The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-17

L Il
descndant know until then that the equa'
nrote ction of the laws will not be extendeo
70 him. Certainly until then he cannot at
Arm that II ia denied. or that ne cannot GU
force Il In the judicial tribunals.
| uJt ts obvious. therefore. that 10 tucn
case--,bat Is. n judicial iufraction OF tue
sa,.,,,n,,on.i inbiblfions after trial or fInal
haa,,ng has commepced- section Gal has DO
annyicsb,lty. II was not intended TO reach
snch cases. II left them 10 the revisoIy
mower OF the higher courts OF the ota.e'
and ultimately to the review OF TINS couI'.
We do not say that Congress could net INV
authorized the removal OF such u case so.I
| Federal courts at any stage OF us p,oe.i :,
! ing whenever ruling should De naue ~ y
denying the equai protection OF toe Jaws ~
the defendant. Upon fhm suplec' u =, ~"
necessary to affirm anything; ~ II su :,
70 say now that section CAL does not"
Instead Of deciding that q" Congress might
make lis statute broader than It is," IL eA'
pre.sly declined to decide that point. Inc
tenor Of The opinion on this point Is tnat
,,h.,ever was done In State court after
,be trial had begun was LETT to the IRE
visory power Of the higher courts OF the
State. and ultimately to the review OF this
cou,t-: and therefore il was not necessary
70 the protection OF nGroes' rights tha'
There should be any law authorizing re-
moyals after trial com3enced
AS 70 the simple affidavit. we agaia quote
what the Supreme Cosrt says:
~By tue express requirement OF the
ssatnte his petition must set forth the facts
unon which he bases his claim to have MS
ease removed, and pot merely bis belief that
ne cmnot enforceEiS rights At subsequent
stage of the proceedings"
Sos simple affidavit WON'T do.
| The Court thentells bow negro's rights
might be denied by State, but adds:
"Tbe petition > does not appear to
bgye made anyscsse for removal"
Why not? Because the laws OF Virginia
authorize no discrimination against negroes
4 as such. But if Judge COLts "reiused to
select any persons OF the c0ored race solely
because Of their color, bis action was gross
violation of the spirit of the States laws as
well as OF the act Of Congress-" and "he
made himself liable TO punishment at the
instance of the State and under the laws OF
the United States" So says the Court ;
but this language must be taken along with
that above quoted which denies so emphati-
cally that The Court has decided that State
Judge can be punished for any judicial act.
The man who puts the names Of jurors in a
box my be punished If he leaves out all
negroes because they are negroes, but no
Judge can be punished for judicial act.
And again the Court repeats:
| "Denials of equal rights in the action of
| the judicial tribunals OF the State are left TO
the revisory powers Of this court"
| The judges are not to be punished but
their decisions reversed.
| The Court then goes to say that the facts
that The grand and petit juries were both
composed wholly of white men fall far
short OF showing that any civil right wa'
denied, or that there had been any discrimi-
nation" against the negroes ''becanse Of
their color or race" And here come in
those strong words which We have quoted
before:
"Nor did the refusal OF The Court and OF
the counsel for the prosecution to allow a
modification OF the vtnire by which one
third Of the jury, or portion Of il, should
be composed of persons OF the petitioners
own race, amount to any denial OF right
secured to them by any law providing for
the equal civil rights OF citizens of the
United States. The privilege for which
they moved, and which thev also asked
from the prosecution, irGS not right giUen
or secured TO them or TO anu person by the
td,o of the State, or by any act Of Congress,
or by the fourteenth amendment of the Con.
StitUtiOn. Ii as right to which every CO.
lored man is entitled, that, in the selection
of Jurors to pass upon bis life. liberty, or
property, there shall be no exclusion OF his
race. and no discrimination against item
because OF their color. But this is differ
ent thing from the right which it is asserted
was denied to the petitioners bv the State
court-vlZ., right to have the Jury COM
posed in part OF colored men. A miIed
jury In particular case is not eSSentiai TO
the equat protection Of the laos. ana the
right TO ii is not giUen by any lao OF Vtr-
gina or by any Federal statute. 1t is not,
therefore, guaranteed by the fourteenth
amendment, or within the purv!ew Of sec
ton GAL"
The negroes were therefore ordered to be
returned to the State court.
This is not an abstract question, but an
eminently practical one. II, as the Com
monweaHh said on the 9th, negroes have
the right to have negroes on their iuries,"
then when judge COLES, or any other
county Judge, is arraigred in the District
Court at Lynchburg, Judge RIvEs will be
justified in charging the jury TO find those
judges guilty." because they have sys-
temalically omitted TO put negroes on their
juries. Judge CHRISTIAN and Judge WELL
FORD, both Of this city, have never put any
negroes on their iuries. we think. They,
too, are guilty, and Il will be Judge
HUGHEs's duty to make them give TO ne
groes inres having negroes upon them.
All the new Coalition county judges will
have full authority for putting negroes on
their iuries. and charging the action upon
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
We quote the following from the Com
naOn,reuth OF the 9th as the language to
which we refer In the last paragraph above
"Ths substantially aflirms that negroes
haze the right 10 have negroes on their
iuries. For systematic omission of ne
eroes from juries would be accepted by all
impartial minds as an exclusion Of them
because they are negroes; ana an exclusion
Of them because they are negroes gives
Congress the right TO pass a law requiring
the State judges underan penalties IL peases
10 put negroes on iuries.
"We do not object to that part OF the
decision which declares that negroes are en-
titled to negroes on their iuries," &C., &C.