The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-10-02

! gbi'tl'4fI anu ignorant, NitItbA H'H's
and without the assistance of counsel,
should, under this statute. have ordered
his case OF its own motion. 10 be re-
moved for trial TO some other county:
trial. For T the court st = ry him in Lunen-
burg county under such circumstances.
was fer the State of Virginia TO deprive
him Of his liberty and his life without
we process OF law, In violation or the
l4th amendment Of the Constitution OF
the United States.
The crucial test in this case Is. wheth r
/ an appellate court would set their pro-
! ctedinss aside IL the facts OF the case had
I an appeared on the r. ord. II they had
I appeared there. the documents ana court
/ orders made part Of this petition make
/ il plain that case would have appear
/ 81 on The feccrl that excluded the pos
. simliy OF a fair and iml lrtial trial for
! petitioner. \ case would have appeared
| IN which II was plain that no jury could
| De secured in Lunenburg county to try
Eim, that was not dominated by the gene
I raj terror ana intimidation that ruled the
| county Now the essential IDEA Of due
! process OF law BE- that the process what
I ever 10 may be. must be such as VIII Sc
! cure fair and impartial trial. The mo-
! m-nt ~ appears that the process, what
/ ever 10 may be. is inadequate for securing
[ fair and impartial trial. that process Is
/ UNDUE process. u is fully conceded that
] no evidence dchOrs the record can be
/ lcsOrtcd to bring into n 81 Nthing that
| IS no more than what Is wei known to
! the lawyers as error But when the
! evidence appealed to goes 10 tine point
/ tnat the court was utprlNius "a person
Of his constitutional rights under the
l forms OF law, q case arises when ranges
| Itself In a totally different class- The
/ evidence appealed 20 IN that case goes TO
ihe foundation of the proceedings and
| cuts them all up Boy the roots. IL IS tne
well settled law Of our land that court
undertaking 20 act under an unconstitu-
tOnal law Us acting without jurisdiction.
/ It's judgments are simply void, and Dint
nowhere. and are 20 bc treated as utilities
everywhere.
Sieboll's case. 100 T. S r.. at page 516.
Narbrough's case. no T.. $. r., ~ page flj.
Norton vs.. Shelby county. us 4. ). r., at
page ii2 Royals case, III L. ;. r., 90
Now it equally settled that the piohili-
tons upon the States found In the lith
amendment are prohibitions against their
action through their judiciarics az well as
through their Legislatures.
The supreme Court of the United States
said in ex-parte Virginia lo) T.. ). r.,
when considering the effect Of these pro-
hibitions al page 1867, we have said
the prohibitions of the fourteenth
amendment are addressed 10 the States.
They are 80 State shall make or enforce
a law which shall abrdge the privileges
or immunitics OF citizens OF the United
States. nor ieny 10 any person
within It's jurisdiction the equal protec-
ton Of the laws They have reference
20 actions of the political body denomi-
mated q State, by whatever instruments
or in whatever modes that action may
be taken. 4 State acts by IFS legislative.
IT'S executive. or its judicial authorities.
l. can act 600 no other way The con-
stitutiOnal provision. therefore must
mean that no agency Of the state. or
of the officers or agents by whom IT'S
powers are cXortad. shall deny 70 any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection OF the laws. b, hoover, by
virtue of public position under o. State
government. deprves another OF proper
~, life. or liberty without due process
of law, violates the constitutional .n-
hbiton; and as he acts I'm the name
and for the state. and is clothed with the
States power, his act IS that of the
state. This must be so or the prob btion
has no meaning. Then the State has
clothed one OF it's agents with power 10
annul or TO waste IT,"
The fourteenth amendment. then. I'm
fOrbilling "a state 10 deprive any per
son of his life. liberty. or property, with
ont the process of law. forbade the Coun-
ty Court OF Luncnburg county 90 force
your petitioner % trial before a jury that |
could not give him fair ana impartial |
trial, and the entire proceedings in the |
court are, therefore. null and void.
If your petitioner had had The leno- |
fit of counsel to put properly into the |
record the facts that would have show-
ell that the military were necessary 10 /
protect him from the fury of the l.unon-
burg mob, and TO show that the jury q al
tried him We're intm,dated by said mob
there can Dee 30 question that a case
would have been shown by the record /
that would have made 70 q denial 10
him of trial by Que process OF law %
try him IN Lunenburg county If those
facts had appeared in the record. as
counsel for petitioner would have nut
them on the record and the court had
persisted in trying petitioner In disregard
of a motive 10 remove his case 10 some |
other county. the case would have been
one in which the state was seeking 10
deprive petitioner of his liberty and life /
without due process OF law. in violation
of the fourteenth amendment 10 the
'0nstitut Oh OF the United States This [
Is made plain hy the ahidavits. letters.
and court orders made part of this pct
ton.
Now as petitioner Is an illitorate per-
son. wholly ignorant of what 10 was
necessary for him to do 10 present his
case properly upon the record and with
out counsel 10 do Il fer him. or. money
with which 10 employ counsel. petitioner
submits that the Court will consider that
done which ought 10 have been done.
and 10 Will, therefore. consider the facts
set ont IN sad letters. orders. and afiida-
Wits. 20 have been put properly into the
record, motion 10 remove 20 have been
made and denied. proper exceptions 10
have been taken. and that the record.
therefore in contemplation OF law. shows
a denial 10 petitioner by the State OF
due process Of law. and a deprivation al
his life without due process OF law
Your petitioner perfectly appreciates the
seriousness Of his prayer that the acton
OF Judicial tribunal shall be reviewed
upon matter that is not contained in the
record itself. But. If ia IS not done. then
a case is ignored by the Court in which
a citizen who is incapable of exhibiting
10 the Court the manner I'm which he
has been denied the protection Of the
Constitution. Is left 10 be treated bv 81
mon, clothed in the garments and sitting
M the places Of the judiciary. as that
moo pleas II is the same thing rs
10 say that III "a citizen Is ignorant and
poor and inopabic OF asserting his rights
ana having his claims recorded he NAV
be deprived OF his rights without review
ana without recourse. That the pro-
cess Of law which ne fourteenth
amendment secures 10 the citizen In
'ludes supervisory superintendent for
the ignorant and poor citizen by the
judiciary. that enables II 10 secure 10
iucn a citizen fun recognition OF an
his constitutional rights whether he is
able TO present them IN proper form or
not. In other words. it fOrbids the state /
10 deal with an ignorant and pauper
'tizen through course Of conduct that