New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-20
II. S. Supreme Court, in
divided Opinion, Up
holds Conviction.
TWO JUSTICES SAY
MOB SWAYED JURY
po,mes and Hughes Declare Cir
cumstances of Original Trial
Justified Plea.

70 m the 'ilNVU N'''N''
corrt to-day Leo NJ. Frank lost his
last chance Of saving his life in the
isgsl battle which has been waged ever
,,,,s his conviction by Georgia court
:, numbering Mary Phagan, girl in
~. factory Of which he was superin-
t.ndent Franks only hope Of escap-
Inc the death penalty tonight is Glenn
.,,v by the Governor Of Georgia.
Seven Of the Supreme Court justices
.,ld there was no reason to grant q
h,bsss corpus writ. which would have
rad the effect Of forcing a new trial
tor Frank and possibly setting him at
liberty.
Two Of the justices held that the cir
eumstances Of Franks original trial
justified the high court in granting
him another lease on life. These were
Justices Holmes and Hughes. Justice
Holmes delivered the opinion and Jus
tee Hughes concurred. Justice
Holmes. in denying the right of Frank
70 an appeal TO the Supreme Court last
November, criticised the mob influence
IN the jury which first tried Frank, and
which really guided the Frank attor-
reys II pleading for the habeas corpus
wit. Justice Lamar had refused to
order review OF the case few weeks
before. but Justice Holiness stinging
comments had put hope into the hearts
Of Franks friends.
Mob law" declared Justices Hughes
md Holmes in their minority opinion
sdoes not become due process OF law
ty securing the assent Of q terrorized
ju.y. We are not speaking of mere
disorder or mere irregularities in pro-
cedure. but OF & case where the proc
esses Of justice are actually subverted.
Cannot Uphold Lynch Law.
10 put an extreme case, if the trial
and the later hearing before the Su-
pfsme Court had taken place in the
presence of an armed force known to
be ready TO shoot if the result was not
tie one desired, we do not suppose that
this court would allow itself to be ST.
lsneed by the suggestion that the rec
ord showed no flaw
The minority opinion concluded with
The statement that il was the duty of
the Supreme Court "to declare lynch
law as little valid when practised by a
regularly drawn jury as when admin
lstered Oy one elected by mob intent
on death"
The single question in our mind
continued the minority, is whether q
petition alleging that the trial took
place in the midst of a mob savagely
and manfestly intent on single re-
suit is shown on its face unwarranted
BY the specifications. which may be
presumed 10 set forth the strongest
Indications Of the fact at the petition
er's command.
This is not a matter for polite pre-
tumptions; we must look facts IN the
face. Anv Judge who has sat with
;uries know that in spite Of forms
they are extremely likely TO be imPreg-
mated BY the environing atmosphere.
And when We find the judgment of the
expert or the spot. Of the judge whose
business il was 20 preserve not only
form but substance. 20 have been that
II one jurymd. 'idcd 70 the reason
able doubt t... .c himself later eX-
pressed in cou. "a, The result OF most
anxious delibeTatOu. neither prisoner
nor counsel would be safe from the
rage Of the crowd, we think the pre-
sumption overwhelming that the jury
4 responded 20 the passions OF the mop:
"0f course, we are speaking only OF
The case made by the petition ana
whether it ought TO be heard. Upon
allegations of this gravity, IN our opln-
4 ion II ought TO be heard, whatever the
decision of the state court may nave
been, and It did not need TO set forth
eonuadictory evidence or matter OF
iebuttal or 10 explain why the motions
Tor new trial and to set aside the
verdict were overruled by the state
tourt.
No Impairment of Authority.
4 There is no reason TO fear an i'm
pslrment Of the authority Of the state
70 punish the guilty. We do not think
I u impracticable in any part OF this
country to have trials free from outside
control. But 10 maintain this immunity
hmay be necessary that the supremacy
O the law and of the Federal Constitu-
Ton should be vindicated in a case like
this.
III may be on a hearing a different
4 complexion would be given to the
1 !eage's alleged request and expression
4 81 fear But supposing the alleged
1iseis 10 be true. we are OF the opinion
mey were before the Supreme Court
4 sanctioned situation upon which
me courts Of the United States should
ee' and # for any reason they were
IOs before the Supreme Court IL IS our
S1y 70 act upon them now and TO de-
Nsie lynch law as little valid when
%aeused by a regularly drawn jury as
rnsh administered by one elected by a
"SO intent on death
Inc majority opinion, written by
ssuse Pitney, declared that Frank was
~, ~ SHOWN 20 have been deprived Of any
II 49,, guaranteed TO him by the Four
Il SIN amendment or any other pro-
Il SUI of the Constitution or laws of
II he Oniied States, but, on the contrary,
tp,t'I "g Deen convicted and was held in
In Tuy unOer cue process OF law with
Ie meaning OF the constitution.
ssuee Pitney stated that the obiga-
q lo,L rested on the Supreme Court TO
81 ys,1 through the form and into the
ts,' neaft and substance of the mat
81 nov only of the averment in
eesS;. petition, but in the trial pro-
q sTL gs IN the state courts themselves.
"e petition contains narrative Of
N'h'inued ON page 8. column