If a person cannot read English and has all the other qualifications prescribed herein and is a freeholder or householder, his name may be placed on the jury roll and in the jury box.' Powell v. Alabama, 567, 574; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 16 S.Ct. For this long-continued, unvarying, and wholesale exclusion of negroes from jury service we find no justification consistent with the constitutional mandate. Id., p. 58, 11. Compare Virginia v. Rives, Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, Something more than mere general asseverations was required. No such names were identified. The court, reaching its decision irrespective of that question, treated that phase of the matter as 'wholly immaterial' and hence passed it by 'without any expression of opinion thereon.'.

It is so sweeping, and so contrary to the evidence as to the many qualified negroes, that it destroys the intended effect of the commissioner's testimony.

664; Neal v. Delalware, 103 U.S. 370, 397, 26 L.Ed. Footnote 1 100 A. We granted a writ of certiorari. That testimony in itself made out a prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection which the Constitution guarantees. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. The names of the six negroes were in each instance written immediately above the red lines. , 44 S.Ct. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions ». The state joined issue on this charge and after hearing the evidence, which we shall presently review, the trial judge denied both motions, and exception was taken. 55, 77 L.Ed.   The testimony of the commissioner on this crucial question puts the case in a strong light. 556. On being brought to trial in that county, eight were convicted.

Some of these witnesses were over fifty years of age and had always lived in Mor- The Supreme Court of the state did not sustain it. There was thus presented a test of the practice of the commissioners. Was it because of the lack of statutory qualifications? In relation to each county, the charge was of long-continued, systematic, and arbitrary exclusion of qualified negro citizens from service on juries, solely because of their race and color, in violation of the Constitution of the United States. 738; Thomas v. Texas, Were the qualifications of negroes actually and properly considered? The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the conviction of one of these, and affirmed that of seven, including Norris. Why were these names excluded from the jury roll? At the outset, a motion was made on his behalf to quash the indictment upon the ground of the exclusion of negroes from juries in Jackson county where the indictment was found.   The fact that the testimony as to these persons, fully identified, was not challenged by evidence appropriately direct, cannot be brushed aside. The member of the jury board, who testified orally, said that a list was made up which included the names of all male citizens of suitable age; that black residents were not excluded from this general list; that in compiling the jury roll he did not consider race or color; that no one was excluded for that reason; and that he had placed on the jury roll the names of persons possessing the qualifications under the statute. The total population of Morgan county in 1930 was 46,176, and of this number 8,311 were negroes.

[294 U.S. 587, 588]. We think that the evidence did not justify that conclusion. U.S. 278, 282 First. 2 On appeal, the Supreme Court of the state considered and decided the federal question which Norris had raised and affirmed the judgment. U.S. 585, 593 The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the conviction of one of these and affirmed that of seven, including Norris. A motion was also made to quash the trial venire in Morgan county upon the ground of the exclusion of negroes from juries in that county. See Gen. Acts Alabama 1931, No. 156 So.