New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-24
HAS NEGRO Any REMEDY?
alabama Disfranchisemeat Not
Within Federal Jurisdiction.
[rRoM THE TRIBUNE BUREAU

washington Feb 23-A decision OF the ut
most Importance. affecting the efforts OF Ger
tain Southern States to deprive negroes OF the
right Of suffrage. was handed down to-day by
the Supreme Court in the case OF Jackson w.
Giles against the Board Of Registration Of Mont
gomery County. Ala, dismissing the case for
want OF Jurisdiction, federal question being
involved.
Giles failed TO comply with that section Of the
new constitution known the life clause and
which provides that applicants for registration
must be able to explain their whereabouts for
the twelve months preceding the election. Reg
istration having been refused him, Giles brought
suit against the Board Of Registration IN the
State courts carried his to the State Su-
preme Court, and in each instance relief was
denied. He then applied to the federal courts
for writ OF mandamus TO compel the Board OF
Registration 10 accept his resignation. ana car
Tied this TO the Supreme Court OF the
United States. Justice Day delivered the opinion
for the court. with Justice Harlan alone dis
senting.
we are Of the opinion" said Justice Day. in
part. that the State court decided the case Tor
reasons independent Of the federal right claimed
and hence its action is not renewable here. Ia
the FOR n writ Of mandamus, the same at
tack was made upon the action OF the state OF
Alabama IN adopting ana enforcing Nhr Pl'-
visions OF the State constitution which. II was
charged, were adopted for the purpose OF dis
franchisiug the negroes and permitting white
men only 10 exercise the elective franchise We
do perceive here IN the maudamus case that
the decision Of the State court involved the ad-
Indication claimed under the federal constitution
against the appellant. II denies the RELIEF by
way Of mandamus admitting the allegations Of
the petition as to the illegal character 81 the
registration, authorized IN pursuance OF the
Alabama constitution. This 81 ground adequate
to sustain the decision. and wholly independent
OF the rights set UP by the plaintiff as secured
% him by the constitutional amendments Tor his
protection.
1T Is apparent that the thing complained 81.
far IL involves rights secured under the
Federal Constitution. Is the action II the state
OF Alabama IN the adoption and enforcing OF a
constitution with the purpose 81 excluding from
the exercise 81 the right Of suffrage the negro
voters Of the State IN violation Of the Fifteenth
Amendment. The great difficulty % reaching
the political action OF state through remedies
afforded In the courts. state or federal. was
suggested ny This court in the case Of Giles
Harris. Now. 81 IS perfectly wei settled thai
unless a federal right has been act up and de-
MED r. the State court. We have no right 10 re-
view its decision. and after very careful cN-
animation of this matter. and "A due appreciation
OF the gravity OF the charge made as TO the
political action Of that State. see no ground
10 distinguish u from tho universal rule as ap-
piled I'm this court affecting writs Of error or
this kind. In reaching the decision that the
present writs Of must be dismissed. the
statements OF the complainant, charging viola
ton Of a constitutional amendment which Is a
Part Of the supreme law Of the land. but the
right Of this court 10 review decisions Of the
highest court or state has been well settled.
and Is circumscribed by the rules established by
error have not brought the cases within the
statute giving 10 this court the right OF review.
The writs Of error in both cases win therefore
be disrrissed."