Evening star., 1932-11-14
Rare Constitutional Point
Made i'm ScottsbOrO Case

they are entitled to their iegaftights, and
If In the the opinion of the Supreme
Court Of the United States they have
been denied those rights, 1t Is only fair
that they should have q new trial.
Justice has not been baked In any sense
by the decision"
"The decision" 1t Is pointed out by
the Baltimore Sun, turned on an i'm
portant and hitherto undecided point
under the Federal Constitution" That
the case: THE defendants had con-
tended that the failure Of the trial
court to appoint counsel in time for the
preparation Of an adequate defense
amounted to a denial Of counsel, and
that such q denial represented an in
fringement Of the due process clause OF
the fourteenth amendment. After a
careful review of the precedentS, the
Supreme Court accepted this conten-
tion. 1t held that, historically and
practically, the right to hearing has
in this country always included the
right to be heard through counsel, and
that the duty of the.c courts to protect
this right was not fulfilled by the as
signment of counsel at such time as
to preclude the giving OF effectual aid.
This finding seems to make the due
process clause of the fourteenth amend
Inerlt q guarantee Of the right to counsel
in State courts in much the same man
ner In which the sixth amendment al
ready guarantees the right in the Fed
eral courts. The guarantee appears the
more important in view Of the fact that
in the Scottsboro cases themselves the
Supreme Court of Alabama had already
passed on this very question. 1t had
ruled that the defendants had been
adequately represented by counsel"
THE decision Is q new milestone in
the progress of justice" In the opinion
of the Springfield (Mass.) Republican,
which makes theScomment: The ma
jority opinion viii properly be acclaimed
as a reassuring unwillingness Of the
Supreme Court of the United States to
permit the term due process OF law
in such case as this to 1ncluoe tne
mere form Of law without its vital
spirit"
"The power of the Federal courts In
this matter is often misunderstood.
remarks the Philadelphia Evening Bull
letin, "It cannot interfere with the
result of a trial in which the consti-
tutional rights Of defendants have been
respected. 1t Is for the appellate trt-
bunals OF the States to safeguard the
rights OF men DrOugnL 10 trldl III their
jurisdictions under the law Of the States
and the proper procedure. The Federal
Supreme Court cannot upset the verdicts
of iuries validly found, or the decisions
of State tribunals based on the existing
law and practice. In the Scottsboro
case. In the opinion Of seven Of the nine
Judges. there was an evident denial Of
the constitutional rights of the accused.
The denial of right was essentially in
that the defendants were hurried to triaA
without giving them opportunity To
have their cases properly prepared, and
thus without having the opportunity OF
proper representation by counsel"
: when we remember that all too
often it Is charged that lawbreakers
with money or influence escape because
they are able to engage high h-class coun-
sci, the Supreme Court ruling which
emphasizes the guarantee in the Con-
stitution to the lowliest defendant Of
the right of effective counsel at trial
becomes Of outstanding Importance"
asserts the Scranton Times. while the
Milwaukee Sentinel emphasizes the fact
that "regardless Of circumstances which
may seem TO constitute overwhelming
evidence Of guilt. any accused person,
high or low, Is entitled to fair presen-
tation Of his case in court"