, 1858-01-08

an ucl OF congress, enllIleu An ACt "
amend the acts regulating fees" ZAP
proved August l6, 1856"
Sec 9Th provides: THAT the Judges oI
the Supreme Court in each of the Terrific
reS, or a majority Of them, shall, when as
sembled at their respective seats of govern
ment, fix and appoint the several times and
places of holding the several courts in their
respective districts, and limit the duration
of the terms thereof Prorided That the
said courts shall not be held at more than
three places in any one Territory Acts
Con. 1856, page 40.
In conformity with the provisions of this
act majority of the Justices Of the Su
preme court of this Territory, assembled at
Olympia, the Capitol of the Territory or
the tenth day of November, 1856, and pro
cceded to fix the times and places of hold
ing courts in the several districts. For
the Sd district, in which was the county oi
Pierce, two terms yearly were appointed,
commencing on the first Mondays in May
and November at Steilacoom.
On the assembling of the Legislature,
the districts were modified and the county
of Pierce was included in the I'd Judicial
district. A term of the district court for
Pierce county was held subsequent to the
passage of the act Of Congress Of August
l6, 1856, and prior to the assembling Of
the Justices of the Supreme Court, at the
Capitol of the Territory, in pursuance Of
said act; and also prior TO the transfer Of
Pierce county by legislative act to the End
Judicial District.
At this term, which commenced on the
second Monday of November, A. D. 1856,
the grand jury, inquiring for the body of
the county of Pierce, found a bill Of indict-
ment against the prisoner for murder; at
the same term the defendant was arraigned
and tried-the jury not being able to agree,
the case, on the transfer of Pierce county
by legislative act, passed into the I'd Judi
cial District, and the defendant was put on
trial in the distsict court for said district,
in which was the county of Pierce, under
the indictment found against him in said
county The jury returned against him o
verdict OF guilty, and under the provisions
of our Statute, found that he should suffer
death.
Now it is true, as claimed by the counsel
for the prisoner, that statute ordinarily
takes effect Immediately upon its passage,
unless there be restraining or qualifying
clause, is too well settled for controv, rsy.
: Mathews Zane, Wheaton, l04.-
Kent's Com, vol. l, page ASS.
1t is equally well settled that IL an
offence be created by statute, and pending
the prosecution, the act be repealed, the
whole case falls. No Judgment can be
rendered in any suit for penalty after the
repeal of the act by which it was imposed.
In other words, the repeal Of penal stat
ute puts an end to all suits founded upon
it.-3 Burr, l456-z-5 Crancb, 28l-l3
Howard, 429-3 doaS&534.
The effect of legislative acts abolishing
courts, transferring jurisdiction, or repeal
ing laws under which proceedings have
been commenced, is so well understood by
the profession that but little difficulty can
arise.
All of the cases | have examined refer
to legislation, which either transfers juris-
diction, creates it, or superSedes the enforce
ment Of law by repeal; none Of the cases
apply to the principle now under consider
alton.
In this case the act Of Congress of the
l6th, Aug, 1855, creates no new tribunal
1t neither extends or diminishes the jurisdic-
ton of the courts of the territory in cases
of crime, but simply provides for consoli-
dation of the places Of holding courts in
the several districts into Que for each; and
provides that the times and places of said
terms shall be such as may be agreed upon
by q majority of the Judges of the Supreme
Court when assembled at the seat Of gov
ernment. The practical effect of the act
was to increase the territorial jurisdiction,
by reducing into one that which before was
limited to the several counties. No iu-
creased jurisdiction is given by the act over
crimes or miSdemeanors; no new offences
have been created; no increase or diminu-
ton of penalty for offences already defined
by law 1t is not the case of the abolition
Of one judicial tribunal aud the transfer of
its Jurisdiction and duties TO another. That
which was crime before the passage Of the
act of Congress still continues crime. The
offences Of murdeI, arson aud burglary
still continue the same.
The penalties for these and other offen.
ces remain unchanged-neither diminished
or increased. The jurisdiction of the dis
trict court for the I'd Judicial district was
not enlarged so as to embrace any class ol
offences previously excluded, nor yet was
the jurisdiction diminished.
Did the case fall within the range of thai
numerous class arising from the repeal of a
law creating an offence, it could be easily
disposed of; but such is not the fact.
1t is claimed in the argument of the
counsel for the prisoner in this case, that
the act of Congress referred to, went into
effect Immediately upon its passage, and
consequently worked a repeal of SO much
of the Organic act; and also such laws Of
the Territory as provided for and regulated
the district courts of the Territory.
We have seen that it is well settled as a
general principle, that a statute properly
enacted, takes effect from the date of its
passage, and it is now too well settled to