Show telegraphic tELEGRAPH 10 NEWS NEW washington oct 27 about one mr tucker opened the argument in support odthe of the petition for a writ of error in the case of the chicago anarchists he said it was waa not necessary fur him to show as a condition precedent to the granting of the writ that the action complained of in the cobit below was as actually nant to or in violat violation ioa of the constitution it was only necessary to show that i conflict had arisen if there asi is a conf conflict liet then this court HAS jurisdiction and if it hafs jurisdiction then the pe titio ners are entitled to a writ as of right the policy of this court be raid bad ad been known to deal liberally with petitions for writs of error in civil cases how more should it deal literally line rally with a beti petition tion for fora a writ of error in a criminal case involving toe issue of life and death in a case where life was waa about to be taken away in violation violat ioB of the cont constitution proceeding Proceed inK then to the merits of the case tucker said it was not necessary that a law jaw of a state should be absolutely and on its face unconstitutional in order to give this court jurisdiction of tile case cam under it if the law seemingly fair and lust just on its ita lace face should have put upon it by the STATE COURT a construction contrary to the conati that was enough eatough to give this court jurisdiction then reviewed the history of the fourteenth amendment and aid taid t L although it was originally intended to guarantee particularly the rights of the enfranchised blacks there was no BO reason why white citizens should not en joy y the benefits of its provisions tucker quoted the f oui amend ment and ana discussed the meaning of the words due process of law and said although it had been held by thid ibid court that trial wi bout indictment by a grand jury might be by due process of law and might be perfectly constitutional tut tat ional it never having been held or intimated that trial by a petit jury could be dispensed with it seemed he said to be everywhere conceded that due process of law required trial by a jury of ONES PEERS PEEKS it is essential that the jury should be unbiased unprejudiced and iw impartial partial and that it should not be a class jury tucker tucke then asserted the jury ia law w of illinois was unconstitutional in that it provided anat vie the forming of an opinion from reports or from newspaper fcc counts ot certain transactions should not necessarily disqualify aya a person having suca opinion from sitting in judgment I 1 of that trank transaction action asa as a juror even altu although ough the law might seem to be e fair and just if by its construction and it were made to deny to prisoners the right of trial by a fair aud and impartial jury then suca BUCO a construction and administration constituted law and made it unconstitutional the construction given to the law in m this case WAS AS DIFFERENT from the construction given to it in a large number of cases in the same sam state estate he then referred to the objection made by the defense at the trial to the butiu s of the court in the matter ot of challenges refusal ot of toe court on the motion for a new trial to hear evidence going to te chow aho that the bailiff had said tuat mat the men he had selected for the panel would be certain to hang and to various othur other rulings and the decision of the trial court which had the eff effect act of denying to tile the prisoners boners a fair trial by au an impartial jury turning then to another question raised by the case which tie lie said was a new one in this court he quoted the second clause of the fourteenth AMENDMENT to the effect that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of ake united states among the privileges and immunities thus granted by the fourteenth amendment were he be contended those set forth in the first ten amendments to the federal constitution it has been maintained maintain td he said that bat these first ten amendments to the constitution were limitations of the federal power only but it was his belief that ewess the privileges stud and immunities were specially said to be merely limitations ot oi trie federal power they were privileges and immunities which came within the ae purview of the lourte ento amendment and were guaranteed by it chief justice wake waite taen you yon would bring ALL QUESTIONS to this court I 1 cannot conceive of any question which cannot be brought here if the fourteenth makes the privileges and immune ties to which it refers include all those of the first ten amendments tucker Tucke raid aid taid t he would admit it was a new question but he should like to argue eit it now I 1 make the assertion tucker that the right to be from unreasonable searches and seizures the right of freedom of speech the right of the citizen against self accusation and the right t of the not to be twice tried by a jury are secured to him by virtue of the constitution of the united states so the fourteenth fourteen tb omen amendment dment in and says no state shall shall make or enforce any law which abridges the rights or privileges of citizens turning to the action and rulings 0 of I 1 the TRIAL COURT mr tucker said the defense were driven to peremptory challenges in order to exclude jurors who should have been exempt for cause and thereby there was a limitation of the right of peremptory challenge which this court has held beldaio lo 10 be one of the highest privileges of the prisoner the last four jurors said mr tucker were put upon us after our peremptory challenges bad been exhausted in one case juror deuker we objected distinctly upon the ground that the ruling of the court was in violation of the constitution tucker anen tnt n referred to the seizure of the letters private papers etc and their use as evidence and said this was a violation of the fourth amendment in conclusion tucker said we have the right in my judgment to a WRIT OF ERROR to be heard on the question whether the constitution has been violated in order to compass the conviction of these men it is true they are said to be anarchists but they are men and entitled to the same protection as I 1 am I 1 know of no anarchy abroad in thy the aad which the american need fear except anarchy in the administration of justice I 1 pray the court will therefore award this writ for if I 1 do not mistake there are evidences in the whole record chich will demand a reversal of the judgment ATTORNEY GENERAL HUNT then addressed the court in behalf of the state and in dp opposition position to the motion tor for a writ of error to warr warrant arlt the issuance of the writ he be said it must appear f from rom the record I 1 first thal tha there is a federal question involved and 8 cond that such a question was raised and decided in the state court he was not as well informed as tie be would like to be in regard to the exact points upon which bounsel Zo counsel for the petitioners petition ers relied in the first part ot of his bis argument mr tucker planted himself squarely upon the rights which belonged to his bis client sunder the fourteenth amendment but in the latter part he CHANGED HIS GROUND GROUND slightly and insisted that the first ten were declarations of individual rights and then that they were all comprised in the provisions of the fourteenth amendment toe ane attorney general opposed this view and said so far as the rely upon anything thing contained in those amendments aney can have no standing in anis court the fourteenth amendment is equally foreign to any right privilege or immunity here claimed by the petitioners petition ers the record will show that the coT complaint plaint is not that the state made or is enforcing a law jaw anich deprives the petitioners petition ers of any adv of toe privileges or immunities by that section out that they are deprived dep alved of their rights by an aa erroneous construction ot of the law placed upon it by the trial court of ane state THE PETITION petitioners ERS did not claim in the supreme court of the state that the illinois act of 1871 was repugnant to tile the constitution treaties or taws laws of the united states nor that the authority of toe me court was exercised under it but that the act was c constitutional and valid and that the court exercised Us its power in violation ot that law the petitioners petition ers were tried in the courts of the state under the laws ot of the tae state and that constitutes due process of law it is not material that this or another court might have ruled differently under the law due process of law means the law of the land mr hunt then cited the case of prosser vs va tho tb state of illinois le ie garding the militia laws of the state this decision fore closes and BARS OUT the contention of counsel that the rights contemplated in the language of we the first ten amendments were included in the tourte fourteenth ent h amendment and especially extended guarantees and immunities to citizens of the united states altor icy ey general hunt hun then turned his bis attention to I 1 the lis co constitutional D provision that no state gaall deny to any person the equal protection oi 01 ane laws and privileges and immunities contemplated oy by the amendment ment were those for whose e enforcement 12 congress had provided by subsequent legislation aud and having havig acted congress uon gress has exhausted the subject until it camoes to TAKE IT UP AGAIN turning to the composition of the jury in tiie cie trial court te tae actor attorney fiey general said he be did not see how the personnel of the jury woo who tried the petitioners petition ers in this case could properly be submitted to the court or condid ered by it in the present proceedings this inquiry muad must be made as to the me constitutionality of f the jury law oi of the state of illinois and not as to how the state court may have construed that law the record showed he be relieved believed that on the challen challenge gelof of one juror the suggestion was made by one of the be counsel for the prisoners that there was a provision in thi th i constitution oi of illinois as well as in the constitution of 0 taa baited united states guaranteeing to every person a trial by an IMPARTIAL JURY the person at whose challenge was made did not finally sit on the jury that tried the case he would submit that in order to give the parties a standing in ID court coart the suggestion or 01 objection must nave have been made with regard to a juror who actually tried the ibe case or that by reason ot of the exi ha of their peremptory challenges the petitioners petition ers were here compelled to accept an incompetent juror and were thereby irreparably cla ciana waged aged this question was never raised with regard to any juror who actually did sit sic on that case chief justice was it no not ral raised in sanfords San fords case I 1 think thick it to is shown in the memorandum which we have thit it was raised AS TO SANFORD mr grinnell interrupting 1 if the court please the me m is not a fair transcript tian script of the record after some colloquy the chief jas justice alee I 1 directed tuat all parts of the record delatin relating 9 to the question thus raised should be and submitted toche court tomorrow trow attorney general hunt resuming once more referred to the fact that the jury law of illinois was not at tacked by counsel on the other side in the state supreme court they stated there he be said they did not think it necessary to attack tile the constitution acty of the law because it way may be given a construction which would make it objectionable mr mi hunt believed it to be well settled and dished that this court will not review a decision of the barreme court of a state as to the construction to be given to its own causti B and ITS OWN LAWS he then spoke for some time of the jury law which lie he said had bad been the common law all over the united states state and always the laws were substantially the same as those of new york michigan arkansas Colora colorado doand and nebraska the recent changes in the jury laws of the states had for their purpose and object the procurement of a better and a more intelligent class of men as jurors Is it possible the attorney general asked that the states are to be so bound by the federal constitution that they cannot change their jury laws in accor accordance accordia daa e with the changing cond inous of their social and political life he hoped the court would maturely consider the far reaching consequences of the construction str st which the petitioners petition ers de aired to have given to the fourteenth AMENDMENT As to the alleged unreasonable search and seizure mr hunt said lie he would like to know how a criminal instrument of acri a criminal could be legally taken from him lie he knew of no process by which it could e done if toey they were his own the question for the court however was not how wa the possession of these things obtained but rather what do they prove the attorney general cited the recent case of ker brought back from south america without extradition the co u rt held that the qi q was not how diel did you got gat here but are you yon guilty 11 the attorney ati orney general then took up the case of the prisoners fielden and spies he said lie he understood it would be urged by counsel on the other side that they BEING foreigners fielden an englishman and spies a german were protected by treaties between the united states and their respective spec tive governments that they shou d have immunity because the treaties provided that citizens of england and Geri germany taDy living in the U united cited states should have all toe the rig rights litsi and privileges guaranteed by the law jaw to citizens of the united states at the time the treaties were ratified chief justice in what respect ct is it said that this violates the citizenship of great britain general butler they were to have all the privileges of americans at the dale dae of the treaties and among those privileges we contend was a trial by jury under the laws then in force no law could be passed to CHANGE THEIR CONDITION under the organic law the highest of all laws attorney general hunt replied that if this were so then the prisoners without being citizens were privileged privilege a persons above the law of the state which they set at de defiance tiance ar ac this point the hour for adjournment arrived and furth r argument was postponed until tomorrow to morrow CHICAGO oct 27 the news mews macon 9 georgia special davs yesterday was confederacy day in macon everywhere throughout the city the erate nags flags were flying and an every everybody body wore it a dozen dozea badges on his breast indicative dica tive of love tor for JEFFERSON DAVIS A special especial feature of the occasion was the review of the confederate veterans b by their old president the process ston sion was to have marched by davis in review but when the procession was opposite davis the veterans broke rank and swarmed about their chief the police endeavored to keep them bal back k but they shouted all the police of georgia could not prevent us from shaking hands with jeff davis the enthusiasm reached a climax when some one handed a confederate battle flag to davis who grasped the tatters of the flag and pressed them to his lips the air was full of such expressions as god ged bless jeff davis I 1 god bless the flag 1 and the entire multitude was in tears mrs davis and children kissed the fhe flag and with each kiss sive FIVE THOUSAND huzzar went up when the flag was handed banded back to the multitude the men snatched all ibe available tatters and pressed them warmly to their lips pretty soon davis arose and said eaid Frien friends db and brothers I 1 am like that ald flag tattered and lurn uy oy storm and |