Court Opinion

ID: 8639825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:51:21.373198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.825727
License: Public Domain

BRADLEY, Circuit Justice.
The application now made to the circuit court and presented to me, raises these questions: First. Was the mere presentation of the petition for removal sufficient to arrest the jurisdiction of the state court, or had that court the right to examine into its sufficiency? Secondly. If the court had the right to examine into the sufficiency of the application, has the circuit court the right to re-examine the same, and, If found sufficient, to issue a writ of certiorari, or other writ, for the removal of the proceedings,from the state court? Thirdly. If the circuit court has such right, did the petition in this case present sufficient ground for removing the cause?
I think the first and second questions must be answered in the affirmative. The state court surely is not bound to shut its eyes and yield to every application that comes to it. Though removal (when authorized) is a matter of right, and not of favor, yet the court must have the right to see whether the application to remove comes within the meaning of the law. I have no doubt, however, that the circuit court, by virtue of its superior right to try the cause (if subject to removal), is entitled to assert its jurisdiction by proper process directed to the state court. This view is corroborated by certain express provisions of the statutes. Section 716 of the Revised Statutes, declares that the United States courts may issue all writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. And, in the very case under consideration, it is provided by section G42 of the Revised Statutes, that if the defendant be in actual custody on process issued by the state court, and have performed all the acts necessary to a removal of his cause, the clerk of the circuit court is authorized to issue a writ of habeas corpus cum causa, which the marshal of the United States is authorized to serve by taking the body of the defendant into his custody to be dealt with in the circuit court according to law and the orders of said court, or, in vacation, of any judge thereof. This is the proper writ for removing both the cause and the person in such a case. Of course, the writ should not be issued by the clerk without being allowed by a judge of the court, which is the regular course in issuing writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. I think, therefore, that the circuit court may issue either a writ of habeas corpus cum causa or of certiorari, according as the defendant is in custody, or not in custody, for the purpose of removing the cause into that court. When this is done, it will be the duty of the state court and its officers to yield obedience to such writs; and it will be presumed that they will do so without any further inhibition, either by writ or otherwise.
The course pointed out in section 641, for the defendant to docket the case in the circuit court if the clerk of the state court refuses to furnish copies of the proceedings, is an additional and summary method of proceeding when only the clerk is delinquent. But it does not meet the exigency of a refusal on the part of the state court itself to recognize the defendant’s right to remove the cause. This requires the more formal and orderly process of the court as above specified.
The removal of causes from one court to another is a form of quasi-appellate jurisdiction well known in the English system of procedure to which our own has constant reference. The forms of process necessary to be used for the purpose, and the principles upon which they are framed, are familiar to every student of the common law. The only peculiarity in the present case is, that the causes of removal are special and limited, and application therefor must be first made to the court a qua: the reason for which is undoubtedly to be found in tile anxiety of the legislative department to avoid every possible cause of jealousy and complaint'.
I should have no hesitation, therefore, to allow the writ of certiorari in this case, if I were satisfied with the sufficiency of the application. This brings me to that question.
As regards the law complained of, passed March 13th. 1S77, prescribing the mode of selecting and drawing jurors, I have carefully examined its provisions, and am unable to see anything in it open to any constitutional objection. It provides for the appointment, by the judges of the principal courts in New Orleans, of two commissioners, whose duty it is made to select impartially from the citizens of the par-isli, qualified to vote, the names of not less than one thousand good and competent men to serve on juries. These names are to be placed in a box, and from thence is to be drawn the *635general panel for each term. This is the principal feature of the law. Substantially the same method is in use in several other states. The commissioners, it is true, may abuse their trust; but no system can be devised that will not be liable to abuses.
The allegations with regard to the manipulation of the law in such manner as to secure a jury inimical to the petitioners, and with regard to the existence of a general prejudice against them in the minds of the court, the jurors, the officials and the people, are not within the purview of the statute authorizing a re-mqval. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution, which guaranties the equal benefit of the laws on which the present application is based, only prohibits state legislation violative of said right; it is not directed against individual infringements thereof. The civil rights bill of 1866 was broader in its scope, undertaking to vindicate those rights against individual aggression; but, still, only when committed under color of some “law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom.” And when that provision in this law, which is transferred to section 641 of the Revised Statutes, gave the right to remove to the United States courts a cause commenced in a state court against a person who is denied or cannot enforce any of the rights secured by the act, it had reference to a denial d those rights or impediments to their enforcement, arising from some state law, statute, regulation or custom. It is only when some such hostile state legislation can be shown to exist, interfering with the party’s right of defense, that he can have his cause removed to the federal court.
This being my view of the act, it follows that I cannot grant the application. If I am wrong the petitioners, having claimed the right of removal, and it being denied by -the state court, may carry the case, after final judgment of the highest court of the state, to the supreme court of the United States, and obtain its judgment on the question.
The application is refused.