Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-11-10
MAY DECIDE MONDAY
Mary ROgers's Case Now with
United States Supreme Court
Arguments Made at Washington This
Week-Justloes Asked Many Questions
Of Mrs. Rogers's Lawyers.

arguments MADE at washington THIS
Week-Justlces Asked Many Questions
Of Mrs. Rogers's Lawyers.
The appeal of Mrs. Mary Mabel Rogers.
who was sentenced to death for killing
her husband near Bennington, i'm 1903,
was argued in the supreme court of the
United States at Washington Monday and
the case was then taken under considera-
ton by the court Atty-Gen. Fits of YER
mont represented the state and Tracy L.
Jeffords of Washington and Thomas w.
Moloney of Rutland appeared for Mrs.
Rogers.
The argument was opened by Mr. JEFF
fords. who occupied 20 minutes in a state
ment of the case, and in setting forth
the grounds for the appeal
Several of the points raised were so
novel that he was fairly bombarded with
questions from the bench, nearly every
justice taking part in the quizzng.
Justice Holmes, in particular, was per-
sistent in his queries, and Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan Brown, Brewer,
White and Peckham took turns in asking
questions concerning the claims made by
counsel of the procedure in the case and
the ground for interference by the federal
courts.
The present appeal is from the United
States district court for the district of
Vermont, which. after Mrs. Rogers had
been sentenced for murder, and thrice re-
prieved by the governor of Vermont, de-
cllned to release her on a writ OF habeas
corpus. The grounds upon which the APP
peal was made to this court and which
We're argued Monday were four i'm num-
Der as follows:
First. that Mrs. Rogers is deprived of
her liberty and subject to the punishment
of solitary confinement without any sta o.
tute authorizing such punishment. and
Nyit N of
ing such punishment, and therefore with
out due process of law. Mr. Jeffords point
ed out that the law fixes the term of
solitary confinement at three months.
whereas she has been already subjected
to confinement 3h months in excess
thereof, "A separate and severe punishment
in addition to the death penalty and in
violation of her rights under the federal
constitution.
Second, because the state supreme
| court. having taken jurisdiction of the
| petition for a new trial and having failed
/ to comply with the law by ordering "a
/ stay of execution and by fixing a new
date for the execution. the governor had
no right to fix such a day The sentence
of execution on Dec. s. counsel commended
| is therefore void.
| Third, the failure Of the state To main
| tain an appellate court in Bennington
| county as provided by the constitution
/ utpTlNtu dpIeldul OF ntT GlEnlS To De
| heard by a court Of competent iuris-
| diction. and the establishment of the
supreme court in Washington county gave
the people Of that county privileges not
| possessed by the people of the other Il
| counties of the state. In support of this
contention counsel cited the Peterson
case
Fourth. that the governor, having
! ordered her execution on Dec. s, while
the appeal was pending in the fedora
| district court. that action is void.
Atty-Gen Fits replied to the severa
| contentious of opposing counsel, his
| principal point being that no federal ques.
ton is involved in any way i'm the appeal
or If any had been dragged in they should
| not be considered because not raised ii
the court below, as the law required. He
| quoted numerous decisions by this court
in support of his arguments.
Mr.. Moloney, in closing the case, oecu-
pied an hour and "A half, and like hi.
colleague, was subjected to a continuou.
fire of questions from the bench. Tn,
court paid unusual attention to the argu.
ments all through the case.
1t Is the general opinion that i'm view
of the nearness of the date for Mrs
| Rogers's execution, Dec. s. the court will
hand down its decision next Monday.