The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-03-02

MANDS THE CASES ~ In. STAT Svcn's W
! NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. c0Lsss CASE ALSO DIS
POSED OF.
WAsHrygrox, March LA decision was
rendered in the United States supreme
Court to-day In the case Of The Common
wealth OF Virginia, petitioner. This was
petition for a writ OF mdnddmus to compel
Judge RIyes, OF the United States District
Court for the Western District Of Virginia,
to restore to the State authorities two col.
ored prisoners named Reynolds. indicted In
the State court OF Patrick county for MUIR
der, and taken by Judge Rives out Of the
possession OF the State officials and held for
trial in the Federal court on the ground
that they, the prisoners, had been denied in
the State tribunals such trial, by compe-
tent Jurors, without distinction OF race or
color, ais the laws Of the State guaranteed to
them. The action OF Judge Rives In re-
moving the case of the prisoners to the Fed
eral court was based on section 641 Of the
| Revised Statutes.
This Court, i'm long and carefully-pre-
pared opinion by Justice Strong, Considers
tina. section In connection with sections 1871
and 1878, and holds
| First. That the object Of these statutes, as
OF the Constitution which authorized them,
was to place the coored race in respect OF
civil rights upon a level with the whites.
They made rights and responsibilities, civil
| and criminal, Of the two races exactly The
| same.
Second. That the prohibitions OF the four
teenth amendment have reference TO State
action exclusively. and not 10 any action OF
private individuals. Section 641 was also
intended for the protection or the colored
race against State action ard against that
alone.
Third. A State NAV act through different
agencies, either by its legislative, Its judi
| cIal, or its executive authorities, and the
prohibitions OF the amendment extend to
all actions Of the State denying equal pro.
lection OF The laws, whether II be action by
one Of these agencies or by another. Con-
gress, by virtue OF the fifth section OF the
fourteenth amendment, may enforce the
prohibitions whenever they are disregarded
| by either legislative, executive, or judicial
departments OF the States. The mode Of
enforcement is left TO its discretion. 1t may
secure the right-that is, enforce its recOg-
nition-by removing the case from State
court, in which it Is denied, into Federal
court, where it will be acknowledged.
Fourth. But the fourteenth amendment
| Is broader than the statute which authorizes
|
all cases in which equal protection OF the
| law may be denied 10 defendant. The re-
moval authorized by the statute is removal
before trial, or final hearing to judicial in.
fraction of the constitutional amendment
made after trial has commenced. Section
641 has no applicability. 1t was not intended
TO reach such cases. They were left 10 the
revisory power Of this Court.
| Fifth Thprpforp the denial Or inability
TO enforce in the judicial tribunals of State
rights secured 10 a defendant by any law
providing for the equal civil rights OF all
persons citizens OF the United States, OF
which section 64l speaks, is primarily, II not
exclusively. q denial OF such rights, or an IN
ability to enforce them, resulting from the
| Consti ution or laws OF the State rather
than q denial made manifest at the trial Of
the case. In other words, the statute has
reference to legislative denial or an ina
bility resulting from it.
| Sixth. The Constitution and laws of Vir-
ginia do not exclude cOlOred citizens from
service on juries. The petition for removal
therefore did not present case for removal
under the 64lst section.
| Seventh. TIE defendant in this case
moved in the State court that the Uenire be
so modified that one-third or some por-
ton of The jury should be composed OF his
own race The denial Of right secured
to him by any law, providing for the
equal civil rights of citizens Of the
| United States, or by any statute, or by
the fourts enth amendment A mixed
| Jury in a particular case is not essential to
the equal protection Of the laws. 1t Is a
rightsto which any col0red man Is entitled
in the selection of Jurors 10 pass upon his
life, liberty, or property there shall be no
exclusion OF his race, and no discrimna-
ion against them because OF his color.
JUDGE COLES PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAs
CORPUS DENIED.
A decision was also rendered by the Su.
preme Court in the case OF j. ID. Coles,
petitioner, indicted in the Federal court for
| the Western District OF Virginia. upon the
charge OF excluding colored citizens from
Jury lists on account OF color, race, and pre-
yIous condition OF servitude, and in viola
ton of the act Of March 4, 1915. The petit
TONER alleges that bis arrest and imprison-
| ment upon his indictment was unwarranted
by the Constitution OF the United States,
and 10 violation Of his rights and OF the
rights Of Virginia, whose judicial officer he
is, and that the inferior court had no iuris-
dictlon to proceed against him.
This Court, after careful examination
Of the act OF March 4, 1875. which pro-
vides for the trial and punishment Of Off
GERS who exclude citizens from jury-lists
on account OF race or color, holds that that
act is authorized by the thirteenth and
fourteenth amendments TO the Constitution,
for the enforcement Of which Congress is
given power TO pass appropriate legislation.
| Such legislation must act upon persons, not
upon the abstract thing denominated a
State. but upon the persons who are the
agents of the State, IN the denial OF the
RICH s which were intended to be Sc
cured. Such Is the act Of March 4,
1875, and it is fully authorized
| by the Constitution. The act Of
defendant in selecting jurors was minis
terial, not judicial Act, and being charged
with he performance OF that duty. although
he derived bis authority from the State. the
defendant was bound in the discharge Of
his duties TO obey the Federal Constitution
and laws passed In pursuance thereof. The
petition for a writ of habeaS corpus is there
| fore denied.
Justice Strong delivered the opinion, JUS
| tices Clifford and Field dissenting.
Justice Field, in his dissenting opinion,
maintains-frst, that assuming the validity
and constitutionalitv OF the act Of March,
1875. the indictment describes no offence
under it, but is void on IFS face; and
second, that the act, 50 far as 1t relates
to Jurors in the State courts, is
Unconstitutional and void. He holds that
nothing can be found in the Constitution
from its opening to its closing line, nor In
any of the amendments in force before the
close OF the civil war, nor in those subse-
quently adopted, which authorizes any in