The Shasta courier. [volume] (Shasta, Calif.) 1852-1872, 1853-05-28
Letter from, Judge Smith.
HAMiLTos, May 70, l85:


continuing the letter you addressed me. Your
ob]eci Is apparently 10 convince me that Sisk-
yau County is part OF the Ninth judicial Dis
irct and that | authorised to hold term oi
The District Court therein.
ii such was your Intention am at a loss to
discover your motive III having TIE letter pub
lfshed. Nevertheless, AS you have chosen 10
give your opinions ubliciiy, my reply must
necessarily be through Inc same channel
am commissioned Judge oi the 9th Judi
cial District My authority as IA Judicial ufficer
Is confined TO that District outside Of lis limits
have none.
Tie question is simply, is SiSkiyou part of it.
The law says that - the Ninth Judicial Ds,ric
shall be composed of the Counties of Cousa.
Shasta and Butte" Slskyou, is in no place
mehiIoued as beng component part OF the Dis
irct Your observation " by the act establish
Ing and erecting This County passed 1852 ~ %
elS, the Whole territory then embraced within
the limits O! this county, was by that act attach
ed to the Ninth District for Judicial purposes
aud without limit 5 TO time, except by the laws
OF 1872, 1t hints us TO d particular time for
which we shall apply al Shasta for redress Of
grievances, is Incorrect The words of the
law are: . Until This County shall be fully or
gnnlzed under this act, it shall be attached to
Shasta County for all Judicial purposes" So
mat 1t was attached to Shasta County and not
:. To the 9th Judicial District without limit as to
lime" This, and the clause which first quoted
IS the law, and all The law in the Statute book
connecting Si>kiyGu County III any way with
the 8 h Judicial District. 1t will be seen that
Ii is not at all connected with the district, and
that IA particular time is mentioned when the
conneXion wih Shasta County even shall cease
aud he Determined. And you very properly
remark, g" that time has expired" Siskiyon
County has long since been fully organised :"
Clearly then have authority by virtue of
this law, tn hold Court in SislS you County II
viii be seen that the law does not even authorize
the holding OF ii Court in that County, it only
permitted citizens Of Siskiyou to bring suits in
Shasta County. and even that privilege ceased
with The organization of the County.
But it is insisted that Siskiyou County was
formerly comprised within the limits of Shasta
County, and once having been part of the 9th
District. could cease 10 be such only by positive
enactment. This is the foundation of your argu-
Inent, and also of the opinion of Judge Hastings
Such is not the fact. That portion OF Siskyou
County which contains the bulk of her popua-
ton, never was included in Shasta County.
am satisfied from personal observation, that the
range OF mountains which divide the waters
flowing into the Sacramento from those flowing
lno the Klamath, was the boundary betw cen
the Counties of Shasta and Klamath, as organised
by the law of 1851. This | understand to be the
opinion of prominent citizens of your county
Capt. McDermott, whose knowledge OF the
derstood him distinctly TO say at the Tehama
Convention, that the range OF mountains alluded
TO was the boundaries between Shasta and Kla-
math.
The action of the Legislature of the State has
been based upon this boundary. Mr.. Coates
obtained and held his seat as member of AS
sembly from the County of Klamath, by virtue
of votes polled at SCOTS Bar. Without the votes
polled for him at this precinct his opponent,
IL. How h,x+., h.,l
and been entitled to the seat. The action of The
Legislature in the case of Messrs. Pierce and
Fleming, does not conflict with this. They re-
presented Shasta County in the Legislature.
They received Cf l am not much mistakenly
greater number of votes in Shasta County with
out Siskiyou, than The contestant, Mr. McCand-
less. Each of them had resided in Shasta Coun-
ty, and. it was not proved to the Legislature that
that residence was permanently changed by
temporary absence IN Sisklyou. So that the
question of boundary between Klamath and
Shasta, organised in 1851, was not necessarily
involved in the controversy
But in the case of Coates aud Hawkes. the
true boundary was the only question at issue.
And by deciding SCOTS Bar to be in Klamath
the Legislature declared The whole County oil
Siskiyou, Cor nearly ali of i,) to be taken from
Klamath, as the range OF mountains alluded 10
In the act fixing the boundary of the two coun-
ties, could then, consistently with such action
of the Legislature only be the dividing ridge
running from Shasta Butte mountain southwark
ly or enthusiastically. and separating the
waters flowing into the Sacramento from those
flowing into the Trinity and Klamath. Thus sir,
your argument falls 10 the ground.
l have given correctly all the law upon the
subject, and will be readily seen that it has
never authorized the Judge of the 9th Judicial
District to hold term OF Court in Siskyou
County, and consequently there was no neces-
operation. 1t never began to operate. No such
law is upon the Statute.
The fact that the people of Siskiyou voted for
Judge of the Ninth District, can give no authori-
ty. 1t will be seen by the subjoined note from
the Clerk of Butte County, that the vote of Sis
kiyou was not computed by him in preparing
my certificate of election. | received it upon
the vote of Colusa, Shasta and Butte alone al
though | had majority, including Sskiyou.
presume the foregoing statement lustifes me
IN the opinion OF legal men, at least, IN delaying
10 hold term of Court in Siskiyou, until autho-
rsed by the Legislature to do
The consent of Attorneys or parties would not
affect the question. That consent cannot give
jurisdiction, is rule of law so well established
and well known by every lawyer. as 10 need no
comment. Were to attempt to hold Court in
Siskiyou, every judi cement, order and writ would
be without force or validity-mere utilities
All parties concerned, Judge, Attorneys
Clerk, Sheriff, and parties TO suits. would be
trespassers, and liable to suit for making, autho
rising, or acting under such judgments. orders
or writs. ! certaiuly will be excused for not
violating my oath of office; for not drawing up
on the Judiciary the contempt of all intelligent
lawyers. aud rende@ing lis functions and process
mere bnrlesque upon Judicial proceedings.
The Attorney Generals opinion is based en-
tirely upon he belief that Siskiyou was taken
from Shasta County. The premises being in
correct, his opinion is, of course, without force
or validity. District Judees, however. do not
learn their duties from the Attorney General