Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1880-03-06
W~AsHIGHTOE LETTER.
Special Correspondence PusLio LEDoEal

eral decisions Of paramount interest.
These decisions affect the theory of
states rights" The a $ Of the state
of Tennessee VS.. James M. Davis, in
yolying the right of federal officers to
be tried in the United States courts
for offenses charged on them while in
the execution of their duty, was
among the suits decided. The court
held that they had such a right. JUS
tees Clifford and Field dissented
from this opinion. This was known
as the Tennessee revenue removal
case, the opinion being by Justice
Strong. The Memphis Taxing dis
trict case has not been decided.
Another very and more important
case was Justice Strongis decision in
the Taylor Strander case, from the
supreme court of West Virginia. The
negro Strander was indicted in the
circuit court for the murder of his
wife, October 10th, 1874. He petit
toned for a writ Of removal to the
United States court, and moved to
quash the process calling the jury, on
the ground that by the act of the leg
i%slature passed March 18th. 1863.
only white persons are declared eli
gible TO serve on %juries. The pleas
were O~yerruled, and the trial, being
proceeded with, resulted in the con-
viction Of defendant, the day of exc
cution being fixed for March 26th.
1875. Upon the ~overruling of the
defendants appeal by the supreme
court Of appeals Of West Virginia. a
writ Of error was sued out, and the
case came to the United States SUI
preme court. The principal assign
ment Of error was, the law was un-
constitutional, the discrimination
against cOloTed men beiBo in violation
OF the Fourteenth amendment of the
constitution of the United States.
The court held that the amendment
was one of a series designated TO Sc
cure the negro race all the civil rights
the superior race enjoy and give to
them the protection of the general
government in the enjoyment Of them
whenever they should be denied bytbe
states. Whether it had other, and
If 50, what, purposes, is not decided.
The words of the amendment are
held TO contain a necessary implica-
ton OF a positive immunity from I'M
friendly legislation against them dis
tinctively as colored, implying legal
inferiority in civil society and other
steps towards reducing them to the
condition Of a subject race. The
statute of West Virginia, singing out
and denying to colored citizens of the
state the right Of participating in the
administration of the law as Jurors,
because of their color, though quail
lied in all other respects, is held to be
practically a brand upon them affixed
by law, and a discrimination against
the race forbidden by the amendment.
II is a denial Of the equal protection
OF the laws to the a c thus excluded.
since the constitution of iuries is a
very essential part of the protection
which trial by jury is intended TO
secure. The idea OF jury is a body oil
men composed of the peers or EQUALS
OF the person whose rights il is
selected to determine, that is. oil
persons having the same legal status
IN society as that which he holds.
Where the state statute secures to
every white man the right of trial by
jury, selected from and without dis
elimination against his race. and at
the same time permits or requires
such discrimination against the
cOlOred man the latter is
held not TO be equally protected by
law with the former. Section 64l ofl
the revised statutes, which provides
that when a civil or criminal suit is
commenced in ? state court against any
person who is denied or cannot enforce
there any right secured TO him by any
law providing for the equal rights oil
citizens of the United States. such
suit may, upon the petition of the
defendant filed in the court at apy
time before the trial or final hearing
OF the cause, stating the facts, etc, be
removed for trial into the next circuit
court held in the same district. is
considered in connection with the
present case, and held not To be in
conflict with the federal constitution "
The cause was therefore remanded
with instructions to reverse the circuit
court Of Ohio county, West Virginia.
The next case decided by the supreme
court yesterday was that Of the petition
OF the Commonwealth of Virginia for
a mandamus on Judge Rives of the
U. 5. circuit court, to compel him to
return two negro men indicted
Tor murder to the state court for
%retrlal, their cases having been re-
moved because no white jurors had
been summoned on the jury. The
court held that the object Of section
a. 4
Gal Of the revised statutes, as 10 the
constitutional amendment which au.
thoFlzed it, was to place the colored
race. IN respect Of civil rights. upon
level with whites, making the rights
and responsibilities exactly the same.
The laws OF Virginia, having no pro
vision excluding colored jurors. it was
held that the petition Of the two in
dicted men was held to have been
premature, as they had been denied no
rights accorded to white men. The
statutes in support of the Fourteenth
amendment had exclusive reference to
legislative action by the states and not
to individual action. The remedy in
this case would be by the r%eyisory
power OF this court and not by re-.
lnoyal', The mandamus was therefore
granted and the men will be tried bv
| fhn Ctafn nrarf IL r - |