New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-03
HOWARD LOSES APPEAL.
MILITARY CASE DECIDED.
Supreme Court Acts on Many In
tereSting Controversies.

washington Jan. 2-Ihe supreme Court o. the
Omitted States to-day affirmed the decision Of the
Kentucky Court Of Appeals in the case of James Il.
Howard against the State OF Kentucky. Howard
tried three times IN the Circuit Court OF Frank
In County. Ky. the charge OF numbering GOV
ernor William Goebel OF Kentucky On January 80
$500 and convicted each time
Howard is under sentence to life imprisonment
and he brought the case this court TO obtain
a review Of the ruling Of the Kentucky Court OF
Appeals affirming decision Of the Circuit court
against allowing him another trial His principal
allegation that the proceedings OF the tTiI
court IN the matter OF selecting and oischaTgins
suryTnen Irregular.
Justice McKenna delivered the opinion affr1ning
the conviction Of Howard he reviewed the com
plant OF Towards attorneys that the discharge OF
:. G Alexander Juror was IN Floiaton o. me
Fourteenth Amendment saying:
We cannot assume error in the decision Of the
Court of Appeals We accept II, as we are oouno
2 40 as GorTec{ e6oS s1 c OF our
inquiry only be dio The stare ia" a. Tl-5s are
used In the Fourteenth Amendment? We think II do
u is not necessary enter into lengthy 1S~usSla
Of what constitutes due process O. laW, "a
been done in number OF cases ana mere = ;.;a
sIo an exte's4oh O. I4s 7I,a nrocess Of law as
saItteo t a r ne 1a5T1ert protect funda-
mental rights. What those are cannot ever oe &c
cause Of much dispute - !. .s al
designed as was observed ~ the Chief Justice -
he state 10 f prosct the ives liberty ana PogeTs
Of rs cit
gninisternE the process provided by the law O Ie
ease Of what does plaintiff in error COMPLAIN
The discharge % Juror before ne was sW9Tm s 1
animation Of the Juror by the presiding Judge b!t
plaintiff IN error consented through his counsel 70
the examination. and there IS not an intiTlaflon
that the juror selected IN Alexanaer pia age We t
discharge Of --exander took from The other Jurors
case or TO give q plaintiff II error ne right to 2
new panel
Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion q the
Supreme Court n TIE cases 81 D~r-v ar 77
sgt Edward Lewis. warden OF the jan OF Allegheny
County CPittsburgl Penn, contrary tc lie -~i-7iL-
lions OF Drury and Dowd- This case involved the
interesting question Of the bility 70 the civil
authorities OF soldiers and officers IL the army OF
the United States for acts against the persons OF
private citizens committed BY them IN tine q
peace Drury is a ueuteant and Dowd private IN
the 7th United states Infantry. IN September, 1873,
they were stationed at the Allegheny Arsenal at
FittsbUrg, and in an effort to apprehend men SAID
70 have been engaged IN stealing copper from one Of
the arsenal buildings Dowd shot and killed one Of
them, a man named Crowley. The shot fired
after Crowley had let government ground and il
vas claimed that Dowd fred under directions from
DruTy. The TWO men were indicted for murder by
the State District Court OF Allegheny County.
but before the case could ne heard they made ap-
plicatOn the United States Circuit Court for
KIT O. habeas corpus That court refused to grant
the write. and remanded the case to the state
courts, ahd ms accused appealed rom that ruling,
put without success.
n his opinion the Chief Justice laid down the
general conclusion that while the federal courts
may exercise Jurisdiction IN cases OF this charac
ter i is not wise for them DO 50, except in
cases Of great emergency He added:
Crowley was a citizen Of Pennsylvania not in the
service Of the United states ana was killed in
OF near street Of the city OF Pittsburg. and moi
which UEifed states had iurisdic5i i5s' :
ne hoI1cloe occurred Wlth1n me territorial ju-
n e
which, as Judge .Acheson observed was the only
Tor the alleged uni law Killing t and ID ss dcls
presented case cognizable BY that court
The general jurisdiction in tine Of peace Of the
civil courts o. STATE over persons II the military
cspitaI crime ar al s1[ z-s1e ssse[ <F =
son Of citizen committed within the State is, Of
But i Is confended On behalf q the government
SIictIor 70 try nertioners for Ire ftI1g 81 (roLT
ley. because The homicide committed BY them
obligation imposed upon them by the Constitution
eno laws OF TIE United States. And i is Insisted
LEI Inc Iact Is esta2lished that Crowley met mis-
death while attempting TO escape arrest. But there
bad or had not surrendered and il is admitted that
y ne haq i could not reasonably pc claimed thar
duty imposed BY the federal law. ana the State
called on Ia determine the gl 81 innocence Of ne
accused. That was for the State. Il 1t had iurfs-
aiction, ana this tie State court had even though
i Was petitioners duty 10 pursue and arrest Crow
ley I ne question Of Crowley being fleeing felon
that crowley Vas resisting arrest and in fight
We have repeatedly held that tie acts Of Congress
IN relation Of habeas CORPUS do not inaperatively
the custody Of State officers n advance Of trial IN
the State courts, ana thai those courts nav decline
We think that discretion was properly exercised IN
This cass Final order affirmed
II IN opinion IN the case OF ser-aIes against
Esbri, coming from the Supreme Court Of Porto
Rico the Supreme Court Of the United States to-
Gay construed the eject Of the provision 81 the
act OF Congress OF 1900 relative to the exchange Of
money ii provinces there IN 1884 citizen Of Porto
Rico named Carta<ena sold to Serrales z share fl
. sugar plantation on that island for 1900 pesos
De paid in tnstaInents and Sin money current in
commerce Of whatever coinage Of money might be
circulating ii this province at the rate OF 100 cents
Of the current money for each peso
This contract made while Porto Rico was
Spanish territory, and after the transfer Of SOW
areignty 70 tie United States SerraIes refused to
make the payments remaining due on the basis Of
dollar IN American coin for peso In Porto
Rican coin He took the position that as the
Spanish coin worth only 60 cents, he should
be required 70 pay only the equivalent Of the
provincial money. and not 100 cents for each peso
the contract required the payment Of 100 cents in
American money for each peso called for il tbs
Serrales notes. That decision was reversed
Justice Peckha1n, who announced the Judgment OF
She court called attention the fact that in the
contract the word "centaYo and not the word
scents" Is used. The centayo Is, he SAID, copper
coin worth about six-tenths OF cent. The peso In
circulation the time the contract was made, he
stated. worth TO exceed 80 cents.
The court added there contract 10 pay
In American money at the rate contended for IN
providing for the withdrawal Of all coins In cir
culation L. Porto Rico Congress also provided
FOR fixing The equivalent between those coins and