OCR Text |
Show A LITTLE LAW FOR HIS HONOR. . "We rise to explain," by way of offering of-fering a little law or what was considered con-sidered law a few days ajro to his Honor, Judge McKcan. The Judge has evidently been largely consulting authorities lately, but in his anxiety to sustain one portion, he has passed over, or overlooked, some of them which had he studied with care might have changed the tenor of his late "opinions'" somewhat. In his la-t "opinion," ruliug or decision he labor; hard to prove that tue common law u: England was extended over all the colonies, col-onies, and subsequently became the common law of the United States, and extending over all the Territories thereof; and that the District Courts and the SupreoieCourt of this Territory, Terri-tory, having common law and chancery jurisdiction, have all the powers necessary ne-cessary to deal with all cases arising under un-der the common law. In support cf these positions ho cites numerous standard stan-dard authorities. But, per contra, as high authority - as the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the United States Courts have not jurisdiction in cases arising at criminal commoa. Jaw, it being necessary that there should Le statutory enactment meeting the case. In the cise of the United States vs. Hudson & Goodman see 7 Cranch 32 to 34 the position is laid down that "The Legislative Authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense !" This was a case decided de-cided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1812, and that de cision has been repeatedly continued by the same body. What a pity the had not known the soundness of the principle laid down by Judge McKean! For hs holds the exact reverse, and so sets forth in his late "opinion" or sermon ser-mon on naturalisation and po'ygamy. We can aocommodate the Judge with a few other of these authorities ; but, of course, his decision will reudei I them obsolete. ' Referring to polygamy a3 a crime at common law, we may refer to Bishop's . criminal law he was an authority last week 2d ed., vol. 1, sec. 379, which contains this peculiar statement Rrobably Judge McKean's eye didn't did-n't lijht on it: "Polygamy was not an offense in the temporal courts nntil the Statute of James the First (Jac. 1) made it Rich when committed "within his Mije.-ty's dominions of England and Wales ;" to that in this country f i he Lotted States), its criminalit rests only on the acts of the several State Legislatures." As this is directly the reverse of Judge McKean's decision, there bcinp no shadow of chance to reconcile the two, we can only again repeat that it is a pity Bishop had not known of the learned Judge's opinion, when he might have altered the text to suit the peculiar de?ires of the iudiciarv of Utah. We haven't pace this morning for any more law. Probably this will be enough for one occasion. spoken plainly before, to prevent, if possible the serious difficulties that might arise. Human nature is strODg all over the world, in Utah as well as in other places, and men who have labored la-bored for years to make laud valuable, valu-able, by improv'.-g and tilling if, are not likely to yield it up quietly to the first person who may choose to set aide their claims on a legal quibble, and one uusanctified by law or justice. We cgain urge upon the people everywhere every-where throughout . the Territory to learn positively just where they stand on the matter of titles to their land; and if there is any doubt ou their minds let them consult some competent legal authority immediately. ' 1 |