The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-04

4 TegAo1e Dsrtoe'
-. 4 -.,siona promulgated in The
Eivs - 6onri Monday snd Tuesday Will
supreme cue ~ s,nd the country; for great
douv,'ess 49, o',r nrorross towards central
- VA sss vJ' ia05, Il has been reserved
!sm s,'es " ,een 10 witness stride In that
LOT >asIcp, s0 ,,ss court OF last resort which
'iecI'on ~ avery friend oil or believer
ougol 70 r ",s' system Of constitutional
IN we wS.r cases have been decided
union. re- T.onessee, IN which the circuit
one I.o na,,,aed division on certain qnes-
!uusess go ~ decision BY the Supreme Court.
uo"s 10 ,,,,s oifjcer Of the United States had
49, - citizen OF Tennessee. He was ar
knieu ,cr trial In the court OF that State
rs sn neJ - 60 ne had offended and whose cti-
Wiz Se mad killed. Under the act OF Con-
sress Of March 1, 1873, tue accuse o., oy ms
nwn afHdaytt, ayerTed that ne nio h'iieu Inc
ci,izsn while executing MS outy as fede.
raj revenue officer, ana ieareu nc cou,u n9'
nave a fair trial in the stare couI. ne
therefore applied to nave us case Ie'nor ,,.
70 the Federal court, WHICH was uohe' nus, ue
state applied to baye II sem p s',' ine
Federal court, as we nave sa'u, u'sipeu ou
!uN,,n., lion. submitted it TO the Supreme
n ~. and II. majority decision, rendered
o e",ar,iar was that the case should be tried
=, she limited States court; that the State
.ou,t conId not claim Jurisdiction.
rims the rIpht OF State to vindcite its
own soverejpnt, against violaior OF lis
own law was. when usurped There Is no
other word for ~ by United States court
nnder law of Congress, stricken down by
the sanction of six judges OF the Supreme
Cour; of the United States. This Is prac-
ticaI assertion OF the doctrine that United
states revenue officer Is not subject to the
criminal administration OF state Tor muir
der committed within its domain, but is
exempt from trial by Slate court. to which
ali other citizens arc liable. This is the
doctrine of equal prOtec ion OF the laws pro-
yjded for in tue fourteenth amendment. AS
laid down by The Supreme Court, revenue
officials Of the United States are not
amenabIe to State fbwer, though they vio-
late its laws, and though they commit MUIR
der, arson, and theft, all they have to do IS
to swear they belong to this privls ged class
and demand to be brought before United
States court.
The second case was closely allied to the
! first I'm its relation 10 the State and Federal
authority. In Virginia two colored men
| had been tried in State court. After a
new trial had been granted, they applied
for removal OF their cases TO the United
States Court. Judge Rives decided il could
be done, and the Supreme Court disagrees
with him, not as TO the law, hut merely as
to the time, holding that 10 this case the APP
plicapts 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
| 81, ~. hat
civil rights under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. can at any
time before his case is called avoid trial
IN State court for his crime against a
State law, and be taken before Federal
Judge for such deposition as The latter may
make. These two decisions added together
take from the State judiciary the authority
to trv. except with the criminals consent,
all civil or military officers or persons act
inc with color Of authority, and all color
ed people who make aft dayit that they can
not be fairly tried; constituting large
privileged class who NAV defy State author
iiy and find refuge from punishment under
the shadow Of the wing OF Federal power.
Having by these two cases put the Stlte
! judiciary hors de combat, Mr.. Justice
I Strong, acting for himself and five other
Republican judges, preceded to invade
the province Of The legislative department
Of the State Of Yves; virginia by declaring
that that State could not constitute iuries
in her own courts of lohite persons only.
and therefore the conviction Of colored
man by such jury was unconstitutional
The mode OF reasoning by which this
conclusion was reached was not unworthy
OF that type OF judges who, under bias.
| however uncOnsciOusly derived from strong
| partisan prejudice, ingeni0Gsly devise me-
thoGs to make the worse appear the better
cause.
| The fourteenth amendment declares That
no State shall deny Ia any person " the equal
prot ecfon OF the laws" This equal pro-
lection cannot be afforded to a cololed man
| II cOl0red men are not eligible TO luries.
| Therefore the law OF West Virginia, which
excludes them. and Judge Coles. who ex-
cludes them in the other State OF Virginia.
although not In pursuance OF any statute.
deny TO them the equal protection OF The
laws. This is sophi>iry, mscalIed Judicial
logic, by which the Federal usurpation Of
STATE power is sanctioned.
The fallacy has been well exposed by Mr..
Justice + cid. II a colored man is denied
equal protection becaus- his race is excluded
from juries, how is il with a non-freeholder,
when none bur freeho'ders are qualified
| Jurors? How with women, with children,
with aliens I How would it be with the
| iliterate! Or, again, ii the equal protection
OF law 10 a cOlored man requires that his race
shall not be excluded from the iury-bOx,
can he swear that be has that protection il
The judges are all white, or he legislators,
who made he law he violated, are all white,
or il the voters who elected them are all
white? How, in short, can laws passed by
| white people only give equal protec-
ton TO the negro il that law cannot
be equitabIy administered unless a negro
be- on The iury9 Unequal laws may be
made by whites il without colored aid they
are presumed to be unequalIy administered.
II this clause Of the fourteenth amendment
requires q negro constituent in juiies, why
does ii not require the same constituent 10
the Legislature, and so down to the source
OF pOwerl What kind Of a doctrine would
this have been considered by Marshall,
fancy, or Chase ? Ii anything be certain
in these uncertain times it Is that no such
Interpretation can fairly be given to the
fourteenth amendment. III it can be, WHY
was the fifteenth amendment adopted? III
negro suffrage was secured by the four
teenih what need Of the fifteenth! And IL
logic-choppeIs shall say only to make A.
surance doubly snre, why, then, was the
fifteenth amendment limited so cautiously
to suffrage alone?
The equality OF protection spoken OF (as
was finely put by Judge Field in his opin-
ion, which sounds like the echo OF the bu-
,.lo lIos. ~ tho Mont;oaIio ct,tac,aa, ~