New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-03-03

that the Act OF 1875 under which the lhu'c1-
nent was found is constitutional. ana Ihen
laws down q principl, which viii Ge fouhd OF
Great practical importance TO the colored race
II is true that the State of Virginia has nor
excluded negroes from the jury by law. But
there are several ways in which State can
act-namey by its legislative authority ana
also by its officers and agents. whoever oy
virtue Of public position under State Gov
"ernment deprives another of property Ire
or liberty without due process OF law or
denies or takes away the equal protection OF
" the laws. violates the constitutional inhib-
I" ton; and as he acts in the name of and for
" the State. and is clothed with the States
"power. his act is that of the State. O.her-
" wise the constitutional inhibition has no
meaning, and the State has clothed one or
ats agents with power TO amend or eYade
"itn The Court holds that Judge Coles IN
selecting Jurors was bound to obey the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States, not
withstanding that he was a State officer, and
that he can be properly punished for VIOLA
ton of them. This decision is blow at the
policy which seems to have been pOpulr I'D
many parts of the South since the Louisiana
and Kentucky cases called attention to the
distinction between unconstitutional leglsla-
ton by the States and lawless injustice by
individuals. The plan has been to abstain
from passing laws to abridge the rights OF
the colored race, but to encourage the
Judges and other State officers to discriminate
against negroes in the exercise of broad
ministerial discretion with which the State
| would have no desire to interfere. The SUI
preme Court has now protected the freedman
against this form Of oppression by declaring
that such acts of State officers are acts OF the
State and fall within the jurisdiction of Con-
| gTess.
There is still a fourth decision involving the
question of Federal and State rights. The
question in this case Is as to the right Of the
United States to remove to its own Courts the
Indictment of revenue officer in Tennessee
who was charged with murder on account OF
a homicide committed, as he declared, IN SELF
defence while employed in his official duty.
| The Court holds that the case IS properly
| removable TO the Federal tribunal, and in the
course of the decision gives the following clear
definition of the Federal sovereignty The
United States is a Government with authority
extending over the whole territory OF the
Union, acting upon the States and the peo-
"ple of the States. While it Is limited in the
"number Of its powers, 50 far az It's sover-
eighty extends IT is supreme. No state can
exclude it from exercising any authority con-
ferred upon it by the Constitution, ohs'ruct
"its authorized officers against rs vii, or
withhold from it for a moment the cog
nizance of any subject which that instrument
"has committed to il. The General Government
"must cease to exist whenever 1t loses the
power of protecting itself in tine exercise Of
It's constitutional powers" And the Court
points out that if Federal officers in the dis
charge of their duty can be arrested by State
officers for alleged offences against the laws
of the State which are yet authorized by the
/ laws of the United States, the operations of
! the General Government may be stopped at
any moment at the will of one Of rs MEM
! bors.
Justices Clifford and Field disseuted from
the decision Of the Court in the West Virginia.
! Coles, aud Tennessee eases, and In Che second
of these Justice Field read an extreme
! States Rights opinion, which may be interesting
as an indication Of Democratic sentiment. But
the judgments of the Court. considered espe-
cially in connection with its previous utter
ances, fix Enthusiastically the National doctrine
and policy.