Show THE U S SUPREME COURT DECISION REVIEWED WF WE present to our readers today to day the full tei texon of the D decision acir ion of the supreme court of the United States in tb the e snow cases we we expected an ingenious and learned argument giving some substantial ial reasons for the conclusion arri arrived vedat at bythe by the court the opinion is a disappointment it is decide decidedly dl y thin 11 it is in ia conflict with many previous ous rulings of the Court and is manufactured for the occasion if this is considered disrespectful to the highest tribunal in the country we cannot help it inconsistency and the evasion ofa great responsibility are not calculated to inspire respect either in courts or individuals let us examine the opinion in the light of the courts own previous renunciations enunciations the question of jurisdiction the court admits was not sprung byoun eel either for the government or the plaintiff la abiff in error the brief to which the court alludes which was prepared by yr mr F S richards was presented after theca the casenas cas ewas closed and submitted atthe at the pressing request of the court counsel had no opportunity of arguing the question tile desire of both parties was to obtain a definite construction of the third section of the edmunds law the government purposely waived the question of jurisdiction that nothing might inight stand in the way of the ruling to settle the itu immense menso difficulties that have accrued from the varied and contradictory rulings on that section by we the federal courts in utah these difficulties might have been avoid avoided edby by a general construct construction iono of the law when tile the cannon case was reviewed the same conditions as to jurisdiction existed then as in the snow cases the court exercised jurisdiction but confined its ruling to the individual case before it and refrained f from rendering a decision defining the meaning of the law as requested in both instances then the court evaded the main question and crept out from a grave official responsibility lity it was not courageous nor wol worthy thy of their high calling justice blatchford speaking f for or the whole court first takes tabes up the provision of the united states statutes in relation to washington territory that chat this in itself only applies to that territory no one disputes it can only be cited in von t on with other similar provisions applying to other places to make clear tae intent of the later law the see sec eions of the revised statutes having special reference to the territories named therein which are quoted in the opinion need not net be noticed because they do not bear ou on the question so with the poland law and the edmund act but the act of march 3 1885 contains the provision on which the who question of the courts jurisdiction of these cases turns it irisia is in the second section it gives jurisdiction to the supreme court of the united states in any case on appeal or writ of error from the district of columbia and the territories wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright or in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exea exercised ased under unde uie the united states in all such cases the law says an appeal or writ of error maybe may be brought without regard d to the sum or value in dispute we the question denuded of all extraneous trappings is simply do the cases brought before the court draw in question the validity of an authority exercised under the united states the court now aji no the record of the cases claims to the contrary it is shown therein that the lower court exercised authority which is not warran warranted by the act of congress of march 22 1882 under which the cases were tried first in giving a construction to the third section of that act not warranted by its language second in segregating the offense so as to multiply the penalties penalties enal ties of the law contrary ari to its ement evident intent and purpose this was an exercise of authority not dign given in the law and therefore the tail validity y of that authority is called in question the validity lof of the statute is not disputed it ft all turns on the validity of the authority exercised that this was authority exercised under the united states I 1 can cannot not be denied the C ourt makes an I 1 if I 1 I 1 in regard to the point whether the act of 1885 applies to criminal as well as civil cases but the language of the second section covers the ground of all ak such cases as described and this must include criminal as well as civil cases and the court out hasi has itself telf decided this tais question many times in cases arising under previous statutes with exactly the same wording for instance in twitchell v commonwealth 7 wall and in tennessee vs davis 10 otto in the former case the court ruled neither the act of 1789 nor the act of 1867 which in some particulars supersedes per sedes and replaces the act of 1789 per sedes ma makes es any distinction between ciau civil and criminal cases in respect to the revision of the judgments of state courts by this court nor are we aware that it has ever been contended that any such distinction exists certainly none has been recognized here no objection therefore to the allowance of the writ of error asked for by the petition can arise from the circumstance that the judgment which we are asked to review was rendered in a criminal case 11 this settles the question beyond dispute f for or the language of the act of 1885 is exactly the same in this regard as that of the act of 1867 referred to in this decision it is son that the former was copied f latter as ithac was from the act of 1789 alluded to above the if of the court in relation to the application of the statute to criminal cases is then entirely gratuitous and superfluous but in regard to the meaning qt of the word validity the court now construes it very strictly and confines it within a very narrow compass much of the argument of judge blatchford on con this point is needless it is not contended that there is any invalidity in the existence or jurisdiction of the cases of the lower court As we have said it is the authority exercised that is 11 s in dispute and the case of bethell v vs s demaret cited bythe court has no direct bearing upon the real question involved dud and no parallel cases brought for review what is ia the meaning of the word validity inlaw in law webster says its legal definition is legal strength or fore force p that quality of a it supportable in law or equity 11 apply this to the authority exercised by tile the lower coux court tand and is not its validity dpn in question it is claimed by counsel for mr snow lahat that the an authority is not supporter by the edmunds act and h has not I 1 legal strength or force under it the court now attempts tempts to avoid jurisdiction of a case wherein the cons construction traction of a statute of the united states is drawn in question contending thattie th atthe word validity does not include that term but this is is contrary to its previous decisions la in the case of williams ys norris 12 wheat chief justice marshall giving the decision 6 ision ot of the court says on this point that judgment is ia now before the court and in considering it we are confined to the inquiry whether the record shows any misconstruction of an act of congress or of the constitution of the united states in montgomery vs hernandez the court ruled that under the section of the judiciary act of 1789 chapter 20 this court has no appellate j jurisdiction uris diction from the final judgment of the highest court of a state in a suit where is drawn in question the construction of a statute of or a commission held under the united states unless some title right privilege or exemption under such statute etc these rulings show that the court has jurisdiction of cases wherein the construction of a united slaters statute I 1 ig drawn in question under certain conditions now the court takes ground to the contrary in the case of bridge proprietors vs hoboken company 1 wall the question of jurisdiction being f fully ally argued the court said but the true and rational rule is that the court must be abe aule able to see clearly from the whole record that a c certain er t ain provision of the constitution provision or act 0 oi congress was relied on by the party who brings the writ of error and that the right thus claimed was denied 71 this is just the position of the case before th the court and the record hows that very state of affairs intha in the case last cited the court said f urther further if the construction is one which violates the contract it is clear that the plaintiffs have no relief except in ia this court and unless it take jurisdiction it will not discharge its duty to see that DO iao state shall pass a law impairing tae obligation of a contract 1 wall there was no relief for mr show shat but in this court and yet the court would not take jurisdiction in united states vs thompson 93 U S the court ruled that on writ of error held that judgments against the united states in state courts stand on the same ground in reference to the revising jurisdiction of this couretas cour tas judgments against individuals andio and to justify this jurisdiction tio the record must show a federal question 19 11 it was wa a Fede federal ial question that was wae submitted to the court in t the he snow case and that was shown on the face of the record in river B bridge co vs kansas 92 U S the court decided but in chancery cases or in ary aay other class of cases where all the evidence becomes part of the record in the highest court of the state this court can levied the decision of the court both on the law and the t fact so 80 fax far as may be necessary to determine the vasility vadi lity of the right setup set up under the act ox ot Con congress gaess 1 thus not only the validity of a law but the validity of a right un unde deAthe the law can be determined by the suyeme court of the united S states tates anany class of cases 11 this is in indirect direct conflict with the present opinion deli delivered veroO by judge I 1 the cases cited above were wei e brought bro u h t either under the act of 1789 or that 0 of f 1867 1864 and were from state courts the pre present sent ease case was brought und under erthe the acton act of 1886 which relates to territorial courts but the pr provision prolusion olsion in each case is the same and the evident object an and intent of congress to by the similarity imi arity or rather identity ot of tile the lari 1411 aage gnage was to extend to cases from the territorial arri rial courts the same flame rights of appeal as I 1 from rom the state courts to give to all the Terri territories torie that right which had been specially conferred upon washington territory under 70 of af the revised statutes if the court then hap jurisdiction I 1 of the construction of a statute and of the validity of it right claimed under it as well as of the validity or constitutionality tiona tion alit lity of that statute in cases bases from state courts wh why has it not mot the same j J aris diction tu tn cases involving the same questions from the territorial courts since the act of congress has ext extended extender endea tbt same rights in the premises to the latter as to the former or will the edart of last resort enunciate the monstrous doctrine that a citizen of a territory has wt not the game legal rights as a citizen of a state or that a mormon connour claim the protection of the court established by ithe atie constitution for the purpose of securing justice to all citizens alike under the laws of the united states but the court says the contention of the in error would allow a error front from this court in every criminal case in a territory where the prosecution is based on a statute of the United states and indeed might go still urther further for the authority of every ourt court I 1 sitting ins in a territory Is founded on a statute of the united states I 1 I 1 that this is erroneous may be seen at at a glance for if the court would give a settled construction to section 8 of writ of error would not lie in any cise case afterwards arising under the section if the court coun should take the same gate position as in the can non case and give a ruling simply afi on the technical question involved in the individual case brought for review then other aises cases having different bear ings would necessarily have to come up I 1 p f investigation for 0 r av es ti g aaion but a general 3 interpretation n e r p reta ti 0 n 9 of the section would se settle atlo it its meaning meaning and writs of f error for cases affected a bait by it could thenceforth be denied and we do ayt not think any lound reasoner will admit that a right of appeal established by act of Con congress gregs should shoula be abrogated or denied on the plea pica that if granted it would make too much business tor for the appellate court yet that is the conclusion to be reiL reached clied by the shallow argument put forth as ivl p excuse for dismissing the present cases I 1 we may be assailed for calling balling in question a decision given by the highest tribunal in the nation and the question may inay be asked the good of disputing it our oar position is that we have the right to comba terror wherever we wb meet it that a citizen ar a journal has as much right fight to criticize t the h e buttera utterance 11 ea of mcburt as the fhe dominga of a president that judges are the servants of the public the same as legislators isla tors or executive officers that the supreme court of the united states has in several instances rever reversed qed its it town wn rulings that it is not infallible that if it was wrong in exercising jurisdiction as it claims in the canon cannon case it may be wrong in denying jurisdiction of the snow cases and that the cause of truth cannot be itt ha aured by mhd discussion ot of questions involving the lib liberties erVes of men we have no hesitation in saying that the opinion of the court is unworthy of so august a tribunal and that in our oar belief if the cases hadnot been associated with the unpopular mormon 1 question that body would not have evaded an important responsibility ity under a pretext so lowas that put forth in this plea of lack of jurisdiction juri cioll |