OCR Text |
Show PUBLIC POLICY VERSUS LAW Id tho caso of IfaHkins m. Wall et u'., in the third diHtrict oourt, yesterday, yester-day, his honor, tbo chief juntioe ol Utah, rendered a di-cisioo which, to b)Oak mildly, htartlt-d and antoninhed the bar and that portico of tho public convemaut with law. Mr. . M. Smith had challenged the array of the jurors fur reanoDd fliven in yentcrday luominK's Ukkalo, but which it will be neeeartury hero to briefly repeat. The flrrtt waa that tho panel waa oot IfKilly filled, tho law rcauiririK the oounty courts id tho sevoral counties, at (he Grat HCMaion of such courts id each year, "and at aueb Bubdcqucot se sioD, or other timo as a neglect bo to do at naid first Bonsion, or as other eircum-otanccs eircum-otanccs may rjejuiro," to "make, from tho assessment roll of tho county, a list contaiuing tho names of at least fifty men, residents of tho county, eligiblo to Borve as jurorh;" which the county courts had ncglcetcd to do, the last lint for this county having been mado December fkh, 1871, while in tho other counties no Tuts havo been mado in three yoarp. Tho second reason wan that J. D. T, McAllister was not the officer of court, a judgment judg-ment of ouster having boon rendered against him in tho third district court, byjudgo Wilson, whioh was subsequently subse-quently confirmed by tho supreme oourt of tho Territory, and has novel been reversed. A third reason was, that the oourt had not apportioned appor-tioned tho jurors, but that an opci vonire had boon issued. Other reason! sustaining tho challenge wore involvcc in those given, and offered to th court; but tho principal ones are thost unvoting tho legality ot tho panel and the status of tho Territorial marshal. Tho decision of tho oourt was, that tho points wero, well taken, and, consequently, that tho jury was neither legally drawn nor Bummoned by the proper oflicor; yot the challenge was ovorrulcd on thi ground of ''publio policy." In othor words, the oourt hold that tho jury was not a lawful jury, yet ho recognized it as a matter of publio polcy. Wo need not pause to oonsidcr where this decision would load, nor how uttorly usolosa aro tho labors of legislatures if oven a court has power to sot a-ido tho law in such vital mat tors on tho scoro of czped -onoy. The next thing that naturally, natu-rally, in law, should follow this, will bo a motion to set asido tho verdict for the jury returned avordiot under instructions from the oourt, al though Mr.Suikb dcolincd introducing testimony, resting upon his challenge that was at onoo sustained and overruled over-ruled because it is void having been ronderod by an illegal Jury, and it is not olear how the court, without tho plainest stultification, can refuse to grant the u.otion, which would nullify a1 1 tho proceedings had in tho oaso. Wo havojnouher deairo nor intention inten-tion this morning to indulgo in harsh or aorid strictures on tho painful matter, mat-ter, for it is painful to oontomplato,and fraught with most serious consequences to every business interest in tho Territory. Terri-tory. If thero can bo any reasons advanced ad-vanced why tho county courts oan bo exonerated for the alleged neglect, an intorostcd publio will bo pleased to havo thorn; and if any sufficient grounds can bo shown why the tuprcmo court of the Territory did not mako an order to rescind its decision on tho matter mat-ter of tho Territorial marshalship, previously instruoting tho attorney genoral of tho Territory of his duty in Ih ) matter, tho publio will bo equally gratified to see them. Tho supremo court of tho United States doclares tho United States marshal is not tho exocutivo officer of court in cases arising under the local laws, and that the Territorial legislature has power tolegislato in the niattor. That legislature has provided, in a Territorial Territo-rial marshal, for tho necassary officer; and it is tho duty of the supremo court of this Territory to observe not merely tho letter but tho spirit of the decision of the supremo tribunal of the country, whoso fiat is final, in regard to this contested point. This could have been done by tho Territorial supremo bench, anl tho court below could havo been B) notified. But ai it i?, through tho alleged a 'gligouco of tin county courts, aud tho still worso negligeoco of tho supremo su-premo court of the Territory, wo are to-day, according to the decision of yesterday, without a legal trial jury and without a legal executive officer of court; and yet his honor accepts both for "publio policy." With all due respect, wo beg to say that wo would not give a cent a gross for verdicte rendered by such a jury if the panel be void as decided by the court, as the court itself, by its own pcouliar logic, would be compelled to nullify and declare de-clare void every judgment thua rendered. ren-dered. A void panel would create an illegal jury, and its verdicts must of necessity ba null and void. Wo may, in closing, say that there remain points yet to bo considertd other than we havo reviewed. |