Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-12-01
MARY ROGERS TO DIE
United States Supreme Court Has
No Jurisdiction

Gov. Bell VIII Not Grant Another Re-
prIeVe-Plans for the Execution at
Windsor Dec. 8.
The decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in the Mary Rogers case
was given on Monday. The nine JUS
tees of the court were unanimous in
refusing to interfere with the Jurisdiction
or the course of procedure of the Vermont
courts. Justice Day, who announced the
decision, read only a summary of his
written opinion. In it's final and con-
elusive sentences the opinion says:
1--WE are unable to find that the appel
ant has sustained any violation of rights
secured by the federal constitution by
the proceedings of the executive or jul
dicial departments of the state of YER
mont. The final order is affirmed, man
date to issue at once"
The contentious of Mrs. Rogers's law
yers are overthrow at every point.
Meeting these points consecutively the
court holds that Mrs. Rogers has been
held in close, rather than solitary con-
finement; denies that the governor of
Vermont is without right or authority to
fix day for execution; holds that it is
a matter of state practice as to whether
an appellate court sits at Bennington, and
finally rules that the governor of YER
mont did not defy any Federal statute
when he issued his order for Mrs. Rog-
ers's execution Dec. s, simply because at
the time he issued the order the case was
pending before United States court.
Two Essential Points.
Upon two essential points in the case
the governors power to reprieve-the
summary of the opinion says:
Touching the second assignment of err
ror arising from the failure of the Yer
mont supreme court May 80, last, to grant
a stay and fix a time for execution of the
sentence when it entertained and de-
MED the petition for new trial., the
prisoner having been reprieved until June
2, Justic Day says
1T is difficult to perceive any good rea-
son for requiring the court to fix a time
for sentence which was already definitely
set by the reprieve of the governor. 1t
was the opinion of the supreme court of
Vermont that 1t was not required to do
so and this decision cannot be reversed
by federal authority. 1t has been so fire.
quently ruled by this court, that 1t is
scarcely necessary to cite cases, that the
FEDERAL courts will not by writs of habeas
corpus undertake to reverse the proceed
tngS or the STATE courts Wnlle dCIhe
within their jurisdiction under statutes
which do not conflict with the federal
constitution
Taking up the fourth and final point In
the case that Gov Bell violated sec
ton 766 of the Revised Statutes Of the
United States in granting third re-
prieve while the case was before the Fed
eral court, which statute provides that
any proceeding by a state authority
against one asking for habeas corpus
shall be void, Justice Days decision says
The power of the governor OF vermont
to grant reprieves in cases Of murder Is
ample and that such power is neither
granted nor withheld by the federal con-
stttution, adding:
1T is perfectly apparent that 1t was ex-
ercised in the present instance for the
very purpose of permitting the prisoner
to appeal to this court and not to render
Intellectual or in any wise interfere with
the Jurisdiction and orders OF the federal
courts. Statutes should be given reas-
enable construction with a view to make
effectual the legislative intent in their en-
actment.
1.-THE reprieve granted has had the effect
doubtless intended by the chief executive
Of the state, to allow the cause TO De
heard upon appeal in this court. TO
denominate such an order a proceeding
against the prisoner would do violence to
the terms Of the statute, and defeat, not
carry out, its purpose"