Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

United States v. Reese (92 U. S. 214), it was said by the Chief Justice of this court: “Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and manner of the proteetion may be such as Congress in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion shall provide. These may be varied to meet the necessities of the particular right to be protected. But there is express authority to protect the rights and immanities referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment, and to enforce observance of them by appropriate congressional legislation. And one very efficient and appropriate mode of extending such protection and securing to a party the enjoyment of the right or immunity, is a law providing for the removal of his case from a State court, in which the right is denied by the State law, into a Federal court, where it will be upheld. This is an ordinary mode of protecting rights and immunities conferred by the Federal Constitution and laws. Sect. 641 is such a provision. It enacts that “when any civil suit or criminal prosecution is commenced in any State court for any cause whatsoever against any person who is denied, or cannot enforce, in the judicial tribunals of the State, or in the part of the State where such prosecution is pending, any right secured to him by any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, such suit or prosecution may, upon the petition of such defendant, filed in said State court at any time before the trial, or final hearing of the case, stating the facts, and verified by oath, be removed before trial into the next Circuit Court of the United States to be held in the district where it is pending."

This act plainly has reference to sects. 1977 and 1978 of the statutes which partially enumerate the rights and immunities intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution, the first of which declares that “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjored by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment,

pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." This act puts in the form of a statute what had been substantially ordained by the constitutional amendment. It was a step towards enforcing the constitutional provisions. Sect. 641 was an advanced step, fully warranted, we think, by the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We have heretofore considered and affirmed the constitutional power of Congress to authorize the removal from State courts into the circuit courts of the United States, before trial, of criminal prosecutions for alleged offences against the laws of the State, when the defence presents a Federal question, or when a right under the Federal Constitution or laws is involved. Tennessee v. Davis, supra, p. 257. It is unnecessary now to repeat what we there said.

That the petition of the plaintiff in error, filed by him in the State court before the trial of his case, made a case for removal into the Federal Circuit Court, under sect. 641, is very plain, if, by the constitutional amendment and sect. 1977 of the Revised Statutes, he was entitled to immunity from discrimination against him in the selection of jurors, because of their color, as we bave endeavored to show that he was. It set aforth sufficient facts to exhibit a denial of that immunity, and a denial by the statute law of the State.

There was error, therefore, in proceeding to the trial of the indictment against him after his petition was filed, as also in overruling his challenge to the array of the jury, and in refusing to quash the panel.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of West Virginia will be reversed, and the case remitted with instructions to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Ohio county; and it is

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD.

I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, on the grounds stated in my opinion in Ex parte Virginia (infra, p. 349), and MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD concurs with me.

X

[graphic]

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 435, S. 456, S. 499, S. 810, S. 957, S. 958,
S. 959, S. 960, S. 1084, S. 1199, S. 1277,
S. 1848, S. 1998, S. 2001, S. 2002, S. 2003,

and S. 2041

PROPOSALS TO SECURE, PROTECT, AND STRENGTHEN
CIVIL RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES

PART 4-APPENDIX-Continued

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1959

40361 O

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas

ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming

KENNETH B. KEATING, New York SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut PHILIP A, HART, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri, Chairman JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas
JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado

CHARLES H, SLAYMAN, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staf Director

J. DELMAS EscoE, Assistant Counsel
Belva T. SIMMONS, Research Assistant

II

« ZurückWeiter »