| Show AUTHORITY AND civin CIVIL JUMS jurisdiction DICTION tue THE change of policy in regard tb the trial ardd arid punishment of lawless oid old liers is nade arade n ade the occasion of an at sl 1 alto to adata create ill lii feeling between the military authorities at fort douglas ana gna the municipal authorities of this itsu this Is a revival of the old tac tack av J fco we wc do not think they will be there has been no real between the city officials and ahe the officers at the fonti fortl mutual re speet skeet lids has been the rule and here inere nere has been but little uttie misunderstanding it is not true that any imputation has beep been made that general mccook has committed an injustice la in the course he has taken concerning arrested soldiers we have heard no such charge and do not think there is any ground lor it the facts are these UA ruling of the supreme court ot of the territory which has not been tested in a higher court has decided that muni nuni cipal ordinances are not laws of the tho land in the ine lne meaning anin of the fifty ninth article of war and chat that therefore the military y and not atlie the city authorities have the right ite to try and punish soldiers who violate the ordinances of the city notwithstanding this the general has not interfered with the city authorities i in ax resting arresting and punishing disorderly until in lii the recent case ease of Quil livai and sheridan and then not until he was led to believe that lint necessary violence had been used toward them by th the thu police we are satisfied sati bati sned that gen mccook mc me cook lis ild and has his been sincere in his expressed desire to cooperate co operate with the police ilo iio florce rep reg 1 I 1 it Is to nis als interest to preserve order and discipline among the men ili in mis command and he knows that and inebriety out of the caulp calip camp are liable to lead to matlou and disorder within the camp we uve mid no fault with the general for arrested soldiers hold lers to be turned oven over tover by the city to the military author anthor atias itis ills it Is in accordance the rulof mii ang aug the highest court in this thi terri terni aw i it is there therefore fore gle tho law u un 11 itil set aside by another ruling ol 01 the same court or of the court of euf last resort we think wrong but the general Is nott tor lor that and on de mand adad ut of the isilita military ry autho antho titles the kiclty cloyis cl tyis lyls is not legally justified in reta retaining inin I 1 i soldiers ers erd in custody aa IA there Is no conflict on this point lawless soldiers may be arrested by the police as before the people are ure mot allot to be left a prey to the violence of disorderly men man simply because they the uniform in of uncle sam but such offenders are placed in jail I 1 by blithe brithe the p police 0 lic e t the commander at the bort wort is t to 0 b be e notified and furnished i with the names of witnesses against them that he ile may proceed to them according to tue ruling all ail the diff difference eiph cd mathat the offending soldiers will by a court martial instead of b by the city J ustice notice V under uden uder the articles ot of war the penalties must be the saleam same in both instances we are of the opinion that they are not likely to be e less leess rigidly inflicted under a milf rollf ita idan iuan iau ian by the decision 0 of mm sicily lacity li City cily lt inagi magistrate strate v AV wu a believe that the intent of the law of the united states Is clearly to place e unruly soldiers in peace under of tiiu tile civit cill law jaw they lart ure are 1 not pot ot then to 10 be tried by the military it Is only uny ony in time of war that they are to td b be tried by court martial and then H conly only for sor g rave of fences the arrieh article of war var that provIde provides 3 for ahi othis athis i dri ala mia 8 fu time of war 81 0 ai 0 oil ori rebellion T larceny robbery 1 ars ary aroni aron inay luay hem hein it jer fer I 1 murder as assault sault anti antl battery N with ith izu isu jihu wounding shooting by teun wit 1 l an intent to commit i burder mope rope or assault and battery wila wita ati aa all intent to commit rape shall shail be by the sentence of a general gereral ge ueral court when committed rs guIn la the military service tbt M the 01 united ti tates lates and the punish ment mentI in nany any such case hali hail hall not be less than thin the punishment provided for the lie the laws of the state territory ryon or 41 district strict in ia which such f offense may have hare been committed W what does this imply why any lakai lawyer klawier la wyer wier br and any atly person with a reason 1 voll vill recognize the principle that aa ariti 1 it W only in time of war that I 1 punishment for these of fences Is to be inflicted under military itry authority a af other othen times the jurisdiction of bf the civil powe powen r prevails lads laas ay Is expressly provided in article efty nine nino which we havee have previously given iven to our readers that the language of the latter article is not nov to be M nned eted oad in the mhd narrow sense in lil which it ft warn was construe by the supreme court nor ox rot ahli this territory tinder under the notoriously erroneous mckean N ac administration Is evident when the article Is carefully read L it provides that an officer or of soldier wilb is accused of 0 a capital crime or any offense aga against ast the per ddn or property of any cl citizen izen aich Is punishable by the laws lano 0 of hd S ue be deil deli delivered vered verea over to the he civil mag istrate Js and abd military omm off meers officers are re Dired tp aid the he officers of justice in A reben 0 and tand bringing him to tr talai opa any any ady offense offence which Is unis anis ble bie by the laws of 0 the land gingg thel diff tiff din soldier in time of of peace pace uail una erthe the jurisdiction of the civil are ane not drunkenness assault dissault jis ass AsA ault auit cotou conduct and those d disorderly d act af w which ill lit e it a few men tron from the ehm eim corf are re tre ine frequently q bently guilty 4 of fences i punishable 1 hf shabie bythe laws of tm tuti tanar land and ana Is not the Jil justice tria P the the city adi agi strate and Is it not clear that these points being granted the city court has jurisdiction except la in ume time ot of war vyan but it Is objected that municipal ordinances din diu ances are not laws of the land what are they then in au ordinance is defined in law and in philology as 1 I legislative isla tive tl it statute a law a decree ordinances are laws in a certain sense A municipal ordinance is only operative ti within municipal bounds bul but til lil it is usually a law of the thu land adopted for municipal purposes ses aes it is so in this city the city city ordinances are conformable to the territorial statutes ile he who violates them violates the laws of the territory ile he may be tried under either if a soldier commits a breach of tile the peace he violates the law of the territory and thus commits an offense offence punishable by the laws of the land even admitting the strained construction of the ruling that now obtains what is to be done under these circumstances cu cum stances instances according to the fifty ninth article of war he is to be turned over to the I 1 civil magistrate 91 there is no authority in ili the law by which he can be tried under military authority except in rinie lime of war this being fl a time of peace he must be tried by the tile civil magistrate and the military authorities thorit ties les are required od on pain of belm helm being dismissed from froni the service to aid in delivering him over and brinin brin bringing in him to trial the justice at the city alty hall hail not oaly only a police mug mig magistrate Istrate but bat a justice of the peace ii under den der the laws of the territory which it is not disputed are lassof the land then if the technical construction of the supreme court is to be followed the soldier in custody must be tried under the laws of the territory by the civil magistrate and cannot be lawfully tried under the articles of war by court martial The these seare geare are the plain and inevitably inevitable conclusions to be arrived at by examination of the articles of war the muddle that has been brought about Is the fault of a judiciary elary ciary with an antl antt 11 mormon 11 ormon mission the determination to thwart everything su supposed tee tre to be mormon mori hori noa non so biased the judges under the mckean administration that the most roost egregious errors were committed and the tho supreme court of the united states 1 on appeal set many of the rulings of that period aside this ruling was never if it had been it would doubt less have met the fate of others it is is in direct opposition to the genius and intent of the law concerning the military and civil powers interferes with the administration of regulations designed for the protection of citizens and anil virtually sets a lawless soldier in in ft city free from punishment or subjects him hirm to trial and punishment without color of law for the power of the military omm off meers officers to try him for civil offenses only prevails in time of war it alsin is an absurd ruling with vicious consequences but neither the municipal authorities of salt lake city nor the commanding off licer at fort don dong las is responsible for it and yet vet iti it is a question worthy the attention 7 of both branches of the public service whether after all it would not be bette better to be governed by the law and if lit the municipal ordinances are not to be considered laws of the land to punish unruly and lawless soldiers under the territorial statutes and thus comply the prevalent bulling rul rui ling and at the same time do no violence to the articles of war |
