The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1880-03-06
The 0. s. Supreme Courts Decisions IN
tho Virginia Gases.

Tor the tnntshmeht of Oniccrs who Exclude tnl.
seniins Opinion.
The Supreme Court on Monday made a
decision on the petition ofthe Commonwealth
Of Virginia for a writ of mandanins TO compel
Judge Rives of the United States District Courl
for the Western District of Virginia 10 restore
10 the State authorities two colored prisoners.
named Reynolds, indicted in the State courts
ior murder, and taken by Judge Riyes out Of
the possession OF the State officials, and held
for trial IN the Federal Court, on the ground
that they 1.-THE prisonersl 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 OH section 64l Of the Revised Sta.
iutes. This court, in long and carefully
prepared opinion by Justice Strong, considers
that section in connection with sections 1877
and 1878, and hold:
First-That the object of these statutes, AS
Of the Constitution which authorized 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.
Seeond-That the prohibitions Of the four.
teenth amendment have reference to State
action exclusively, and not to any action of
private individuals. Section Gil was also In,
tended for the protection of the eolored race
against State action, and against that alone.
Third-A State may act through different
agencies, either by its legislative, its execu.
tive, or its judicial authorities, and the pro.
hlbltiOns of the amendment extend TO ali ac,
tons Of the State denying equal protection Of
la la xul L, 4 II
agencies or by another Congress, by virtue
OF the fifth section Of the fourteenth amend.
ment, may enforce the prohibitions whenever
they are disrcgarded, by either the legisa.
tive, the executive, or the judicial department
Of the State. The mode of enforcement is
leil to its discretion. 1t may secure the right
that is, cA;oree its recognition renoy.
ing the case from State court, in which il Is
Denied into Federal court, where it will be
acknowledged
Fourth-But the fourteenth amendment is
broader than the statute which authorizes the
removal. Section 6Il does not apply 10 all
cases IN which equal protection OF the laws
may be denied TO defendant. The removal
authorized by the statute is a removal before
trial or a hnal hearing. To judicial inirac.
tons OF the constitutional amendment made
after the trial has commenced, section OIL
has no applicability. 1t was not intended 10
reach such cases. They were left TO the re.
visory power Of this court.
Flfth-Therefore, the denial or inability To
enforce in the judicial tribunals of State
rights secured TO defendant by any law pro.
vlding for the equal civil rights Of All persons
citizens Of the United States, Of which section
GAL speaks, is primarily, if not exclusively,
denial Of such rights, or an inability 10 en-.
force them, resulting from the Constitution or
laws o. the State, rather than denial made
manifest at the trial Of the case. In other
words, the statute has reference to a legisa.
1--WE denial, or an inability resulting from il.
Slxth-The Constitution and laws Of Vir
gina do not exclude colored citizens from
service on laries. The petition for removal,
therefore, did not present ease for removal
under section GIL.
Seventh-The defendantin this case moved
IN the State court that the yenire be so modi
fed that one-third or some portion of the iurv
should be composed Of his own race. The
denial Of that motion was not A denial Of a
right secured to him by any law providing for
the equal civil rights Of citizens of the United
States, or by any statute, or BY the fourteenth
amendment. A mixed jury in particular
case Is not essential to the equal projection of
the laws IL is right to which any eolored
man rs entitled, that in the selection OF Jurors
10 pass upon his life, liberty, or property there
shail be no exclusion of his race, and no dis.
erinination against them because of his color.
But that Is different thing from that which
was Claimed 9s of right aud denied in the
STATE Court, VIZ right to have the Jury
composed IN part Of colored men.
FROM these principles it follows that the
Federal Court had no rightful jurisdiction of
the case, aud that the writ of mandamus for the
restoration ofthe prisoners to the State author.
tiles must be granted, and the Court so order.
The Court also made decision on the ne.
ulion OF the Commonwealth Of Virginia and
j. ID. Coles for writs of habeas corpus and
certiorari to bring before this court .he case
otJndge Coles, indicted in the Federal Court
for the Western District Of Virginia on the
charge OF excluding all eol0red citizens from
jury duties on account Of their race, color and
previous condition of seryitude, and in viola.
ton OF the act Of March g. 1875. The peti
TONER alleges that his arrest and Imprisonment
upon this indictment we're unwarranted by
The Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his rights and the rights of Viz.
gina, whose judicial officer he Is, and that
the inferior court had no jurisdiction to pro.
coed against him.
This Court, after careful examination Of
the act of March T. 1875, which provides for
the trial and punishment Of officers who ex.
einded citizens from the jury list on account
oil race or color, holds that that act is author
lZed by the thirteenth and fourteenth amend
ments to the Constitution, for the enforce
ment OF which Congress is given power TO
pass appropriate legislation. The Court also
holds that the inhibition contained in the
fourteenth ek.N
OF the State, nor Of the officers or agents by
whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection OF the laws Whoever, BY virtue
Of public position under a State government.
depTiyes another Of property, life, or liberty
without due process OF law, or denies or takes
away the equal protection Of the laws, violates
the constitutional inhibition, and, as he acts
10 the name and for the State, is clothed with
the states power, his act is that of the State
otherwise the constitutional inhibition has no
meaning, and the State has clothed one of its
agents with power to amend or eyade il. The
constitutional amendment was ordained To
secure equal rights to all persons; and to en-.
sure to all persons the enjoyment of such
rights, power. was given to Congress to en-.
force Its provisions by appropriate legislation.
oueh legislation must act upon persons, not
inpon the abstract thing denominared a 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 il is fully authorized
By the Constitution. The act OF the defen.
dant in selecting jurors was ministerial, not
Judicial act, and being charged with the
performance of that duty, although he derived
his authority from the State, the defendant
was bonn1 IN the discharge Of his duties To
obey the Federal Consultation and the laws
passed IN pursuance thereof. The petition
Tor writ OF habeas corpus is therefore deni.
Cd. Justice Strong delivered the opinion.
Justices Clifford and Field dissenting
Mr. Justice Field maintains. first that ne.
Stunning the validity and eonstitutionality of
the act Of March, 1875, tho Indictment de-
scribes no offence under II, but is void on is
iaeei and, second, that the act, SO far AZ il
relates 10 Jurors IN the State courts, ia uneon.
sulutonal and void. lie holds that nothing
can be found in the Constitution, from ia
opening to its closing line, nor 10 any OF The
amendments IN force before the close OF the
evil war; nor IN those subsequently adopted
which authorizes any interference by Congress-
with the States IN the administration of their
government and the enforcement Of their laws
with respect TO any matter over which iuris
dleton was not surrendered 10 the United
states. Nothing, in his judgment, could h We
!. greater tendency TO destroy the indepeD.
denee aud autonomy Of the States. reduce
them 70 Illuminating aud degrading depsn,
denee upon the central Govarnsna,,, 49, =