New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-02-27
COURT HEARS LAST
PLEAS FOR FRANK
Final Arguments Made in
Effort to Save Slayer
of Mary Phagan.

Washington, Feb. 26.-Arguments on
the Georgia Federal Courts decision
refusing a writ Of habeas corpus to
Leo NJ. Frank, under death sentence
for the murder of Mary Phagan, an
Atlanta factory girl, were ended to-
day before the United States Supreme
Court. A decision probably will not
be given for several weeks.
Should the Supreme Court affirm the
decision of the Georgia court, nothing
would stand in the way Of the state
carrying out the death sentence. II
the ruling Is reversed, according to
counsel for both sides, the case must
90 back to the district court for the
taking of evidence on which the allie
cations in the petition for the writ
were based.
Louis Marshall, of New York, on
behalf Of Frank, argued that the trial
court lost jurisdiction over the prls-
oper because of mob violence during
the trial and because of Franks abb
sence when the verdict was announced
through Coercion" by the trial judge.
Both sides agreed that the truth OF
these allegations was question 20 pc
determined BY the lower court II the
Supreme Court held that, assuming the
allegations were true, Frank was en-
titled to the writ
Question of Jurisdiction.
Chief Justice White asked if Ir.
Marshall contended that man VINO
had been in a penitentiary for ten
wears after trial in a state, after the
State Supreme Court had affirmed his
conviction, could come before the Su-
preme Court, and by alleging things
outside the record of his trial, such as
prejudice by the trial judge, be en-
titled to a writ of habeas corpus on
question OF jurisdiction. The attorney
answered in the affirmative.
"Then this court would become a
court Of general Jail delivery" replied
the chief justice. -.
Mr.. Marshall argued it made 10 diff
ference whether it was made ten years
or one day after conviction, but the
question was whether constitutional
questions of jurisdiction could be kept
from the Supreme Court by State Su-
IRENE Court resting its atiirmance on
grounds OF procedure and not constltu-
tional grounds.
"But we passed on that when we de-
MED your application for writ Oh
error" responded the chief justice.
1--WE have held a state court could not
deny our right to review by the way IN
which il worded its ruling"
Both Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney
General Grice, for the state, urged that
the state courts, having held that there
had been no interference with FRANK s
rights BY mob violence, review by the
federal court could not be had on
writ of habeas corpus, but was open
only to review by writ OF error.
Right of Review.
The Attorney General discussed at
length whether a federal court could
review the action of state court.
Chief Justice White remarked he
thought the day had passed when 1t
was contended that the Supreme Court
could not examine the action of state
court TO see if the state court had ap-
plied it's law 10 violate a federal right.
"You take upon yourself a bigger
burden than | thought your case pre-
sented," said the Chief Justice.
Mr.. Grice responded that he was
claiming the review could not be had
by habeas corpus.
"Oh. that is another question" said
the chief justice.
As to Franks absence, Attorney Cen
oral Grice contended there was no
coercion used by Judge Roam in keep
ing Frank and his attorneys from the
courtroom. "Only kind hearted judge,
in the most sympathetic way, made a
suggestion to counsel in private" he
said.
Touching on the same point, Solicitor
Dorsey declared it was not until eight
months after the trial, and new coun-
sci had taken hold of the case. that the
point of the prisoner being absent was
raised as a ground for setting aside
the verdict.