Lambert v. Barrett (157 U.S. 697)/Opinion of the Court

by Melville Fuller

United States Supreme Court

157 U.S. 697

Lambert  v.  Barrett

This appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The constitution of New Jersey provides that the governor shall have power 'to grant reprieves to extend until the expiration of a time not exceeding ninety days, after conviction.' Const. N. J. art. 5, § 9. The verdict was returned June 15th. Sentence was passed October 13th, and a reprieve for 30 days was granted December 4, 1894. Appellant contends that the word 'conviction' relates to the verdict of the jury, and not to the sentence of the court, and that, therefore, the governor had no power to grant the reprieve, nor subsequently to issue the warrant of execution. But the contention that petitioner cannot be made to pay the penalty for the crime of which he was adjudged guilty, because he was not executed at the time originally designated, by reason of the interposition of the governor at his instance, which petitioner alleges was, as matter of construction of the state constitution, unauthorized, was not sustained by the chief justice of the state nor by the associate justice of its supreme court, to whom, severally, he applied, and their action is not open to review here. With the disposition of state questions by the appropriate state authorities, it is not the province of this court to interfere, and there is no basis for the suggestion of any violation of the constitution of the United States; the denial of due process of law; or deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States. Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314, 13 Sup. Ct. 105; In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 Sup. Ct. 930; Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 11 Sup. Ct. 224; In re Converse, 137 U.S. 624, 11 Sup. Ct. 191; McNulty v. California, 149 U.S. 645, 13 Sup. Ct. 959.

Moreover, the order from which the appeal was taken was not a final decision of the circuit court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, but was an order of the circuit judge at chambers, and an appeal from such an order will not lie. Rev. St. §§ 763, 764; Act March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 437, c. 353); Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U.S. 87, 7 Sup. Ct. 825; Ex parte Lennon, 150 U.S. 393, 14 Sup. Ct. 123; McKnight v. James, 155 U.S. 685, 15 Sup. Ct. 248.

Appeal dismissed.

Notes