
| Statutes, which provides for the removal of
case from the State to the Federal courts,
when the defendant for any reason is denied
in the State courts any right secured to him
| by any law providing for the equal rights of
citizens of the United States, is not in con-
fict with the federal constitution. The
| judgment of the lower court is reversed,
with costs, and the cause remanded, with
| Intersections to reverse the judgment of the
| Circuit Court of Ohio county. Mr.. Justice
Strong delivered the opinion, Judges Cliff
| ford and Field dissenting.
THE VIRGINIA CASE.
No. 3, original, Elk parte Commonwealth
of Virginia, petitioner.-This was petition
/ for writ of mandamus to compel Judge
Rives, of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia,
to restore to the State authorities two
colored prisoners, named Reynolds, indicat-
ed in the State courts for murder, and
taken by Judge Rives out of the possession
of the State officials and held for trial in
the federal court on the ground that they
| 1.-THE prisoners) had been denied in the State
tribunals such a trial by competent jurors,
| without distinction of race or color, as the
laws of the State guaranteed to them. The
action OF Judge RiYes in removing the case
| of the prisoners to the federal court was
based en- section 641 of the Revised statutes
This Court, in a long and carefully prepared
| opinion by Justice Strong, considers that
| section in connection with section I977 and
| 1878, and holds -
First-That the object of these statutes,
| IS of the constitution which authorizes them,
| was to place the colored race in respect
| of civil rights upon level with whites,
They made the rights and responsibilities,
civil and criminal, Of the two races exactly
| the same
second-That the prohibitions Of the four
tenth amendment have reference to State
action exclusively, and not to any action Of
private indivuals. Section GAL was also In
intended for the protection of the colored
race against State action, and against that
alone.