Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1909-01-23
ANOTHER EvAsIvE DECISION.

ANOTHER EV8SIVE DECISION.
IL seems TO be utterly impossible
20 get a Negro's case before the Su-
preme Court of the United States up
on it's merits. Every effort is met by
a policy of evasion. Some of the
side-stepping characteristics of this
august tribunal would do credit to
a dancing master.
Oscar Reid, one Of the members of
the Twenty-ffth Infantry. who was
punished by President Roosevelt and
dismissed from the service was back
Ell by some of his white friends in
an effort TO make a test case Of the
matter by bringing suit for back pay.
IL was also made 10 include pay &c
the time that his enlistment would
have expired and primarily embraced
the point of the right OF the Presi-
dent OF the United States to dismiss
without honor a soldier from the
army
Other points were brought in. but
this furnished the excuse for the
diplomatic side-stepping that took
place in the United States District
Court of the Southern District of
New York and which in turn was
followed by an even more delicate
acrobatc performance in the Supreme
Court OF the United States at Wash
ington.
What the people of these United
States wanted TO know and especially
the colored portion OF them. was
whether a President Of the United
States. either as an individual or as
Commander-iu-Chief Of the Army had
the legal right in times OF peace to
punish even the humbiest soldier for
an Infamous crime without due pro-
cess OF law, that is.-without having
the charges preferred against the al
legged guilty parties, in a regularly
constituted legal tribunal known
either as a court OF law or as a court
martial where witnesses for and a.
gainst him could appear and face him
and where he could have the benefit
OF counsel. who would exert their
best efforts in his behalf.
The United States District Court
ignored this phase of the question
for the report of its decision says:
He claims that his enlist
ment in 1903 for three years. con-
stituted a contract between himself
and the government for that period
but the district court held that he
had been merely hired by the COY
eminent and was subject 20 dismiss
al az the VIII OF his employer
The only question left was the au-
I thority OF the President 10 act for
the government in making the dis
charge, and the New York Court had
no dimculty in finding that author
ity 10 be ample.
This was passing the case up"
so 10 speak. When the Supreme
Court Of the United States found that
il was coming to them. il quickly
prepared 10 send il back with light
ming speed, virtually refusing to ev-
en- consider it, The report says:
Justice Holmes decision was pure
ly technical, and dealt almost excIu-
sively with the question whether the
act OF 1891. relating to appeals, re-
peals the law fixing $4,000 as the
limit for such cases as this coming
to the court on writs of error. Reds
claim was for 1922.
On this point he said in part:
The limitation with reference to
amount unquestionably remains in
force for the district court in cases
outside of the act OF 1891, as we'll as
for the court of claims. In our opdn-
ion, that act was not intended to
create exceptions. when no such ex-
ception exists for the court OF
claims"
Justice Holmes took cognizance of
what he characterized as "a mint al
dissatisfaction with the government
Tor raising the point as to the iuris-
diction of the court" and said:
Jurisdiction is not a matter Of
sympathy or favor. The courts are
bound TO take notice OF the limits OF
their authority, and it is no part Of
the defendants duty to help in OBJ
tanning an unauthorized judgment by
surprise"
II will be seen then that the high
est tribunal in the land dismissed the
case, virtually by a wave OF the hand
and that the vital questions at issue
are still an unsolved factor in the
legal tribunals of this land.