The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-03-31
PENAL CODE OF TEXAS.
THE ATTEMPT TO PROVE 1T IN
VALID DEFEATED. :.

The United States Supreme Court Re-
fuses to Grant a Writ of Habeas
Corpus in the Celebrated Duncan
Murder Case-An Important Point
Settled by the Decision.
WASHINGTON, March 3O.-The supreme
court Of the United States to-day refused to
grant the application for writ Of habeas
corpus in the somewhat celebrated murder
case of Dick Duncan VS.. Mccall, sheriff of
Beaver county. Texas, in which it was
sought to bring into question the validity of
the entire penal code of the state of Texas
A SERIES OF APPEALs.
Duncan was duly indicted, tried and con-
victed in the state of Texas for the crime
of murder and sentenced to be hanged. He
appealed the case through all the interme-
diate 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 courts, and the decision
sill being against him, it was brought
here.
THE COURTS OPINION.
The supreme court, in an opinion by Chief
Justice Fuller, affirmed the Judgment of the
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 bad never been law
fully enacted in accordance with the re.
quirelnents of the state constitution, and
that the code enrolled differed, through
errors OF the enrolling clerks, from the
code passed by the state legisla ure Had
Duncan'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.
DUNCAN's CLAIM.
The court, in its opinion, says it was
alleged in Duncan's behalf that he had been
convicted without due process of law and
denied equal protection of the laws, con-
trary to the provision Of the federal consti-
tuition. AS the district court Of Texas had
jurisdiction over the petitioner and the
offense with which he stood charged. it had
jurisdiction to determine the applicatory
law, and tais involved the question whether
particular statute had been enacted in
accordance with the requirements Of the
state constitution. 1t is unnecessary to
enter upon an examination Of the rulings
in the different states upon the question
whether statute duly approved and en-
rolled can be irnpeached by resort to the
journals Of the legislature, or other evidence
for the purpose Of establishing that it was
not passed in the manner prescribed by the
state constitution. The courts Of the
United States necessarily adopt the adjudi-
cation of the state courts on the subject.
Numerous opinions are cited in support Of
this doctrine.
CAN'T BE REVISED.
If the question of the invalidity of the
codes was presented to the state courts it is
held tn at il must be assumed that the court
adjudged in favor of their validity 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
it may remark in conclusion 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 a case OF a system of
laws attacked upon the ground Of their in
validity as the product of revolution. The
state OF Texas is in full possession OF its
faculties as a member of the union and its
legislative, executive and judicial depart,
ments are peacefully operating
by orderly and settled methods
prescribed by its fundamental law.
Whether certain statutes have or have not
binding force it is for the state TO deter
mine, and that determination in itself in
wolves no infraction of the constitution of
the United States and raises no federal
question. giving this court jurisdiction. The
Judgment of the circuit court is accordingly
affirmed.
The court also refused writ of habeas
corpus in the case OF jim Leeper and Ed
Powell, who were also convicted In Texas
of the crime of murder.