The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-04-09


ted States il they make oath that their
equal rights viii not be respected by
State Court. Thus there is large
privileged class appraised in the country
revenue officers of the United States
and colored people--who are privileged
ia either State OF Federal Court, ns
they may elect, while the white people
who are not revenue officials have no
such choice. This is the equal protec-
ton Of the laws of which We hear so
much.
THE WET VIRGINIA CASE.
In West Virginia case tho law of
West Virginia allowing only white pco-
pie TO be put on juries was declared un-
constitutional, aud conviction Of
negro by state Court where that law
was administered was reversed. Thus
Congress amends State law AN 10 the
constitution Of jarics, and the Supreme
Court sanctions it.
TuE CASE OF JUDGE COLES.
Ia the case of the United States Va.
Coles ii was held that Judge Coles could
Le tried and punished for not putting
colored men ON jnriea, as the law Of
Virginia allowed il and the law Of Cen
gress required it. 'rhe question is not
whether eolored men should OF abould
not l,e pat on juries by the State law,
hut whether Congress eau order II and
regulate The mode Of constructing in.
ries. Tho Conrt hsld that Congress
can do 80 under the fourteenth amend.
msnt, and vet the great right of suf'
frAge ~as not included under the terms
Of the fourteenth amendment, else there
would have been no need Of the iifteonih
amendment. The adoption of the ff-
tecn,h amendment excludes tho infer.
ence that the Constitution makers
Thought the fourteenth gave suffrage or
any other political right to the colorcd
people. and, therefore, as il didn't, and
the fifteenth amendment only gave suf-
f,age, ii f,llowa that ihe right Of Con.
gresA 10 regulate juries ia State Courts
is not granted to Congress by lln Com
stitnLion or it's amendments. Justice
Clifford dissente,i. in long and able
OF iii.ion. in the principal case. and con
enrrrJ With judge Fieli in his impress
~" dissenting opinion.
THE RESULT OF TnG FouE cAsEa.
The result e thc four cascs, Mr.
Tue..ei said. is that the Fr,lrtp,l Court,
stir' from State. Conrta Jurisdiction
over ctimes committed against State
Ia The Coles case Federal Judge drHgl
"a State Judg" from The s,at Of juAiie,
and artaignS him 81 l,is hnr for tile tfia
Of his motives under the probe of n pre-
sumption Of guilt which it would d,
w"ll-nish impossible for the accused Il
r'-but. The principles Of the decision
sanction the possession oi a power L.,
.npereas which. p,etsed 10 it's legiti
n"te consequence. would put all officer
of the State Government under the su
pe,vision Of the Federal Court, an,
subject all the State officers 10 erimina
prosecutions before Federal judges an.
F.-,'e'sl jnries. If these decisions, sai'
Mr Tucker, are not arrested by publ
ori,ion. the f,sle,aliye system is ut ~
eud, a'td . centralized. absolute govern
lnent l. at hand.
WHAT nE SAID or JUDGE FIELDS oPiS
ION.
Mr.. Tucker said Judge Fields opin
ion in these cases is stri1ingly able, AN,
is characterized by judicial Cloquenc
which reminds one of the earlier day
OF the Supreme Court. The consLitu
iional principles as exponnded by hin
were luminous and spIendidly put, an,
produced a deep impression. They Ipe