The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-05-27
Judge Fields Dissenting Opinion In
the Coles Case.
trrom Holly srrlng. tMI..l Renort.r.,

: From holly Springs miss Reporter.I
The most dangerous infrnctions Of liberty
, which have been made among English speak
! Ing peoples have come from n supple and par
tisan judiciary. So too, the noblest stands
: made for the cause Of free government have
7 been by the Bench. Withou, going back to
cite tho historical illustrations familiar to
every reader, it sufilces now to say that such
n crisis is upon us. The centralizing schemes
Of the Republican leaders and the imperial de-
signs Of General Grants partisans more or less
undisguis0d, have taken definite shape in
various recent decisions Of the Supreme Court
! Of the United Sta'es, which, by the voice Of n
, majority Of its judges, has practically reduced
the sovereign states Of this Union to proyin-
cial dependence on the general Govern nent,
unknown, unheard of, undreamel Of, in the
past. Our system Of Government has under
gone revolution by tho silent process Of Ju
nicsl decision, which If not reversed in the
most explicit and authoritative way, ends,
once md for ALL the beautiful aud harmonious
equilibrium Of our Federative system in q
centralized despotism. II REQUIRES self.con-
troll not to characterize this mon'trous conspr-
hcy in the terms Of opprobrium which 1t de-
serves. 1t Is enough TO say that the venal and
courtier judges OF the Stuarts from Noy to
Jehreys, never struck more fatal blow at
liberty or constitutional goyornment. TIVE
judges, Field and Clifford, the former giving
the opinions and the latter cOncurrng, have
stood up like men for the Constitution Of our
fathers and our traditional rights as freemcn.
Judge Fields opinions have in them the ring
Of the Revolutionary patriotism Of l776. They
will he important chapters in that new book Of
liberty, which will be written against traitors
in the next few years. His sentences strike
the key note 10 which frccmcn must respond.
The dissenting opinion Of Mr.. Justice Field
in tho matter Of j. D. Coles and the Common
wealth Of virginia, petitioners for the writ
OF hoJeds cOrprs, given at the October term of
the Supreme Court will long stand as land
mara Of American liberty. 1t is document
which deserves the attention not only Of the
legal profession but Of every citizeh.
These are the substantial points Of this lead.
ing case as prescntrd by Judge Field In
Virginia, all male citizens between the ages Of
twenty one and sixty who are entitled to vote
and hold Office are lab!c to serve as jurors
Tho judge of each County Court is required to
prepare annually list Of such inhabitants of |
the county not exceeding three hundred in |
number ans he shall think well qualified 10
| serve as jurors, being persons u sound judy
ment and from legal exception These
names are Ia be wrli.-n gu SEPARATE ballots and
]
draw the jurgr,. The law a! Virginia makes
no di'crim.u1.lgr ats.us, persons Of color.
The judge Is required 90 select persons " well
qualified o. serve Is jurors" of e sound judy
ment ' ;7te r., 90 le;A, exception" Whether
they possess these qualifications or not is left
30 the Judge g. determine and for the manner
IN wlsta he discharges this duty. Judge
at,i, holds that he is irresponsible only to
The State whose officer he is and whose law he
$ .gaad 10 enforce"
The petitioner j. d. Coles is the Judge of the
4 unity Court of the county of Pittsylvania in
Virginia and has held the Office for some years.
II is not pretended that in the exercise Of his
Judicial duties he has ever selected persons as
jurors who were not qualified to serve in that
character, or who were not of sound Judgment
or who were not free from legal exception, vet
he has been indicted in the District Court of
Of the United States for the Western District
Of Virginia for having on some undesignated
day IN the year IS excluded and failed 10
select a. jurors citizen. Of the county on ac-
count OF race, color ana previous condition Of
seryliuie. The indictment does not state who
thee CITIZENS were, or set forth any particulars
Of the ohense but charges il in tie general
words Of definition. The District Court is
sued bench warrant upon which the Judge
was arrested and refusing TO give bail, he is
he'd in custody. ThcreuVon he petitions for
q ''r',ornr 10 that court, and for a writ Of
habeo' co,Pw, alleging that its action was
without jurisdiction and his imprisonment un-
lawful The Commonwealth Of Virginia has
also presented similar petition, declaring that
she is injured by being deprived of the services
Of her judicial officer by his unlawful arrest and
imprisonment.
This Indictment is founded on the Alta Sec
tons Of the Act Of Congress on March |, 1875,
when declares "that no citizen possessing all
other qualifications which are or NAV be pre-
scribed by law, shall be disqualified for grand
or petit juror in any court of the United States
or OF ny State on account of race, color or
previous condition Of servudc and any officer
or other person charged with any duty in the
selection of jurors, who shall exclude or fail to
summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid
shall on conviction be deemed guilty of
misdemcanor and be fined not more than five
thousand dollars.
Judge Field maintains that the court ex- !
ceeded its jurisdcton-lst because assuming I
that the Act of 1878 is constitutional and valid a
legislation, the indictment describes no offense
under it, but is void on its face, and I'd. be- u
cause that Act in the section cited, so far as il
relates to jurors in the State courts is uncopsti
iutional and void. v
The Indictment merely repeats the general
language OF the statute. II AYERS that the de- "
cndant excluded and failed to select as Jurors .
N account OF race, color ETC., certain citizens
ii the county possessing all other qualifications
prescribed by law; but it names no citizens n
ShO were thus excluded, and designates no y
specific travcrsabc onensc. 1t is essential TO u
a valid indictment that it should set forth the u
ofIense with such particulars # time, place and n
person, that the accused may know the nature n
40 ~ Il, IN 10 /
| is not enough to repeat the definition Of the Ii
lhensc in the general language Of the statute ?
and then nyer that the defendant has been Ct
guilty of the defense thus defined, without a
Ithcr specification. The constitution strikes n
With nullity all such vague accusations. II n
declares that the accused shall! be informed Of c
he nature and cause Of the accusation against Il
aim, and this means that all the essential in "
gradients OF the ofense charged must be stated, {
with reasonable certainty the pss- c
icular' OF time, place and perion property. .
The troatises Of bishop and Archt9ld and the |,
iccision of the United States Supreme Court ii
n the Cruikshank ease are citsi 10 UNFOLD hi. n
POSITION Cf Judge Field, which really appsars l.
o be unanswtrable. a
Judge Fieli'- second position i. tia, The sth
section OF the Act of 1875 20 far a. aUp.... q
o State Courts il unconstitutional AID void | p
'revious ~ the late amendment, be remarks, n
would not have been contend that Con- b
'ress was vested with any power 10 eIersiss d
supervision over the conduct Of State officer. in n
he discharge Of their duties under the laws Of d
he state, and prescribe punishment for dis. v
egardinS its directions. 1t would have been b
oncedod that the selection Of jurors was q n
uoJ't exclusively for regulation fy the y
'tates, and that their officers in carrying out a
heir laws were responsible only to them. lrac- t
ng in II mastery manner the history of the v
ldopton Of the Federal Constitution Judge S
'ieid shows that it was not designed for the $
equation OF matters Of purely local concern. I
Ihe new government being one of the granted d
lowers, its authority was limited by them, and e
ueh as were necessarily implied for their exc =
u'ion' But to prevent all mi,conception
TO the extent Of these powers the a
9th amendment was at an early dav L
doPted, declaring that "the powers p
OF delegated to the United States by the con- g