Evening journal., 1914-11-18

and considering the evidence and
arguments have rendered a YER
dict of guilty OF that verdict the
Court approves. The evidence
leaves no doubt but that you were
the perpetrator of the crime.
AS there was general public
acquiescence in the business of the
verdict (see newspapers of all par
ties at the time) there was no ex-
element except that which naturally
flowed from the enormity Of the
crime and the shocking nature of
the facts proved at the trial,-until
after a writ of error had been sued
out OF the Sunreme Court of the
United States. In fact no motion or
suggestion of such writ. or of any
appeal to the Supreme Court. was
made by Mr.. Higgins. until after the
sixty days had expired within which
stay OF execution could by law
have been obtained.
Sometime after the expiration Of
the said period, Mr. Higgins applied
TO the Attorney General TO waive OBJ
lection TO the issuing of a superse-
deas. and advise the Governor to re-
spite the execution The ground of
this appeal made to the Attorney
General was, that he (Higgins) was
! personally responsible for the delay
in suing out the writ of error and
he approximately pressed the Attor-
ney General to consent to the SUI
persedeas. The Attorney General (as
a human life was involved) consent
ed finally to Mr. Higgins request and
agreed 20 advise the Governor as 10
! the respite. The case accordingly
went to the Supreme Court, and was
heard sometime i'm March. 1881, as
nearly as | can recollect At all
events, II was argued before the
| Court by the Honorable Charles Dc
vens. who had just ceased 10 be
! Attorney General of the United States
under tho administration which went
out on the preceding fourth Of March.
and whom Mr. Higgins had associ-
ated with him in the case Attorney
General Gray argued the case in be-
half of the State
THE only question considered by
II was, as stated by the court itself
whether. from the Grand Jury that
found and from the Petit Jury that
was summoned to try the Indictment
citizens of the African Race. quail
fed in all other respects TO serve as
jurors. we're excluded from the
D panels because Of their race and
color. The question so stated did
not involve in the slightest degree
the merits of the case tried In the
Court. of oyer and Terminer for New
Castle County, and the fact of the
guilt OF the defendant, as determined
/ hrrf fltr faan In afnt ftttf
"The narrow and technical Ques
tion decided by the court was, wheth
er. after the adoption of the 14th anl
18th Amendments Of the Constitution
of the United States, negroes were
. excluded by the laws of Delaware
from the jury panels. That there
was no direct exclusion was admit
: ted, but as the Constitution of tn
State had a provision combining tn
right to vote TO white persons, an'
the statute in regard TO jurors au
thorized to be selected only such a
could vote at State elections. II wa
4, unanimously decided by the Court o
Oyer and Terminer of this State. tina
these amendments TO the Constitution
of the United States, being the para
mount law of the land. enfranchise
the negroes, and Proprio Vigore mad
I them eligible as jurors. Therefor
L the reasonable conclusion woul
r. seem to follow, that at the time
S Meals trial, negroes we're not an
n could not be excluded by the laws
:. Delaware on account of their rae
e etc. from the panels of the juries, 3
b selected by the Levy Court Il wa
Of course, conceded that up to th
r time of that trial no negro had eve
! been summoned upon a jury in thi
State. II should be added, that mel
b ther at that trial nor since that tria
, with but one or two exceptions, ha
= a single negro ever appeared upol
a jury panel.
"The majority OF the Suprem
Court. however. determined that tn
fact that on the panel of the juror
from which Meals jury was selected
e the name of no negro had beel
F. placed, was evidence that such ha
been excluded on account of thei
J race and color. In other words. tina
! even though under the amendment
to the Constitution, the Laws of De
laware no longer excluded negroe
] from the jury, the fact that they ha
- not been selected hitherto by tn
administrative officers charged wit
that duty. practically was an act c
D the State, and worked their eXclusio
a from jury panel, and that such el
] clusion by administrative officers wa
! in violation of the amendments
; the Constitution.
e "Chief Justice Waite and Mr. Jus
e tice Field dissented from thi
opinion and Judgment of the Suprem
Court. but the opinion of the ms
iority, of course, prevailed and th
Judgment Of the Court Of Oyer an
Terminer was reversed and the cas-
sent back for a new trial
: "That this reversal by the Supren
Court and the ordering of a new trii
z was the occasion of some public e.
81 citement is not to be denied. 81
q that excitement arose largely fro
q the feeling that justice, as admins
tered by the Delaware Courts, ha
been defeated. There was a populi
impression. too. that the Supreu
N Court, i'm reversing the decision
n the Delaware Court, had In some va
III passed upon the merits of the cas-
and that their decision amounted
an opinion that there was doubt
TO the guilt of the defendant. Thi
as I have shown. was not so: bl
when the second trial came on
H the following November Term, 1SS
IA that impression TO some extent pr
vailed and affected the atmosphe
n in which such second trial was had
81 "The pamphlet to which I have r
~ farrod I'm qnpalfno of fhfe fri