The Court then subsequently considered the application for leave to file the petition and denied it for want of making a prima facie showing of a substantial issue as required under the procedure and otherwise failing to fall within its requirements.

The appellants then filed the petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, as discussed in the editorial, which was denied without opinion on May 8.

This date, the State Supreme Court again considered the case, upon a new application to file in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting other alleged errors at the trial, holding that the petition was not cognizable as it did not raise matters extraneous to the record of the original trial, instead only presenting matters which had been adjudicated during the course of the trial, thus not in order under coram nobis procedure.

Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court did grant a petition for writ of certiorari, decided in 1953, following denial in Federal District Court of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, based on the same grounds raised in the State Supreme Court in the first petition for writ of error coram nobis, the allegation of a coerced confession and systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury panel. A previous evidentiary hearing, ordered pursuant to the Federal habeas corpus petition, conducted in the trial court on these issues, had determined that they had no merit. The Supreme Court held 6 to 3, designating the Daniels case "No. 20" in the opinion, that the lack of timely appeal precluded habeas corpus relief as it could not substitute for the direct appeal, once it was terminated under North Carolina appellate procedure.

Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas dissented, and Justice Felix Frankfurter, joined by the other two dissenters, filed a second dissent, finding that there was ample evidence in the record adduced below to show that there had been systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury venire in Pitt County where the case was tried, in contravention of Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Sixth Amendment. The dissents provide considerably more detail on the failure to serve the original direct appeal timely than the other opinions in the matter. They found it anomalous that the majority provided a second review of two companion cases provided an appeal by the North Carolina Supreme Court on this issue and denied review in the Daniels case where the State had heard no appeal. They found the majority to have bound the writ of habeas corpus within artificially rigid constraints, thereby working to ignore the denial to petitioners of a fair trial, and would have reversed.

The Daniels brothers were executed on November 6, 1953.

It is unlikely that such a scenario could repeat under modern rules of procedure, allowing for several methods of service on appeal, including electronic service, and providing for habeas corpus proceedings for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel if a direct appeal were terminated by fault of the appellate attorney. Typically, jurisdictions in modern times provide liberal extensions of time when sought for filing appellate briefs in criminal cases, though failure to file timely notice of appeal may act jurisdictionally to terminate the appeal. North Carolina has a mine field of procedures for filing appeals, requiring settlement of the trial record at the initiation of the appellant, and byzantine intricacies too numerous to name, threatening to deny due process, if not doing so in fact, certainly not comporting with the streamlined, straightforward methods of other states, such as California, which only require, within a certain time after receipt of the completed record from the trial court, filing and service of an appellant's opening brief, both in civil and criminal appeals, there being no necessity for the appellant to prepare a preliminary statement of issues and proposed record, as under Appellate Rules 9 and 11 in North Carolina, with particular inclusions required, absent strict compliance with which an appeal will be dismissed.

This result in the Daniels case took place in the same time period when Monroe Medlin was executed, December 9, 1949, without any meaningful appeal, following his murder conviction in Charlotte for the killing of Mrs. E. O. Anderson in the Myers Park neighborhood the prior August 1. In that instance, the appellate counsel sent to the Supreme Court a no-issue brief, outrageous in a capital case or any felony case following a trial, requiring the Court to undertake its own review of the record for error, which obviously would have been necessarily, for the press of time, cursory. The Court found no error, and Mr. Medlin was executed for a killing he committed, but under circumstances which may have saved him from the death penalty, via imperfect self-defense, had he been represented by competent counsel.

Perhaps, that appellate attorney and the appellate attorney originally representing the Daniels brothers should have been executed at one time along with or in lieu of their clients, to make the point. The Daniels brothers did not receive any meaningful appeal, less so than even did Mr. Medlin, even if the State Supreme Court did in March, 1950 indicate in the Daniels case that it had performed a review of the record and found no error and the Federal District Court did later order the evidentiary hearing before the trial court on the issues of the coerced confession and systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury pool. For, based on the dissenting opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court might have reversed in the Daniels case because of systematic exclusion had it not been for the fact, as determined by the majority, that the failure properly to perfect the State appeal had cut off the availability of habeas corpus relief on issues which could have been raised on appeal.

Mr. Pearson notes that Mr. Combs had run against Congressman Martin Dies of HUAC in 1944 and won.

It was well known that General Eisenhower was the favorite of many Republicans for the nomination for the presidency in 1952. Such wealthy wielders of influence in the party as Tom Watson of IBM were behind him. The General, however, had long sought to keep his political affiliation secret. His original registration as a young man in Kansas before going to West Point was as a Democrat. But he had stopped his wife, Mamie, from registering with a party the previous year.

Senator Ed Johnson of Colorado argued that too much economizing was bad for popular government, that the Government existed to serve the people, not to be an agent of economy. He argued that the Government was not as a private business and that the argument consistently accepted by the people that it ought to be so run ignored the basic principles of government. He urged that the American people had to understand the kind of cake hidden under the "pretty frosting" of economy, essentially a dictatorship run on principles of efficiency.

Congresswoman Frances Bolton of Ohio arranged for a publicity photo of Republican guests gathered to listen to the retort of Senator Taft to the President's recent Chicago speech. But when the radio was turned on, Robert Nathan of CIO was heard praising the President's cross-country whistle-stop tour. Mr. Pearson suggests that it was lucky it was not a sound picture.

The President had campaigned for Senator Wayne Morse, at the request of the Senator, when he passed through Oregon, at Baker.

RNC chairman Guy Gabrielson was not pleased with the publicity which Vic Johnston, hired by Senator Owen Brewster, had attracted while shadowing the President to make sure his non-political tour, partially at taxpayer expense, was not overly political.

Robert C. Ruark tells of having made $12 per week in Washington in 1936 and been able comfortably to live on it. He was able to buy a full multi-course meal for 75 cents at Mr. Livera's, including three-quarters of a pint of Dago Red and dessert plus coffee. A dime tip was considered generous. In 1938, he could get a very nice meal for 45 cents in a quiet subterranean restaurant. He had even owned a house and driven a Dodge coupe.