Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-11-27
Decision of the United States
Supreme Court.
WITHOUT JURISDICTION
EFFECT is TO RETURN THE CASE
TO VERMONT AUTHORITIES.
Claim of Contractor Simpson for
Heavy Damages Dismissed-Award
to Carriers Of Mail In New York.

The Supreme Court OF the United States
today affirmed the dec,s on OF the tinted
states district court of Vermont in the
case OF Mrs. Mary Mabel Rogers. who IL
under sentence OF death in Vermont for the
murder OF her husband. The effect of the
decision Will be to again place the respon-
sioiiity OF dealing with the case In the
hands OF the state authorities and II in
the meantime neither the governor nor ths
state courts take action in Mrs. Rogers
behalf. her execution must occur on the
day set, which IS December next
The court held. in effect, that it was
without jurisdiction in all the points
raised.
In his opinion Justice Day laid no stress
upon the sex of Mrs. Rogers. but dealt with
the case upon purely legal grounds. Re
citing the proceedings in the case. he took
up the various contentious made in the
Ineffective.
On the point that Mrs. Rogers has heen
held in solitary confinement for more than
three months. he said the record does NOT
show that she is so held though admitted
~ held in close confinement This course
was. he said. within the rights OF the
state and could not be used as ground for
Interference by tho federal court Ue also
said that the state supreme court could
not be required to fix time for execution:
that whether the state supreme court
should sit in Bennington county Is a matter
or state practice only. and also that there
Is no merit I'm the contention that nx'ng
a date for execution when granting a re-
prieve Is violation of the federal
statutes
The case came to the Supreme Couft on
an appeal from the refusal of the United
States district court OF Vermont 10 grant
to Mrs. Rogers writ OF habels corpus
after the supreme court OF the state had
refused her new trial.
Charge Against Mrs Rogers.
The charge against Mrs. Rogers is that OF
numbering her husband by administering
chloroform at Bennington. Vt, in 1902 She
was tried in December 1908. and her trial
resulted In a sentence of death by hanging.
The case has attracte much attention on O.
count OF the defendants sex and because OF
the many narrow escapes she has had from
paying the extreme penalty for her crime
Her execution was first fixed for February
s. 1905. but the governor of the state grant
ed reprieve on February ! until June ..
When II seemed that she must Inevitably
be hanged on the day fixed the governor
again, en- June l. came to the womans res
cure, moving the date up to June 81 The
last reprieve was granted June - TO per-
NIT an investigation by the federal courts
Notwithstanding the various reprieves
granted by the governor were the means OF
saving Mrs. Rogers life, they were seized
upon by her attorneys TO support their plea
for absolute release. They contended that
these stays of execution and the fixing of
dates for hanging by the states chief ex-
ecuttye. other than the day named by the
trial court were Illegal. and that her deten-
ton in prison under them amounted to
deprivation OF her rights under the CON-
stitut!on.
Other points cited by her attorneys IN
support of her case are: That after refus-
Ing her petition for new trial last May.
the Vermont supreme court failed to fix
day for the execution. rendering Illegal her
subsequent detention: that at her trial she
was denied the right to cToss-examIne Wit
nessas, and that the hearing of her case BY
the state supreme court sitting elsewhere
than in Bennington county Is In contraven-
ton OF the state constitution. Ire iat tnat
Mrs Rogers has been kept In solitary con-
fuement for more than the three months
required by the state laws was also used in
the argument in support of her case Inc
woman is now confined in the Vermont
state prison.
Against Contractor Simpsons Claims.
The court today. in the case Of Greenleat
w Simpson OF Boston VS.. the United
States, held that Mr. Simpson has no valid
claim on account of a contract for deliv-
ering fresh beef to United States troops in
Cuba after the Spanish war. The opinion
was by Justice Holmes.
The controversy in this case grew out OF
a contract entered into by Mr.. Simpson dur
ing the war with Spain TO supply beef to
the United States troops In Cuba from
January 4. 1889 TO June 30 OF the same
year The contract provides that Mr.. Smp-
son should furnish this meat to towns in
the interior of Cuba all the time, and also
to the seacoast towns when Swift e. Co,
who had the regular contract, could not
meet the demands. One OF the points 10
which Mr.. Simpson was to deliver beef
was Los Quemados, point lew miles
outside Havana. where 10000 troops wera
stationed He was permitted to furnish the
beef only few days, when the commssary
general ordered him to stop. He claimed
to have lost $4,000 on account OF the fall
ure of the government to receive his goods.
He also claimed a loss of S46,6So because
of similar failure at Havana and Matan-
zas The Court of Claims dismissed Mr..
Simpsons petition.
Award of Damages Affirmed
In an opinion by Justice Day. the court
today affirmed the decision of the Court OF
Claims In the case of the United States VS..
the Utah. Nevada and California Stage
Company. This was claim for s2l9.s5I
made by the stage company against the
government for the performance OF addi-
tional service in carrying the mails in New
York city during the period from 1888 10
1897. This period covered a time In when
there was quite general reoTeanizatii t, OF
the postal system OF New York city, during
which the branch post office located Al Lex
iEgton avenue and 4ith street was estap-
lished The claim was made that the
changes resulted in almost doubling the
mileage of the contractors. The Court or
Claims awarded damages for $S3,02l and
both parties to the controversy appealed.
Obligation of Witnesses.
In the case of John d. Jack against the
state of Kansas the court today held that
the federal Constitution and the federal
laws cannot be invoked to relieve witness
from testifying before state court In d
proceeding involving the antitrust laws OF
the state thus affirming the decision of the
state supreme court. Justice Peckham de-
liyered the opinion.