The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-03-10
Gke GstelEiaearrer-
TAYLOR sTRATDER's CASE
Another Recent Decision of the Supreme
Court Of the United States.

Another Recent Decision OF the suprem
Court Of the United States.
Chicago Times,
Slowly, butsvSely, the gods of state'soV
creignty idoIatry are demolished. In tn
National Supreme Court there have jus
been filed three decisions, in three case
involving different questions raised upol
the old JetIersouian hypothesis Of origina
and inherent State rights. The first wa
OF the validity Of an act Of the Legislature
Of West Virginia, which in effect and Ii
intent excludes all persons Of the African
race from jury service. A negro, indicted
for murder, petitioned for the removal o
his cause from the State to the nationa
court, on the ground that the State jury
law was in dcrogation OF the supreme Law
| Of tho land. The petition was dcuied
The Supreme Court decides that the de-
uial of tile petition was error; that the
local Jury act is discrimination against
citizens OF q particular race, and denial
10 them OF the equal protection OF the laws,
forbidden by thelourteenth amendment,
and for this reason is unconstituhonal and
void.
The next case, which came up by writ
OF error from Tennessee, involved the
question OF power in the national govern
ment to protect its own agents in the dis!
charge oil their offices against the adverse
power OF the local government Davis, o
collector Of internal revenue, was indicted
in the local court for tho murder OF one
Haynes. He pelitioned for a removal OF
the case TO the national court, on the
ground that tho killing was done in self
defense while he was engaged in the dis
charge OF his duty as an officer OF the ma.
tional government. The Supreme Court
SAYS, in the decision OF this case, that "the
authority OF the national government OK
tends over the whole territory called the
United Statea. No State authority can ex-
clude 1t from performing any OF its fnnc-
tions under the Constitution, nor with.
hold from it for moment the cognizance
OF any subject committed 10 1t by the
supreme law. II can only act through It's
officers and agents, and they must act
within the States. II, wheR-thus acting
within the scope Of their authority, they
can be arrested and brought to trial in q
State court for an alleged otlense sgainst
State law, warranted by the national au.
thority they possess, and tho national
government is powerless to Interfere for
their protection, the operations Of the lat
ter may ut any time be arrested at the will
OF State government. No such element
of weakness il TO be found in the Consti-
tution."
The third decision is still more re.
mRrkable overthrow OF State Sover-
eighty idol. j. D. Coles, Virginia judge,
was indicted in National Court upon the
charge OF excluding negroes from jury SER
vice on account of race, ETC., in violation
Of the act OF Congress OF March 4, 1876.
He petitions the Supreme Court for release
upon habeas corpus, on the ground that
his arrest aud Imprisonment were unwar-
ranted by the Constitution, and in deroga-
ton OF his rights and the rights OF Vir-
ginia, whose judicial officer he is. The
Supreme Court denies the prayer OF
tho petition, and holds that the act
OF Congress ia authorized by the Con-
stiLution for the execution OF the
thirteenth and fourteenth amendments,
in virtue OF which mo agency of
u State, nor Of officers or agents by whom
It's powers are eXerted, can deny TO any
person within its jurisdiction equal pro.
lection OF the laws."' The Fourteenth
Amendment, the court say, was ordained
to secure all persona in the equal enjoy
ment OF all rights. "Power was given to
enforce its provisions by appropriate legs-
lation. Such legislation must act upon
persons, not upon the abstract thing de.
nominated State, hut upon the persons
who are agents OF the State in denial OF
rights which were intended to be secur-
ed. The defendant was an agent OF the
State OF Virginia, and though he derived
his authority to act from the State, twas
bound, in the discharge of his duties, to
obey the National Constitution and laws"
TO each OF these decisions Justices Clif-
ford and Field dissented, and in dissent
ing opinions reasserted the old notions Of
the State sovereignty school OF politicians.
Judge Field regarded the decision in the
case OF Coles as particularly tending to
destroy the Independence and autonomy
Of States and reduce them to humiliat-
inI and degrading dependence on the CEN
trail government" The indictment OF
judicial officer OF State (for an ofEense
against the Supreme law which the State
had authorized him to commit was In
Judge Fields view, "a gross ofense to the
State" From the State sovereignty stand.
point, this is undeniable. at Is an at
tack upon her sovereignty" (meaning by
the female pronoun the dominion OF Vir-
ginia. "The doctrine which sustains It,
carried to its logical results. would de-
grade and sink her 10 the level OF q mere
local municipal corporation" as the
Times has before stated it, to the stains OF
an organized political department OF the
nation-"ior Il Congress can. punish an
officer OF State for the manner. in
which he discharges duties under her:
laws, 1t can fix tho nature and extent Oh
the punishment;" which may be impris-
onment for life, removal and exclusion
from office, or any other that the national
legislature may choose to enact. There 10
no escape from the conclusion to which
Judge Field says the doctrine OF the SD
preme judicial authority goes-the con-
clusion Ito restate ~ that there are no
such things as reserved or original state
rights, or as Independent State autono-
mics, undor tho American constitution,
Int that tho so-called States are nothing
whatever but suborlinately organized po-
ltical departments oil the nation. 10 TINS
conclusion not only these latest decisions
ofthe Court, but the tenor OF all decisions
upon questions Of constitutional law. that
have arisen since the te.soVereignty
amendments were established, as well as
ne plain and obvious logic OF the amend
ments, nationally and inevitably conducts.
The reader will not fail to take notice oil
the pregnant fact that the decision In inc
case from Tennessee and the decision IN
lie case from Virgins, are the counter
mart and complement OF each othor. IN
The former the decision Is that the local OF
Sts.e mower can not arrest or punish an
officer Of the nation for an act, contrary TO
its legislative enactment, done by and
under The authority OF national law: In
lie latter the decision is that the national
mower can arrest and punish au officer oil
H. GIoIa Ior nm MT contrary to the ma.