Daily Republican., 1880-05-21
The CalOrad ) Juror Question.

and George Gray, Attorney Genera
for the State, before the Court involved
q question OF weighty import in which
the counsel, the court, the bar and all
present were intensely interested, and
we are glad the discussion of it fell tc
such able counsel and was conducted
in such friendly and not partisan
spirit. Tie immediate facts which
gave rise to the discussion were report
ed fully in the REPUBLICAN some time
towards the latter end OF March, and
may be briefly stated as follows: Viii.
liam Neal, colcred man living in
Smyrna, Kent County, delaware, can't
over into New Castle one afternoon tc
90 to spruance's Beach, and on his way
he is alleged to have committed rape on
Margaret +. Gosaer, young married
lady. The crime Of rape in this State
is a capital offerse, and is one of the
most heincus that can be committed.
Neal was promptly arrested and lodged
in New Castle Jail, ard awaits his trial
at the Court which is now in session.
There has Teen 10 denial Of the proba-
BILE guilt of Neal, nor no attempt made
to shield him from its terrible results.
Neal when arraikned before court to
answer for his crime, plead not guilty,
and being without counsel, the court
assigned Anthony Higgins, Esq, one Of
the ablest lawyers at the New Castle
bar, to defend him.
As is well known it has never been
the practice in Delaware 10 place color
ed men on the juries even when men Of
their own color we're being tlied fer
crime, though cOlored men so far as the
amendments 10 the Constitution and
the statute laws Of the United States
were concerned we've placed upon the
same plane Of privileges and rights ac-
corded to white men. Not only has this
refusal to admit oolored men to the jury
box been practicel in Delaware but in
other border States, especially in Vir-
ginia. In several recent trials in the
last named State, against colored men
the counsel for the defense made test
Of the law claiming that there was such
. discrimination shown in the selection
OF juries as amouIted2 to prejudice
against the defendants and jeopardized
their lives if their acts were capital Of
fenses or restraiaed them of their liber-
ties in other ofenses charged against
the peace ard dignity Q. the common
wealth.
In the Virginia cases alluded to The
counsel made an appeal in arrest of exc
cution and the cases were carried up to
the Supreme court of the United States
and being somewhat urgen. the court
gave them prior consideration. The de-
cision in the cases was almost unani.
nous that where Discrimination is
shown in the selection of Grand or
petit jury on account Of race or color
the trial ofpersons Of the RI CO and color
against whom such discr mi1s tion was
made was rot legal AMI s!oall be
,quashed.
In the cases referred to, however, it !
was not shown that the Constitution Of
the State made any discrimination on
account Of color and some of them we're
remanded, but subsequently, if we are
not mistaken, the defendants were re-
moved for time cut of the jurisdiction
Of the state Courts by writ of "ha beus
corpus" The decision of the United
States Supreme Court, however, was
direct and pointed that where discrim.
ination could DO shown in the choosing
Of q jury for the trial Of prisoner
which would result in the forfeit of his
life, such jury was chosen clearly IN
violation OF the Fifteenth Aine ndrnent
of the Constitution of the United States
and Of Section GAL Of the United States
Statutes. This has paved the way for
the action taken by Mr.. Higgins in the
case Of the State against William Heal
and from this arose the arguments yes
terday afternoon on motion to either
remove the case beyond !he jurisdic-
tion OF the Court, or to quash the Jury
panel in which such discrimination
was practiced and " which came within
the purview of the United States
Supreme Court. The petition in the
case set forth that William Neal hy
the laws Of the State which prohib-
tied colored men from acting
as jurors were prejudicial 10 a
fair trial fer the client. He d d
not want TO come beoie the court in
any csptious spirit, but simply, that
the law might be tested that his client
might have the her eft Of fair and i'm
partial triSl in the light Of the recent
decision Of the United States Supreme
Court. 1t had to be tested any how
and when better than row; and Mr.. II
Higgins would have ieen recrsant to :,
his duty as faitLfdi attorney had he ,
not used every means within his power t
in caEepra oF hi, Ill.