The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-01-19
Justice Holmes Decides Alabama
 Supreme Court in Error
.GORMAN IS STRONGEST MAN
Hanna Still Refuses to Say He Will Not Accept the Nomination-An,- brecht Appointed Dis
 trict Attorney.
BY wATrERsoN sTEALEY.

Washington, January 1S-(Special.)- Justice Holmes rendering the opinion, the United States supreme court today de- cided without a dissenting vote the mur- der case of Daniel Rovers vs the State of Alabama, in error, to the supreme court of Alabama. The Judgment Is re- yersed and the case remanded for fur ther proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion rendered by Justice Holmes.
 The Rogers case was brought before the supreme court with that of Jackson W. Giles vs. Charles B. Teasley, and were considered as so-called test cases of the new constitution. The supreme court did not hand down a decision in the Giles case, which involves the sui frage feature of the Alabama constitu- ton and the opinion of the court in the Rogers case cannot be considered as fore shadowng a decision against the state in the Giles case.
 In the Rogers case, decided today, the court bases it's decision on the Carter vs Texas case, declaring that whenever per sons of the African face are excluded solely because of their race or color from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of the African race the equal protection of the laws is denied him, contrary to the fourteenth amendment.
 Denied Equal Protection.
 The writ of error was brought on the ground that Rogers had been denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Rogers was indicted for murder and filed mo- ton to quash the indictment because the jury commissioners appointed to select the grand jury excluded from the list of persons to serve as grand jurors all col ored persons, although largely in the ma jority in the population of the county, and although otherwise qualified to serve as grR.pd jurors. solely on the ground ot their race and color and of their having been disfranchised and deprived of all rights as electors in the state of Ala bama by the provisions of the new con sttution.
 The motion alleged that the grand jury was composed exclusively of persons of the white race. and concluded with @ veriflcation. On motion of the state the motion to quash was stricken from the hles. Rogers excepted, but his exceptions were overruled by the supreme court of the state, seemingly on the ground that the validity of the motion was sufficient to justify the action of the court below.
 The civil code of Alabama provides by 32S6 If any pleading is unnecessarily prolix, irrelevant or frivolous, it may be stricken out at the costs of the party so pleading on motion of the adverse party"
 Construction of Alabama Court.
 We follow" says Justice Holmes in his decisions ''the construction impliedly adopted by the supreme court of Alabama and assume that this section was applica- ble to the motion. We also assume, as said by that court, that the qualifications of the grand jurors are not in law depend- ent upon the qualifications of electors, and that any invalidity of the conditions attached to the suffrage could not of itself affect the validity of the indictment But in an opinion that was not the alle- gation. The allegation was that the con- ditons said to be invalid worked as a req son and consideration in the minds of the commissioners for excluding blacks from the list
 The court then says that the allegation may have been superfuous but it was not irrelevant. and 1t Is stated motives for the exclusion which, however mistaken, if proved tended to show that the blacks were excluded on account of their race as a part of the scheme to keep them from having any part In the administration of the government or law.
 "It is a necessary and settled rule" says the supreme court that the exer- else of jurisdiction by this court to pro- tect constitutional rights cannot be declin- ed when 1t is plain that the fair result of a decision is to deny the rights
 Would Enforce Constitutional Require
 ment.
 ''There can be no doubt that if full faith and credit were denied to judgment rendered in another state upon a sugges- tion of want of Jurisdiction, without evi- dence to warrant the finding. this court would enforce the constitutional require ment
 We are of the opinion that the federal question is raised by the record and Is properly before us. The question is dis posed of by Carter vs. Texas. and it was error not to apply that decision. The result of that and the earlier cases may be summed up in the following words of the judgment delivered by Justice Gray: Whenever by any action of state whether through its legislature, through its court of through it's executive or ad- ministrative officers all persons of the African race are excluded solely because of their race or color from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of the African race, the equal protection of the laws is denied to him, contrary to the Fourteenth amendment.
 .'Our Judgment concludes Justice Holmes, "upon this point makes 1t unnec- essary to consider a motion to quash the panel of the petit jury for similar reasons. which was disposed of as having been 4-