upon they were tried and convicted. A petition in the United States Circuit Court for the writ of habeas corpus was allowed and the case docketed therein. The Commonwealth of Virginia then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel the return of the prisoners to the custody of the State. The petition was granted on the ground that the defendants could not as a matter of right demand a mixed jury, the court declaring that the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated if, when the jury is all white, it cannot be shown that negroes were excluded solely on the ground of race or color. Decision against Federal intervention. (4) Ex parte Virginia.1 J. D. Coles, Esq., Judge of the County Court of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, was arrested by Federal indictment in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia for failing to select negroes as grand and petit jurors to serve in the county courts of the above-mentioned county. This arrest was made under section four of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Petitions to the Supreme Court of the United States for the writ of habeas corpus were filed by both Coles and the Commonwealth of Virginia. These petitions were denied and the cause remanded to the District Court for trial. Field and Clifford, JJ., dissented. The merits of the case, that is as to whether Judge Coles was guilty of discrimination against negroes in the selection of jurymen, solely on the ground of race or color, were not involved in these proceedings. The decision went only so far as to declare section four of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 constitutional. Decision in favor of Federal intervention. 1 100 U. S. 339. OCTOBER TERM, 1880 (5) Neal v. Delaware.1 The defendant, a negro, was indicted and arraigned for trial in a Delaware State court for the crime of rape upon a white woman. The Delaware Constitution of 1831, section one, article four, and the Delaware Revised Statutes of 1853, section 109, thereunder enacted, limited the selection of grand and petit jurors to the white race. On the ground of this discrimination the defendant moved to quash the indictment. This motion was denied. The defendant was thereupon tried and convicted and sentenced to be hanged. Upon a writ of error to the Delaware court the United States Supreme Court declared the law under which the juries had been drawn for the trial of the case, to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordered the release of the prisoner. Waite, C.J., and Field, J., dissented. Decision in favor of Federal intervention. OCTOBER TERM, 1882 (6) Pace v. Alabama.2 The defendant was tried and convicted in a State court of Alabama under Section 4189 of the Code of Alabama, which provided for a severer punishment in cases of fornication and adultery between negroes and whites than between members of the same race. Upon writ of error, the United States Supreme Court declared that this was not a denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. Decision against Federal intervention. (7) Bush v. Kentucky.3 The defendant, a negro, was indicted for murder and arraigned for trial under II Revised Statutes of Ken 1 103 U. S. 370. 2106 U. S. 583. 107 U. S. 110. PROPERTY OF VICTOR J. WEST MEMORIAL LIBRARY NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THE ROOM tucky of 1852, p. 75, which excluded negroes from all jury service. A motion to set aside the panel of petit jurors on the ground of discrimination was overruled. Petition for removal to the United States Circuit Court was also denied. The defendant was thereupon tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Upon writ of error, the United States Supreme Court declared the indictment void, as the law under which it was found violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Field, J., Waite, C.J., and Gray, J., dissented. Decision in favor of Federal intervention. OCTOBER TERM, 1883 (8) The Civil Rights Cases.1 These were five separate causes of action, each involving the same Federal question, namely, the constitutionality of sections one and two of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. They were thus treated as one case by the United States Supreme Court. The facts may be briefly summarized as follows: i. The denial of hotel accommodations to certain negroes in the State of Kansas. ii. The denial of hotel accommodations to a negro in the State of Missouri. iii. The denial to a negro of a seat in the dress circle of Maguire's Theatre in San Francisco. iv. The denial to a person (presumably a negro) the "full enjoyment" of the accommodations of the Grand Opera House in New York City. v. The refusal by a conductor on a passenger train to allow a negro woman to travel in the "ladies' car" on a train of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company. These acts of discrimination by private persons were severally set up as violations of sections one and two 1 109 U. S. 3. 1 of the Civil Rights Act, which, by its terms, protected the negro from the invasion of his newly given rights by the acts of private individuals as well as by action. of the States. The primary question in the case was the constitutionality of this act of Congress. A further interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment was also involved. In making the decision the court but elaborated the doctrine foreshadowed in the Slaughter House Cases and formulated in United States v. Cruikshank,2 and in Virginia v. Rives, that Congress had no power under the Fourteenth Amendment to initiate direct and affirmative legislation and thus invade and destroy the police power of the States. It could only enact general laws which would regulate the enforcement of the prohibitions contained in the Amendment when they were violated by the States. It is powerless to establish a'!' Federal Code regulating or controlling the acts of private persons in the States. Harlan, J., dissented. Decision against Federal intervention. OCTOBER TERM, 1889 ((9) Beatty v. Benton.4) In 1854 a negro named Carrie transferred by deed a lot in Augusta, Georgia, to a white man. Under a statute of 1818-1819, negroes could not hold real property in Georgia. Litigation over this property began in 1879 in the State courts, the outcome of which was the declaration that the deed of Carrie was void by virtue of said antebellum statute. The aggrieved party attempted to set up the Federal question that this was in contravention of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon writ of error the United States Supreme Court decided that no Federal question 1 16 Wall. 36. 2 92 U. S. 542. 135 U. S. 244. was presented, and dismissed the writ. Decision against Federal intervention. OCTOBER TERM, 1894 (10) Andrews v. Swartz.1 Andrews, a negro, was indicted, tried, and convicted in a New Jersey State court for murder, and sentenced to death. He then petitioned the United States Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that negroes had been excluded from the grand and petit juries which dealt with his case. The Circuit Court denied the petition. On appeal the Supreme Court declared that the petitioner had used the wrong method of procedure, since the regular trial of a State court cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus proceedings. Decision against Federal intervention. OCTOBER TERM, 1895 (11) Gibson v. Mississippi.2 The defendant, a negro, was indicted for murder and arraigned in a State court. He petitioned for the removal of the cause to the Federal Court on the ground that negroes were excluded from the grand and petit juries. The petition was denied and the defendant forthwith tried and convicted. The ruling of the State court was upheld by the United States Supreme Court on writ of error. No proof was offered of discrimination against negroes "solely on the ground of race or color." Decision against Federal intervention. (12) Charley Smith v. Mississippi.3 The defendant, a negro, was indicted for murder and arraigned in a State court for trial. He moved to quash the indictment on the ground that negroes were 1 156 U. S. 272. 2 162 U. S. 565. 162 U. S. 592. |