OCR Text |
Show AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION ; As the powers of the Legislature of this Territory, the validity of our City Charter, and other nutters relative rela-tive thereto are subjects of consider- j able discussion at present, and occupy i a portion of the attention of the District Dis-trict Court, the following ruling, iu-volving iu-volving some of the same points, made by Chief Justice Titus will be of interest. inter-est. As a man Judge Titus was very bigoted, with strong prejudices, and never was favorably disposed towards the citizens of this Territory; as a judge he was governed by law, and his rulings were according to it, however how-ever much his prejudices might conflict con-flict with them. The present ruling was published in the Dtscret 2iacs of October 24th, 1SG5, from a written copy furnished by Chief Justice Titus: This is an act of ejectment, instituted institu-ted July 21st, 1 SCO, by J. King Robinson, Rob-inson, against James S. Brown, Henry Arnold and John Fraser, for a lot of land described in the cotiajilaint. situate without the limits of Great Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah. On the 23d of August, 1S6G, the above named defendants disclaimed all interest inter-est in the land described iu the complaint, com-plaint, averred their occupancy under Great Salt Lake City, and declined to defend. Whereupon Great Salt Lake City by its Chief Officer and Attorneys asked and was received to defend the case as parties of record. On the 21st of September, I860, the said City by its attorneys, Stout, Snow, Pawling and Kendall, filed its answer denying the material avermentsof the complaint as filed in the case, averring its lawful occupation of the premises, and on the 25th of the same iionth the plaintiff filed his replication denyiug the legal existence of the defendant as a corporation. The legal defect lodged in the plaintiff's plain-tiff's replication is, that the Acts of the Legislature of the Territory Ter-ritory of Utah, for lSo'J-OO, containing the charter of the defendant, were never submitted to the President and Congress of the United States, as re- quired by tho '.'A and Oth Sections of the Organic Act of the Territory of Utah. In proof of this assertion, the Jour- nal of the House of Representatives of the United States for 1SG0-61, was produced, which appeared to contain, on inspection, no minute of the receipt by shut house of the laws of Utah for JS59-G0. It was insisted on behalf of the plaintiff that the tr.tnsnii-.ion of the laws of Utah to the President and both hou.-es of Congress, was al-bitly essential es-sential to their' validity, that the want of their submi.-sion to the House of Representatives as thus shown by its journal, voided the Charier of the defendant, Great Salt Lake Citj, which was one of the laws not thussubinitted, left the said City without any corporate existence or capacity to defend the case, and that judgment ought, therefore, there-fore, to be rendered for the plaintiff in tho present case. The paramount question thus presented pre-sented lor solution may be stated : follows: Is the transmission .f a law of Utah to the President t tid Con- gress of the United States any part of its essence? And this question may be resolved into two others, as follows: Is the Legislative power of the Territory Ter-ritory of Utah adequate to complete legislation'.' Is that, which results from an exercise of this power, without any further or other legislative action, a law? The fourth section of the Organic Act of Utah, provides among otb?r things: "That the legislative power and authority of the said Territory, shall be vested in the Governor and Legislative Assembly." The sixth section of the same Act also provides anions other things: "That the Legislative Legis-lative power if the same Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this Act." To the exercise of this power there are a. few special limitations in reference to the primary disposal of the soil, taxation taxa-tion of the lands of non-residents, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme and lhstnct Courts The Conero-u.iial pran: cit' .-o!. ltd power to the Leg:.-.--!-tureni'i tab. as thus appear by its statem ;r. i.- complete and limited only bv tli J tiduf.ilness of the subject, j nJ t'-tv .. my r which is thus diminished dimin-ished In-'the abstraction of bat t-w suhvts i- fiitiroly complete over a, 1 which rei.. rued. . n A -t of the Le.-..s.:rure ; '' requin no farther or ot!-r cvt- ' ' power to m.-k it v..: 1 in l-:n .;r.? , Over (uir 'lerrit 'ii:i! A-:s 'he 1 ' :"; r.u G.-iv.-r- .u.T.t :--.' ; ri' '';''"' Us ri-of .iisii ; ! .v:. . In ti e . -ga::ie A .1 of rv;-y detr"- "it ;. ,et a re.or.si-.e ', c s-u. . !-:-! ;rrr to tr-.'isii.ir or s .. :. U ;,,:ive A.:- efl. s 'I'--.- -71'"-" v u:..r, oinn.-e,-,: i.U-i . I ,..n. i;v th- ( r r the 1 lov- -:.t ' '' ' i S.-.-.s i. " : ; liver ( .. - 1 " -. . ry.,,, ..i; : ,-v s:i . . : - - A - and pr ' - CoRgress. however, under our present Constitution, by its "Act" of August 7, 17s9. '"to provide lor the government" govern-ment" of the ame Territory made it obligatory oa ;he Governor thereof "to give such information d1 to make such eon.imunioanon to the President of the Limed States, as was required ! to le given and made under the Ordi- nance of lTsT." it was then as it now is the duty of the President under Art. 2, Sec. S. of the Constitution of the Lnited States, to give to the Congress any material information in his possession posses-sion regarding the Territories as well as other subjects of public interest. Territorial laws were thus transmitted indirectly to Congress through the President direct. For many years Territorial lawj were made transmissible to the President Presi-dent alone. By the Act of ls3o organizing or-ganizing the Territory of Wisconsin, however, one copy of its laws was required re-quired to be sent to the President, and two copies to the Speaker cf the House of Representatives of the Lnited States, for the use of Congress, on or before the first of Decern be.- iu each year. Such remained the practice under the Territorial Organic Acts, till the Act of Congress, passed Aug. 14, lS-'S, for the Territorial government of Oregon. Ore-gon. By that and all Organic Territorial Territo-rial Acts since, OLe copy of the laws of each Territory is required to be transmitted trans-mitted to the President, two copies to the President of the Senate, and two copies to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the L nited States, on or before the first of December in each year. After these Territorial laws are thus transmitted to the executive and legislative legis-lative branches of the Federal Government, Govern-ment, no further or other legislative action is required to give them validity. valid-ity. They result full-formed and operative ope-rative from the action of the Territorial Legislatures, and only "if" by Congress Con-gress "disipproved (they) obstll be null aud of no effect." It was tor some time contended that this formula of d;?approval made some positie act or recognition of Congress necessary to give validity to these Territorial Ter-ritorial Laws. Even yet there seems to be a vague impression that these laws possess only a qualified validity or efficiency until some positive action by the Federal Government itself. By no rule of legal construction, however, was ever such conclusion jus tified. Tho Organic Act of the Territory Terri-tory of Utah declares concerning its laws that "if disapproved (they) shall be null and of no effect." l)isniprond and annulment are here the equivalents. equiva-lents. In legal eonsti uetion, as in a mathematical axiom, if the same or ' equivalent expressions be added to the '-ame cr equivalents, the result will be equivalent. If therefore we ad l the expression mt to each member ol the equivalent expression thus employed in the Organic Act of Utah, we have this resultim: equivalent, "and if" not "ii.s- Uproved shall" not "Lc nu,l aa do 'ti'tct." This expression thus resolved shows with demonstrative certainty, that no action is reiuired by Congress to give validity to a t rritorial law of Utah. Precedent concurs with construction to the same conclusion. American Insurance In-surance Co. v. Canter L Peters 520 ; The United States r. The Miners' Bank of Dubuque, 12 Howard 1. Territorial laws have an initial and temporary but complete operation lie-i'ure lie-i'ure they reach the President and Congress, Con-gress, and afterwards till if ever disapproved. dis-approved. Such has always been their practical effect, sustained as it thus is by construction and precedent. Territorial Terri-torial laws, therefore, result fii!l-f .ruied and complete from the legislation ol tne Territories Transmission of a law of L t ih to the President and Congress is there-lore there-lore a mere external requisite, and not an internal or constituent element ol the law it-elli One thing is never essential es-sential to any other thing, unless it is inherent in, and by sueh inherence make its nature wholly or partly what it is. Ksseiieo is some necessary quality qual-ity of the thin.' in which it inhere-, which being eliminated from the thim;, by sueh elimination makes it some-thin" some-thin" different in its nature from what it was. It may l- ad Jed that the i -I senee of any iriven thing te-ver io-uiij-' such diver-ities of lorui and mae-tu- tude as has this trim-iiiis-ion ot the law.-', flhe Territoro-s. to d;:h i.-t,t de-j de-j .art -ii- nts ..t'tl.e l e h ral I lo e; mie nt, by il.:T-.-r--iit territorial olii -cr-. : d .!-1,7 .!-1,7 nt :me- u:i 1- r ti.e'.r van 1 r-zatiio r-zatiio Laws. Tran-uii--i m o! a I . i , h t v Prc-ident and Con-.-..-- i.- to a t oi i "'h I- n-el.ln- ne.ro ,-,..r: tr-'i ; t . i th:-: -..!:,::.. "' "!' !" ' !' i .j ,, i.v :h v rr.e-r.ai c in ;.- : u"'..'-f j'.,.-.- jlo' ... 4 U w.rl A;.! tt. - - : I . .- : e tr.e - ; t ,r i 1 o : ' . : - " ' ' : 1 ' ' ";"V: . ,' V ;: ' i notice to all: for the Presid-r.t would I cjrnmiinieiie the requisite iufomiatin j of this territorial legislation to Con- I gress, in the absence of any other j channel, and either House ol Congress, i upon notice of anything in this territorial terri-torial legislation, demanding rev:::: cation, ca-tion, would eomnranica;e it to the other, and ultimately to the President himself, in the thrm of a rcu'edi.-.l bill for their join: action. It was pre: ably for this reason that partial notice, to the President alone for instance, was deemed sufficient in j the earlier territorial organizations. It is not necessary to say what would be the legal consequence, of omitting altogether to transmit tho laws of the Territory of L tah to the President or either House of C tigress Such is not the ease presented. The allegation and the evidence are that no entry is found in the House journals cf IsOJ-t' l, of the receipt or submission of the Utah laws for lso'J 60, which contain .he charter of the defendant. The presumption is that public officers do their duty, whatever that is: Martin v. Mot:, 'l Peters, 3.5. Ties presumption exists in regard to the transmission of the laws of Utah to the President and Senate Sen-ate either and much more both of which would satisfy the requisites ot our Organic Act. by informing the Federal Government what 'hose laws were and v. hat if anything needed rectification. It is impossible to say that this presumption is overcome by showing the failure as in the present case of only one branch of a triple notice, no-tice, when from anything that appears either or both the other branches or means of notice, might have succeeded and been effectual. The rule , of relative probabilities, ftirt ins pre.tiiijtioiifn i sve cmtii pi ' trm, does not he anaitist the Terruoiy of LTtah, for the Secretary, who rt'anv one, must heve caused the lailure ot notice to the Federal Government, by his omi-sion to transmit the laws et Utah, was not of territorial appointment appoint-ment or control. The presumptions of law and the probabilities of the case, combine in the controlling conclusion, that Congress Con-gress directly or indirectly did receive the laws of Utah for IS.V.t-GO, containing contain-ing the charter of the defendant, Great Salt Lake City, by means of the copy required by the Organic Act of the Territory to be sent to the President, Pres-ident, or by means of the two copies required by the same act. to be sent to the Senate of the L'nitcd States. It is doubtless true that the law, when once determined, is to be enforced en-forced without regard to e.iii-e,iienees n the question presente I, however, in which the law is more or less ut t-i r-eumst r-eumst ant 'til ascertainment, the dainao which mi-iht result from leavim: a C.ty such lis GretU Salt Lake, ti led with a poptiiat'un mill e or less di-eoidant. j without a Charter for its restraint, may and ought to b-' serioUs'y considered. consid-ered. Consequences ti e always to be r.'imr.lo.l in ileterilnllil 11 what the law is. These consequential con-iderat ions, it has been mainiainedbyseme.il the ablest jurists, are the v.-iy foundation of equitable jurisirudon :o. and of that large' class of eases, which re-t upon ' lie maxim couniiintis error j'lut jus. 1 be laws of prescription aud limitation ow their sanction in a great measure, to a consideration of the injurious consequences, conse-quences, which would arise from denying deny-ing their operative existence. I am therefore unable to declare the Charter ol' Great Sail Lake City null and void, because there is no merit mil in the House journal of W, -.- CI, of the Utah Legislative Acts for Is.V.l Cn, when such ( 'barter was enacted. Several subordinate and reunite questions ques-tions were presented in the pr';ut ease. The disposition, however, w Inch is thus made of this immediate and paramount one, renders th ur con id. r-atioti r-atioti not only unnecessary but stiperor-oeaiorv. stiperor-oeaiorv. The contrary to the core ho imi tins announced was urm-d (or the rlamtOi, by his t'ollll-el, with i. united iibll.ly and i ti'-igv. 1 am constrained, howeV, r, to .v. r rule tic j lamtt'l s r-ph' a'cm an I r-quire r-quire ),iui n take i--u- 1:1 tl " j res. nt ca-.'. Upon i'- merit-.. This f, lioori 1- thus si, ).!,;". III w ririfi. that 1' may b- r I an I re.-' ill- d by a h.cb' r t: .! ontil, if ''.-rie. ''.-rie. nis. o(lilB Jlkc C. niaiaii. N..:l,,i,7 I k- (,-n,-t:ar 1 ii- r r it, . it a -..w than (- .'.'' " I '1 I,, r ar- ,, ,, j ,. " ) r. ' ale-, v i --trAM.p. t-a-ep. t:-.n I . V y i,.,--' ;,r cf.l V.- e .o ; . i- ' ,..t; ,k art,- ... ly !.. h " '' ' ' la - i ' v V ,M " I S - 7 e, 1 'v i ; n " I !' e'-" , I'V. r'-.-e. r. poo i -.' . A' a a I r . .? i.-.i ''" ' e ,. ; . ;; 1 It.M 1 0 tl e; I I " i " i'. ,-" v t ' .. . i. . k-- '-X ' .... t, (' ..-I. be rJ '-V ' .', I-."" '' . : ' ' I : - l 1 - ... r , . ... . - ' i 1 i ; 'I'''- ' |