Show AN APPEAL DENIED I 1 THE territorial COURT REF TO ALLOW TUB tae CASKS TO GOTO 00 TO THE UNITED SUPREME COURT in the application of james application jack and ag nepal W clayton clay ton territorial treasurer Treasur erand and auditor for bonds on appeal to the united states supreme court to be fixed the territorial Terri lorial court today to day rendered the following decision refusing the appeal i IN THE SUPREME COURT UTAH TERRITORY the people of the territory of utah uta h upon the relation of W H dickson united states district attorney for said territory vs nephi nephew W clayton clay ton and the people ex ret rel etc vs james jack OPINION OF OB THE COURT powers J the defendants move this court to a ilow allow them to appeal from its judgments to the supreme court of the united states the motions are based upon an act of congress entitled an act regulating appeals from the supreme court ot of the district of columbia and the supreme courts of the several territories ii found in the statutes of the united states tor for 1881 1884 and 1885 page it is the act of marched 1885 and reads as follows be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of An america anterita terica in congress assembled no appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or decree in an any y suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the district of columbia or in the supreme court of auy of the territories of the united states unless the matter in dispute exclusive ot costs shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars SEC 2 that the preceding section shall not apply to any case wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright or which is drawn indrawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the united states but in all such emes cases an appeal or writ ot ol error may be brought without regard to the sum or value I li ii i cli dispute 11 it is contended that the defendants are entitled to an appeal under each of the foregoing sections in order to 10 better understand the question before us let us consider what are the issues in these cafcas bahe 8 or in other words what is the matter atter in dispute the proceedings were actions in the nature of quo warranto carranto war to determine the rights of df the defendants respectively to the offices of auditor of public accounts and treasurer of the territory of utah the question litigated so far as the defendants were interested was their title to the offices named that was the only matter in dispute it is a matter which cannot be measured by dollars and cents and it is clear upon the roost cursory examination that it does not come within the first section of the act turning then to the second section and it necomes equally clear that in these cases there was not involved the validity of any patent or copyright and certainly there was not drawn in question the validity of any treaty the question remaining is whether there was drawn in question the validity of iny any statute or of any authority exercised under the united states the defendants claimed to be territorial rit orial officers they based their title upon an c lection election by the people of the territory under and by virtue of a territorial statute the extent to which they were concerned in the cases was their right to hold office a territorial law they were exercising t 19 no authority under the united cited states but they claimed their title from abnot another her source they had bad no inter ot et and had no right to be heard beard upon auy any other question this court held that the territorial law was void so far as it provided for an election by the people or by any other mode than that pointed out by the organic act and by section 1857 of the revised statutes no statute of the united states was drawn in question no contention contenti cui was made but what the organic act and section 1857 of the revised statutes of the united states slates were valid on the contrary it was a statute of the territory and an authority exercised under and by vii virtue tue of that statute which was drawn in question and was passed upon the po power or ar authority rily of tile the legislature to legislate upon the particular subject matter was not cot questioned for it has that authority this court simply decided that the officers named con could d not be selected in the manner which the legislature had bad pointed out in the case of the united states against lorenzo lerenzo snow this court had construed a statute of of congress and the question came up in the supreme court of tile tha united states whether that court had jurisdiction to hear bear and determine the case we can do no better than to quote the lang language mage of that court after reciting the statute of congress which we have now under considers rion on the su supreme c court ourt speaking by mr justice blatchford ord says bays 11 this act is relied ott on by the plaIR plaintiff tiff in error as covering the present case the first seeth section n ot ol it applies solely t to dment 8 pr or decrees in suits at law or in equi equity yf 9 measured by a pecuniary value if the second section applies to a criminal case wherein is drawn io in question the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under he united states 1 without regard to whether there is or is not any sum or value in dispute the question still remains for consideration whether in ic the present cases the validity of a statute of the united states or the validity ot of an authority exercised under the united states is drawn in question I 1 the peculiar language of section 2 is ia to be noted in section of the revised statutes allowing a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highiet court of otah al tate otate in which a decision in tile 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 and the decision is against their validity this language mistaken is taken from section 2 of the act of feb 5 0 14 stat 86 where it is reproduced tt acl verbatim from section 25 ot of the judiciary act of sept 1 stat 85 in section 2 of the set act under consideration the words land and the decision is against their validity are nut not found in section 1911 of the revised statutes statute in regard to washington territory the language adopted substantially from the act ot of march ad 1853 16 stat slat is in all ail caseb cades where the constitution of the united states or a treaty thereof the or acts acis of congress are brought iu ia question tiong and is not limited to the case of a decision against the validity of the act of congress is brought in question but only anere the validity ot of a statute of tile the united states is drawn la in question or where the validity of an authority exercised under the united states is drawn in question but this is not limited by the requirements that the decision shall have been against such validity in the present cases the validity of a statute of the united states Is not drasta in question no such question is presen presented by the bills of exceptions or the requests tor for or the exceptions to the charges or anywhere else in the records sor nor is the validity of an authority exercised under the united states drawn in question the in error contends that the construction of the act of 1882 is drawn in ques question Liun and also the authority exercised under the united states by which he was tried and convicted that the authority ol of the united states stales is invoked to deprive him of his bis liberty in a court establish est established ablis tied by C congress saud and amin acting r solely by federal power and that thai the question is whether the authority exercised by the court under the act of 1882 is a valid authority and within the scope of that act because the contention is that the court misconstrued trued the statute and alid acted beyond the authority which it conferred the itie authority exercised bv b the court in the trial and conviction oi of the plaintiff in error is ia not such au 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 indi indictments indict meats and over the person of the d defendant are not drawn in question all that is drawn in question is whether there mere is or is not an error in the administration of the statute the contention of the plaintiff in error would allow a writ of error from this court in every criminal case iu in a territory where thi the prosecution is based on a statute of the united states and indeed might go still lurther for toe the authority of every court sitting silting in a territory is founded on a statute of the united states from the fact that a given criminal case involves the construction of a statute of the united states it does not follow that the validity of an authority exercised under the united states Is drawn in question ethe foregoing is clearly in line with the views we have expressed and is an authoritative exposition of the law it is in conflict with the claims set up by the defendants and indicates that they have no right to appeal the contention made that because the court below held that the appointees of the governor were entitled to the offices in dispute therefore an authority thorit y exercised under the united unite states is drawn in dispute is ot of no moment in deciding these cases we said in substance that the defendants are not interested in the action of the governor but only in the question as to their own right to hold bold office they can be heard only so far as the JUdg judgment of the lower court affected suen such right the action of the governor cannot be properly criticized by the defendants while this court expressed its opinion ioa which it now reaffirms reaffirms I 1 that the governor was au an sed ed to do what he did do we were not required to pass upon that question lo 10 disposing of the appeal of the defendants we are ape clearly of the opinion that t the he defendants have po no right to appeal 0 the Su supreme court of the united states and the motions for appeals are denied ZANE C J concurs boreman Bo REMAy A J concurs |