The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1880-04-01

the Jury should be Of his own nee.
This the State Court refused; on this
ground the prisoner asked that the case
be transferred to the United States
Court, and the United States District
Court SO ordered. The State author
tiles appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States, which Court has now
decided that there was no such denial
of equal right by the State Court as to
entitle the prisoner to have his case re-
moved to the Federal Court. The law
of Virginia does not exclude negroes
from juries; all are eligible, but this
does not entitle the prisoner to q mixed
jury; so long as the law does not ex-
clude Jurors because of their race and
color, there is no discrimination for that
cause The prisoner had no right to
demand that portion of the jury
should be Of his own color. The case
was therefore sent back 10 be restored
to the State Court
The next case was that of James NJ.
Davis, an officer of the United States
Revenue Service in Tennessee. While
engaged in the execution of the law
and seeking to arrest some persons
operating an Illicit still, Davis and his
party were attacked, and in the skir-
mish one J.. B. Haynes was killed. For
this, Davis was indicted for murder by
q State Court; the case was transferred
10 the United States Court in Tennes-
see, and, on q question as to the juris-
6iction of this Court, the whole matter
was brought before the United States
Supreme Court, which Court disposes
of the matter very emphatically. 1t
Gays: = q
ernment with authority extending over the
Whole territory Of the Union, actinS upon the
States and people Of the states. Wnile II rs Is
sovereignty extends IL is supreme. No State
can excIude ts from exercising any authority
E oS sss @sinse IL
ei.sncs 1t ~ q NV % s%s,ecs sh,es ss.s in.ss1nsnt
the Is poSsr q psosecsins is,slf in the exercise
sSrousS n % 4 ososs snd scsss., a and they must must
act within the States. H. when thus acting
and xissn tse q 81 .SsaSsy, !, tnGss s1ss
the law Of the state, yse warranted bytheF FED.
, :1e sess tc ins g Snoe
fur thelr pEvtection-if their pcoeecetm must
. N @ the action OF the $50 Ceart-the
ssy the 6 arlested st ths wll G eas q It's
membera No such element Of vUelnees 10 to
ShetSsr oavii or criminal. be one 10 vkic6 the
judicial poSer Of the SniseG Sssfes extends, ends
ssn ,ss q - Sssle do%sin: On u conssary. %
denial oe tie right Of the 6enSEal Govern.
mens 20 rennOve then. to take e1hrge Of and
snd sss ny ys s q sSs ssa Un,sss Si ss - dsni oi
ment over suhdeof sxpEsssly lnietsd TO II.
ln all these cases. the r6ader will
observe. the issue IS presented as to the
relative supremacy Of National or State
authority The Constitution Of the
United States reads: This Constitu-
ton and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority OF
the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the Judges in ev-
cry State shall be bound thereby. any
thing in the Constitution or laws Of
any State 10 tie contrary notwithstand.
ing." -
In all these cases the State Legisla-
lures and the Courts sought TO nullify
and override the laws and Constitution
of the United States, and these several
decisions by the Supreme Court simply
bring these State Courts back to the
knowledge that the Federal law is su.
preme, and that they cannot plead State
authority for nullifying the laws of the
United States. s1a-s e1-
The Rrigadiers in Congress. and we
suppose the Democratic party general.
IL. have already begun the denuncia,
ton of the Supreme Court, and the
charge of consolidated Government
win find general repetition. The de
cisions simply assert that ours il . con
| solidated Government to the extent thai
| in the enforcement Of the Constitution
and in the execution a the laws there
under, State laws, State Constitution
and State authority generally mus
yield precedence to the National. In al
these cases the issue ID directly mad,
whether State officer can nullify q Law
of Congress because it conflicts with
! law of the State. and whether an Office
Of the United States can be arrestet
and punished by State Court for OF
fetal acts in executing q; law Of tn
United States. The Supreme Court al
4 firms the superior sovereignty of tn
Nation, and hence the Democratic how
concerning the subordination of Stat
Chicago Tribssse. 9ftias