*1 IN THE SUPREME COUNT. Pеoples. State v. STATE PEOPLES. v. (Filed 25, 1902.) November Jury Rights 1. JURY —Grand Negroes —Civil —Constitutional Law— —Constitution United States —Fourteenth Amendment— The Tm. Sec. negro grand exclusion all race from a against negro, which finds an jury, indictment where solely are excluded because of race their him denies equal the laws violation of the consti- tution United States. Jury Quash 2. INDICTMENTS —Grand Code, Sec. —Motion —The 1741. negro proper quash against A motion to an indictment negroes remedy where have been from excluded solely ground on the of color. L. INDICTMENT Will heard A. against Peoples, by Judge Coble and a at Term, 1902, Court April Superior jury, Mecklenburg a verdict of From County. guilty the defendant thereon, judgment appealed. Gilmer,
Robert D. for the State. Attorney-General, Green, W. TI. for the defendant. J. A true bill for was found “gaming”
MoNtgomeby, at April Term, the defendаnt against grand jury at Superior Mecklenburg County, same term he was tried convicted offence found him. was the defendant Judgment pronounced weeks, in the for six to be jail imprisoned county assigned to work roads of the and the defendant on the public county, ar- Court. On his appealed judgment trial, before and before the were raignment plea he his bill moved, empanneled, through counsеl, indictment for reasons stated as follows: substantially AUGUST TEEM, N. C.] *2 of drawn the Because list thirty jurors County and from which summoned
Commissioners Sheriff, and which found the were bill jury drawn, against grand was and list defendant, summoned, the improperly selected from a revised list, taken having required 1724, under sections 1729 1722, 1726, 1727, 1723, 1725, and of The thereto; and the amendments and that said list had June, not been revised or since purged and then with so as to discriminate partiality revised and unjustly of the ne- purposely against competent persons to which the defendant gro race, account on of such belongs, race or person’s color. whose,
2. Because the officers it was revise duty the jury list and to draw the to be panels summoned Sheriff, from which the were had grand petit juries drawn, re- selected and summoned the vised, for the thirty-six jurors term of the Court for said from which the county, were drawn that found the true bill against defend- with the unlawful a.nd ant, avowed of purpose discriminating persons of the against race, negro who, right, being compe- should not tent, have been excluded lists on account of their race prejudice defend- ant.
3. Because such unjust unlawful discrimination against defendant deprived him aof fair and impartial trial in that as is guaranteed him under the Consti- tution and laws of North Carolina, Thirteenth Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the acts of thereunder. Congress 4. Because, in the defendant’s belief, he could not an get impartial trial, as him guaranteed the laws land, under such unjust discrimination on account him, his race and color, there about being fifty-five thousand popul
Vol. 131-50 COURT. THE SUPREME IN whom, are of per one-third Mеcklenburg
ation County, than taxes more quarter on race who pay sons the negro num the greater worth property, million aof cellars in the serve average jurors are equal ber of whom several Courts. duces tecum be subpoena defendant prayed Chairman of the Board from the
issued to the Register County, Mecklenburg Commissioners the Sheriff and to Board, of said to the Clerk Deеds, records their several them bring of said county, requiring *3 of for that and jurors summoning to the drawing pertaining and to boxes, box give of also the and jury term and Court, and the selecting the Court respecting information to such and of be asked of them, of jurors might summoning that have knowledge. which they might also a number of other witnesses. embraced prayer the bill of indictment be 2. the motion to granted, That quash this term of selected and summoned for that the list jurors who officers selected and aside, the Court be set of the and discrimi- the corruptly summoned had jurors avowedly so the the prevent nated as rights against defendant, exclud- trial under the law of the land, by fair and impartial race. list competent persons colored ing defendant, was an affidavit of The motion followed by believes, "That he doth so as follows: is and and informed forth in affiant’s motion quash that the cause 'set aver, and bill and well founded in fact to the true best is law, and affiant’s own belief. Affiant further states knowledge ho and doth it is the believes, aver, informed ever and and avowed Commis- purpose well conceived County Sheriff of said State to so manage sioners and county and jurors jurors and several sit summoning soliciting Court, or or so аs jurors both, in this either petit and discriminate defendant’s to wrongfully unjustly against AUGUST TERM, N. C.]
State v. a fair and and lawful impartial men, right good out or off the shutting panels competent keeping and lawful of defendant’s and race; that affiant doth officershave verily believes, aver, and said so acted and attend at selecting summoning-the panels this term of said a continued grand jury panel Court, being Term selected Spring panel, Commissioners County 1902; that affiant believes can January that he a fair and trial in get impartial Court, this or in other any such he Court, which is entitled under laws and Con- stitution of North Thirteenth and Four- Carolina, teenth Amendments and Acts of the of the United Congress States thereto, under such unfair and avowed discrimination just affiant’s to fair and right trial in impartial on account affiant’srace and color; and affiant further forth sets avers that he believes firmly .that of his motion to grounds indictment are reasonable and are warranted just, Constitution and laws Carolina, North the Thirteenth Fourteenth Amendments to-the and the Constitution, acts Congress thereunder, *4 the just reasonable consideration of and that mankind, he ever believes and avers.” Sworn to and subscribed before the Clerk of the Superior on the 22d оf day April, 1902.
The Court overruled the for motion, prayer refused duces tecum subpoena, on the “That the grounds Court had not the the bill of power on the indictment grounds set out in the defendant’s motion and affidavit, and could not matters investigate the motion alleged and affidavit under a motion to The quash.” defendant entered excepted, of his plea and proceeded to trial. He guilty, then chal- lenged of panel on the petit set grounds heretofore out. The Court overruled the challenge, and the defendant excepted. COURT. SUPREME THE ±N
State jury, a grand is not whether for decision Tbe question or a petit by a negro, a true bill of finding or whole shall be composed tried, indictment whom “in whether, it is color, but own defendant’s in part indicted -whomhe is of jurors by selection or the compоsition excluded or color bemay his own of race all tried, or no pos so by their race because law solely The only qual man sit upon jury. can a colored sibility Carolina impose laws North for which the ifications preceding year for the are taxes payment service intelligence. and sufficient character moral good could not not, defendant does indeеd, 1722. The and, Sec. in reference to the laws of the State complain justly, for has made the constitution which provision manner notwithstand His is that, complaint and selection juries. citizens pos laws that such as it is our its ing required on the shall be placed sess the proper qualifications jury lists, member, which he is a race, the colored although many them are excluded requisite possess qualifications, the law with duty officerswho charged by selecting are of race. If facts be jurors, solely such the defendant declares if be, what, them any, wrong and, he, if what has If any, if suffered, remedy any?- he has suffered the fact that have been any wrong, it may in State, caused the administrative officers of the through stead of does not relieve the situa legislative enactment, Texas, tion. It would be a Carter v. still wrong. S.,U. It was here for the that the individuals who argued were composed petit juries possessed requisite qualifications jurors, law; prescribed by *5 no harm was shown have to done the defendant be a cause of failure have on the negroes and, jury, therefore, that he had no But is not that an grievance. erroneous TEEM, N. AUGUST 0.] ? In case view of matter opinion
superficial Va., Strauder v. West of U. Mr. Strong, Justice S., colored for the “the fact that people said: very statute all out and denied a right singled expressly by administration the law as participate jurors, of aré citizens and be in other their though may is a brand upon them, respects fully qualified, practically an their law, affixed assertion of inferiority, stimulant to race is an which prejudice impediment to individuals of that race that which justice securing equal the law aims to all others.” secure to of trial is citizen right guaranteed every
of the State. is 13 of It section Article ordained the Constitution of that, North Carolina “No shall person convicted of crime but the unanimous of a any verdict and lawful men Court. The good open Legisla- however, ture other means trial for mis- provide may, petit with the And it for the demeanors, right appeal.” goes that the constitution and selection of saying juries makeup, an is important part and benefits extremely to be secured trial. The intended by jury most primitive as well as most advanced idea of a is it of men selected and drawn to determine the body rights under indictment and in other parties judicial proceedings, composed associates neighbors, having samе status as the or the legal tile community litigants accused. We know of common knowledge prejudices sometimes exist in communities certain classes control the in their judgment juries deliberations, operate such deny therefore classes such privileges -others and race enjoy; is as old as historic antipathy time, however much some philanthropists think- independent ers have done or bemay to eradicate it. It is doing difficult to understand how the conduct of officers, whose it duty *6 COURT. SUPREME. THE IN Peoples.
State v. itas if it is suck County, in Mecklenburg jurors to select is defendant, of tke affidavit motion and to in tke be declared is cok fair undiscriminating against and considered as can be a criminal tried who may that be for in county ored persons ac- in civil be parties who State, may tke offense against all white while is that It incomprehensible" tions. selected have white only to trials entitled and conduct and their to their upon rights, pass authorities have be said to can has no such privilege; negro the negro forcing man. How can the with the white equal a drawn a trial by jury of a to submit to criminal negro whole of his race from, has been excluded the which list, a although possessed purely simply аnd ? be law, defended by the prescribed qualifications requisite to him of pro- such a a denial equal legal not proceeding Is it is that be but and is answer, tection. There can one done A has been an unlawful discrimination. then, wrong, and facts set motion the defendant if the forth a there must be be this the world affidavit age true, for wrong. remedy every ? he the defendant’s remedy very sought one
What.was tо it have section 1741 of The is applied. provided By “all and on account exceptions grand jurors their shall taken is sworn be before the disqualifications indict empanneled issue motion try same to- be ment, if not so taken the shall be deemed a waived.” was the State that this Court for urged It was which abatement course of plea only procedure the defendant could follow in But in Stаte v. Hay case. wood, 94 N. C., Court said “The 847, this regular method of appropriate objection grand juror, making under the de when the fact it general practice, upon pended in the had to estab did appear record, lished by proof, and if does so plea abatement, it Y91 TERM, AUGUST N. C.] motion, Court went on But the quash.” appear, by *7 been recog has not distinction the “In our practieе, that say has held to been the motion and important, nized. further to say, The went on in case.” either
proper exist as to to bemay supposed difference “But whatever and are removed they methods raising two objection, Sec. The statute” (quoting settled by the practice have alleged The discrimination 1141). has been is one that passed the defendant
practised and held Stаtes, Court of the United Supreme upon by the Constitu Fourteenth Amendment of be contrary unlawful. Strauder therefore States, tion of the United and Va., Rives, 313; v. 100 303 and v. West U. Virginia S., Delaware, Texas, v. U. v. 103 U. Carter 177 370; Neal S., and manner of mentioned the facts case, In last S., Texas in the State Court of were just procedure here. error in and error
There was the judgment in the refusal of his Honor the motion have grant in matter set out the motion and affidavit consid- properly ered tried. case is remanded that end.
Error.
CuakK, I concur conclusion that concurring. J., should have found Judge heard the presiding evidence, and that be facts, rendered judgment thereon, only cause the United States final tribunal Supreme Court, the Tex., all Federal so Carter v. upon decided. questions, Miss., U. 442: Gibson v. 177 v. S., 565; 162 U. Neal S., Delaware, Va., S., 103 U. 370; v. W. 100 U. Strauder S., Va. Rivеs, v. Ibid., 313. We must bow to author ity, am constrained though to believe that the argument Mr. Justice Field, in in Neal v. Dela dissenting opinion his ware, 103 U. atS., demonstrates that pages 405-409, clearly SUPREME COURT. IN THE and Fifteenth Amendments con Fourteenth
tbe Thirteenth, interfer warrant any legislation Congress ferred “no Courts.” Chief the selection of in the State with ing Waite Mr. Justice case, Justice dissented also- what he so well in his Field reiterated had said dissent in Ex able previous dissent, Virginia, very parte one, U. Mr. Justice S., 349-370, which Clif dissenting opinion concurred, ford other in that Mr. things, Among dissent, Justice Field U. at : says (100 S., particularly page 368) of, when a “If, colored is accused criminal person offence, of his race on presence which he jury by is to tried is essential to secure him equal *8 it would laws, seem the of such presence persons on the bench if Court should equally essential, would.be consist more than one as in cases it Judge, many may; if should consist of a it that such single pro Judge, tection would be A similar impossible. objection be might raised composition any appellate which after case, be verdict, carried.” might this
After delicate consistent to be suggestion, States United Court should Supreme insist the admis upon sion of colored Mr. Justiсe members, Field “The proceeds: that in position cases where the of colored are rights persons concerned, will be justice not done them unless have mixed jury, founded the motion upon such cases white will not fair persons be If jurors. honest this be .position there not ought white any correct, on the where the interests of colored persons only involved. That would not be an one, honest and fair of which of its members any should be his governed judg ment other considerations than the law and the evidence; and that decision would be considered which hardly just should be reached a sort of compromise, pre yrere judices of one race set off against prejudices TERM, AUGUST N. C.] should notion those who this To be hold
other. consistent, race of the colored membеrs contend that cases affecting colored per be composed entirely should juries only, same be of the should sons, and that the presiding Judge race.” of Mr. Justice Field’s argu- to the force
I add can nothing ment, in his that the concurrence view but can express nay States Constitution were United amendments to the last three Federal interference with the com- not intended authorize Amend- Courts. The Fourteenth in State position juries relied and that can on, ment is the one only apply this “A has never in linguae” demodÁstcáe counti'y to the embraced in “due nor law,” requisite “equal process If race is re- of the laws.” each recognition it is essential in in the composition juries, equally quired Both ele- are constituent composition judiciary. ments in the administration of justicе.
In State, the laws exclude no one from the jury because of does it exclude one any neither grand jury race, on If words “due bench that ground. process of law” and laws” warrant Federal “equal protection interference as to the manner of jurora inquiry selecting will when do not on the rule same negroes appear panel, *9 warrant the mode be- investigation selecting Judges cause no- are on this or the lower bench. Under the negroes Constitution of the fathers made the State Union, it, our prescribed the method of its own selecting juries judges, the execution of in reference supervised its own laws thereto. Like Justice I Field, see no warrant Federal intereference under Fourteenth conferred powers by Amendment. United States cited decisions Suрreme
The above alleged when the discrimination all hold only virtue of the is provisions by colored right does of the State to remove Constitution or statutes m THE, COURT. SUPREME IN
State v. exclusion colored jurors and that when the alleged exist, which con laws of administering is virtue of method by is appeal the sole discrimination, remedy by tain such no error to writ of and thence State, Court of highest Gibson v. Court. In Mississippi, thе Federal Supreme to that reviews uniform decisions U. J., S., Harlan, as valid the and sustains effect, legal require (at page 589) a should be ments in “that no Mississippi person read a elector and able to unless was juror qualified he petty * * * and should write, possess intelligence, good sound and fair character.” judgment in the in result. In J., concurring concurring
Douglas, I hesitation, which I do without conclusion been denied that the defendant has sufficient to deem it say he been or not Whether has injured right; constitutional mere fact not for me to say. is such deprivation for his been intended has that a substantial right Whether influence is sufficient to my judgment. denied him, remains to be drawn, were fact improperly the juries we must as discussion, but for the purposes proved, has of the defendant's he sume the truth allegation, it. As this deniеd the is right opportunity proving claimed the defendant under the Federal as well as the been so decided recently Constitution, discussed Court of United fully Supreme unnecessary, on States, further discussion any part my entirely Texas, ter S., 177 U. This would end Car but matter for some in the expressions opinion Court. that while verdicts are sometimes may frankly say rendered that do meet I can not concur approval, my statment classes any rule, as a unable to obtain any are, justice on account of the prejudice juror. average This in individual may happen cases, in criminal especially *10 1902. TEEM, AUGUST N. C.] v. State Wiseman. and wherever excitement; public where great
trials there My be granted. a new trial should promptly it appears, powers responsibilities views as to character, 122 N. C., Cable v. Railway, 892, expressed de- that the Court conclusion of the concur fully the fullest pro- of his is entitled, irrespective fendant ; all demand law that he tection of the may rightfully him of this the Constitution rights guaranteed nec- remedy and of United well every legal States, A their enforcement. for essary denial be a denial the right. remedy would
STATE WISEMAN. 1902.) (Filed 25, November Jurisdiction—Constitution, OF THE 1. JUSTICES Art. 4 PEACE — Chap. 1901, Sec. 27—Acts 182—Criminal Law. permits each $10 of as Where a statute fine much as for large, hog permitted justice to run warrant at of a running charges large justice at ten no hogs, jurisdiction. 2. SUPERIOR COURTS —Jurisdiction. justice peace jurisdiction
Where a has no of a criminal owing involved, him, action heard to the amount acquires jurisdiction appeal superior tried court no on if on the warrant. H. R.
INDICTMENT S. Wiseman, heard by Judge Starbucle, at Superior August Term, Erom an order dismissing appeal, County. Mitoheld the State appealed.
Robert D. Gilmer, for the State. Attorney-General, No counsel the defendant.