Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-04-20
LAW AMONG THE HORIZONS.
Important Decision by the United States
Chief Justice.
The Courts Of Utah having Jurisdiction
Of O1fenses by MOrmons Declared
not United States Courts.

WAsHINeroN, D.. C., April Is, 1872.
The following decisions were made in
the Supreme Court to-day:
No.379. Clinton ct at. Us. Englebreeht
et dL-ErroF TO the Supreme Court of the
Territory of Utah.-This was a civil &C.
ton for the recovery of a penalty for the
recovery of penalty for the destruction
Of the property Of the defendants in er-
ror by the plaintiffs, who were officers oil
the Territory, acting under a law there
Of The jury before whom the case was
tried were summoned from the body OF
the county at the discretion of the Mar
shal, on an open veRire directed to him
by the Court. The array was challenged
on the ground that the jurors were not
drawn by lot, in accordance with a law
Of the Territory. The Court Overruled
the challenge, and the verdict upon the
trial was for the plaintiffs below. 1t is
here held that the Court below erred in
acting upon the theorythat the Supreme
Court and District Courts of the Terri
tory were Courts of the United States,
and that they were governed in the Sc
lection of jurors by acts Of Congress.
The Judges of the Supreme Court OF
the Territory are appointed by the Pre-
sident under the Acts of Congress. But
this does not make the courts. They
are authorized TO hold courts of the
United States. This, it is said, was de-
cided long ago in the American Insur-
anee Company rs. Carter, / Peters, 546.
There is nothing in the constitution
which would prevent Congress from
comforting the jurisdiction they exercise.
If the judges were elected by the people
of the Territory and commissioned by
the Governor, they might be clothed
with the same authority to decide all
eases arising under the constitution and
laws Of the United States subject to the
same revision, and it is said it can
nardly be supposed that the earliest
territorial courts did not decide such
questions, although there was no specific
provision to that effect until a compare
lively recent period.
There is no Circuit Court of the United
states moi Is there any District Court OF
he United States in the sense of the
Constitution in the Territory of Utah.
The Judges are not appointed for the
same terms, morris the jurisdiction which
they exercise part of the judicial power
conferred by the Constitution or he gen-
eral government. The Courts are the
ttA AdtlNe GDuTb5 u the AtEIlbDIg tEt-
ated in view of the clause which au-
thOTized Congress to make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the Ter
ritories. The organic act authorizes the
appointment of an Attorney and a Mar
shall for the Territory, who may, proper
ly enough, be called the Attorney and
Marshal of the United States for the Ter
ritOFy; for their duties in the courts have
exclusive relation TO eases arising under
the law and Constitution Of the United
States.
The process for summoning jurors may
be a process for exercising their jurisdic-
ton, for the Territorial courts, when
acting in such eases, are circuit and dis
trict courts of the United States; but the
making of the lists and all matters con-
nected with the designation of jurors are
subject to the regulation of Territorial
law. 1t is held that the acts of Congress
in respect to the summOning of jurors do
not apply to such a case as this, unless
they were intended to regulate such pro-
cess in the Territory, which is not the
ease; that the challenge to the array
should have been allowed. Judgment
reversed. The Chief Justice delivered
the opinion.