The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-04
HAVE DIsFRANCHIsED NEGROES ANY
REMEDY.

A recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court shows it is going to be
difficult TO obtain a decision directly on the
constitutionality of the laws of some South
ern States discriminating against and dis
franchising negroes. This is not because
the court has lodged the question or the
responsibility involved. but because of its
strict adherence to the law in declining to
take unwarrantable jurisdiction.
The case is that Of Jackson w. Giles, of
Montgomery, Ala, against the Board Of
Registration Of that county. The law re-
quires that applicants for registration
must be able to explain their whereabouts
for the twelve months preceding the regis
tration- Giles is old resident, but. as he
named he was refused registration. He
brought suit against the board in the State
Court and carried it to the State Supreme
Court, but got no relief. Then he appealed
to the Federal Court for writ of manda-
mus to compel the board to accept his regis
tration and carried this suit to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court, Justice
Harlan alone dissenting. The court said:
We are of the opinion that the State
Court decided the case for reasons indie
pendent of the federal right claimed, and
hence its action is not renewable here, In
the case for a writ OF mandamus, the same
attack was made upon the action of the
State of Alabama in adopting and enforc-
ing the provisions of the State Constitu-
ton which. it was charged. were adopted
for the purpose of DISTINGUISHING the ne
groes and permitting white men only TO
exercise the elective franchise. We do not
perceive here in the mandamus case that
the decision of the State Court involved the
adjudication claimed under the federal Con-
stitution against the appellant. 1t denies
the relief by way of mandamus, admitting
the allegations Of the petition as TO the
Illegal character of the registration, au-
thorized in pursuance of the Alabama Con-
stitution. This Is ground adequate TO suS-
tain the decision, and wholly independent
of the rights set up by the plaintiff Sc
cured to him by the constitutional amend
ments for his protection.
The court said 1t was perfectly settled
that unless federal right has been set up
and denied in the State Court the Supreme
Court had no right to review the decision
of the State Court, land after a very care
full examination of this matter and a due
appreciation of the gravity of the charge
made as to the political action of the State
we see no ground to distinguish from the
universal rule applied in this court af-
fecting writs of error Of this kind"
Perhaps CHESS attorney erred in the
preparation of his case or in not presenting
it in the State Court in such way as tc
make a distinct issue on the question OF
the denial Of a federal right. but it looks as
! If the State courts might be able to prevent
the question from reaching the Supreme
| Court in form that will bring a decision
on the constitutional points involved. Be
tween State rights and the limitations or
Supreme Court jurisdiction they seem tc
be pretty well protected.