Daily Tombstone epitaph., 1886-05-12
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Chief Justice Waite's Opinion of
 Our County Courts.
He Decides that the Act Establishing the
 Court is Valid,

| m tne case pt NdSn. r LdinIop: WHO petj,ioned for writ of habeas corpus;
 The petitioner is detained in the fer. ritorial prison al Arizona upon warrant | of commltment issued by the County | Court of Cochise county, under a sem tenCe ol Imprisonment on d Convictian of the crime of grand larceny, and the only | question presented by his petition IS whether the territorial legislature of Ari- zona had authority tn create and estab- fish that court. There is no question of the jurisdiction of the court 10 try the | petitioner for the offense of which he
 was convicted if the court itself was rightfulIy created.
 The precise question for delerminaton
 is whether such court with such ju- | risdiction is an ''inferior court" within
 the meaning of $ I,9oS. It has "eaual concurrent common law, equitable and
 statutory jurisdiction with the Dis,iicl | Courts in all cases, and original concur
 rent jurisdiction with the District Courts | in all criminal cases amount
 ing to felony, and cases of misdemeanor, not otherwise provided for" It is, there
 fore, court of substantially equal dig nity and importance with the District Court, so far as Cochise county is con cerned, but il is ''inferior" to the Su- ! preme Court, because that court has power to review it3 judgments and de- crees on appeal. As every Territory is by the Revised Statutes to be divided into districts, and as District Court is
 to be held in each district, $ 1908 must
 be so construed as not to exclude Dis
 trict Courts in Arizona Territory. Still, as District Courts are neither named
 nor specially referred to in the section, it does not necessarily follow that the Sin
 ferior courts" provided for must be courts inferior to them. Sor some reason Con- gress saw fit in establishing the territo- rial government of Arizona to depart from its usual habit of specifying the courts in which the judicial power should
 be vested, and to provide that it should
 be vested there ''in Supreme Court to consist of three judges, and such infe- rior courts as the legislative council may prescribe. c. 56, $ ?, I2, Stat. 665 In all other Territories then existing it had been vested "ln Supreme Court, Dis | trict Courts, Probate Courts, and in jus tices of the peace" This practice began
 with the ac, establishing the territorial government of Wisconsin, April 20, 1856, Stat. 10, C. s4, $ 9, and it was followed in all the territorial organic acts passed afterwards, except in those for Arizona | and Alaska. In Arizona the provision as to the vesting of judicial power was more like that in the organic act of Florida, March 30, 1922, , Stat. 654, c. B, 6, where it was placed "in two Su. perior Courts, and in such inferior courts and justices of the peace as the legisla- tive council of the territory may from
 time to time establish" This it was
 held in American Insurance Company
 vs. Canter, Pet. ST, gave the
 legislative council authority to establish
 courts of concurrent jurisdiction with
 the superior courts, except in respect to
 capital ofienses, as to which, by the or
 ganic act, the jurisdiction of the su-
 perior courts had been made exclusive.
 The language of Chief Justice Marshal
 is, p. 544; "This general grant is com
 mon to the superior and inferior courts,
 and their jurisdiction is concurrent, ex.
 cept so far as it may be made exclusive
 in either, by other provisions of the
 statute. The jurisdiction of the superior
 courts is declared to be exclusive over
 capital offenses; on every other ques. ton over which those courts may take
 cognizance by virtue of this section, con.
 current jurisdiction may be given to the
 inferior courts." This is,as it seems to be equally applicable ts the present case The legislative power of the Territor, extends to "all rightful subjects of legis : lation not inconsistent with the Consti tuition and laws of the United States.
 This includes the establishment of "in ferior courts;" that is to say, courts in { f.rior to the Supreme Court. Distric n Courts have been established by Con . sress, but Congress has not defined thei e jurisdiction, furtt CT than to provide gen
 orally that they shall have chancery a
 we'll as common law jurisdiction. Ac ' cording to $ 1886 the jurisdiction of a the courts is to be such as shall be lin ,,' ited by law. There is no restraint o :, the legislative powers of this Territory a " to the grant of jurisdiction to the infel for courts, except by implication, that
 shall be such as properly belongs to