National Republican., 1880-03-04

any material service Is COnCeTneu, lueIe |
is no appeal from the court-martial, and |
hence it is practically the court of last
resort, and the finding is subject to the
pardoning power, but to none other.
THE RIGHTS or THE GENERAL GOV
ERNMENT.
The Supreme Court of the United States
rendered four decisions on Monday last,
which 20 far to establish confidence in the
public mind that our governmental ma
chinery is something more than a mere
rope of sand, destitute Of any self-sustain-
ing power. The Government is founded on
a Constitution and laws for enforcing all
its requirements. The rights and duties of
the governed, as well as the powers Of the
Govern ment, are all clearly defined, and
upon them centres all hope of the future
maint enance of the entire structure. A
failure to secure respect for the COnstitu-
tion and due observance Of all the laws
that hang thereupon is cognovit to the
world that our Government is weak, un-
stable and subject to early decay. These
decisions give hope that the laws are
to be enforced, and those who exc
cute them are to be fully protected by
the Federal power in the discharge of
their duties. They relate to what
are known as political cases, and
for that reason have been looked for with
peculiar interest. Three of the cases re-
late to the effect of the constitutional
amendments and the laws relating thereto,
which were born of the war TO crush the
rebellion. In other words, to the enforce
ment of legislation of Congress regarding
the exclusion of colored men from serving
on juries The other case presented the alb.
stract question of the right Of a revenue
officer of the General Government, who
had been indicted in State court for hom-
icide committed in the discharge of his
official duty, and which it was claimed was
in sell-defense, he having been assailed
while engaged in executing the laws of
the United States, and who claimed the
right to have his case brought to trial
in the Federal instead of the State
courts, under the provisions of the
Revised Statutes. This case came before
the Supreme Court upon certificate of
division of opinion between the circuit and
and district judges sitting in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the middle
district of Tennessee. The majority of the
court, Mr.. Justice Strong delivering the
opinion, hold that the case was properly
removable under the act of Congress IRE
vised Statutes, section 6i3) from the State
to tho Federal court, and the question of
the guilt or innocence of the accused was
properly triable in the latter court. The
ground of the decision is the right of the
Government of the United States to protect
its own officers in the exercise Of their law
ful powers and in the enforcement of its
laws. Those who cavil over this decision
base their dissent upon the allegation OF
murder, which is not authorized or cnjoined
by any law of the United States The SUI
preme Court, however, seem TO act upon
the hypothesis that when Federal officer
commits an act connected with the dis.
charge of his duty as SUCH ii is within the
j jurisdiction of the Federal Court to try the
case and decide whether OF not it was com.
mitted as n deliberate murderer was strictly
incident upon the discharge of official duty
while executing the law. The court claims
this jurisdiction and in that it seems to bC
strongly intrenched in right. The decision
may be accepted as conclusive MS to tn,
question of jurisdiction in the case Of al
Federal officers who may be resisted in tho
execution ofthe laws, and having resOrted t
oxtrome measures involving life, and having
been indicted by local court therefor
Tho court decides that the Federal, not thc
local, courts shall hold jurisdiction to try
, all such cases. 1t simply declares the Ma
tional sovereignty over state sovereignty il
such cases, and that is the pivot upon
which our future nationality rests.
In the West Virginia case the court de
cides that the statute of that State which
excludes colored men from juries Is in con,
Aict with the Fourteenth amendment, which
prohibits any State from denying to any
person within its jurisdiction tho equa
protection Of the laws, and that cOlorct
man tried aud convicted of murder in tn,
court Of that State was entitled to have hi
case removed for trial into the Crcui
Court Of the United States under section
= G41 of the Revised Statutes, by reason o
such denial of equal protection. unde
the decision the contrary opinion Of th
Court of Appeals of West Virginia is re
yersed, and the cause is remanded will
instructions to reverse the judgment Of th
lower court in which the right Of remova
was refused.
In the case of Judge COLES, of Virginia