The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-24
The Famous Murder Case in the
United States Supreme Court.
1t Decides That No Federal Ques-
ton is Involved.
The Tribunal Cannot Interfere With
the Verdict Rendered.
The News of the Decision Unnorves tho
Murderer OF Prelier for the
First Time-But One
Chance Remains.


court OF the United States today rendered
n decision in the case OF Hugh NJ. Brooks,
alias W. ii. Maxwell. against the State Of
Missouri. This is the famous Maxwell
Preller murder case Brooks, or Maxwell,
the plaintiff In error, Is now in prison in
the city OF st. Louis under sentence Of
death for the murder OF G. Arthur PreIler
in April, 1885. The case was brought 10
this court upon writ OF error 10 the SUI
preme court OF Missouri, and decision here
is upon motion made by the attorney
general Of the State 10 dismiss for want OF
jurisdiction. This court is unable, after a
careful examination Of the record, to find
that the plaintiff in error has been de-
prived OF any right, privilege or immunity
guaranteed TO him by the constitution Of
the United States, and the motion % dis
miss for want Of Jurisdiction IL therefore
granted. The decision was announced by
Chief Justice Waite. and its effect Ia 10 al
firm the sentence Of death pronounced by
the State court.
The opinion Of Chicf Justice Waite says
that IN Spies w. the State Of Illinois. II was
held that 20 give this court Jurisdiction,
under Section 700 Of the revised statutes,
because of denial by a State court vi
any title, right privilege or immunity
claimed under the constitution, or any
treaty, or statute OF the United states, II
must appear ON the record that such right,
title, privilege or immunity was specially
set up or claimed nj the proper time in the
proper way. To bo renewable here, tho
dcceion must be against the right or set
up as claimed. Az the supreme court of
the State was reviewing the decision OF tho
trial court Il must appear That the claim
was made in that court, because the SUI
pcmc court was only authorized TO review
the judgment for crroH committed there.
and wo can do no more" Applying that
rule 10 this case, We find that NJ the
trial no title, right, privilege or
immunity was specially set-up or claimed
under the constitution, laws or treaties ol
| the United States. Thus, for example,
| when the testimony Of Dingenicldcr was
| offered, the admission of which " now ~
signed for error, the objection was not
that is admission would DO violation ol
any provision Of the constitution ar laws
OF tl,o Unised States, but because Il was
incompetent aud irrelevant, coming ~ il
did from man who by his conduct in
forcing the statements from the defendant
as TO which II was proposed he should
testify, had shown himself 10 I've nm
worthy Of belief Ia a court Of justice, and
because tho witness has shown that lio
| held out an induccmcnt, u promise 10 tho
defendant fof his statement, which renders
II incompetent" The assignments ol
errors which relate 10 the rulings Of tho
court, fail entirely IL prcsent any question OF
federal law for our consideration. so iaI ~
appears, that court In its decisions was
governed exclusively by the constitution
aud laws OF the State, and the supreme
court, In liz opinion on this part oi tho
case, makes no mention whatever VI any
claim oi right under the constitution or
laws OF the United States. Upon tho
question Of the oycuuling In the trial
court. Of the supplemental motion for q
new trial, the chief justice. after quoting
the opinion 81 the Missouri supreme court
upon the point. says at thnappcars that
while upholding the statute (Section i,e0I-
81 the Missouri slatutsl the court also put
H. decision ON another ground, which was
equally conclusive against the defendant,
to.wit That even u the trial court could,
la liz discretion, allow the addi-
lional reasons fof a new trial 10 DO
presented after the expiration Of Tie four
days, there has been no such business VI
uiHt discretion In this case M would justify
q reversal Of the judgment ON that account.
That part Of the decision II certainly not
repugnant 10 any provision Of the constitu-
ton or laws Of the United States, aud il of
itsolf conclusive II diupo-cd Of the con-
ailutional question presented In the aTgu-
mont without direct decision, and upon
a ground which was not cywiyc merely
but real, and which cannot be- reviewed
Wy ~.
'"Such being the case. the decision Of tho
federal question Was not necessary 70 tho
judgment rendered, and consequently was
not sufficient 10 give us jurisdiction"