Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1905-02-03

papers under the rules which 1t pre-
scribed. 1t does not appear that tn,
limits imposed by the court we're ex
ceeded or that the prisoner was pre-
judged by what occurred. But how,
ever that may be, he had no right tt
!, sit mute, prepared to abide by the re
suits If they were favorable, or to make
objectious if they were averse. We
think it the safer and better practice
to exclude newspapers from the jury
| COUNSEL GIVE UP HOPE
The Richmond Times Dispatch CT
Sunday has the following to say in re
gard to the rumor that McCue's coun
sci would take his case to the e. s.
Supreme Court
There will be no appeal to the SUI
| preme Court of the United States in
behalf of J. Samuel McCue. This can
be authoritatively stated despite ru-
mors to the contrary. In specials,
also, from Charlottesville and Lynch
burg, it Is stated upon excellent au.
th0rity that there is no probability
whatever that the attorneys who have
made such determined fight to save
McCue will attempt any further ap
peal. This being true, the condemned
man must die on the scaffold on Fri
day, February 10th. unless he shall
sooner die natural or violet death.
The alleged ground on which it was
rumored an appeal to the highest tri-
bunal in the land may be had was the
claim that the condemned man was not
convicted by due process of law. In
other words. the constitutional objec-
ton would have to be set up affecting |
the procedure at the trial and of such |
moment as to vitiate the action of the |
trial court. Sound lawyers, familiar
with Federal practice, are confident
that it is now too late to set up such
objection to the trial.
BUT THREE CLASsEs.
Section 700 of the Revised Statutes
Of the United States enumerates three
classes of cases in which the final de-
ree or judgment of State court may
% re-examined in the Supreme Court
VI the United States. 1t is not neces-
AIRY to name the first two classes,
ince they obviously do not embrace ,
he cas- e of McCue. The third class. |.
q which a judgment of the State court +,
nay be reviewed by the Supreme Court :
t the United States, may be thus
tated: where any right, title, priv
lege or immunity is claimed under
he Constitution or any treaty or 7
tatute OF the United States, and the :,
eclsionis against the right, title, y
rivilege or immunity specially set up f.
nd claimed by either party under a.
lch Constitution. statute or authorl- y
:. (Secti0n 172. r. s. U. S., 475.j L.,
Under this section applicable in the g
[cCue case, if any be. the right, title, q
rivilege or immunity must be spec.
lily set up or claimed in The State n
)urt at the proper time, and in the
roper way. tSectfon 1866, R. S. e. s.. A
49, =,
A person claiming that some right
tie, privilege or immunity has been
'nied him can ask the Supreme Court :,
the United States to grant writ of -
ror to the judgment of the highest =
'urt of the State rendering same, =
ut such writ Will not be allowed IN VI
ss the party has set up specially such :"
ght. title. privilege or immunity in "
he State court. In the appeal to the ="
tate court there has been no specific
aim that the constitutional rights of .
le prisoner have been denied or in l"
lnged, either by the trial court or by "
lie appellate court. o.