The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-13
IA BLOW TO POWERS
SUPREME COURT REJECTS HIS
 CONVENTIONS.
Lecides That the United states Courts Have No Jurisdictiou Tn Case of Alleged Conspirator In Mur-
 der of Goebel.

Washington, March lz.--The Caleb Powers case was decided by the Su- preme Court of the United States against Powers. The opinion was de- livered by Justice Harlan and held that the case was not removable from the state to the federal courts. The case was therefore remanded to the Ken lucky State courts. the opinion was based upon the ground that the equal rights statute section 641 revised statutes does not apply less recognized by state laws or the state legislation. Justice Harlan stated the Supreme Court of the United States took cogni- zance of the case only on an error. The opinion was unanimous.
 There were two of the cases viz: The Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Caleb Powers, an original action and the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs Caleb Powers on appeal from the Circuit Court of the United states for the eastern district of Kentucky. These are the cases in which the state of Kentucky has sought 10 secure the con viction of Caleb Powers on the charge of complicfty in the murder of William Goebel. while Powers was occupying the office of Secretary or State.
 He has been tried three times by the Circuit Court of Scott county and each time found guilty, once receiving sen tence to death and twice a sentence of life Imprisonment, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals interfered in each instance to prevent the execution of the verdict Last May the case was presented to Judge Cochran, sitting in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and he granted a writ of habeas corpus or dering the removal from the State court to his court.
 The proceedings which terminated today was instituted by Kentucky to restore the case to the State courts. Hence practically the only question involved was Jurisdiction. Two modes of procedure were restored to. One was appeal from the order of Judge Coch- ran granting the removal to his court, and another a petition for writ of mandamus directing Judge Cochran to remand the case to the State courts and restore Powers to the custody of the Sheriff of Scott county The removal to the federal court was secured on the ground that Powers had been so dis criminated against in the State courts as to deny nim the equal protection Of the law
 After quoting a number of decisions Justice Harlan summed up the result as follows;
 Tn each of these cases it was dis tinctly adjudged in harmony with pre- vious cases, that the words in section 641 did not give the right of removal unless the constitution or the laws of the State in which the original prose- cution was pending denied or prevented the enforcement in the judicial tri- ounals of such State of the equal rights of the accused as secured by any law of the United States. Those causes as did the prior ones, expressly held that there was no right of removal under section 641, where the alleged discrimination against me accused, in respect of his equal rights was due to the illegal or corrupt acts of ad- ministrative officers unauthorized by the constitution or laws of the State as interpreted by it's highest court. For wrongs of that character the rem edy, it was old, Is in yne State court and ultimately in the power of this court upon writ of error"
 Justice Harlan also discussed the contention that there has been a con- spira2y to take Powers fife and that he could not secure fair trial. He said:
 Tt is true that, looking alone at the case as made by the petitition for removal, the trials of the accused make an exhibition of misconduct on the part of the administrative officers connect ed with those trials, which may well shock all who love justice and recog- nize the right of every human being accused of crime to be tried according to law. Further the case as made by the record, 1t must be conceded. tends to show. if it does not justify the be- lief, that administrative officers having connection with the trial of the &C., cused had 1t in mind at each trial to exclude from the jury so far as it was possible to do so, every person, how ever competent, who belonged to the same political party as the accused"
 OATv ffzzrr =zNVk f-r h.-4w, ing the case to the Supreme Court the Justice said:
 Under this holding the accused is not deprived of opportunity to have his rights of whatever nature which are secured or guaranteed to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, fully protected by the Federal Court. But 1t Is said that the action of the trial court in refusing to quash the indictment or the panel of petit jurors. although the motion to quash was based on Federal grounds, cannot under the laws of Kentucky be re- viewed by the Court of Appeals. the highest court of that commonwealth. If such be the law of Kentucky as declared by the statutes and by the court of appeals of that commonwealth, then after the case is disposed Of in that court by final judgment, in respect of the matters of which, under the local law. 1t may take cognizance. a writ of error can run from this court to the trial court as the highest court of Ken lucky in which a decision of the Fed eral question could be had"
 Disposing finally of the two cases before the court, he remarked
 We are all of opinion that the order awarding the writ of habeas corpus cum causa must be reversed with di- rections to set aside that order as well as the order doclleting the case in the circuit court of the United States; also that the rule in relation to mandamus must be made absolute. the prosecution remanded to the State court and the custody of the accused surrendered to the State authorities"