The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-01
Import.,t judicial Dec,.,on.

Court, yesterday pronounced Inc decision OF the
court in the case of III. Benner ct al, appellants, vs.
J. Y. Porter, appellee. This an appeal from
the United States Admiralty court at Key West,
Florida A libel was filed by Porter against the
defendants, in 1916, to the amount of bill
for supplies furnished by him to wrecking vessel
owned by another person, transferred to them,
and which vessel they sold He claimed to have
lien for the supplies the proceeds of the sale in
their hands, under the local law of Florida. The
libel was sustained in the court below, and decree
given for the amount of the bill of supplies Mr..
]. d. WEsrcoTr and Mr.. H. ID. GILPIN, in behalf
of appellants, moved to the decree upon sew
eral grounds; the first of which was that the court
was defunct when the suit was instituted and the
decree made, and the Judge without judicial
power or authority in cases of Federal character
and jurisdiction General WALTER JONES argued
the case for appellee. The Supreme Court reversed
the decree upon the first ground taken, and did
not, therefore. decide upon any other points made
Florida was admitted as State into the Union, by
act ofCongress, on the Sd March, lS45. TheSupreme
Court, we understand, decide that, by the admis-
sion of the State of Florida, the Territorial govern
ment and its officers were at once hbrogated and
annulled, and that on the Sd of March, lS45, the
United States Admiralty Court at Key West, I'M
der the Territorial organization, became extinct;
and though, by the State constitution of Florida,
the Territorial courts continued State courts
till the proper State courts organized and the
State judges chosen but the United States Terrific
rial Judges were without authority to act in any
wise in causes of Federal character and jurisdic-
ton.
This case is interesting touching the principles
of law relating to Territories, and also to thsad
mission of new States into the Union, and the eff
feet of such admission on the laws existing prior
Al \ -. L.
laws. The decision cannot avoid, we should sup
pose, bearing TO some extent ON the questions
pending before Congress respecting the admission
of California, and the establishment of governments
for the new Territories. We may, therefore, at an
early period, obtain a copy Of the opinion of the
Court for publication. We learn this is the first an
stance, since the establishment of the Federal Gov
eminent, in which a Decree claimed to have been
made by judicial authority, has been set aside and
annulled by the Supreme Court upon the ground
that the person claiming the right to act judge
had no legal authority whatever TO exercise such
judicial functons
II should be noticed, that the decision of the SUI
preme Court does not at all accord with the lengthy
and solemn Official opinion, printed with appro-
patosy introduction in the Union" in May, l845.
over the official signature Of SETH BARroS, ESQ.,,
then Solicitor Of the Treasury of the United States
on which opinion were sustained by an Official let
ter Of Hon. JoHs Y. MASON, then Attorney Gene
raj OF the United States addressed to the President,
by which opinion and instructions the Florida Off
GERS were "instucted'' to proceed with the Federal
cases before the Territorial courts declared by
the Supreme Court 10 have ceased 10 exist on that
day. Those "insfyscfions," informed, chief
ly occasioned the difficulties that occurred. The
Supreme Court decide, before decided
many years since in the famous reported in
LIST Peters Reports Of Cantor VS.. American fnr1-
Company, that the TERRITORIAL courts iegis
lattice and not constitutional courts; and that the
existence Of such courts, (thc judges Of which do
not bold their Offices by the tenure Of "good behs
yior," ms is directed by the Federal Constitution
shall be the 10 the Federal Judiciary in the
states,) was incompatible with the State govern
ment. If all the acts and proceedings Of the Terri
torai courts in Federal cases. after the Sd Of March,
Is45, are 10 be regarded utterly poid, we ina
ginc they must be, IL 10 II follows that the
evils resulting from the official blunders referred
to cannot be remedied by any Legislation Of Con-
gress Of the State Legislature Of Florida, legal
ixing and confirming those acts. Such laws would
be retroactive; and IL the case be supposed,
presume Congress cannot constitutonslly pass such
legalizing and confirming act. The losses 10 the
United States and 10 suitors and the troubles and
difficulties that must in Florida from the off,
cial laundering referred 10, will be very great
Some Of the United States Territorial courts, we
learn, continued 10 act In Federal cases, between
individuals AZ well as between the United States
and individuals, for many months after the admis-
sion Of the State; and the decree in question
versed by the Supreme Court was made ss late A.
May, 1861
Those rabid political partissns who denounce as
A.
debt or claim as TO the justice OF which they may
Disagree, or affect 10 disagree, with Wing officers,
might perhaps, in the allowance by the Treasury
officers Of the United States Of the claims Of the
Florida territorial judges, district attorneys,
shas, &C. &c, for their salaries and fees after the
Sd Of March, 1s45, (wbcn, before stated, Florida
admitted state,) find a case in which, IL
like illiberal and unjust censoriousness erer-
cised towards Democratic officers, as much clamor
could b. made as IL made in some other cases five
are not mistaken, there is in the appropriation act
ofls45 express prohibition against the payment
Of any Of the "expenses under the Territorial gov
eminent Of Florida, after she was admitted State
in defiance Of which salaries, &c, TO a large
amount were paid, and until, ne we are informed,
the illegality made papable TO the then secre-
tsry Of the Treasury, Mr. wALKrR. Many thou
sands Of dollars thus distracted from the Uni
ted States treasury before the irrcgulsrsy put
stop 10. We advert TO this for the especial nfor
nation those persons in and out Of Congress who
seem not 10 hare that innate ofhonor and hon
esty which ordinarily attributes 10 fallibility Of
judgment acts Of their fellow. man that they may
deem erroneous, but who Gas II they cannot con-
ceive Of any motive but those that are selfish and
corrupt) denounce every official act or decision Of
a political opponent, for dissgreeing from which
they can find plausible pretext, as corrupt, dis
honest, and debased. We could designsts some
whose present aspirations 10 become regarded the
devoted champions Of official insllibility and purity
bctoken wonderful reformation in babits.
ners, and practice. We may yet find Il usefol 10
do 90.