Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1880-03-11

Ton oi The judgment % the Supreme
Court lasa week. ta the sx-parte Com
monsealsh Of Virginia and En- parte J.
u. Coles. he bad remanded into the cus-
tody Of The authorities Of the State Of
Virginia the two colored prisoners
named Reynelds, when be I'D Illegal
" taken ont o. their hands after they
nd been triad end eonyicled q NOR
der in one Of The Stale courts. and also
that be had issued writs for The arrest
Of Judge Coles end other State
Judges, who had been indicted in
bis court lor excIuding eoi0red men
from iuries in their courts. The prompt
ness Of Judge Rives's action n these
eares should suggest 70 The Legislature
Or this State that IL owes = duty to IL
sclE, 20 it. courts and citizens. il view
81 The recent decisions Of the Supreme
Court, performances oil which ought not
to Dc delayed day longer than . me-
cesssry. In The case oE the indicted
Virginia Judges al taat the Supreme
Court has decided il that state Judge
may be indicted under The act Of Con-
gress, and compelled 70 stand his trial
in the United States Court, for exciud-
inc from the jury lists the names Of COLI
ored men, otherwise qualified 10 be ju-
rors, ii such exclusion i by reason Of
their race, color or previous condition
oil servitude. The Law oil Virginia makes
no distinction ofrace or color i'm regard 10
the performances fury duty. The prep
arstion OF the jury lists ID LEFT to the
discretion of The judges, who are 10 SCI
Iect such persons. between the ages of
81 and so, entitled TO vote and hold Of
fee. as they shall deem "well qualified
to serve Is jurors, being persons Of
sound judgment and free IRON legal ex-
ception." The exclusion of colored iu-
roFs, VI there has been any Tor the causes
assigned, il treated, therefore, BY the
court as the individual oEense OF the
Judge, for which he is indictable under
the Federal statute. OF course. If q
grand Jury in The United States Court
here were disposed to net in the same
spirit, and under instructions as reck-
lessIy partisan rs those Of Judge Rlves.
our own state judges could be indicted
upon the seme grounds rs the Virginia
judges have been indicted. While The re-
publican majority ofthe Supreme Court
have decided that such an indictment
will lie, Judge Field. in his dissenting
opinion in Judge Coles case. has pointed
out with irresistible clearness that that,
upon such an Indictment, 40 conviction
can be sustained There il nolaw requir-
ing colored men TO be drawn upon juries.
The act OF Congress simply prohibits
aud punishes their exclusion By reason
of their race. color, etc. When, asin Vir-
GINA and Maryland, the selection OF iu-
rors isleft to The discretion Of the judges,
no individual, white or black, can claim
il as his individual right 10 be placed
upon the list. That 10 discretionary
with the judges. Consequently. no
man can claim that he Is wronged by
not being put upon The list. No man is
excluded because he is not drawn
Neither, a. Judge Field points out. will
an indictment. hold for excluding all
colored men, 1. e., because none hap
pen TO be placed upon the lists. The
Judges are not requiredor authorized TO
place upon the lists any except rnch as
they shall think wei qualified. That il
a matter oil discretion; the judges may
err in their discretion; they may put
some very disqualified men. in point
of judgment, temper. &C.. upon The
lists. They may omit 10 put on others
who are well qualified. both white and
black. There is no such exclusion"
in this case as viii support an indict-
ment. The simple failure, therefore. to
put single colored man on the jury
list, or given proportion OF colored
men, will never support conviction un-
der the statute, unless there be other evi-
dence of fixed determination not to
have colored jurors. without regard 10
their personal qualification. simply be-
cause they are colored. can be estab-
lished by the declarations and admis-
sions of the judges.
While thisis one aspect ofthe case, and
one which il is beyond the powers of
State Legislation TO vary or control, 30
long as jurors have TO be selected by
somebody who must Judge OF their quail
ification. there Is another matter. as we
have intimaied, which demands proper
legislative action. la the West Virgin-
ia case of Taylor StrandeF the Supreme
Court decides that State law which
requires jurors to be white operates as
s'denial of the equal protection Of the
laws" within the meaning Of the con-
stitulional amendment and the act OF
Congress, which entities every colored
man indicted in that State to have his
case removed INTO the Federal courts
FOR trial. The general jury law Of the
State of Maryland, applicable to all the
counties Of The State. bot not 10 Balti-
more city. requires The lists Of jurors 70
be made Up from the taxable sDhifs male
inhabitants of The county. II has the
same vice. therefore. according 10 the
majority Of The Supreme Court, - the
West Virginia statute. and il liable to
the same consequences. To prevent
those eonseqnences--to preserve the
jurisdiction ofour own State courts and
the authority Of our own laws, and to
prevent the wholesale transfer of cases
OF colored men indicted in the State
courts INTO the United States Court for
trial--ths Legislature should d once,
with the least possible delay. strike the
word sswhise" from the jury law, and
also from every other statute. when 1t
ID liable 70 bring State law and author
isy into unnecessary and humiliatlng
conflict with Federal law and aulhori-