The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1880-03-19

the expense of other matter, tor re-
port Of his opinions upon recent 6u-
premo Court deciaions, which are the
subject Of much comment In legal and
political circles. Indeed so important
are these decisions that they may mo-
mentolsly affect the destinfes of the
Republic In the near future. .3.zi1.
To the Richmond Dispatch's Wash
tngton correspondent r. Tucker said
THE TENNESSEE CASE. !" a4s
elm the Tennessee case the court de-
cided that where revenue officer of
the United States makes afidavit that
he committed murder or any other
crime against the State, in the dis
charge Of his official duties, he may on
his own motion be tried in the Circuit
Court Of the United States, and a
State Court cannot try him. The State
must have its law vindfcated by the
United States Court, and cannot be
trusted to try q United States officer.
His rights must be. protected by a
must trust 1t for vindtcating her law;
but her court cannot be trusted to do
justice to an accused citizen, II he be o
United States officer. -,
THE PATRICK COUNTY CASES.
elm the Virginia cases of Burweff
and another negro tho same doctrine
was held as to c0lOretl people. They
may be tried by Circuit Court of the
United States IL they will make oath
that equal rights will not be respected
by State Court. Thus there is q large
privileged class appraised in the country
revenue officers of the United States
and c0lored pe0ple-who are privileged
to be tried In either State or Federal
Courts, as they may. elect, while the
white people not revenue officials
have no such CHOICE This ia the equal
protection Of the laws of which we
hear so much. ;-..ti.... De-.
THE WEST VIRGINIA CASE. 50
elm West Virginia case, the. law
Of West Virginia allowing only white
people to be put on juries was declared
Unconstitutional, and conviction of a
negro by State Court where that law
was administered was reversed. Thus
Congress annuls State law as to the
constitution Of juries, and the Supreme
Court sanctions It.
=-r THE CASE OF JUDGE COLES.
"In the case Of the United States vs..
Coles, It was held that Judge Coles
could be tried and punished for not
putting colored people on juries, as the
law OF Virginia allowed It and the law
Of Congress required 1t. The question
is not whether colored people should
or should not be put on juries by State
law, but whether Congress can order
1t and regulate the mode of constitute
ing jurfes. The Court held that Con-
gress can do SO under the XVIII
Amendment, and yet the greater right
NJ nrpcv 3vpo
terms of the XIVth Amendment, else
there would have been no need OF the
XVIII Amendment. The adoption OF
the XVIII excludes tho inference that
the Constitution makers thought the
XVIII Amendment gave suffrage or
any other political right to the colored
people, aud therefore, as it didn't, and
the XVIII Amendment only gave suf-
frage, 1t follows that the right of Con-
gress to regulate juries in State courts
Is not granted to Congress by. the Con-
stttution or Its amendments. Justice
Clifford dlssented, in q long and able
opinion, In the principal case, and con-
CURED with Judge Field in his impress
sfve dissenting opinion" ...,....,s
Mr.. Tucker, summing up the result
OF the four cases, said that the Federal
courts strip from tho State courts ju,is-
~ACtAOA OHoE SAAAle6 against
State. In the Coles, case q Federal
Judge drags a State Judge from the
seat Of justice and arraigns him at his
bar for the trial OF his motives under
the probe Of a presumption of guilt
which It would be well-nigh impossi-
bile for the accused to rebut. The prin-
ciples Of the decision sanction the pos
session of a power by Congress which,
pressed to it's legitimate consequence,
would put all officers of the State gov
ernment under the supervision of tho
Federal Court and subject all the State
0dacers to criminal prosecutions before
Federal juries. If these decisions, said
Mr.. Tucker, arc not arrested by public
opinion the federation system is at an
end, and centralized, absolute gov
ernment is at hand.
Mr.. Tucker characterized Judge
Feild's dissenting opinion as strikingly
able and characterised by a judicial
eioquence which reminds one of the