The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-09-16

/ Federal Courts only and not to pro-
/ ceedings in State Courts. The petition
was held also to be based upon an
alleged violation of the provisions of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. in
that the denial of trial by jury con-
stituted a denial of due process of
law which contention the respondents
| held had been expressly decided
| against the petitioners in a large
| number of cases in the Supreme Court
of the United States.
| The respondents also contended
! that the case of Jamison against VIM
bish, 1870 Federal Reporter which
was chiefly relied upon by the petit
TONERS and upon which the pete ions
were claimed to have been based were
not applicable to those cases, for the
! reason that in that case 1t is clearly
and expressly stated that in the Po-
lice Court, which sentenced the de-
PENDANT there was no charge or accu-
sation laid, no trial had nor the form
or semblance of a trial, whereas, In
the cases at bar there were accusa-
ton in the form of legal warrants
setting forth the charge, the accused
were represented by counsel, learned
in the law. witnesses were examined,
| cross-examined argument from coun
sci for defendant and State, and jul
dicial elaboration, judgment and sem
tence.
Respondents Furthermore contended
that the Jamison case was an au-
thOrity to sustain that position. that
due process of law did not require "a
trial by jury. 1t Furthermore con-
tended that the United States courts,
both Circuit and Supreme. in a large
number of we'll considered decisions
clearly established the proposition that
habeas corpus should not be granted
by the Federal Court until after the
petitioner had exercised his rights of
appeal to the appellate courts of the
State.
In the answer and in the argument
the respondents relied upon the case
of the State VS.. Lytle 1873 N. c.. in
which the Supreme Cosrt of the State
had decided the ~onStitutionality of
the Legislative act creating the Police
Court for the city of Asheville, and
also the case of the State VS.. Young,
in 13S n. c.. in both of which cases
Chief Justice Clark wrote the opin-
ion of the court, in the State VS.
Young the legality and constitutional
ity of the system of work houses and
of working people on the roads as
punishment for crime is sustained.
The respondent denies those por-
tons OF said paragraphs which allege
that the authorities i'm charge of per-
sons at work upon the public roads
or wake county treat persons sem
fenced to the, said roads in parbar-
Gus. inhuman, or cruel manner, on
the contrary he alleges that the rules
and regulations prescribed for the
management and control of persons
sentenced to the said roads are hu-
name and reasonable in their charac-
ter and their enforcement is not at
tended by any unnecessary harshness
or severity.
Writ Does Not Hold.
Attorney General Gilmer presented
most elaborate argument in opposi-
ton to the petition. He defined the
power of the Federal court in issuing
Wrfts of habeaS corpus to be in cases
where a person lis in custody in vio-
lation of the Constitution or of the
law or treaty of the United States -
the remedy in cases of violations Of
State laws to be in application to State
courts, writ of error taking this to
the United States Supreme Court.
Many cases were quoted in support of
this, and General Gilmer declared that
with the authorities cited the court
would certainly remand the petition
ers to be dealt with under the laws
of North Carolina.
The next point urged was that the
provisions of the first ten Amend
ments to the Constitution of the Uni
ted States relate exclusively to the
Federal courts and do not affect pro-
ceedings in the State courts AS to
this right of trial by jury in these
amendments as affecting only Federal
courts General Gilmer said 1T is sur
prising that a principle SO thoroughly
embedded in the fundamental law OF
the land should be again questioned, -
and cited many opinions. [Opposi-
ton to this view had been withdrawn
by the petitioners, who held on to only
questions they conceived to be peril
nent to the Fourteenth Amendment
the withdrawal coming after the an
swer was filed.
The next point urged was that
habeas corpus is not remedy for
the correction of errors of judgment
or of procedure in the State court
having cogniZance of crime. The con-
tention here was that under the writ
of habeas corpus this court can exer-
else no appellate jurisdiction over the
proceedings of the trial court or the
courts of this State, nor review their
conclusions of law or fact and pro-
nounce them erroneous, that the writ
of habeas corpus is~not a writ for the
correction of errors.
lie next point urged was that the
Police Justice of Raleigh has jurisdic-
ton Of the offences charged in the
warrants. In support of this the leg
islative enactment was cited and the
provision of the Constitution of North
Carolina which authorizes the estab-
lishment of special courts for the
trial of misdemeanors in cities and
towns" and by the constitutional
amendments of 1875 providing for the
establishment by the General Assem-
bly, of such other courts, inferior to
the Supreme courts and to "allot and
distribute" the jurisdiction of the
court, below the Supreme court as it
saw fit.
The next contention was that the
prisoners do not allege. facts showing
that they have been denied liberty
without 'due process of law" and
that information and belief" is not
illegal, as it's inhibition relates ex-
clusively to search warrants and is
limited in the application to proceed
ings in the Federal courts.
Gen. Gilmer then having disposed of
the matter as to any Federal question
being involved discussed the matter of
"due process" in relation to criminal
law. holding that every particular had
hapn observed in ha noljoo count al