2?0 OCTOBER TF.,KM? 1907. Argument for De[endant in Ern?. 209 U. 8. procedure, as hased thereon, the plaintiff in error has been deprived of a f?ir and impartial hearing, due proce? of law gbe equal protection of the laws a? guaranteed by the Cormtitu- tion of the United 8rates and the constitution of Iowa. Mr. Char/es W. Lgon, with whom Mr. H. W. Biters, Attorney General of ghe 8rate of Iowa, and Mr. E. B. Eua?,,s were on t? brief, for defendant in error: The Supreme Court of the United 8tat?s will not review on writ of error the judgment or deer? of the highest court of 8rate in reapeeg to the cqnatmefion of it? own constitution and lawe in a controversy not involving any Federal question, when the dee'mion turned upon the conaPruction, no? the validity, of a state law, and the question of validity was not rai?d. Neither will it inquire in? the grounch and rea?na upon whim the Supreme Cour? of a 8gate proceeded in ira construction of the statute and constitution of that State. Commercial Bank at 227; McBride v. Hoeg, 11 PeG. 167; Wat?s v. Washington, 91U. 8. 58?. The iustruetion? given were warranted by �28 of the Code, deft'ting murder in the first degree. That being true, whatevex objection plaintiff in error makes against the in?truetion? would neee?afily apply to the statute in question. ? statute wa? in effect held by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Iowa in the ease at bar, not to have been in contravention of t?m pro- vidon? of the state constitution. It is nowhere ?et out in the bill of exeeption? thaf the e3aarge of the court was againnt and in conflict with the Constitution or laws of ghe United State$, and even though ?ueh allegation did appear in the record in this ease, it would not be aufiiaiont for the reason that 8ueh an allegation would be too indefinite t? determine wha? elau? in the Constitution, or what law of Congre? may have been relied upon. The attention of the court must have been called to the par- tieular elau?e or elau?e? of the Coaafitution upon which phin-
�
