Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-05-05
THE Ne n CASE.
The Decision of tfse Supreme Court
Does Not Require that Negroes
Shall be On the Jury, but Simply
that They shall Not be PnrpaseIs
Excluded.


Does Not Require that Negroes
Shall be On the Jury, but Simply
that They shall Not be PnrposeIs
Excluded.
Editor State Journal: In your com
ments on the recent decision OF the United
states Supreme Court in the Neal case
you entirely inisapprehend its effect. In
fact there appears 10 be, outside of the
legal professions general misunderstand-
ing of the precise point which has been
decided in reference to colored Jurors /;
and as the decision III Meals ease is not
the only one involving the same subject
matter which has been decided by the
Court of last resort, it may he useful 10
to state briefly what thus far has been
settled as the law of the land on this
head
In the first placeit is not necessary that
there should be u single colored man on
the grand jury which may indict, or on
the petit jury which may try Neal for the
utiulls. for which he stands committed IN
order to secure his conviction according
to the laws of the United States and Of
the State of Delaware. Nor would it he a
cause of error ii colored men, having been
drawn ON the petit Jury, should he pro
perry challenged and set aside and the
jury he composed wholly ofwhite citizens
The act OF Congress of March lst, 1875
enacts that ''no citizen. possessing all
other qualifications which are. or may lie.
prescribed by law, shall he Disqualified
for service as grand or petit Juror III any
court of the United states or Of any State
ON account of race, color or previous con-
ditiun OF servitude.'
MIR. Justice Strong, i'll delivering the
opinion OF the supreme Court i'll Virginia
VS.. Rives, says that ''the plain object OF
these Civil rights statutes, as of the
constitution (the Fourteenth amend
ment) which authorized them, was To
place the colored race, in respect Of civil
rights, upon 4 level with whites. They
made the rights and responsibilities, civil
aud criminal, of the twn races exactly the
same In the same opinion. he SAYS
"A mixed Jury in Il particular case is not
essential 10 the equal protection Of the
Laws, and the right to it is not given by
any law Of Virginia or hy any Federal
statute. 1t Is not, therefore, guaranteed
by the Fourteenth amendment Again,
in Strander VS.. West Virginia. the same
Judge says: at is to be observed that
the first uf these questions is not whether
a cnored man, when an Indictment ha>
been preferred against him. has a right
to a grand or petit Jury composed in
whole or in part of persons of his own
race or color, but it is whether, in the
composition or selection Of jurors by whom
he is to I've indicted or tried. all persons
Of his race or color may he excluded
solely because OF their race or color, So
that by no possibility can amy toiortd man
sit upon the Jury. + i ''Wedo not
say that within the limits from which it
is not excluded by the amendment, a
state may not prescribe the qualifications
Of its Jurors, and in doing So make dis
examinations. 1t may coniint .he scle Ii, IL
to males, to freehOldrrs, to citizens, to
persons within a certain age. or 10 persons
having educational qualifications. We
do not helicva the Fnui t9enth amendment
was ever intended 10 prohibit this. Look
ing at its history ii is clear il had no
such purpose. Its aim was against dis
elimination becallse uf race or color. As
We have said more than once, its design
was 10 protect an emancipated race. aud
to strike down al! possible legal discrimi-
nations against those who belonged
10 it"
From these extracts it will he seen that
the object of what are called the civil
rights statutes is to secure the equal pro-
teption of the laws To all citizens alike.
irrespective OF race or roler, So that no
citizen shall be deprived, by reason Of his
descent or of lis eomplrXion, of any
right secured by the Fourteenth amend
ment. 1t is also clear, that it the persons