of December an application was made to the chief justice of said supreme court for a writ of certiorari to review the death warrant issued by the governor, and that the same was refused, and an appeal from said refusal and a hearing therein was denied, contrary to and in violation of said Constitutions. And petitioner alleged that by the action of said jus-nated, by reason of the interposition of the tices of the supreme court of the state in refusing him relief in the premises he had been deprived of his rights as a citizen of the United States and the protection of its laws, and in like manner deprived of his liberty and is about to be deprived of his life. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that he might be forthwith brought before the circuit court by virtue of the writ of habeas corpus and be discharged from custody. The circuit judge to whom the petition was presented, upon consideration thereof and the 699] matters therein set forth, refused to is sue the writ; whereupon an appeal from the order denying the application was allowed. Mr. John L. Semple for appellant. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court: 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 15. Sentence was passed October 13, and a reprieve for thirty days was granted December 4, 1894. Appel lant contends that the word "conviction" relates to the verdict of the jury and not to the 866 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 desig 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 dispo sition 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 [36:986]; Er parte Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436 [34: 519]; Caldwell v. Teras, 137 U. S. 692 [34:816]: Ex parte Converse, 137 U. S. 624 [34: 796]; McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645 [37: 882]. Moreover, the order from which the appeal was taken was not a final decision of [700 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. Stat. §§ 763, 764; Act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat at L. 437, chap. 353); Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87 [30: 882]; Ex parte Lennon, 150 U. S. 393 [37: 1120]; McKnight v, James, ante, p. 310. Appeal dismissed. 157 U. S. END OF REPORTED CASES IN VOL. 157. |