Show THE SNOW CASES DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES october term 1886 in error to the supreme court of 0 the territory of of utah lorenzo snow plaintiff in error no 1277 vs the united states lorenzo snow plaintiff in error no 1278 vs the united states lore lorenzo anzo snow plaintiff in error no 1279 vs the united states may 1886 mr justice blatchford delivered the opinion of the court these are three writs of error to the supreme court of the territory of utah to review judgments of that court affirming judgments of the district court of the first judicial district gf ft that territory rendered on convictions of the plaintiff in error on indictments founded on section 3 of the act of march 1882 22 stat 81 31 for cohabiting with more than one woman each of the judgments imposed imprisonment for six months and a flue fine of the question of the jurisdiction luris diction of this chait over these writs of error presents itself at the threshold it was not au suggested by the counsel for the united states at the argument nor referred to by the counsel for the plaintiff I 1 ain J tiff in error for the reason as the N court urt hai ha i been advised by both parties since the argument that a decision on the merits was desired and for the further reason that this court at the present resent term in cannon y united united 91 states tates U S 55 took cognizance of a writ of error in a like case but the question has presented itself to the court and since the argument we have been furnished with a brief on the part of the plaintiff in error in section of the revised statutes provides as follows the final judgments and decrees of the supreme court of any territory except the territory of washington in cases where the value of ane matter in dispute exclusive exolus ive of costs to be ascertained by the oath of either party or of other competent witnesses exceeds one thousand dollars may be reviewed and reversed or affirmed in the supreme aerne court upon writ of error or appeal eal in the same manner and under the he same regul regulations lations as the final judgments and decrees of the circuit court in the territory of washington the value of the matter in dispute must exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of costs and any final judgment mentor or decree of the supreme cou court rt of said territory in any cause when the constitution or a statute or treaty of the united states is brou drought ht in question may be reviewed in like manner 11 so much of this section 7 as relates to the territory of utah was carried into the section from section 9 of the acton act of september ath 1850 establishing a territorial government for utah 9 stat which provided provid cd that writs ot of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of the territory should be allowed and might be taken to the supreme court of the united states where the value of the property or the amount in controversy to be ascertained by bv the oath or affirmation alfir nation of either party mariy or other competent witness should exceed one thousand dollars except only that in all cases involving title to slaves and on any wi wiit it of error or appeal on a habeas corpus involve involve the question of personal freedom ivr bregard agard should be had to value so much of section as provides for the review of any final judgment or decree of the supreme court of the territory of washington in any cause when the constitution or statute or treaty of the united states is brought in question is taken from the act of march ad 1853 establishing a territorial government for Washing washington tong 10 stat which after providing that writs of error and appeals frol from the final decisions of the supreme court of the territory should le allowed and might be taken to the supreme court of the united states where the valve value of the property or the amount iu controversy tro versy to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party or other competent witnesses should exceed two thousand dollars went on in these words which were no not found tin the prior act of 1850 in regard to utah and in all cases where when the constitution of the united states or acts of congress or a treaty of the united states is brought in question it is plain that section so far as utah is ia concerned does not cover the present cases and that the provision in regard to cases where the constitution or oral alace act of Cong ressor a treaty is brought in ii question has reference only to washington and not to utah section 1909 of the revised statutes provides that writs of error and appeals 1 eals from the final decisions of the b supreme court of any one of eight named territories of which utah is one shall be allowed to the supreme court of the unita states in the same a e manner and under the same regulations it i lations ions as from the circuit courts ot of the united states where the value of th the property or the amount in controversy tro versy to be be ascertained by the oath 1 of either party or of other competent witnesses exceeds one thousand dollars except that a writ of error or appeal shall be allowed upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom this section does not cover the present cases section 1911 relates exclusively to writs of error and appeals from washington territory and ana contains a provision that they shall be allowed in all cases where the constitution of the united states or a treaty thereof or acts ot congress are brought in bueg question 11 that provision exists only in ia regard to washington and is inot not found in section 1909 in regard to the eight other territories section of the revised statutes applies only to a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree in a suit in the highest court of a state there being thus no statute in force on december 1st ast 1873 to which time the enactments in the revised statutes related giving to this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to the supreme court coart of utah in a case like those before us an act was passed on june 1874 18 stat entitled an act in relation to courts and judicial officers in the territory of utah section a 3 of which contained this provision I 1 A writ of error from the supreme court of the united states to the supreme court of the territory shall lie in criminal cases where th the accused shall have been sentenced to capital punishment or convicted of bigamy or polygamy the writ ot of error in reynolds v united states 98 V US S ho was brought under that statute the conviction being for bia bigamy under section of the revised statutes this section was taken from section 1 of the act of july 1st ast 1862 12 stat entitled an act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy polygamy in the territories of the cited united states and other places and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of utah V which section 1 declares that every person having a husband or wife living who shall marry any other person whether married or augle in a territory of the united states shall with certain be adjudged guilty of bigamy the act then proceeds to disapprove and annul all acts and parts of acts theretofore passed by the legislative assembly of utah which establish support maintain shield or countenance polygamy w with ith the proviso that the act I 1 should not affect or interfere with the right to worship god according to the dictates of conscience but only to annul all acts and laws which establish maintain protect or countenance the practice of polygamy evasively called spiritual marriage however however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities sacraments cra ments ceremonies consecrations or other contrivances hence section 3 of the act of 1874 speaking oi of I 1 bigamy or polygamy I 1 referred ret erred to the crime denounced by section 1 of the act of 1862 as carried into the revised i statutes then came the act of march 1882 22 2 2 stat au section 1 of which amended ani of the revised statutes the original and new sections leaving out the exceptions being as follows the parts in each which differ from the other being in italic original ginal new every person hav every person who ing a husband or wife hassi hasla husband or wife living who marries living who in a ter abnot another whether bethe hethe or other place married or single in over which the united a territory or biber other states have exclusive liftee place over which the jinis jurisdiction diction hereafter united cited states have marries anoff ier exclusive whether married or tion is guilty of big single and any man amy and shall te be who hereafter simul amul punished by a line of or on the not more than live same day marries hundred dollars and more than onet coman by imprisonment for in a territory or otha term not more than er place over which five ave years the united states have exclusive jurisdiction is guilty oi of toly polygamy and shall a be e punished gaint I 1 ed by a fine ot or not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years section 3 of theace of 1882 is the one on which the indictments in these cases were founded it is in these words if any mate male person in a territory or other place over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction hereafter cohabits with more than one woman he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by bv a fine of nut not more than three hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months or by both said punish men tsin the discretion of the courts this section creates a new and distinct offense from bigamy or polygamy one which is declared to be a misdemeanor there having becia and being no such declaration as to bigamy or polygamy and the punishment for which is much less than the punishment tor bigamy or polygamy the act of 1882 made no provision tor for any writ of error from this court in a case under section 3 wh while ie by bv the then existing act of july a writ of error could lie on a conviction of bigamy or polygamy by no proper construction can the offense of cohabiting with more than one woman be regarded as identical with the offense of bigamy and poly polygamy amy the act of 1882 in sections 1 3 and 5 classes bigamy or polygamy as a different offense from the offense of chhabi tating with mole moie than one wom anand we cannot regard a statutory provision for a writ of arror error on A a conviction of bigamy or polygamy as authorizing one on a conviction under section 3 of the act of cohabiting with more than one woman on the ad of march 1885 the following act was passed 23 Q tat am I 1 no appeal or writ of 01 error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment VON de cree in any suit snit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the district ot columbia or in the supreme court of any of the territories ot of the united states unless the matter in dispute exclusive of costs coats shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars see sec 2 the preceding section shall not apply to any case wherein is involved the validity of any ny patent or copyright or in which is question the validity ofia treaty treat clr w statute of or an authority exercised under the united states but in all such cases an appeal or error maybe brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute 11 this act is relied on by the plaintiff in error as covering the present cases the first section of it applies solely to judgments or decrees in suits at law or in equity meas measured ived by a pecuniary value if the second section applies to a criminal case wherein is drawn in ia question the validity of all a statute of or an authority exercised und erthe united states 17 without regard to whether t there here is or is not an any y sum or value in d dispute asp te the question still remains for consideration i whether in the present cases the validity of a statute of the united states or the validity of an authority exercised under the united states is drawn in question the peculiar language of section 2 is to ta be noted in section of the revised statutes allowing a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree in au any suit iu in the highest court of a state in which a decision in the suit could be had the language is where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the united states slates and the decision is against their validity this language is taken from section 2 of the act of february ill 1867 14 stat where it I 1 is reproduced verbatim vei badim from section 9 25 95 5 ar 1789 1 S stat 85 in section 2 of the act under c consideration on the words and the decision is against their validity 0 are not found in section 1811 1911 of the revised statutes in regard to washington territory the language adopted substantially from the act ot of march ad 1853 10 stat is in all cases where the constitution of t the he unite states or a tr treaty aty thereof or acts of congress are brought in question and is not limited to the case of a deci decision sign against the validity of the act of congress is brought in question but only where the validity of a statute of the united states is drawn in question or where the validity of an authority s exercised under the united states is drawn in question but athis is not limited by the require requirement merit that the decision shall have been against such validity in the present cases the validity of a statute of the united states is not drawn in question no such question is pre presented 8 e a ted by t the h e b bills I 1 of e exceptions ke options ept ions or the requests for anstr instructions actions or the exceptions to the charges or anywhere else in the records nor is the validity of an authority exercised under the united states drawn in question the plaintiff in error contends that the construction of the act of 1882 is drawn in question and also the authority exercised under the united states by which he was tried and convicted that the authority of the united states is invoked to deprive him of his bis liberty in a court established by congress and acting solely by federal power and that the abe question is whether the authority exercised b by y the court under the act of IS 1882 8 2 is a valid slid authority and within the scope of that act because the contention is that the court misconstrued the statute and acted beyond the authority which it conferred the authority exercised by the court in the trial and conviction of the plaintiff in error is not such an authority as is intended by the act the validity of the existence of the court and its jurisdiction over the crime named in the indictments and over the person of the defendant are not drawn in question all thatis that is drawn in question is whether there is or is not error in the jol administration ministration of the statute the contention of the plaintiff in error would allow a writ of error from this courtin court in every criminal case in where the tion is based on a stat statute tite of the united states ands and indeed might go still further for the authority of eve every court sitting bitting in a territory is founte founded d on a statute of the united states from the fact that a given criminal eri minal case cam involves the construction construct lon of a statute of the united states it does not follow that the validity of an authority exercised under the united St states atess is drawn in question there is a decision of this court on this point in bethell v demaret 10 wall the section of the judiciary act of 1789 allowed a writ of error from this court to the highest court of a state where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of or OF an authority exercised under any state on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution treaties or taws laws of the united states and the decision |