South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-04-19
Highest Tribunal in the United
States Rejects Atlanta Mans
Appeal for Writ of Habeas
COrpuS-LaSt Legal Device.
TWO JUDGES DISSENT
FROM THE MAJORITY
Holmes and Hughes Hold in
Favor of Convicted Man.
Petition to Governor and
Pardon Board Only Hope.

WASHINGTON. April 19.-The SUI
preme court OF the United States to-
day dismissed the appeal OF Leo A.
Frank of Atlanta Ca convicted OF
the murder OF Mary Pha gan from the
decision of the United States district
court OF Georgia. denying him writ
OF habeas corpus.
The nigh court refused 10 take
Frank out OF the Jurisdiction OF the
state courts Of Georgia. which now
are free 10 carry out a death sentence
imposed upon him Tor the murder OF
the factory girl.
The court held that the absence OF
Frank from the court room when the
jury brought in the verdict of guilty
and also the alleged mob influence in
Atlanta at the time the trial was held
could not be construed as nullifying
the judgment Of guilty.
The decision seems TO indicate that
Frank has exhausted every legal
device 10 prevent hanging
The decision was 10y a divided court.
Justice Pitney delivered the opinion
OF the court. Justice Holmes deliv-
ered a dissenting opinion in which
Justice hughes cOncurred.
Justice Pimey's Speech.
Justice Pitney in part said. In both
the courts evidence was presented and
tlCnS were unfOunded in fact save In
a few minor particulars not now ma
t5rial Frank frequently included in
his application for habeas corpus the
evidence on his side. but omitted tc
include that which was introduced by
the state against him and by which
the Georgia courts we're convinced
that the allegations Of disorder ana
mob domination were untrue
but the courts OF the United states,
I'm determining the question whether
an application for the writ OF haDeas
corpus is held In custody IN violation
of the constitution OF the United
States. must take into consideration
not merely the proceedings and 1udg-
ments Of the trial courts. but also the
proceedings in the appellate court ol
the state.
THE question of a deprivation OF
liberty without due process OF law
contrary 10 the 18th amendment IN
wolves not the jurisdiction OF any par
ticular court. but the power and au-
thoritv OF the state itself. The prohl-
bition of the amendment is addressed
10 the states and the question whether
a state is depriVing a prisoner or MS
liberty without due process OF law
where the offense for which ne ls
prosecuted is based upon law that
does no violence 10 the federal con-
fairness TO the state, until the conclu-
sion of the course Of justice IN It's
courts Therefore the results OF the
appellate review cannot be ignored
when a prisoner applies 20 federal
court for his release on haoeas cor
pus.
These rules aud principles are es-
tablished. That the due process OF
law. guaranteed by the l4th amend
ment mas regard 20 substance of right
and not TO matters Of form for pro
ceedure; IL Is open 70 the courts OF
the United States upon an applcauoh
for the writ OF habeas corpus 10 TOOK
beyond form and inquire into the very
substance of the matter 20 the eXtent
of deciding whether the prisoner mas
been deprived of due process " Jaw
and the investigation must take into
consideration the entire course
proceedings in he courts OF the stale
and not merely single step ia IhOs
proceedings.
FRANKS position shows that haFlns
baar formally indicted for murder n
y,as placed on trial before a court OF
com r,etent jurisdiction with a jury
Iau-filllv constituted. he had puol
trial. deliberately conducted win III
beneft Of counsel for his defense ne
rs found guilty and sentenced pur-
a
be has moved the trial court 10 gran
a new trial and once 20 set aside the
verdict as a nullity; three times he
has been heard upon appeal before
the court OF last resort iH Georgia
and in every instance the adverse &C
tion OF the trial court mas been ar
drmed. allegations 81 hostile publiQ
sentiment and disorder Ia and about
me court room improperly Influencing
the trial court and the jury against
him has been then rejected because
found untrue in point of face upon
evidence presumably 1usutyinz the
the finding and which he has not pro
duced in the present proceedings; his
contention that his lawful rights ard
infringed because ne was not permit
ted 20 be present when the jury encec
frs verdict has been set aside bel
cause it was waived ov his failure 20
raise objection I'm due season when
fully cognIzant Of the fact