The courier-index., 1921-06-17
Elaine Negroes
 Get NeU Delay

f 0 A the death cells of the state peni- tentary, the supreme court yesDeI- dsv afternoon took under solgse-
 ment the question as 10 vhethe5
 the Pulaski Chancery Court eoul9 assume jurisdiction. It is expee'eo that the higher courts decree VIII
 he handed down Monday. It lsI
 renerally believed that the writ et
 srohibition denying Jurisdiction of l the chancery court will be issued, hut. in the meantime, the temporary | injunction of the chaneery court
 against an execution will remain
 in effect.
 By consent the chaneery court
 will take TO fur-her action but Elll await the decree of the supreme court. This was made apparent at the close Of the argument when
 Chief Justice [. A. mcCulloch ask
 ed whether t would be necessary to
 issue a temporary writ to restraln further proceedings in chaneery.
 He was told that the lower court intended to defer any further ac- ton until the question of jurisdic- ton was established. Thus the con- demned Elaine negroes gain an- other weeks respite.
 Anether Appeal Planned IL is very likely that the delay
 wll be even longer as attorneys for the defense said yesterday that i should the supreme court issue the writ Of prohibition denying the 1 jurisdiction of the chancery court and automatically disselving the temporary injunction now in ef-
 feet, they will either appeal directly
 to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error, or file habeas
 corpus proceedings in the United | States District Court
 The federal question was brought | into the case through the four ! teenth amendment to the constitu- ton of the United States which guarantees to all citizens a fair and | impartial trial. In their petition before the chaneery court for an
 injunction against the execution of
 the negroes, attorneys for the de- fense attacked the Phillips County l Circuit Court bitterly, declaring that
 both judge and jury had been dom
 mated by mob spirit, and that the
 court thereby mad lost jurisdiction. This alleged as the reason for bring ing the matter into ehancery court. Ebert Godwin, assistant attorney
 general, who handled the matter for ! the state, won the first skirmish
 when he opposed the efforts of the
 negroes lawyers for a delay. E.
 L. McHaney, one of the attorneys l for the negroes, during the morn | ing session of the court, declared that the defense had been gwen no time to prepare it's answer to the
 states application for writ of
 prohibition, and that, under the
 statutes, 10 days should be allow
 ed. Mir. Goodwin contended that
 this provision did not apply to the
 supreme court but only to courts of original jurisdiction. During the noon recess the matter was deliber-
 ated upon, and majority of the
 supreme court justices took the view
 advanced by the states attorney.
 The question upon which the court
 is to pass is whether the Pulaski
 Chancery Court had Jurisdiction
 when it granted the temporary in- | junction against the execution. That
 the court will decide in the mega | tive was strongly indicated at sev- ! eral points during the argument when attention Vas called to form ] CT decisions of the supreme court which held that the chancery court | has no jIrisdiC.io0 in criminal mat ! ters.
 Court Bitterly Attacked. 1lr Goodwin scored t1a petition of attorneys for the defense for the habaas coIpas proceedings filed in ctance1y court as one of The bit terssl attacks evl made 9a a court Oi any community
 The petition presented to Chan cellor MarJindaa1 last week alleged
 that the negroes had never received a fair trial and that the indictment, the trial and the verdict were "un- der the domination of the mob. In an attempt to justify statements that the states testimony had been obtained under Guress, Mr. McHaney was stopped by the chief justice, who called attention to the fact that the case was not on trial by the court, and that all argument must
 be confined to the question as to whether or not the chancery court was of competent jurisdiction.
 Both MT, McHaney and J. Fl. Carmichael for the defense and MT. Goodwin for the state brought in the Leo Frank case of Georgia. where a similar question concerning loss of Jurisdiction through alleged mob domination of a court was in volved.