Arizona miner., 1866-04-11
THE ARIZONA MINING COMPANY IN
 COURT.

 case of Joseph Black rs. the Arizona Mining
 Company, to which our Tucson correspondent
 refers in the letter on the outside of the pres ent number of the MINER. We thought to
 defer it's publication until the next number,
 but as we have the space and the opinion
 mus, prove of interest to our people, we give
 it without delay. The Arizona Mining Com
 pany, it is hardly necessary to state, is the
 corporation owning and working the Cerro
 Colorado or Heintzelman silver mine in Pima
 county:
 Ia l.e District Court of he First Jedieiai Dis
 trict of hs Territory cf drilona sitting os q
 CirrnR aRd District Court cf he United Sdtes.
 Joseph Black rs. the Arizona Mining Com
 pany.
 This is a motion to quash and set aside the
 attachment, summons, and other proceedings
 in the cause for irregularities, insufticencies
 and other defects alleged to appear on the face of the papers and by affidavit.
 The defendants, by their attorney, rest this
 motion on several objections stated, to the proceedings, two only of which, out of the several stated in the view ! have beer com ! pelled to take Of the case, deem it necessary
 now to consider, as being decisive of the | question of the insufticiency or suiiiciency of the proceedings, and these two questions go
 to the jurisdiction of the court as to both the
 subject matter and the parties. It would be but an idle waste of time and productive of
 no good, either as settling rights or establish ' ing principles, to 20 into an extended consid-
 eration of all the various subordinate objec | tions when, finally, the whole case must be decided on question of jurisdiction going to
 the legal competency of the suit itself
 The present suit is brought by Joseph Black, as plaintiff, who is described in the proceedings as an alien and British subject, now resident in Mexico, against the Arizona
 Mining Company as defendant alleged to be
 a corporation and association created and ex-
 isting under the laws of the State of New
 York. The subject matter of the suit is al-
 legged to be certain drafts, and an open ac-
 count owned and held by plaintiff against the
 defendants. The suit is instituted in the
 District Court of the United States for the
 First Judicial District, by process of sum
 mons and attachment, a method recognized
 by the Territorial Code for commencing suits
 in the Territorial Courts The summons Is
 returned by the Marshall as served on the
 agent of defendants. O. NJ. Davidson, and the
 attachment IS returned served by n seizure of
 the property of the defendants by the same 0fhcef. It nowhere appears that the deiend- ants have complied, or pretended to comply, with the provisions of chapter 5l of the Code, m relation 10 foreign corporations, SO as to constitute an agent, under that Code, eonpe- tent to receive the service of process, so as to bind the prineipal-the foreign corporation or association, even if such compliance would ID any way affect this case. The case, there fore, rests upon the common law and the acts of Congress regulating the jurisdiction and process Of the District Courts of the United States. In the original law creating the Territory of Arizona Act of Congress of the 24th of February, 1863, reference is had to the Organic Act creating the Territory of New Mexico Act of Congress, September 9, A. D. 1850, as defining and limiting the pow CTS and jurisdiction of the courts thereby created. This latter act rests the judicial powers of the Territory in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts and Courts nf Justices of the Peace. By the ninth sec ton of the Act, after vestiRg in the Supreme md District Courts both chapcery and com non law jurisdiction, 1t provides for the ap- ointment of clerks of said Courts. for writs ] ,t error, bills of exception and appeals from he decisions of the District Court to the Supreme Court, ana also writs of error. etc. rom the decisions of the Supreme Court of -he Territory to the Supreme Court of the United States; 1t then provides that each of said District Courts shdH hare aud eregciss he sane jUrisiictiop, ia aH oases arisiHg under the and tars of he UAited S,ates, as k rested iR He Circuit and District Courts of he United S'ateS. Under the provisions of this Organic Act these District Courts thereby created, have, and are required, to act in a double capacity: First, as Territorial Courts. m the general ehancery and common law ju- as, from time to time, the same may be regulated and limited by the laws of the Territory, and second, as Courts exercis- ing the powers and jurisdiction of Circuit and District Courts of the United States, as created and regulated by the constitution and laws of the United States. These District Courts, as all other Territorial Courts, are not constitutional Courts in which the iudic- lal powers conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it; they are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territo- ries of the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is defined in the third article of the constitution, but is con erred by Congress in the execution of these general powers which that body possesses over the Territories of the United States. The American Insurance Company rs Coster Peters, 5ll, 546. The validity or inyalidty of the proceedings in the present suit must depend on whether, first, the subject matter of the suit is within the jurisdiction of this Court, sitting as a District Court of the Uni ted States, and, second, whether the parties to the suit are within its jurisdiction. either failing, the proceeding cannot be sustained. Both of these fundamental questions must be | settled by reference to the legislation of Con- | sress creating and conferring jurisdiction in ts measure and method of exercise on the District Courts of the United States. which jurisdiction this Court is now exercising SubGfaHffalIy ba b,ia L.