Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1880-04-13

the United States, and State court can
not try him. The State must have it.
law vindicated by United States cour
and cannot be trusted to try Unitet
States officer. His rights must be pro
tected by United States court
and the State must trust it for vindicat.
ing her law but her court cannot b.
trusted to do justice to an accused citi.
zen, If he be United States officer.
THE PATRICK-COUNTY CASES.
In the Virginia cases of BurWell and
another negro the same doctrine was
held as to colored people. They NAV be
tried by q Circuit Court of the United
States if they make oath that their
equal rights will not be respected by q
State court Thus there is q large pri-
vileged class upraised in the country
revenue officers of the United States and
colored people-who are privilege to be
tried in either State or Federal court. as
they may elect. while the white people
who are not revenue officials have no
such chice. This is the "equal protec.
ton of the laWsn of which we hear so
much.
THE WEST VIRGINIA CASE,
- In West Virginia case the law of
West Virginia allowing only white peo-
pie to be put on juries was declared un>
CONSTITUTIONAL, and a conviction of ne
gro hy State court where that law was
administered was reversed. Thus Con-
gress annuls State law as to the con-
stitution of iuries, and the Supreme
Court sanctions it.
THE CASE OF JUDGE COLES.
In the case of the United States "a.
Coles it was held that Judge Coles could
be tried and punished for not putting
colored men on juries, as the law Of
Virginia allowed 1t and the law of Con-
gress required it. The question is not
whether colored people should or should
not be put on juries by the State law.
but whether Congress can order it and
regulate the mode of constituting iuries.
The court held that Congress can do SO
under the Fourteenth amendment. and
yet the great right of suffrage was not
d under the terms of the Four
teenth amendment, else there would
have been no need of the Fifteenth
The adoption of the Fif
teenth excludes the inference that the
Constitution makers thought the Four
teenthgave suffrageor any other political
right to the colored people, and, there |
fore, as it didn't, and the Fifteenth
only gave suffrage it follows
That the right of Congress to regulate |
lurles in State courts is not granted to |
Congress by the Constitution or its a.
mendments. Justice Clifford dissented, |
ina long and able opinion, in the prin-
oipal ease, and concurred with Judge |
Field in his impressive dissenting opin-
ion.
THE RESULT OF THE FOUR CASES.
The result of the four cases, Mr.. Tuck
er said, ia that the Federal courts strip |
from the State courts jurisdiction over |
crimes committed against State. In |
Inc Coles case Federal Judge drags
state Judge from the seat of justice and |
his motives under the probe of q pre-
sumption of guilt which it would be
well nigh impossible for the accused to !
rebut: The principles of the decision |
sanction the possession of power by |
Congress which, pressed to its legiti- |
mate consequence, would put all officers
Of the State Government under the SUI
pervis1on of the Federal court and sub
Iect all the State officers to criminal |
before Federal judges and
Federal juries. If these decisions. said
MIR. Tucker. are not arrested by public
opinion the federative system is at end,
and centralized, absolute government
Is at hand
WHAT HE SAID OF JUDGE FIELDS
OPINION. i
Mr.. Tucker said Judge Fields opin-
on in these cases is strikingly able, and
g characterized by judicial eloquence
which reminds one of the earlier days
)f the Supreme Court. The constitu-I
.ional principles, as expounded by him,
we're luminous and splendidly put, and
produced deep impression They pre-
sent, he declared, a rallying ground for
The defenders of States rights in their
contest against the imminent danger of |
HApDETIr