| Show 7 A TH jurisdiction QUESTION TU z receil recent decicio dec isio du n of 0 the COWL of f the 66 united states declaring that they have nave I 1 no ilo jurisdiction in cases of Ud unlawful lawful appealed from the utah courts was re recognized n everywhere as sweeping in its ts i e ctr and as a movement which people of this Terr territory itry iu in a vea very position V 5 the anti anili mormon I 1 I 1 claps da openly rejoiced at ibe the failure of the appeal because it left the ibe cormons mormons Mor Morn mons igns I 1 at the mercy of which have no mercy in such cases they made merry the fact that no judicial power could review the extreme and unprecedented rulings of courts awo avowedly antagonistic to 0 the faith and sentiments ot of the be cl class of people thus deprived of redress the very ground of Is an argument the decision of the higher court I 1 tae cormons mormons Moa Mor mons and those abo while e opposed to their creed desire that no injustice may be done to its adherents viewed the de elsion with great rest regret and tw that the gigher higher court shirked an I 1 important n I 1 duty they considered that a advantage d vantage was taken unnecessarily of a tbt sibea ni caUty to t agvald the he responsibility which rested upon that 1 court sound la lawyers ra gen generally r ly concede that it if a ruling had ha been ejen given upon u ahe fA merits emerita of the case s the course of the lower e courts ts must have been condemned botti both on oa the he question of segred segregation stion and of constructive co the arguments these thes points we expect to td present lJ resent d tour our readers as soon as possible in full alie they were made by ceorge tic ticknor no CC curtis u and fra franklin in S ri richards ha and will lal be found in most at tho thorough a anacon ad con ca dolve the only way to escape esca PC from i vas avenue the court and that this was not strictly a legitimate brenin bp opening enin but rather an evasion aha a 1190 swill appear very clearly when eat the is corr correctly c I 1 understood after te the case had beep de p submitted ed his hi honor r tae 8 chief 41 justice addressed a communication com ni aaion f to mr r curtis who has a national reputation as 1 a PO pons tut ional li lawyer wyer asking h his s views on this question of jurisdiction that gentleman replied in a pointed letter from which we will make a few extracts mr curtis commences by stating statin g that though not connected with the cannon case before the court last year he listened to the argument of mr F S richards alq was strongly strongly impressed with his bearing and his is alai ability lity and that gentleman havi having ing pre a brief on the quest question ioD of jurisdiction which met it squarely and removed all doubli doubt he would forward forba r d a copy of it to the court he goes onto I 1 explain that the attorney instructed the solicitor general in the cannon case and gen maury in A the snow we case wt not to raise the question of jurisdiction because it was of the g gra 1 U ce that the court al awl 6 which w uld auld a et e of unlawful L regarded the case capp settling as ael tu ohp p q question of jurisdiction that one ane precedent in its favor being as good its as twenty andee and he says tw i 64 XV will be a v very 1 great t misfortune if if these hese cases of mr snow now should be dismissed lor for want of Jurls jurisdiction diction not only on an his account not only on account of the numerous persons in utah who ar arte situated very much in the same baine wy but because there kp are persons in other territories whose lives livial are harassed by the uncertainty that hangs aver vp pr t them epi and who are liable mohave abe law w lifted differently in their territories from the rulings in ia utah and this w without the superintending super intending control and ultimate authority of the supreme court of the united states these considerations although of great g gravity r t 0 of f course coarse cannot govern goverio the q quest U londt n d furis jurisdiction i if 61 although it is not for hu any appe appellate Hate ourt court c to amplify its jurisdiction there is great propriety and even necessity for the exercise by the court over w which b you yon pre preside sido of all the appellate action which by a 16 fair construe mon iton of the statutes statute Jap appears pears to be in it I 1 say news necessity ty because there is a high public expediency in maintaining that appellate jurisdiction which the constitution has made the means of cecur lug uniform constructions through og 1 the e ur union don of all its own visions and of all statutes passed of it its powers true we must find jurisdiction given by some aw or it cannot be exercised butin a and where the doubt Is nol a serious ore one it would i seem safest dad and best to solve that doubt in favor of the jurisdiction oe ae cause apse of the great public necessity feces tor for uniformity of in interpretation t tion 0 of all federal powers 17 arh there rl is I 1 s all ail the greater reason for this baere ore the question relates to appeals 3 i from r ra m territories in criminal chea trieb in inferior courts because in ref reference arence to territories there is no appellate jurisdiction out of the territory tor y exe excepting pep ti u that of the supreme court duat 10 of the ifft d sj stated steg that can possibly be e invoked uv adhere ed here lis in isn the he tates in 1 criminal cases there is always a supreme appellate jurisdiction over overt tre inferior tribunals open in an any T cae to which the state legislature may ina V see fit to extend it doubts about jurisdiction in civil cases may well be 11 v pa b by considerations d different i from ali those 11 se c w which v ich apply to criminal cases in criminal cases it would seem that aih at a doubt about jurisdiction ought to be solved 34 e d with some leaning in favor of th the jurisdiction 1 itao unless the legisla aon on evinces a clear intent to exclude it A man lor for example who is wet dundei sentence of adeata in a territory of united states ought to have acty doubt about the appellate jurisdiction 91 0 the supreme court of the united unie d S tates states determined by reasons which c cannot annot exist in a civil case or in a any case cae involving only a question of property it seems to me that the precedent made by the cannon case would not have been any stronger it ithe gobern government nt thad had moved to dismiss the case tor r wn w want n t of jurisdiction and the motion le t on had had been argued and overruled and d mccase the case had bad been argued and decided upon its merits i these extracts show the nature of mr curtis views the argument made by mr air richards and endorsed jy by mr curtis is very strong and we believe unanswerable we will quote as much of the brief as we can find 11 pace for sufficient to give our readers tae ane main points which w will ill becom wend thenis themselves elves to every thoughtful mind mr richards cites section revised statutes of the united states in reference to Wr washington ashington territory providing to viding that hat any final judgment or decree cree of the he supreme court ot said territory i in any rause muse when the constitution ution or a statute or treaty of the united states is brought in question may be reviewed by the supreme court of the united states on writ of error or appeal also section providing the saine in regard to the decisions of the highest co courts of the states on similar and adds in 1885 congress passed the following act winch was approved by the ad of that year an act regulating appeals from the supreme court odthe of rabe district of columbia lu bibia and the supreme courts of the sel several veral territories be it enacted by the senate and the house use of representatives of if the united y 0 of f n america in congress assembled t that no appeal or writ of bf error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment 9 or 1 decree in any suit at law in e equity bality m k the supreme court of toe the district of columbia or in the supreme preme court of any of the territories of the united states unless the mattec t in dispute exclusive 0 of f costs shall exceed aeed the of five thousand tho usand dollars Sect section lou 2 that the preceding sec tian shall not apply to any case where gnip tn validity of any pat or in is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an ail authority exercised under udder the united states but in all such cases an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute he shows that these provisions relate to any effae case civil or criminal in n which cafe validity of a treaty or statute ol oi or an authority exercised under rider the t e united states is drawn in question queSt lon and that at Con congress gresA me antto tto extend the same vi these rei regards ards as in reference to tb tha totes states and he cites authorities to arve prove that the supreme court of the united states had repeatedly ruled that section extends to criminal cases hartsteen Hart hath teen en proves brov s that the construction of a statute ahe of the united states to witlie edmunds Zo munds law is directly dra a ind and that there therefore fore the court had jurisdiction in the ease case and says the bf the united states as i invoked to deprive the citizen of his liberty ina court established by congress and acting solely by federal power and tue vital question inthe in the ease ase is whether the authority exi exer er cise dunder the th eEdmunds Edin umU law is a valid au authority authors and within the scope of act when upon the record the qu question eption is raised that the territorial court cou rf h lid a misconstrued the law lawand and acted beyond the authority it cantere con tere then this Court has jurisdiction under the of the second section of e act of march ad 1885 11 among ithe it he authorities cited ta G prove the meaning of the act he gives the following in tennessee vs davis 10 otto mr aft justice clifford says the writ of error to the state co court art will not lie he at all unless the construction of some rause of the constitution or some act of congress Coil gress or treaty is drawn un n question and the decision was a adverse verse to the party setting up suca right or title if those conditions concur the writ rit will lie irrespective of the amount in dispute provided il appears that the right or title set up depends upon the construction of the constitution an act of Coa Cong gresa reels or some constitutional treaty williams vs norris 12 wheat in Dupass eur vs rocheleau chereau Ko Ro 21 wall 1 the state court had not give given n due effect to a judge judgment ent of a court ot of the united states and it was held to involve the validity of an ait authority exercised under the united states finally he submits that the question 0 of jurisdiction was set sa at rest by the precedent in the cannon case that decisional deci decision ap we now know has been withdrawn but wo wi believe no sound lawyer will dispute the fact that the arguments in mr richards I 1 brief go right to the root of the matter and demonstrate on strate the jurisdiction of the court in the light ot of the letter 01 of mr curtis and the brief of mr richards what can be clearer than that the supreme court of the united states has dodged the issue in order to avoid a decision which would be against the extreme rulings of the utah courts cot arts and some show of justice to the persecuted people of this territory |
