, 1858-01-08

pTeSS lnulchtlnS lne time Wnen lnlS statute
shall take effect, it must be considered as
in force from the date of its passage.
I 1t is necessary, therefore, to recur to the
act for the purpose Of construction.
1t has been said that where the intention
Of the legislature, or the law is doubtful
and not clear, the courts ought to interpret
the law TO be what is most consonant to
equity and least incOnvenient Kerlin VS..
Bnll, Dallas, lis.
The best exponents Of the legislative
mind are the words Of the statute when
they are free from abiguity, but when they
are not We must resort to legislation on
kindred subjects, the spirit of our institu-
tions and the habits of the community, to
discover the intent of the legislation
Com 'th vs. Pa. In. Co., Harris, l66.
According to the argument Of the coun-
sci for the prisoner, all ielonies committed
within the county, prior to the passage of
the act of Congress, and not prosecuted to
conviction and judgment, the perpetrators
thereof would go unscathed by the penal
ties Of the law. Now can it be presumed
that Congress intended by the passage Of
this act to unkennel every felon in the ter
rtories under prosecution, except such as
were suffering under the judgments Of the
courts? We are not convinced Of the
truth of this; but reference to the act
satisfies us that such was not the intent Of
Congress.
Sec 5, provides "that the judges Of the
Supreme Court in each Of the Territories,
or majority Of them, shall when assem-
bled at their respective seats of govern
mcnt, fix and appoin; the several times and
places of holding the several courts in their
respective districts, and limit the duration
thereof; provided, That the said courts
shall not be held at more than three places
in any one Territory; and provided, fur
ther, that the Judge or judges holding such
courts shall adjourn the same without de-
lay, at any time before the expiration of
such terms, whenever in his or their opinion
the further continuance thereof is not nee
essary.1
This embraces the entire legislation Of
Congress upon this subject BY the pro-
visions Of the section, a duty is devolved
upon the judges Of the Supreme court,
without, however, specifying any par rticular
time within which the specific duty was TO
be performed. The performance Of this
duty was, we think, condition precedent; I;
and until the assembling Of the Supreme
Judges, and their determination, the law
was imperative.
Had the judges been authoratively in
formed prior to the fall terms of the Courts,
in 1856, Of the passage of this act Of Con-
gress, it would have been incumbent on
them to have assembled at Olympia, the
Seat of Government, and provided for
terms in conformity with the act. Tho act
is limited by its terms to the times and
places of holding courts.
Under the second branch Of the PROPOSE
ton, as we are considering it, the counsel
for the prisoner have urged, as the second
proposition, that there was error in over
ruling the motion in arrest Of judgment, on
the gronnd that the verdict was against
the law, in this-that the prisoner was en-
titled to trial in the district in which the
crime was committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law
In support of this, the counsel refer to Ar
ticle 6, amendments to the Constitution Of
the United States.
Entertaining the view which we do upon
the subject, it is unnecessary to say, for the
purposes of this case, whether this clause
is operative in the State or Territorial
Courts.
1t has been decided in reference TO Sec.
9th, of the amendments to the Consiitu-
ton, which would appear to stand in pari
pdssH with the section under consideration,
by the Supreme Court for the State of
Vermont, that it applies only to cases in
the United States Courts.-State VS.. Keys,
8 Vermont, 81.
The cases arising under that clause of
this section, which provides that no person
shall be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, seem
to have been discussed in the State Courts
with reference to a similar clause, contained
in several of the State Constitutions In
some Of the States the doctrine of Justice
Story, as laid down in I'd Sumner, page
43, et seqai, has been accepted and recog-
nized. A doubt however, is expressed by
Judge Davis in this case, whether the Sec
ton is applicable to the State Courts-page
l0I.
In this case we have seen that the in
dictment was found in the District Court
for the county Of Pierce, after the passage
Of the act Of Congress limiting the places
Of holding the courts to three in the Terri
tory. The Legislature, by act Of 1851,
defined the Judicial districts. Pierce coun-
ty was, by this act, included in the ID dis
trct. BY an act passed January &c, 1857,
it is provided, that so far as the jurisdic-
ton Of offences cognizable by the district
court, and the trial of criminals is concern
ed, each judicial district shall constitute one
county" The district was thus enlarged; in
other words, Pierce county, for the purposes
of criminal prosecutions, was enlarged so as
to embrace other counties. There was no
transfer Of jursdction-the jury came from
Pierce county. The prisoner was not de-
priVed Of his right at common law to have
his case tried by jury Of the vicinage.-
Q - .l-