Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-02

resulting from tQe COItstItutiOh VI A""o - 49,
State rather than denial made manifest at
the trial of the case. In other words the Sta
tute has reference to Legislative denial, or an
| inability resulting from it.
Sixth-The constitution or the laws of Vir-
ginia do not exclude colored citizens from ser
vice on juries. The petition for removal there
| fore did not present a case for removal under
section GAL.
Seventh-Thc defendant in this case moved
| in the State court that the venire be so modi-
| fled that one-third or some portion of the jury
| should be composed of his own race. Tho de-
| NAL of that motion was not the denial OF
right secured to him by any law providing Tor
equal civil rights of citizens of the United
States, or by any statute, or by the fourteenth
amendment. A mixei jury in a particular case
is not essential to the equal perfection of laws.
1t is a right to which any colored man Is en-
titled. that in the selection of jurors to pass
upon his life, liberty or prosperity, there snail
be no exclusion of his lace and no discrimina-
ton against them because OF his color, put
that is different thing from that which was
claimed of right and denied i'll the State court,
viz, a right to have the jury composed In par
of colored men.
The petitioner alleges that his arrest and i'm
prisonment upon this indictment were un.
warranted by the constitution OF the United
States and in violation Of his rights and the
rights of Virginia, whose judicial officer he ls,
and that the interior court nau Ho JuiAsuiOtion
to proceed against him.
Thi. court. after careful consideration of
the act of March 4th, 1875. which provides for
the trial and punishment of officers who ex-
cluded citizens from the Jury list on account
of race or color, holds that that act is author
lied by the thirteenth and fourteenth amend
ments to the constitution for the enforcement
of which Congress has given power to pass
appropriate legislation.
The court also holds that the inhibition
contained in the fourteenth. amendment
means that no agency of a State, nor of
officers or agents by whom it's powers are ex-
erted. shall deny to any person within Its
Jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. VINO
ever, by virtue of public position under a
State government, deprlVes another OF prop
erty, life or liberty without due process OF law,
or denies or takes away equal protection of the
laws violates the constitutional inhibition,
~ he acts in the name and for the State,
otherwise the constitutional inhibition has no
meaning, and the State has clothed one of its
agents with power to amend OF evade It..
The constitutional amendment was ordained
to secure equal rights to all persons and to en-
sure to all persons the enjoyment of such
rights. Power was given to Congress to en-
force its provisions by appropriate Legislation.
Such legislation must act upon persons, net
upon an abstract thing denomlnhted State.
but upon The persons who are agents OF the
State in denial of rights which were intended
to be secured. S:ch is the act of March 4th.
1875. And it l. fully authorized by tho coz
stitutiou.
The act of defendant in selecting jurors was
ministerial, not a judicial act, and being
charged with the performance of that duty, al
though he derived his authority from the State,
the defendant was b,und in the discharge OF
his duties to obey the federal constitution and
laws passed in pursuance thereof The petition
f,ra ,rr;t nf hah ia therefore denied,
Justice Strong delivered the opinion, Justices
Clifford and Field dissenting.
From these principles it follows that the fed
eral court has no rightful jurisdiction OF the
last, and that writ of mandamus for restora
ton of the prisoners to the State authorities
must be granted, and the court SO orders.
No. 720 The State of Tennessee, plaintiff i'll
error, vs. James NJ. Davis, on Ger tifcate of
division of opinion from the United States
circuit court for the middle district of Ten
nessee
This case arises out of an indictment il the
Tennessee State court of the present defend
ant in error, James III. Davis. deputy col
lector of internal revenue, for the murder of
James B. Haynes, a citizen of Tennessee, on
the goth of August, 1878. Davis filed
petition for the removal of his case
from the State to the federal court
under section 6i3, revised statutes, on the
ground that the killing was done in self de-
Tense, aud while he was engaged in the dis
charge of his duties under authority of the
internal revenue laws of the United States.
The judges in the court below certify de-
cison of the opinion on three questions, viz:
First-Is an indictment of q revenue officer,
found in State court, for murder, under the
circumstances alleged in this case, removable
TO this court under section G43 revised statutes?
Second-If SO, is any mode of procedure pre-
scribed by Congress; and
Third-If not, can a trial of guilt or inno-
cence of the prisoner be had here?
This court holds that the petition for re-
moval was in conformity with the statute, and
upon being filed the prosecution was removed
to the United States court for that district.
The United States, the court holds, is govern
ment with authority extending oyer the whole
territory Of the Union, acting upon State and
the people of State. So far az its sovereignty
it is supreme State IN exclude it from ex-
ercising any authority conferred upon it by the
constitution, or obstruct its authorized officers
against it's will or withhold from it for a mo-
ment the consequence of any subject which
that instrument has committed to it.
The general government must cease
to exist whenever it loses the power
of protecting itsef in the exercise It
its constitutional powers. 1t can only act
through it's officers and agents, and they must
act within the States. If, when thus acting
and within scope of their authority, these Off
GERS can be arrested and brought TO a trial in a
State court upon an alleged offense against the
law of the State, yet warranted by the
federal authority they possess and if the
general government if powerless to interfere
at once for their protection the operations of
the general government may at any time be
arrested at the Will of one of it's members.
No such element of weakness is to be found in
the constitution. If a case, whether civil or
criminal, be one to which the judicial
power of the United States extends, its re-
moval to the federal court is no invasion
of State domain. On the contrary denial of
the right of the general government to Iemove
them, to take charge of any and try any case
arising under the constitution and laws of the
United States is denial of the conceded
sovereignty of the government over a subject
expressly committed to it. 1t is denial of
doctrine necessary for the preservation of the
acknowledged power of the government. The
power to remove is as ample in criminal
as in civil cases.
This court therefore holds in answer to the
certified questions of the court below, that the
case is p, operly removable to the federal court,
and that a trial of guilt or innocence of the
prisoner may then be had.
Justice Strong delivered the opinion, Justices
Clifford and Field dissenting. Justice Field
disscnts from the opinion of the court in the
case of Strouder and in that of Coles. The pc
tition in the latter case he maintains.
a.