The Dawson news. (Dawson, Ga.) 1889-current, 1915-03-02
DECISION Is AWAITED
IN LEO FRANKS CASE
OPINION OF HIGHEST COURT IS
NOT EXPECTED TO BE MADE
KNOWN FOR MANY WEEKS.
court OF JAIL DELIVERY


Court Would Be One If View of
Franks Attorney of Rights of the
Higher Courts Prevailed.
WASHINGTON, d. arguments
on the northern Georgia federal
courts decision refusing a writ of
habeas corpus to Leo M. Frank, un-
der death sentence for the murder OF
Mary Phagan, were concluded before
| the United States supreme court to-
day A decision probably will not be
given for at least several weeks.
Should the supreme court affirm
| the decision of the lower federal
court no legal obstacle, it is said,
would stand in the way of carrying
out the death sentence. If the ruiz
ing is reversed counsel for Frank
and the state told the court the case
would go back to the district court
for the taking of evidence on which
the allegations for the petition for
the writ were based.
Say He Could Not Be Tried Again.
The court was informed by the at
torneys for Frank that should the
writ be granted Frank could be tried
again under the pending indictment.
The states counsel questioned this
assertion.
Louis Marshall, of New York, on
behalf of Frank, contended that the
trial court lost jurisdiction over the
prisoner because of mob violence dur
| ing the trial and because of Franks
absence through coercion" by the
trial Judge when the verdict was an
nounced. Both sides agreed that the
truth of the allegations of mob vio-
lence and of absence under coercion
were not before the court, but re-
manned for hearing by the lower
court IL the supreme court held, as
a matter of law, assuming the allie
cations were true, that Frank was
entitled to the writ. Notwithstand-
ing this both sides at times argued
the truth of the allegations, until at
last Chief Justice White suggested
to Solicitor Dorsey that he was vast
ing his time.
Chief Justice White asked Mr..
Marshall if he thought a man who
had been in the penitentiary for ten
years, and whose conviction had been
affirmed by state supreme court,
could come before the supreme court
of the United States and, by alleging
things outside the record of his trial,
such as prejudice by the trial judge,
secure a writ of habeas corpus on a
question of Jurisdiction. The attor-
ney answered in the affirmative.
A Court of Jail Delivery.
Then this court would become
court of general jail delivery re-
piled the chief justice.
Mr.. Marshall replied that it made
no difference whether it was made
ten years or one day after conviction,
but the question was whether consti-
tutional questions of jurisdiction
be kept from the supreme court by
a state supreme court resting it's af
frmanee on the grounds of procedure
and not constitutional grounds.
| But we passed on that when We
denied your application for writ of
error" replied the chief justice. Owe
| have held a state court could not de-
NY our right to review by the way in
which it worded its ruling. "
Attorney General Grice for the
state, argued that Franks petition
lence had been passed upon by the
trial court and by the Georgia su
preme court and that both had found
there had been no such disorder as
interfered with Franks rights.
Much to Attract Attention.
1T was to be expected that specta-
tors might laugh at some witty re-
Marks said he There. was much
in this case to attract attention-har-
rowing details which shocked the
feeling of law-abiding community. .
The attorney general then discuss
ed the point whether federal court
could review the action of state
court Chief Justice White declared
he thought the day was past when it
was denied that the supreme court
could not examine the action of a
state court to see if the state, court,
in applying its law, had so applied it
as to violate federal right.
You take upon yourself bigger
burden than / thought your case pre-
sented," added the chief justice.
The attorney general responded he
was claiming the review could not be
had nv fhe uSa of a writ of habeaS