General
In re WOOD, Petitioner
140 U.S. 370·Supreme Court of the United States·1891
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re WOOD, Petitioner.
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
No. 1581.
Decided May 11, 1891,
and reported ante, page 278.
[CONCURRENCE — Mr. Justice Field.]
Concurring opinion of
Mr. Justice Field.
I concur in the judgment in this case, but not in all the-views expressed in the opinion. I adhere -to what I said ■ in my dissent in the case of Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 405, 409, that there is nothing in the late amendments to the Constitution, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth, which requires that colored citizens shall be summoned on juries, grand or petit, in order to secure to persons of their race justice and equality in the administration of the law; and, further, that the manner in which, jurors to serve in . the state courts shall be selected, and the qualifications they shall possess, are matters entirely of state regulation.