Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1880-03-16
From Washington Post, March 3rd.
A Terrible Stride.


Tennessee, in which the circuit judges
certified division on certain questions
for decision by the Supreme court.
A revenue officer of the United States
had killed citizen of Tennessee. He
was arraigned for trial in the court OF
that State whose law he had offended
and whose citizen he had killed. Under
the act of Congress of March l, 1875, the
accused, by his own affidavit, averred
that he had killed the citizen while ex-
ecuting his duty as Federal revenue
officer, and feared he could not have
fair trial In the State court. He, there
fore, applied to have his case removed
to the Federal court, which was done.
The State applied to have it sent back.
The Federal court. as we have said,
divided on the question submitted it to
the Supreme court, and its majority
decision, rendered yesterday, was that
the case should be tried in the United
States court that the State court could
not claim Jurisdiction.
Thus the right of State to vindicate
its own sovereignty against violator of
its own law was. when usurped (there
is no other word for itl by United
States court under law Of Congress,
stricken down by the sanction of six
judges of the Supreme court of the
United States. This is practical asser-
ton of the doctrine that United States
revenue officer is not subject to the
criminal administration of State for
murder committed within its domain,
butts exempt from trial by State court,
to which all other citizens are liable.
This is the doctrine of equal protection
of the laws provided for in the Four
InyA hvy
the Supreme court, revenue officials OF
the United States are not amenable to
State power, though they violate its
laws, and though they commit murder,
arson and theft, all they have to do is to
swear they belong to this privileged
class and demand to be brought before
a United States court.
The second case was closely allied to
the first in its relation to the State and
Federal authority. In Virginia two
colored men had been tried in State
court. Aftera new trial had been grant
ed they applied for removal of their
cases to the United States court. Judge
Rives decided it could be done, and the
Supreme court disagrees with him, not
as to the. law, but merely to the time,
holding that in this case the applicants
were too late in their demand. The
Rives doctrine, fully sustained by the
court, Is that any person, whether an
officer of the United States or not,
making affidavit that he cannot have q
fair trial, but fears denial of his civil
rights under the Constitution and laws
of the United States, can, at any time
before his case it called, avoid trial in a
State court for his crime against State
law, and be taken before Federal judge
for such disposition as the latter may
make These two decisions, added to-
gether, take from the State judiciary
the authority to try, except with the
criminals consent, all civil or military
officers or persons acting with color of
authority, and all colored people who
make affidavit that they cannot be fair
ly tried constituting large privileged
class who may defy State authority and
find refuge from punishment under the
shadow of the wing of Federal power.
Having by these two cases put the
State judiciary hors dw combat, Mr..
Justice Strong, acting for himself and
five other Republican judges, proceeded
to invade the province of the legislative
department of the State of West Vir-
GINA, by declaring that that State could
not constitute juries in her own courts
of eUlsite persons only, and therefore the
conviction of a colored man by such
jury was unconstitutional.
The mode of reasoning by which this
conclusion was reached was not un-
worthy of that type of judges who,
under q bias, however unconsciously
derived from strong partisan prejudice.
ingenious]y devise methods to make
the worse appear the better cause.
The Fourteenth amendment declares
that no State shall deny to any person
the equal protection of the laws. This
equal protection cannot be afforded to
colored man II colored men are not
eligible to Juries. Therefore the law of
West Virginia, which excludes them,
ana Judge Coies, VINO excludes them in
the other state or Virginia, although
not in pursuance OF any statute, deny
to them the equal protection of the laws.
This is sophistry miscalled judicial
logic, by which the Federal usurpation
of State power Is sanctioned.
Inc faliacy mas been well exposed by
ME. Justlce fleld. II colored man Is
denied equai protection because his race
Is excinded from Jurles, now IS 1t with
non,freeholder; when none but free
nolders are auanled Jurors! How WITH
women, WIN cnl!oien' WIN allens
LOW -Wouiu u Dc VIVID Inc !lHterate3
Or, again, II the eqnai protectlon OF law
70 coioled man requires ina! MS race
snaii not De exciuueo rom the JuIy-Dox,
can ne swear .nae ne na? tnaI p re
II tue Juuges are az wnlte' or tue iegis-
lalols, Mno maze me law ne vloiated,
are III wnlte; OIL Inc voters VINO eiected
tnel1 are ~ white! how, IN SNORT
cal laws Passsu py wnloe people only
gIve equal plotsctlon 70 me negro
tnaG Jaw canhot oe equ1a9ly aominlsIer
Gu u1iess negro % On the jury IN.
equal laws may be made by whites if
without coiore1 aid tney are presumed
clause OF tne Fourteenth amendment
requires negro constituent IN 1urles,
WY ooes II not require tne same con-
sIitueut ~ tne !eeislature, ana 80 down