Asheville daily citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1890-1900, 1891-03-31
THE STATE IS SUPREME.
ON STATE LAWS THE: LOWER
COURTS DECIDE.
So the United states Supreme
Court Holds and That settles the
Question for all TiIne-The Case
Was From Texas.

30 the United States Suprems
Court Holds and That settles ths
Question for all TiIme-The case
Was From Texas.
WASHINGTON, March 31.-Thc supreme
court of the United States has refused tc
grant the application for writ of habea.
corpus in the somewhat celebrated mur
der case of Dick Duncan VS.. Mccall, sher
If Of Bexar county, state of Texas, in
which it was sought to bring into ques,
tion the validity of the entire penal code
of the state Of Texas.
Duncan was duly indicted, tried and
convicted in the state of Texas of the
crime of murder and sentenced to be
hanged. He appealed the case through
all the intermediate courts OF the state of
Texas. The supreme court in an opinion
bv Chief Justice Fuller, affirmed the ude-
ment Of the circuit court of the United
States for the district of Texas, from
which the last appeal was taken. Dun
cans contention was that the penal
code of Texas had never been lawfully en-
acted in naccordance with the requirements s
Of the State constitution and that the
code enrolled different through errors of
the enrolling clerks from the code passt d
by the state legislature. 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.
The court, in its opinion, saws it was
alleged in Duncan's behalf that he had
been convicted without due process of
law, contrary to the federal constitution.
As the district conrt of Texas had juris
dlction over the petitioner, and the Of
fence with which he stood charged, it had
jurisdiction to determine applicatory
law, and this involved the question
whether particular statutes had been ell.
acted in accordance with the REQUIRE
mcnts of the state constitution. 1t is
unnecessary, the court SAYS, to entcrupon
an examination of the rulings in the diff
icrent states upon the question whether
statute dulyapproved and enrolled can
be impcachcd by resort to the journals
ai the legislature or other evidence for the
purpose of establishing the fact that il
WAS not passed in thc manner prescribed
by the state constitution. The courts OF
the United States necessarily adopted the
adjudication Of the state courts on the
subject. Numerous opinions are cited in
support of thin doctrine. Ii the question
OF the nvalidlty ot the code was present
cd to the state courts it is held that it
must be assumed that thccourt aSiudged
in fnvpr nf hrir 70 ynIif;tv orJ ,n ,,,,.,
ance with the law of the state, when de-
tcrnincd aud the case cannot be review
ed by the federal courts md the result
must IT, the same if the question has not
been raised in the state courts.
The court says 1t may remark in con
clusion that the magnitude of the opera
ton OF the objection to these statutes
docs not affect the principles by which
the result isrcachcd. This is not the case
of system of laws attacked upon the
ground of their invalidity as the product
of the revolution.
The state of Texas is in full possession
OF its faculties as member of the union,
and its legislative, executive and judicial
departments are peacefully operating bv
orderly and settled methods prescribed by
its fundamental law. Whether certain
statutes have or have not binding force,
it is for the state to determine, and
that determination in itself involves no
infraction OF the constitution of the
United States and raises no federal uues-
ton giving this court jurisdiction. The
Judgment of the circuit court is accord
ingly affirmed.