Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-03-31
VALIDITY CT TEXAS STATUTES.
Decision of the Federal supreme Court In
Dick Duncan vs.. Mccall.
m. ,otn,r,,h ~ tho Dfanatch1

WASHINGTON, March 3O.-The Supreme
Court Of the United States to-day refused
10 grant the application OF writ OF hdbeds
corpus in the somewhat celebrated murder
case Of Dick Duncan Us. Mccall, Sheriff
of Bexar county, Texas, in which II was
sought TO bring into question the validity
Of the entire penal code OF the State OF
Texas.
Duncan vas duly indicted. tried, and
convicted in the State of Texas of the
crime of murder, and sentenced 70 be
hanged. He appealed the case through all
the intermediate courts OF the state OF
Texas. and when the Court of Appeals Of
the Lone Star State decided against him
the case was taken to the United States
Court, and the decision still'being against
him il was brought here. The supreme
Court. IN an opin. on by Chief Justice Full
Ter. affirmed the Judgment of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District
of Texas, from which the last appeal was
taken.
Duncan's contention was that the penal
code of Texas had never been lawfully en-
acted in accordance with tho requirements
of the State Constitution. and that the
code enrolled differed through errors OF
the enrolling clerks from the code passed
by the State Legislature. Had Dunean's
contention been sustained it would have
resulted in the release of all the prisoners
in the State and would have totally upset
the State criminal system.
The Court, in its opinion, says 1t was al
loged in Duncan's behalf that he had been
convicted without due process of law and
denied the equal protection of the laws,
contrary to the provision of the Federal
Constitution. As the District Court OF
Texas had Jurisdiction over the petitioner
and the offence with which he stood
charged, il had jurisdiction TO determine
the applicaSory law. and this involved the
question whether particular statutes had
been enacted in accordance with the re-
quirements os the State Constitution.
Ii is unnecessary TO enter upon an ex-
animation of the rulings in the different
States upon the question whether astatute
duly approved and enrolled can be i'm
peached 10y resort to the journals of the
Legislature or other evidence for the pur-
pose of establishing that 1t was not passed
in the manner prescribed by the State
Constitution. The courts. Of the United
States necessarily adopt the adjudication
of the State courts on the subject" NJ
merous opinions are cited in support OF
this doctrine.
Iii the question of the invalidity of the
code was presented TO the State court II
is held that it must be assumed that the
courts adiudged in favor of the invalidity
and in accordance with the law of the
State. When determined, the case cannot
be reviewed by the Federal courts. and
the result must be the same if the question
has not been raised in the State courts.
The Court says il may remark IN conclu-
sion that the magnitude Of the operation
Of the objection to these statutes does NOT
affect the principles by which the result is
reached. This is not the case of a system
of laws attacked upon the ground of their
inyalidity rs the product Of revolution.
The State of Texas is in full possession
of its faculties as member of the Union,
and itslegislative, executive, and judicial
departments are peacefully operating by
the orderly and settled methods prescribed
by it's fundamental law. Whether certain
statutes have or have not binding force it
is for the State TO determine, and that de-
termination in itself involves no infrac.-
ton of the Constitution OF the United
States and raises no Federal question Civ
ing this court jurisdiction. The Judgment
of the Circuit Court is accordingly az
tirmed."
The Court also refused q writ of hdbeds
corpus in the case of jim Leeper and Id.
Powell, who were also convicted III Texas
of the crime of murder.