Show A jurisdictional QUESTION the tribune recently contained an article contributed in which it was sought to lo be shown that justices of the peace in this territory have DO authority or juried lotion as committing mag it iterates strates la iu cases arising under the laws of the united 8 ates ales why they have no DO such is not stated mention or of the fact that the organic act and subsequent eube quent legislation give them no such power la is made but that proves nothing such enactments do not dot withhold such euch power and the presumption therefore remains that they hold bold all the authority that justices of the pence peace usually hold bold except wherein they are expressly curtailed thereof no jaw law specifically defines their jurisdiction to say eay that if an offender against the laws of the states is brought before at a justice of the peace and required to give a bond for his ble appearance elsewhere if indicted will riot not he be bi binding dd ing is ia not only to state an absurd ity but to go contrary to established facts there have been several cases in this territory wherein such authority has been exercised the last one that occurs to us being that of john eckart for counterfeiting the defend ant being brought before justice george D at the city hall hah and by him hold held to answer tu to the grand jury rod and the question of jurisdiction was never thought of this was some four years ago if the justices ever had bad power which they did both af aa a matter of fact and of jaw they hold it still because Jt lt has not been taken away the only mention of them in feuce connection in any congressional enactment of late years is to make united states commissioners equal to them as committing magistrates under territorial laws by the poland bill and making the commissioners equal tu them in all respects by the ed munds tucker act there Is and can be no question as to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace as preliminary judges in soy kind of criminal case national or local ave where either is specially committed by law or irule rule to some particular functionary aud none such are under discussion even it if they obtain at all in this territory it follows that as a question judge judd is right and his critic is wrong as a matter of policy he is right and his critic is wrong because if justices of the peace do not do their duty and the people near him do not strengthen his hie hands bands the grand jury or a commissioner can still act sod the odium will be on those responsible for the dereliction |