1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 485 
The errors claimed were that the state court should have granted 
the removal, should have sustained the motion to quash the panel 
and should have allowed evidence to be taken in support of that 
motion. For the state it was answered that the federal constitution 
in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, made colored people 
citizens, and entitled them to vote; that the state constitution in 
that respect was thus superseded, and the jury iaw must be con- 
strued with reference to the changed conditions, and so made colored 
voters liable to jury service; that the motion to quash was unsup- 
ported by facts, and the application for leave to bring evidence of 
them came too late. 
The court goes over the Virginia cases and again concludes the 
federal statute, allowing removals where inability to obtain a right 
guaranteed by federal law or constitution is shown, to be valid, and 
also the act forbidding discrimination in jury service on account of 
race. It holds that the fifteenth amendment of the federal consti- 
tution abrogated all provisions of the state constitution or statute 
denying to the colored race the right of suffrage, and that the peti- 
tion for removal on that ground was rightly overruled. 
But the court held that the motion to quash the panel of jurors 
should have been sustained. 
“ The fact, so generally known that the court felt obliged to take judicial 
notice of it, no colored person had ever been summoned as.a juror in any 
court of the state, though its colored population exceeded twenty thou- 
sand in 1870, and in 1880 exceéded twenty-six thousand in a total popu- 
lation of less than one hundred fifty thousand, presented a Arima facie 
case of denial by the officers charged with the selection of grand and 
petit jurors of that equality of protection which has been secured by the 
constitution and laws of the United States.” 
Justice Waite dissented because he thought that the decision of 
the trial court, that the showing of discrimination was insufficient, 
was not clearly shown to have been wrong. Judge Field, for the 
same reason and also the reason given in the Virginia cases, that 
the serving upon juries was a political right and the determination 
of their qualification was with the states. 
The Virginia cases and Neal vs. Delaware were further applied 
in? Bush vs. Kentucky. He had been indicted in 1879 for mur- 
der. Under the ruling in the Virginia cases, his was removed into 
1 707 U. S., 110 (1883). 
