UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

Although the brief alleges that certain federal questions were duly raised in the state court and so disposed of as to sustain the jurisdiction of this Court, if those questions are wholly without merit, or foreclosed by previous decisions of this Court, the writ of error will be dismissed, and held that rulings of the state court in a criminal case in regard to change of venue, admission of evidence, and form of indictment were not subject to review in this Court and afforded no basis for holding that plaintiff in error was not awarded due process of law.

Article V of Amendments to the Constitution does not operate as a restriction on the powers of the state, but solely upon the federal government. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172.

Under the laws of Missouri, the right of accused to the endorsement of names of witnesses on the indictment does not rest on the common law, but on state statute, and whether the provisions have been complied with is not a federal question, and the decision of the state court is not open to revision here.

The question of citizenship is immaterial as affecting the jurisdiction of this Court under § 709, Rev.Stat. As a general rule, aliens are subject to the law of the territory where the crime is committed.

No treaty gives to subjects of Great Britain any different measure of justice than that secured to citizens of this country.

Writ of error to review, 95 S.W. Rep. 235, dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.