THOMAS ?. IOWA. ? U. 8. ' Opinion o? the Qmr?. �o? Iowa in and for Polk County denied to'this plaintiff in error the right of trial by jury, in that the Court, by said instructions, determined the degree of the crime of murder of which the jury should find the defendant guilty, if at all, whereas, by the com- mon law and by the express statute of Iowa, the degree of the offense is a matter for the jury to determine, thereby in effect deprived the plaintiff in error of h/a Abetry w//lmut//w ?roce? o]/?w. "That upon the trial and hearing of the case in the Supreme Court of Iowa the parties, respectively, to wit, The State of Iowa, and also the defendant and appellant, Charles Thomas, by their respective counsel, submitted arguments, both in print and orally, wherein they discussed the question aforesaid, and all others arising upon the record." The Federal question, if it can be found in the record at all, must be found in this statement. It is too late to raise it for the first time in the petition for writ of error from this court or in the assignments of error here. Hairev. Rice, 204 U.S. 291. All that appears in the statement is that exceptions were taken to certain parts of the charge to the jury, because they "in effect deprived the plaintiff in error of his liberty without due process of law"; and that the question thus raised was discussed before the Supreme Court of the State. But somethin�re than this vague and inferential suggestion of a right under the Constitution of the United States must be pre?e. nted to the state courts to give us the limited authority to renew their judgments, which exists under the Constitution and is regu- lated by �9 of the Revised Statutes. A mere claim in the �court below, that there has been a denial of due process of law, does not of itself raise a Federal question with sufficient dis- tinctnes? to give us jurisdiction to consider whether there has been a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Consti- tution. See Clar? v. McDad?, 165 U.S. 168, 172; M/?' v. Com?d? Ra?!ro?/Com?mny, 168 U.S. 131, 134; Hard{?g v. Illin, 196 U.S. 78, 88. Writ o!
�
