| OCR Text |
Show I THE BAKER HABEAS CORPCS 1 CASK. This cisc cimj up before j:dgo Boreoian yestenhy. Mr. George C.Uate?,fjr t'te peop'e, opened the case with a lenxthy argu-mont.in argu-mont.in which he said ihat the returns to the writ .-.owed tha ihi rector, L'hire3 W. Ijakur, hsd been convicted by the probate court fur tic crime of robbery; and he Ind been Knierxxd to ihe penitentiary ot Utah. The sole ground on which his re".oae was aked was that tbe prelate court had no jurisdiction jur-isdiction of the offen-e or person oi'the derendant; that it had no criuiiul jurisdiction whatever; and that (he Territorial legislature could not confer that power upon the baij court. Id opposition to that groucd he contended, con-tended, First that there was nothing in the organic act of this Territory which prohibits the 'lenuorial legislature legisla-ture from adding to the ordinary jurisdiction juris-diction of a probate court any other powers not in contradiction to the organic acu fcieeaad that the statute of January I'j, li-i5, pigo Jl of the laws ot Utah, in do way contravened the organic act, because that act did not purport to conler criminal jurisdiction jurisdic-tion on aDy of the courtd of Utah, and did not confer that jurisdiction upon aoyofthe courts. Here Mr; Bates read a number of authorities to sustain sus-tain the position taken, and said that from all of them it wiuld be seen tLt coDrcaS had neverl Delbro conierred crimina, jurisdiction upDn any of the courts in the Territories; but had left the matter solely with the local legielatures. tec-lion tec-lion 0. of the organic law. did not limit the jurisdiction of any otic of tho courts, in any particular; nor did it define what their jurisdiction should be, except to say that they "shall possess pos-sess auch jurisdiction as is limited by law," which clearly meant the local law, and not the law of congress, nor tho organic act. sSo where in tho organic act was criminal jurisdiction defined or prescribed; hut in 102 congress con-gress had, by special provision, con-fered con-fered criminal jurisdiction on the district courts of the Territory of Utah. Third The act of Utah, passed January IH, 1655, was as binding as if made by oongress itself. The governor and legislative assembly bad lull authority to paas it, the organie act having in no way provided pro-vided for the punishment of criminals in any court, and congress had approved ap-proved it as much as if it had been passed by that hudy. "Silence givie consent." Here tha speaker aga n read a number of decisions of the supreme sup-reme and other court.", to sustain tie position. He concluded his argument by sayiDg he found tbo result to b; simply this: First Uodcr the organic act of , Utah, there was no montionof criminal ' jurisdiction having been given to any court. Second The provisions confirming common law jurisdiction could not in-olude in-olude criminal jurisdiction, ai there was no common law criminal jurisdiction in the United States. Third The organic act, not intending intend-ing to confer criminal jurisdiction on the courts, the Territorial legislature was fully authorized to do 60, on aDy of tho courts that it might choose. Fourth Tho local legislature had eonlurred this jurisdiction on the probate pro-bate oourts, and oungress approved and ratified it by njt disapproving it. During tbe course of Mr. Bates' argument, ar-gument, he alluded, with a great deal of pride, to Michigan, and its contest with tho United States, when it lorced tho government to receive it into the Union. In a gentlemanly manner he told tho court that he, (Mr. Bates) had carefully studied the decision which the justice had given in the O'Neal habeas ha-beas corpus case, but if the decision was in accordance with law. then the decision iu tho Kngelbrccht case was not. Ho spoke of the neces-ity of having intelligent and honest judges in tho Territories, and said that were it in his power ho would triplo tho salary of his honor, aod thus put him above templalion. lie closed by reviewing re-viewing the character of tho prisoner Bilker, and implored tho court, that should ho discharge the prisoner from the custody of tho waracn, ho would etill hold him in confinement, and not turn him loose to again prey upon the General Maxwell, for the prisoner, followed with a t-hort speech; which wa? entirely taken up in abuse of the Territorial legislature, with scarcely a referonco to tho case at bar. Tho decision will bo given this afternoon after-noon at 2 p. hi. |
