Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1880-03-02
si1an0rta.i$ SfeciSsefis.

Among The decisions rendered ia The SUI
creme Court yesterday weTo tho following:
Exrartc Commonwealth of Virginia peIi-
tlontrS. This was apettion for writ of man
danus to compel Judge Rivos. Of tho United
States District Court for tho western district Ct
Virginia, to restore to tho Virginia authorities
Two colored prisoners banned Reynolds. Indicted
10 tho State courts Tor murder, and taken by
Judge Rlvca out Of the possession of tho State
officials, and held Tor trial 10 the Federal court,
on tho ground that they 1.-THE priso1ers) had
been debled In tho State ttibucaIs such trial
by competent .idrors, without distinction Of race
or color, az tho laws OF The State guaranteed to
them. The action Of Judge Rivcs in removing
the cas- ct tho prisoners to the Federal court
was based en- section GAL of tho Revised Stat
utes. This Court 10 q long and carefully prepared
o[lalon By Juslco Strong, considers that sec
ton 10 connection With s:cions 1917 and 1873
and holds. tiIs;, that the ol cot Of these statutes
rs OF the constitution which authorized them.
was to ilaoo the colored race 10 respect of civil
rights uron O level with tho whites. They
made tho rights ard responsibilities. civil aud
criminal. Of tho two races exactly tho same.
Second. That tho prohibitions Of tho four
teHah amendment have rcftrenc, to State
action exclusively, and not TO any action of
private Individuals
Sc ion ca Was also introduced for tho pro
lection OF the colored raco against Slate action
and against that aloIe. A State may act through
different agencies either by its legislative, its
executive or its judicial authorities, and the
prohibition OF The amendment extends to all
actious OF tho Stale denying equal protection Of
The lava. whether It be acton by one of those
agencies or by another. Congress, by virtue Of
inc fifth ction Of the fourteenth amendment,
may enforce the prohibitions whenever they
are dlslcgarded either by tho legislative, the
executive or the judicial department OF the
State. The mode OF enforcement is left to its
discretion. Ii may secure the right, that is On,
iorce lis recognition, by removing the case from
State curt 10 which it is denied into a Fedo.
raj court Thc,e 1t will he ACKNOWLEDGED.
Fourth. But the l4th amendment is broader
than the statuto, which authorizes the removal
Secuon Gal does not spply to uN cases 10 which
equal protection Of the laws may DO denied to
drtcrdant. Tho removal auh0riz ID by the
statute is removal before trial of final hear
lng. To judicial attractions Of tho COTS itu
'lnnal amendment made alter tho trial has
commeuced section Cal has not applicability. Ii
Was not intctdcd to rescA snch cases. Tboo
were lett 70 the rsyi5oIy power OF this court.
Flth. Therefore tho denial or inability to on.
tnrce IN the judicial tribunals Of a Slatu rights
secured TO defendant by any law providing
Tor Tho equal civil rights all persons citiZ ,ns
Of lhn unl!ed States Of which section & il speaks,
- primarily. If not exclusively, denial of such
rights, or An inability to enforce them resulting
from tho constitution or laws Of the State rather
than donini made manifest at tho trial of the
Case. In other words, tho statute has roference
to legislative denial, or an inability resulting
from il.
Sixth. The constitution and laws of Virginia
90 not exclude colored citiz ,ns from service on
Jufies. Tho petition for removal, therefore, did
not present case for removal under tho Gilss
eGctioD.
SeSonth. The defendant in this case moved
IN ihe State court that the venirs be 80 ,nodi-
should he composed Of his own race. The de-.
NAL OF That motion WAL not denial of a right
secured 10 him by any law providing for eoual
civil rights Of citi2sns of the United States. or
BY any statute. or by the fourteenth amend
mont. mixed jury in a particular case is
Iot essential TO The equal protection OF the laws
~ as a right To which Any colored man is On
utled that. IN tho selection of Jurors to pass
upon said life, liberty or property, thore shsll
ba no exclusion OF his race, and no diecrimine-
ton against them because Of his color. But
that Is different thing from that which was
clslm@4 81 right and denied in tho State
court, VIZ: A right 10 have tho jury composed,
IN psfL OIL coofod mon. From these princi-
piles it follows that tho Federal court had no
rightla Jurisdiction of tho case, and that the
writ Of lnandsmus for tho restorstion of the
prisoners TO the State authoriiiss must be giant
Cd, and tho court so orders.
Commonwealth of Virginia, and j. ID. Cowlos
petitioner. This is petition for wrts of habess
corpus and certicrari to bring before this court
the casa OF Judge Cowlos, indicted in tho Fed.
crAl Court for tho Western District of Virginia
upon the charge Of excluding all colorod citi>
zsas from thejury lists, on account of their race
color and previous condition of servitudo, and
IN violation of the &C! of March 4, 1875. Tho
petition WAS denied.
Taylor Strander. plaintiff in error va. tho
State OF West Virginia. Tho question involved
WAS tho constitutionality of tho act of the West
Virgins Legislature claws OF 1923. chap a. J
excluding colored citizens from jury servico in
tho courts of that State. This court holds that
when cololod citizen il tried COR his lite by a
Jury from which citi@ons Of his own race are by
a State statGt, expressly excluded. he il denied
the equal protection Of tho law guaranteed BY
tn o thiii rlausc OF the fourteenth amendment TO
Tho constitution, and that tho State statute Dr.
nyiEg him SUCH right is repugnant 70 the said
constitutional provision. The judgment of tho
supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ia
reversed: Justice Strong delivered the oninion.
Justice Fiod dissenting.