480 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
Judge Chase’s holding in*The United States vs. DeWitt, that 
Congress has no authority of this kind within a state, is cited. 
Nevertheless, the decision stands, and its authority is no longer 
questioned. We shall even see it extended in ?Davis vs. South 
Carolina. The right to sucha removal is to-day unchallenged, 
showing once more how impossible is the putting of any but 
practical limits to the extent of authority. No theoretical conclu- 
sions as so the nature of police powers or their exclusive inherence 
in the states can maintain themselves against the practical needs 
and actual power of the general government. 
In the succeeding cases of the same year, *Strauder vs. West 
Virginia, * Virginia vs. Rives, and ° ex parte Virginia, the four- 
teenth amendment and the negro problem, and the relations of 
both to the power of the states, came forward once more. The 
first was a holding that a state law confining jury service to male 
white persons was a violation of the provision of the fourteenth 
amendment that forbids a state to make or enforce a law denying 
to any person ‘‘ the equal protection of the laws.’’ Strauder, a negro, 
had been found guilty of murder by a white jury selected under such 
a law. He had objected to such a trial and demanded that his 
case be transferred to the United States courts, which was re- 
fused. The West Virginia Court of Appeals having confirmed his 
sentence, the case was taken to the United States Supreme Court, 
which reversed the Court of Appeals and set the sentence aside. It 
was held that Strauder had a right to remove the case to the 
United States Circuit Court to procure a vindication of his constitu- 
tional rights. ; 
In Virginia vs. Rives, Burwell and Lee Reynolds, both colored, 
were indicted for murder and demanded a jury in part composed 
of colored persons. This was refused, and they applied for a re- 
moval of their case to the federal court. This was refused, and 
they were tried and convicted. Being given a new trial in the 
state court, they again presented their claim for removal under 
the United States statute which provided for it where one is de- 
nied a right guaranteed by United States laws or constitution, 
or is unable to enforce the same in state courts. They were 
again refused and one convicted, the jury disagreeing as to the 
other. 
19 Wall, 41. $100 W.S.,8303. 
Sb, (C8 hn XOb/6 cd by hich 
® Ld., 339 (1879). 
