*1 Í922. Syllabus. 261U. S. and that the Court opinions, Appeals right the District reversing Court and in dismissal directing do not find it necessary, the bill. We therefore, questions consider the raised at the bar whether the as to corporation Labor Board ais the act and Railroad under capable sued, suing being without consent United and whether the States, Board’s of its publication beyond jurisdiction opinions matters could be prop- erly enjoined by equity. a court of

Decree affirmed. AL. v. ET DEMPSEY, KEEPER OF THE ARKANSAS STATE PENITENTIARY.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT THE DISTRICT OF STATES UNITED

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. January Argued February 19, 9, 1923. No. 199. 1923. —Decided dismissing appeal from an Court Upon 1.' an order of the District corpus upon demurrer, allegations of fact petition for habeas admitted the demurrer must be petition and pleaded in the P. accepted as true. n in which accused are state court trial for murder 2. A regard mob domination without under to conviction hurried absolutely law and void. process due 'rights, without P. 90. corrective afforded sufficient absence of 3. In the alleg- a death sentence courts, persons held when state trial, from such a showing their conviction ing facts Resulted corpus, that for habeas court Court Federal apply to District alleged true, and whether so the facts are whether find must proceedings un- leave the state explained far as so can P. 91.

disturbed.

Reversed. dismissing District of the order

Appeal demurrer. for for ap- Storey and Mr. S. Bratton U.Mr. Moorfield pellants.

MOORE v. DEMPSEY. Opinion of the Court. Godwin, Elbert with whom Utley, Mr. Mr. J. S. At- Arkansas, torney General and Mr. Wm. T. on the brief, appellee. Hammock *2 Holmes delivered the opinion Mr. Justice the Court. an order of the District Court appeal

This is of Arkansas a dismissing District writ of for the Eastern demurrer, the presiding judge certify- upon cause for the allowing was probable appeal. there that ing but originally, by agreement cases they two There were The appellants into one. are five consolidated were of murder in degree convicted the first who were negroes by the Court of the to death and sentenced for the petition writ is that ground The Arkansas. Court, a although in the State trial proceedings and that the were hur- form, appellants a only form, of a pressure mob without to conviction ried without rights according to them for their regard any law. due is as follows, and it will by stated

The case init narrative put form, we we that understood while only facts to be as stated but what aré not affirming as are be, by admitted them take must we 30, 1919, a night September number theOn demurrer: in their church assembled were attacked people colored men, and in the body a white disturb- by fired upon man The report white followed ance killed. excitement and great was followed by caúsed killing shooting many negroes and also down hunting 1 of one Clinton Lee, on October white killing the petitioners murder were indicted. whose man, for arrésted with many have been others on seem They say that Lee must day. the same whites, but that we leave on other one killed side been petitioners’ deal have to we inno- what

Opinion of the Court. 261U. S. question whether their con- solely but guilt cence They say preserved. have been rights stitutional counsel employ protection was to meeting their them landowners upon by the practiced extortions against effort, but tried to prevent that the landowners directly bearing as not we again pass Bratton, that O. S. mentioned however trial. It should be contemplated to have been of the counsel who is said son. for con- here, arriving took in the argument and who part barely escaped to have be- sultation on October is said during he was arrested and confined mobbed; that ing 31 was in- of murder and on October charge month later in the told that he barratry, day but dicted secretly discharged but that he must leave would be Helena, to take the train at West four automobile closed alleged to avoid mobbed. It is that the away, being miles the petitioners *3 of the Court were tried judge and with departure facilitated the went Bratton to see off. him.safely ' A appointed by Committee of Seven was the Governor “ ” called the regard to what the committee insurrection county. daily the inflam- newspapers published the matory articles. On 7th statement one of the made public committee was to the effect that the present “ a deliberately trouble was insurrection planned of the the whites, directed an negroes against organization ‘ Progressive as the Farmers’ and known Household Union for America’ established the purpose banding ne- for killing the of white groes together people.” Accord- ing organization to statement was started aby , from get money to the blacks. swindler - after the arrest of the Shortly petitioners a mob jail for the purpose lynching marched them but presence United States troops prevented and the of some the Committee of promise Seven if other officials that the mob leading refrain, would v. DEMPSEY. 89 Opinion of the Court. they guilty would execute those found puts it, the The Committee’s own statement was’ of law. the form mob people refrained from vio- reason that gave Committee our citizens their this lence was out.” the law would be carried Ac- solemn promise men the colored affidavits of two white to cording petitioners were con- testimony on whose witnesses since the last decision petitioners victed, produced the Commit- mentioned, hereafter by calling colored witnesses good promise tee made and tortured until whipped them would having wanted, among them the two relied being say what guilt. may petitioners’ be, However on to prove organized men was on October jury white grand it is and, alleged, of the Committee Seven with one fight blacks, to posse organized of a many with morning the 29th indictment was on the it, and November were brought returned. On lawyer that a appointed informed certain Court, into on trial placed and were before white their counsel being systematically excluded both jury —blacks juries. The Court and neighborhood were grand petit that threatened the with adverse crowd most thronged anyone to consequences interfering dangerous result. The counsel did venture demand desired venue, to change challenge juryman delay or He no preliminary had had ask trials. con- separate accused, with the called witnesses sultation could have been although they produced, did defence the defendants the stand. The trial lasted not put *4 three-quarters of hour and in than five about less jury brought a verdict of guilty minutes murder- to the degree. According allegations first in the a there was chance for the petitioners never affidavits juryman could have acquitted; voted for an in Phillips and continued to live if acquittal County and Opinion of the Court. TJ.S. any prisoner by by chance had been any acquitted jury a he not escaped could the mob.

. averments as to the the trial prejudice by which was environed have some corroboration in appeals Governor, later, about a him not year earnestly urging to interfere with One the execution of the petitioners. came from five Seven, members the Committee of stated in addition to what has been heretofore quoted “ that our are the law opinion all citizens of the that take its Another from a of the part should course.” Legion American com- protests against contemplated of the mutation sentence four promise given by leading that a repeats solemn was community guilty if the parties citizens of course, justice and let the law take lynched, A majesty upheld.” done law would be Rotary of the Helena Club attended members meeting in- said, seventy-five leading as it of the representing, Helena, á enterprises passed dustrial and commercial action of the supporting approving resolution The Lions of Helena at Legion post. American Club sixty members said represent attended meeting ,and enterprises industrial commercial leading May In to the same effect. city resolution passed negroes coming a trial of six other year, the same to the Governor the white citi- represented and it was County in all Phillips probability zens and officials It lynched. alleged that would be is negroes those mob and in measure secure spirit appease order to date the Governor fixed the for the of the six the safety 10,1921, at June but that the of the petitioners execution by proceedings Court; pre- we stayed execution before the Chancellor to which we proceedings sume shall advert 309, 335, 237 U. it was Mangum, recog-

In S. Frank v. if in trial fact a dominated of course that nized *5 MOORE v. DEMPSEY. (cid:127) Opinion the Court. the course interference with that there is an actual

mob so law; due from departure process there justice, “ process, no corrective State, if supplying and that the or imprison- of death judgment into execution carries mob domi- by ment based a verdict thus produced liberty of his life nation, the State the accused deprives in accordance of law.” We assume process without due the by supplied with that case that the corrective that Interference may adequate State be so that certainly It is true be allowed. corpus ought not to are not to mere course of a trial mistakes law the if that the way. in that But the case is whole corrected counsel, jury judge is a mask —that and proceeding end an irresistible wave swept public the fatal the Courts correct and that the State failed to passion, in the correction perfection machinery neither wrong, that the trial court and counsel saw nor the possibility of' an immediate way avoiding no other outbreak to the securing peti- can this Court prevent mob rights. their constitutional tioners for a trial In case motion new ground this petition in this was overruled alleged upon exceptions Supreme Court the judgment to the appeal was The Court said Supreme the complaint affirmed. against exclusion of discrimination came jury from the too late way men colored that no fair trial objection could be had in answer-to “ that At circumstances, stated could not say that have been the case necessarily ”; that eminent must to defend the appointed petitioners, was counsel law, jury according correctly had charged, was trial legally On June testimony 8,1921, sufficient. two execution, fixed before date days presented was Chancellor and for habeas injunction against the writ and he issued execution but Court of the petitioners; TERM. 1922. dissenting. S. McReynolds Sutherland, JJ., 261 U. jurisdiction the Chancellor had held States. of the United state be the law might law whatever lan- by suggested present petition perhaps an ap- result would be guage of the Court: What the It inquire.” to a Court we' need plication Federal *6 We September presented to the District Court concerning shall not the corrective say more to it does not seem afforded to the than that to States the United us sufficient Judge to allow when facts for himself escape duty examining We absolutely void. if true make the trial alleged they as admitted to facts have confined statement met, but cannot say they will not demurrer. We Judge District to us unavoidable appears it whether are true and alleged the facts should find whether proceed- the state so far as to leave explained can be ings undisturbed. hearing

Order reversed. The case to stand before Court. District dissenting. Mr. Justice McReynolds, the District judgment We are- asked to overrule the by means of corpus discharging a writ of habeas for the five to electrocution negroes sought escape They were murder of Clinton Lee. Rev. Stats.1 § of Phillips Circuit Court convicted and sentenced writ issued. The Arkansas, before the County, years two supported by affidavits of these for the writ was petition stake, parte lives were at the ex men whose ignorant five had negroes three other who pleaded guilty affidavits of 1“ prisoner shall in no case writ of extend to a The custody jail, authority where he is in or color of the unless States,' committed or is for trial before some of the United court custody thereof; pursuance is in for an act done omitted in or or States; order, process, or of an or of a law of the United decree of thereof; custody or is in judge court or violation of the Constitu treaty subject States; oí, being of the United or of a law tion v. DEMPSEY. Sutherland, JJ., dissenting: McReynolds and penitentiary in the under sen- confined and were then the affidavits of two murder, for the same tences admis- to their according men —low white villains own to narrate the alle- sions. remembered that It.should be statements repeat is but to gations circumstances —the all Considering these sources. upon appli- course of the state courts- cause in the Court held certiorari, etc., District cation here for —the nullity to show prima alleged facts insufficient facie the original judgment. every If man convicted gravity.

The is one of matter may thereafter resort to of crime in a state court that certain by swearing, advised, court as federal tending his trial are true impeach fact to allegations of belief,” thereby his obtain knowledge best way has been added another right review, further prevent -already unfortunately long prompt list to a to enforcement of delays incident punishment. *7 have become a national scandal laws our criminal Wrongly alarm to those who observe. to serious give un- produce will probably very the cause present decide consequences. fortunate 326, Mangum, 309, 325, 327, 329, 237 U. S.

In Frank v. a majority of great after consideration 335, applied should be here. doctrine which the approved I right agree is and wholesome. can not The doctrine the expressed it aside substitute views put to now in that cause. minority the Court the in the Frank opinion might Case be of the Much necessary. if will It suffice emphasis here repeated foreign therein, state,- custody is in domiciled for an citizen a or alleged right, priv- any title, authority, under or omitted done act exemption commission, claimed under or the or ilege, protection, any state, thereof, under color foreign or the order, or sanction depend upon nations; law of validity whereof or unless and effect necessary to prisoner testify.” into bring to court is it

McReynolds Sutherland, JJ., dissenting. 261U. S. to quote a few but paragraphs; fully to understand the whole should be read.

“In dealing with these contentions, we should in mind the nature duty and extent is imposed upon a Federal court on application writ habeas Rev. Under terms of Stat. § in order section, present to to appellant entitle relief it must in sought, appear that he is held custody in violation of Constitution of the United States. Peck, Rogers 425, 434. Moreover, v. 199 U. S. if he is held custody his by reason of conviction a crim- upon inal before charge haying plenary jurisdiction court over subject-matter offense, the place or where it was com- person prisoner, and the it mitted, results from the. that, nature writ itself he cannot have relief on corpus. law, in point habeas Mere errors however serious, committed a criminal court the exercise of jurisdiction subject over a properly case to its cannot cognizance, corpus. be reviewed That employed writ cannot substitute for the writ of error. . . ‘ ’ that, law process required due “As to the is Amendment, perfectly it well settled Fourteenth State, in the courts of a a criminal based prosecution repugnant in itself Federal Constitution, law'not according judicial settled course and conducted by the State, as established law of the so proceedings long notice, hearing, an opportunity includes as it court of heard, competent before jurisdiction, to be modes of procedure, to established is ‘due according ’ sense. . . the constitutional . by counsel conceded *8 therefore, appellant is, It irregularities ease may in the review present we trial, rulings upon serious, erroneous the however and that corpus the lie in only writ of will judgment case the the prisoner under which is detained is to be shown abso- 95 v. DEMPSEY. JJ., Sutherland, dissenting. McReynolds and pro- in the court that of jurisdiction for want lutely void at absent jurisdiction was such because it, either nounced the lost in course of it was the or because beginning . . . proceedings. “ in- to confine erroneous clearly But it would trial court. judgment of to the quiry proceedings from de- (as will Georgia appear of The of the State laws in criminal for an appeal cited), provide cisions elsewhere divers upon of that State cases it is here those which such as including grounds, jurisdic- lacking trial court was asserted tion. ... where, here, as consequence that logical a It as follows through all proceeded has criminal prosecution appellate as well as the State, including courts review cannot be appellate the result of the court, trial for his re prisoner applies when afterwards ignored Federal rights ground deprivation lease on the jurisdiction of its to proceed oust the State sufficient to him. This is not a mere against execution judgment to be The rule comity, supposed. matter of seems out plane, a much it arises higher stands upon very ground inquiry proceed nature and into tribunals, closely upon state touches ings and the governments. between state Federal relations parte Roy all, this court Ex As was declared in a habeas applying S. case U. what was 252— Heyman, 176, 182, v. U. S. said Covell case jurisdiction: forbearance conflict of which courts —‘ jurisdiction, single sys coordinate administered under a other, each towards tem, whereby exercise conflicts are avoiding interference with avoided, by the process of each other, comity, principle is perhaps higher the utility than sanction comes from concord; but courts and those of between state the United States it is It more. something principle of right and law, *9 96 1922.

McReynoIds Sutherland, JJ., dissenting. 261 U. S. In and, necessity.’ And therefore, Tyler, see re Peti- , tioner, 149 U. . S. . agree We of that if a course trial is fact dominated jury mob, so'that is intimidated and the trial judge yields, so that there actual is an interference with the justice, course of there in that is, court, a depar- ture from due of law in the process proper sense of that term. if State, And supplying corrective process, carries into execution a judgment of death or imprison- ment based verdict thus produced mob domina- tion, deprives the State accused his life or liberty without due law. “ But the may supply such corrective process as to it proper. Georgia seems has adopted familiar pro- cedure of motion for a new followed an appeal trial Court, Supreme confined to the mere record of at going large, conviction but and upon evidence adduced record, outside of that into the question whether justice have processes of been interfered with in the trial Repeated court. are reported verdicts and instances: for set aside and new trials judgments granted disorder or interfering right with the prisoner’s mob violence to a fair State, Georgia 76(5), 97 Myers 99; trial. v. Collier v. 803.” State, Georgia, some detail what was presented

Let us consider the court below. complete record of the cause

There was state showing no irregularity. courts —trial — arraigned the defendants After indictment trial appointed to defend them. and eminent counsel He cross- witnesses, made exceptions and evidently examined complete a full and preserve careful to transcript .The trial unusually short proceedings. but there record to indicate that it nothing was illegally 3, 1919, hastened. November jury returned verdict “of guilty;” November llUTthe defendants were sen- v. DEMPSEY. dissenting. Sutherland, JJ., McReynolds and 20th December 27th; December to be executed tenced moved friends or their them chosen new counsel of de- by affidavits the motion supported trial and new testified who declared negroes other and two fendants questioned motion This of torture. falsely because *10 now very grounds of the conviction validity domination, failure of mob prejudice, torture, advanced — It is thus summarized interests, etc. protect to counsel appellants— by counsel were the state in the motion grounds urged defendants, the fact that against feeling public subjected to frequently and witnesses were defendants them admissions extracting from purpose for the torture against defendants; testify them and to make guilt to consult with their no opportunity were they given that charge informed of the assistance, or and seek friends indictment; they that were until after them against having courtroom without been jail to the from carried attorney any with an or other or talk to see permitted defense; that the court appointed to their in regard person consulting them, without or for the counsel defendants employ their own counsel; opportunity an them giving was such that feeling they could public the state that proceeded the trial jury; that without their a fair any or witnesses, their counsel or being consulting witnesses; they to obtain that opportunity were given were entirely ignorant in court before of what never that themselves; to defend the trial do they could occupied end three-fourths of an hour beginning returned from three to six verdict minutes. say they the defendants never Four of had a copy of upon them, served one had it only indictment forty- the trial. hours before eight was that ground under practice

“Another only in the State white men were summoned prevailed 50947° —23-7 TERM, 1922. Sutherland, JJ., dissenting.

McReynolds U. S. this dis- jury, and that jury or the grand to sit on rights of their deprived were defendants crimination they States; United the Constitution should steps they what knowledge had no>notice the verdict trial; point raise this before take to and evidence. contrary to the law Alf affidavits, one of two motion are attached “To'this Wordlaw who testified of William Banks, Jr., and another in the electric they whipped, placed were fact that in their noses to by something put strangled chair and did not suffer testify. These defendants them make did not witnesses, these from what was done to confirm the testi- trial, but their affidavits at their testify treatment to which as to the of the others mony exposed.” confinement Negroes denied, an having appeal granted A been new trial sixty days Court and allowed to the State 22, March exceptions; appeal bill of preparing by briefs; March 29th the *11 orally and court argued was the proceedings reviewed and opinion, announced State, 143 Hicks v. Ark. A judgment. affirmed 19th rehearing presented April was and over- 26th. April ruled for certiorari filed this Court May 24,

A petition Jn in proceedings courts, the record state 1920, with very ground^ of complaint in detail now set forth October 5th, It denied October presented before us. 11th, 1920. Governor directed 1921, the execution 29,

April Chancery 10th. June 8th the on June Court defendants granted corpus; them a writ of County habeas of Pulaski Court 20th the held that on June Chancery jurisdiction lacked and fur prohibited Martineau, State v. 14 ther Ark. 237. proceedings. justice of this Court 4th a denied writ of August error. fixed September the Governor 23rd for execu- Thereupon, MOORE v. DEMPSEY. McReynolds Sutherland, JJ., dissenting. On September present corpus pro-

tion. 21st the in began, and then the matter has been ceeding since courts. during September, 1919, bloody

It con- appears took between whites blacks in place Phillips flicts County, Many negroes Arkansas —“The Elaine Riot.” killed. A and some whites were committee of seven in operations white men was chosen to direct prominent in- insurrection and putting down the so-called conduct discovering with a view of vestigation punishing statement, certainly published This committee guilty. 7th, about October wherein stated intemperate, of a race of children” “ignorance superstition gain by swindler, black told played to attack the whites. all organization urged per- of an It black, or in of information possession sons white in discovering responsible assist those for the insur- might it, upon to confer rection, understanding safety would be for the public action and informant’s such I carefully safeguarded. find in identity nothing which counsels lawlessness indicates statement more effort men upstanding an honest to meet than grave situation. October, 1920, year

It is true that almost a after consideration, trial here under American Legion post approximately at three hundred white ex-service Helena — Governor against men —made commutation protest copied margin of the sentences. It is as printed Rotary The Helena Club, the record.1 November 1“ RESOLUTION. brought has attention It been of the Richard L. Kitchens *12 Post, 31, Legion, Helena, Arkansas, American No. that the Governor

' contemplating commuting negroes, the sentence of four of the who participation are now under death sentences for their in the Elaine we, Riot, sentences, to lesser and Post, members of this feel that any action toward this end the Governor would do more harm in dissenting.

McReynolds Sutherland, JJ., and 261 U. S. and the this 1920, expressed emphatic approval protest, not took like action. These resolutions are Lions Club theory certainly not establish violent and do November, 1919—a be- year conviction defendants’ utterly void; as the empty nor, form and fore —was an community disregard con- lawlessness, and breed well as as authority, members stituted as at the time of race riot the Spur protect go Hoop this Post called to to were to and Elaine property, compliance and were request, life and in with this there Legion seriously injured, two American killed members and one perished, besides the other who and when the non-members also guilty negroes apprehended, promise given were solemn leading community, guilty parties citizens were that if these lynched, justice course, and let the law take its would be majesty upheld. done law negroes death, “ twelve now sentence of but whose suspended are six of procedure, sentences of court —account negro cases Supreme these have—taken to Court of the United States, which cases, court declined six whose to review. The other original given trials were them, reversed and new trials were con- victed, and appealed their cases Court of the attorneys their permitted own selection were to handle their cases.

“ Now therefore be it resolved this Post assembled on this the day October, 1920, 19th earnestly protest against that we most any commutation of the sentences of negroes these twelve con- of murder victed in the Elaine riot of October having proven received fair trial guilty, leniency and the and — court was shown in the tried, balance the eases being these ring guilty murderers, leaders and and that law and order will be promise kept. vindicated and a solemn “Be it further resolved that a committee appointed of four be by the Post Commander. hereby This Committee is empowered to represent this Post conference, at a or several conferences, with the may Governor of steps Arkansas to take such deem necessary carry out the wishes of this resolution leaving nothing undone to have these sentences carried out. This com- report mittee in full to the meeting next of this Post. unanimously Passed 8:30 M. P. October 19,1920, basement of the Episcopal Church, Helena, Arkansas.” *13 101 DEMPSEY. v. dissenting;. Sutherland, JJ., MeReynolds and conclu- further and they do recklessly alleges, petition prevailing spirit of the mob- the existence sively show time at County of Phillips people all the white among through were put and the other defendants petitioners mob reason the only and show that form of trials lynched not were they reason stayed hand, only made community of the leading that citizens executed they should to the mob that promise solemn in the form of law.” reversed twice

The Court of committing with negroes charged conviction of other The 1919. September, murder the disorders of during very day upon first came down on the opinion held the affirmed, and judgment against petitioners could entered judgment be' verdict so defective that the trial a reversal because it. The second directed hear evidence on the motion set had refused to court State, jury. Banks v. regular panel petit aside the State, 146 The Supreme v. Ark. 321. 154; Ark. Ware considered the claims court, well as the trial Court, as forth trusted counsel the motion set for cer- This Court denied petition a new trial. and circumstances now relied wherein the facts tiorari detail. Years have great passed set out with upon were crime. Cer they convicted an atrocious since rushed the death chair; been towards tainly -im long delay there has been and some contrary on the over result is not unnatural. recent patience England thirty days of assassins within execution crime, striking affords a contrast. I am things him, all those before unable to say With Judge, local acquainted conditions, the District he held the when the writ of habeas erred His duty insufficient. was to consider the whole there appeared and decide whether to be substantial case proceedings. reason for further

Syllabus. 261 IT.S. Under the disclosed circumstances I agree cannot adjudications solemn by courts of a great State, which this Court has refused to review, can be im- successfully peached by the- parte mere ex affidavits made upon infor- mation and belief of ignorant joined convicts by two white confessedly atrocious criminals. The fact pe- men — titioners are *14 poor ignorant and black naturally arouses but sympathy; that does not release us from en- forcing principles which are essential to the orderly oper- our system. ation of federal I say am authorized to that Mr. Justice Sutherland concurs this dissent.

DIAZ, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, ETC., ET AL. v. CAR

LOTA AND CLEMENTINA GONZALEZ Y LUGO, ET ETC., AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST CIRCUIT. Argued January 24, No. February 263. 1923. Decided 19, 1923. parent 1. Bower to authorize a to sell the interest of a minor child Rico, in land in Porto is not limited the Porto Rican Civil Code, 1907, 229 as amended in to the District Court of the § property may District in which the is situated, Judicial but exercised, 1904, by 76 and 77 of the Code of Civ. Proc. §§ parte application court of another District to which the ex is sub- mitted. P. 103. interpretation property, law An which has become a rule of ac-

2. cepted by practise community, of a should not be disturbed certainly wrong. unless P. 105. deference is due from this Court to the views of local mat- Peculiar which, Rico, courts like the courts of Porto in-

ters taken brought up system been a different of law to that herited and P. 105. prevails here. Fed. reversed.