Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-23
IMPORTANT DECISION.

The following opinion OF Chief Justice
Shannon. will 20 doubt be read with much
interest by the legal profession 10 this and
other territories. 1t has most important
bearing upon the trial of all United States
cases In our courts.
UNITED STATES In the District Court
HENRY Efv1scsroS bato.a % sas 4 Tenisory stre'
Indictma4nt No. 8, November Term 1873,
On motion Of defendant, upon his affidavit, |
that the Judge OF this Court call some other |
Judge OF the Territory to preside at the trial OF
this cause. Jndue Shannon delivered in sub |
OPINION:
The indictment in this case was found by
second judicial district. The trial must be had
on the federal side Of the court, in which all
eases arising under the constitution and laws Of
quired to be tried.
The question before the court is whether Sec
tlon 2s'0f the code Of criminal procedure Of this
Territory Is applicable to such a case as the
present one.
Upon full and careful examination of this
s ns .Sd N 5a II o 70
district court is not now sitting for any one coun
W .ulSlSlOus DuJ cnCITc OlSIflCCs and
States WHEN the Sits enaas
ar sub-diyision. it inquiresby the intervention
DIVISION, Of all public offenses against mere
territorial laws-colnmitied or triable therein.
ssetas S + fs e ets that
is liable to punishment for public offense, as is
cert i; y Sx s,ts soF2zaSis exclusively in the
This action is exclusively cOgnizable under the
laws Of the United states, in this court and the
osnss Sc charged has no relation to the penal
The local code Of procedure was framed and
enacted for the regulation OF trials 4owing out
Of the territorial criminal laws; and not for the
On the contrary, section 6lo expressly recog-
States or federal side E Of said courts s separate
and distinct from the mere territorial procedure
and practice.
States dakota reports, s22), it was held that =
trial for homicide, committed in violation of
United States laws. must be had on the federal
United $, ,ates statutes and the rules Of common
law" Hence in the trial of all Offenses against
the United States, the procedure and practice
preme court and until this decision Is reversed
| we must be governed byit..
AS tothe true Interpretation of ChapterV of
our local procedure act (page S79), all the sec.
tions embraced within it must be carefully scan
ned in Orderto ascertain its evident meaning
and scope. That section 85 has reference only
| to cases In which the territory is party l.
manifest from the use of the words ''territoria
prison." as well as OF the words county or sub.
division" and "a ,.Gadjoining county" and sheriff
And section 29l has express reference to the
district attorney acting on behalf Of the terri.
tory. Every pait OF the chapter, as well as q
code must be yewed IL ~ CONNECTION W.T.,
and to give a sensible and intelligent effect t.
each. If the words of one section should be
sections in pari nsate,ta, for every Legislative
act must have reasonable construction.
This court, sitting as a quasi United States
local law, to case under United States law an(
in which the United states is a party.
This 1t appears to me, cannot be done without
total disregard of the painest rules Of con
But in the consideration Of the subject. a mucl
graver question arises. to-wit Can the legisa
a any way cripple or restrict tie }arsaietio' Hai
expressly conferred upon these courts by tn
orsInic act aud the revised statutes Of the Unit
each Of these three district courts shall llav
'and exercise the same jurisdiction. in all case
arising under the constitution and laws of til
district courts of the United States.'' an
!: jurisdiction titus so distinctly and amply give
by the sovereign power be DESTROYED or impair
power of the territory must not contravene an
aw of the United State, especially one grant
. Ing Jurisdiction to the courts. local enac,
authority. is void. Again. each of these cour,
has common law jurisdiction expressly granted
This being conceded the proposition is. ths
ercse The iarisdielion conferred S and % enjoiee
5 upon it. because the local Legislature has (as
is alleged) taken ittsway. No act Of congres
in support of such position. The legislature
sovereign state has no such power-and mMc
less with regard to a territorial assembly. TIL
Il a rSS Nf1nr nfoit<
States law, derives its Jurisdiction solely fro
congress. Clothed It; with 1t. anI commanded
IT, 1t rs thus sought to deprive
power and authority; and this upon sing
= at1davit Of a party, and upon the suppose
strength of Ss local statute: repeat that this
| sustained by any authority.
II one judge may in this way, be ousted. VIII
!" IN ss ap SosS @ he
two judges? In the latter event, there won
be no competent authority left ~ the terrific
n eral government would be imperative
If the doctrine G. Intended for is correct, VIII
q cases arising in the Indian country, and Of eve
.. misdemean0r and felony contained in the Grim
acts Of the United States? Each accused par
upon making an atidaylt s such Ia as this
administration of justice-even although he M
never have seen the Judge unit! his arraignMel
For the Wnole territory, we have only thI
9, judges having this jurisdiction, and they
~ them has his own important duties to perio
q. within his own distrct-and he cannot he e
il pected to travel hundreds OF miles. at his o,
=. expense. to try u case upon the mere suggesti
Of any indicted party. Considerations like tn,
II have operated to create doubts as to the bindi
10 force OF section 2s5. even as applicable to
courts OF counties and sub divisions.
Generally. however, the practice, pleadin
and forms and modes Of proceeding Of the tel
torial courts. as we'll as their respecti.e jurisil
tiOns.-in cases merely arising under the 10
to laws,-were Intended to be and are left to
). legislative action of the territorial assemble
lo' aud to the regulations which might be adop
II by the courts themselves subject however {
~ few ex ress and implied conditions in the org
inn i4anlf