The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1915-04-20
GOVERNOR PARDON
IS NOW ONLY HOPE
OF LEO N. FRANK
Supreme Court Finds State
of Georgia Has Not Yio-
lated Constitution
FRANK REFUSES TO
ABANDON ALL HOPE
Condemned Man Declares He viii
Continue Fight for Freedom.
Holmes Renders Dissent
ing Opinion

Washington. April I8.--The supreme
court today held that the state of Geor-
gia had denied Leo Frank no right un-
der the federal constitution i'm sentence
Ing him to death for the murder of Mary
Phagan. The court affirmed the action
CT the federal district court for north
ern Georgia refusing to release Frank
ON writ of habens corpus, Justice Pit
ney nnnouncins the opinion.
Justice Holmes delivered dissenting
opinion in which Justice Hughes con-
Cured.
This decision, 1t is believed here. ex-
hausts all means of fighting the courts
TO save Franks life. His attorneys how
ever, will have 30 days in which TO file
an application for a rehearing. At the
end of that time apparently only the pos
sbility of a pardon will be between the
prisoner and death.
The habeas corpus proceedings rested
on the claim that the trial court had
lost jurisdiction over the prisoner ''by
reason of mob domination" during the
trial and by Franks involuntary absence
at the time the verdict was rendered. 1t
was claimed this denied him due pro-
cess as guaranteed by the federal con-
stitution.
The majority of the court held that
the findings by the supreme court of
Georgia that the alleged mob dominance"
amounted to nothing more than irregu
larites. not prejudicial to Frank, should
not be disturbed upon the mere asser-
tions of the prisoner that the facts We're
r.+l y i,
the court held. especially as the prisoner
withheld from the court affidavits he
had presented to the state courts on the
subject of disorder during the trial.
Holmes Dissents
Justice Holmes, dissenting, declared that
loss of jurisdiction by the trial court
could not be restored by any decision by
a higher court and declined to accept
the findings of The Georgia supreme court
as cpneiustgc. He said u the allegations
in Franks petition for habeas corpus
were true and the facts We're before the
Georgia supreme court, that court sane
toned situation upon which the federal
courts should act
If the facts were not before the state
supreme court, he added, it was the duty
of the federal court to declare lynch
law as little valid when practiced by a
regularly drawn jury as when adminis-
tered by one elected by mob intent on
DEATH
The dissenting justices held the case
should be sent back to the district court
for the taking of evidence on the petition.
They said that they were not impressed
with the argument that the presence of
a prisoner at the time verdict was
rendered was required by the constitution.
Justice Pitney in delivering the. opiTjon
declaring thar =, ~ Al .tSe proceedings in
ana SIS of Georgia e!,1 the ppIlest r1snl nj
the established modes of procedure had
been accorded Frank.
I'm the opinion of this court" continued
the justice, The is not shown to have
been deprived of any right guaranteed to
him by the fourteenth amendment or any
other provision of the laws or constitu-
ton of the United States, but on the con-
trary he has been convicted and Is now
held in custody on due process of law,
within the meaning of the constitution
Justice Holmes delivered 4 dissenting
opinion in which Justice Hughes con-
Cured The courts decision was based
on an appeal from the action of the Uni
ted States district court for northern
Georgia in refusing to release Frank on
writ of habeas corpus.
His petition for habeas corpus rested ON
allegations of disorder during his trial
in Atlanta amounting to mob domna-
ton and his involuntary absence when the
verdict was returned.
Justice Pitney in his decision said the
facts rested on the supreme court to look
through the form and into the very heart
and substance of the matter Offered,
not only in the averments in Frank S
petition but in the trial proceedings in
the state courts themselves. The petit
tion AYERS hostilities In the attendant
demonstrations and uproar, disorder and
unseemly manifestation, "all OF which
stood alone and were to be taken as
true" he said, may be conceded to have
been Inconsistent with a fair trial and
an impartial verdict.
But to consider this as standing alone
is to take a wholly superficial view for
the narrative is coupled with other state
ments from which it clearly appears that
the same allegations of disorder were sub
mitted first to the trial court and after
wards to the supreme court of Georgia
as a ground for avoiding the conse-
Quences of the trial, and these auega-
Continued ON Page Two)