| Show AN inconsistent RULING THE chief justice of Ari arizona if the dispatches received are am correct has bae made a singular ruling perhaps when the full account of the matter before him is if published it will explain the reasons fur for his opinion he decides that the laws of congress in relation to polygamy and unlawful cohabitation relate to all the territories and places over which the united states have jurisdiction except the district of columbia I 1 the edmunds act of 1882 states stated distinctly that its provisions in reference to the two offenses named are for I 1 a territory or other place over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction the edmunds tucker act of 1887 is declared by its title to be an amendment to the act of 1862 which also relates to a territory of the united states or other place pla ceover over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction parts of each of these them statutes relate specially to utah but in every section of this kind the territory of utah to specifically mentioned if the clauses in the edmunds tucker act not specially applicable to utah do not include the district of columbia then they do not include the territory of arizona if there is apart a part of this country over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction without doubt and beyond controversy tro verey versy it ic to is the district of colum bla bia the constitution of the united states settles this and while the exclusive jurisdiction 1 and absolute sovereignty of the united states over the territories have to be inferred from other provisions in that instrument section eight in express terms confers that authority upon the congress over the district we have named therefore if the laws passed upon by the arizona chief justice apply to any other place than utah they take in the district of columbia such parts of them as do not relate to that district do not apply to arizona we are aware that a court in the district decided that the edmundo edmu adb tucker act does mot apply to that district but that does not fleet affect our argument if the judge had simply decided that the disputed clauses were in force in arizona without making reference to the district of columbia he might possibly have been right but in exempting the latter and including the former he was clearly and inconsistently wrong |
