National Republican., 1880-03-04

an original case, heard upon petition for
judge of Virginia State court, who had
been indicted, by direction of Judge RIvEs,
ha6eas corpus and cetiorori fled by q
in the United States District court, for ex-
Guiding all colored citizens from service
upon juries by reason of their race, color,
&c, and in violation of the act of Congress
of March 4, 1875, the majority refuse the
petition and uphold the jurisdiction of the
Federal court. In the construction put
upon the Constitutional amendments, the
opinion Of the court, which, as also in tho
preceding case, was delivered by Justice
STRONG, goes beyond previous decisions.
1t holds that the prohibition against dis
elimination by the State by reason Of race,
color, &c, extends to and includes nll
branches Of the State government, and all
agencies of that government, executive,
legislative and judicial. The case of
State judge excluding colored men from
jury service is held, therefore, to be within
the provision of the act of Congress punish
ing such an oflense, which act is declared TO
be constitutional. In this case there is no
law Of the State excluding colored men
from jury service, but the fact of their ex-
cluson by judge to whom, by law, the
preparation of the jury lists is committed,
is held TO be none the less an offense,
punishable under United States law, on
that account.
In this case the friends of State sovcr-
eighty hold that it in effect degrades the
States and their agencies into mere muni-
| cipnl corporations, subject to be controlled
at pleasure by the General Government, and
in that holding they betray little spite
that is engendered by indulging false
pride A State in fact, is no more sover-
eign rs against the laws and powers of the
General Government than city munich
p0lity, and it is under a mistaken assump-
tion of jurisdiction on the part Of the State
that the State and General Governments are
of ften brought in conflict. 1t is well that
the highest tribunal has definitely settled
this question.
The fourth case decided is that in which
Judge RI YES, Of Virginia, took out Of the
custody of the State of Virginia and its
|
murder by State court upon the ground
that the court which convicted had refused
to give jury composed of one-third col
ored men, and had further refused to have
the cases removed to the Federal courts
after conviction. In this case the court
unanimously decided-first, that the right
to be protected against discrimination in
the matter of juries is very different
thing from the right to have mixed juries (;
that the constitutional amendments guar
antec the former right, but not the latter;
and, secondly, that if there had been ground
for the removal of the case into the Federal
court, the petition for removal, after trial,
came too late under the statute, and was
properly refused by the State court
Important as these decisions are TO the
future of the common country in defining
the lines between National and State
sovereignty and in asserting the constitu-
tional rights of all the people, they are,
nevertheless, assailed as partisan because
they are based upon the constitutional
> amendments and laws that grew out of the
great struggle for National life, during
which the Democratic party was found in
sympathy with those who aimed to destroy
it, and the Republican party, which stood as
u unit on the side of the Union and its con-
| seryotion