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

4Srent agencies, elther Dy Its legislative, 1t
executive or its judicial authorities, and tn
prohibitions of the amendment extend to al
actions of the State denying equal protection
of the laws whether it be action by one Q
the agencies or by another. Congress, b
virtue of the fifth section of the fourteenth
amendment, may enforce the prohibition
whenever they are disregarded by either tn
. legislative, the executive or the judica
department of the State. The mode of en-
forcement is left to its discretion. 1t ma,
secure the right-that is, enforce its recog
nition-by removing the case from a Stat
court, in which it is denied, into a fedora
court, where it will be nowledged.
Fourth-That the fourteenth amendmen
is broader than the Statute which author
lies the removal. Section GAL does no
apply to all cases in which equal protection
of the laws may be denied to a defendant
The removal authorized by the statute is :
removal before trial or final hearing. IL
judicial infractions of the constitutions
amendment, made after the trial has com
menced, section Gal has no applicability
was not intended to reach such cases. They
wereleft to the revisory power of this court
Fifth-Therefore, the denial or inability
to enforce in the judicial tribunals of a State
| rights secured To a defendant by any law
providing for the equal civil rights of all
persons citizens of the United States, q
which section GAL speaks, is primarily, il
not exclusively, denial ofsuch rights or an
inability to enforce them resulting from the
constitution or laws of the State, rather thar
a denial made manifest at the trial of the
case. In other words, the statute has refer
ence to a legislative denial or an inability
resulting from it.
Sixth-The constitution and laws of Vir.
ginia do not exclude colored citizens from
service on juries. The petition for removal,
therefore, did not present case for removal
under section GAL.
Seventh-The defendant in this case NOV
ed in the State Court that the venire be so
modified that one-third, or some portion of
the jury, should be composed of his own
race. The denial of that motion was not a
denial of right secured to him by any law
providing for the equal civil rights of citi-
zens of the United States, or by any statute,
| or by the fourteenth amendment a mixed
| jury in a particular case is not essential to
| the equal protection of the law. 1t is a
right to which any colored man is entitled
that in the selection of jurors to pass upon
his lite, liberty or property, there shall be
no exclusion of his race, and no discrimina-
ton against them because of his color. But
that is different thing from that which was
claimed as of right and denied in the State
Court right to have the jury com
posed in part of colored men. From these
principles it follows that the Federal Court
had no rightful jurisdiction of the case, and
that the writ of mandamus for the restora-
ton of the prisoners to the State authorities
must be granted, and the Court 50 orders,
No. 4. Original ex parte the Common
wealh of Virginia and j. ID. Coles petitioners.
This is a petition for writs of habeas cor>
pus and certiorari to bring before this Court
the case of Judge Coles, indicted in the Fed
eral Court for the Western District of Vir>
ginia upon the charge of excluding all color
ed citizens from jury duties on account of
their race, color and previous condition of
seryitude, and in violation of the act of
March 4, 1875. The petitioner alleges that
his arrest and Imprisonment upon this in
dictment were unwarranted by the constitu-
tion of the United States and in violation of
his rights and the rights of Virginia, whose
judicial officer he is, and that the inferior
court had no jurisdiction to proceed against
him. This court, after a careful examina-
ton of the act of March 4, 1875, which pro-
vides for the trial and punishment of officers
who excluded citizens from the jury list on
account of race or color, holds that that act
is authorized by the Thirteenth and Four
teenth amendments to the constitution, for
the enforcement of which Congress is given
power to pass appropriate legislation. The
Court also holds that the inhibition con-
that no agency of the State nor of the off
GERS or agents by whom its powers are exert
ed shall deny to any person within its jul
risdiction the equal protection of the laws
Whoever, by virtue of public position under
State government, deprives another of
property, life or liberty without due process
of law, or denies or takes away the equal
protection of the laws, violates the constitu-
tional inhibition and, as he acts in the name
g.. H. Sako aoIOk ho1r 1, t1,G nf,Ds
power, his act is that of the State. Other
wise his constitutional inhibition has no
meaning and the State has clothed one of its
agents with power to amend or evade it.
The constitutional amendment was ordained
to secure equal rights to all persons, and to
insure to all persons the enjoyment of such
rights power was given to Congress to en-
force its provisions by appropriate legisla-
ton. Such legislation must act upon per-
sons, not upon the abstract thing denomina-
ted State, but upon the persons who are
the. agents of the State in the denial of the
rights which were intended to be secured.
Such is the act of March 4, 1875, and it is
fully authorized by the constitution. The
act of the defendant in selecting jurors was
a ministerial, not judicial act, and being
charged with he.performance of that duty,
although he derived his authority from the
State, the defendant was bound in the dis
stitution and the laws passed in pursuance
thereof. Justices Strong delivered the
opinion, Justices Clifford and Field dis
senting.
THE MURDER OF HAYNES.
No. 72O. The State of Tennessee, plaintiff
in error, VS.. James NJ. Davis.-On a certi-
ficate of division of opinion from the United
States Circuit Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee. This case arises out Of the iR'
dictment in a Tennessee State Court Of the
present defendant in error, James NJ. Davis
a deputy collector of internal revenue, for
the murder of James B. Haynes, citizen of
Tennessee, on the 29th of August, 1873.
Davis filed petition for the removal Of his
case from the State to the Federal Court,
under section 643 of the Revised Statutes,
on the ground that the killing was done in
selfdefence, and while he was engaged in
the discharge of his duties under the author
ity of the internal revenue lava OF the Uni
ted States. The Judges in the court below
certify division of opinion upon three
auestions-namely, First, is an indictment
of revenue officer found in a State court
for murder under the circumstances alleged
in this case removable TO this Court under
section CAB of the Revised Statutes? second,
if so, is any mode of procedure prescribed by
Congress and third, if not, can a trial of
the guilt or innocence of the prisoner be had
here?
This Court holds that the petition for re-
moval was in conformity with the statute,
and upon being filed the prosecution was
removed to the United States Circuit Court
for that district. The United States, the
Court holds, is a government with authori-
ty extending over the whole territory OF the
Union, acting upon the States and the peO~
pie of the States. While it is limited in
the number of it's powers, 50 far as its SOW
ereignty extends it is supreme. No State
can exclude it from exercising any authori-
ty conferred upon it by the constitution,
obstruct its authorized officers against its
will, or withhold from it for a moment the
cognizance of any subject which thai instru-
ment has committed t. Il. 1he general