St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-12-11
AJURIsDICTIoN DEFINED.

40 decision from the supreme court has
.,,rscta5 sncb General attention from attor-
nnvs for a long time as that Of Judge
Mitchell in which he affirms the decision OF
Judce Seagrave Smith, Of the district court,
in the habeas corpus ease growing out Of the
street car riots.
twill be remembered that Judge Emery
sentenced number of persons TO the work
house for ninety days. and imposed the addl-
tional sentence of 500 fine or ninety DAYS
imprisonment in the workhouSe. Many
authority Of the municipal court 10
impose such penalties. Judge Rand ana
Thomas Csnty, as attorneys Tor the prisoners
sued out writs of habeaS corpus, whlcn were
tried before Judge Seagraye Smith. The rul-
ing of this Judge on the point WIS that these
judgments were void. because they eXeeeue9
The Jurisdiction of the municipal court, anu
that the prisoners be released. The case was
appealed by the city 10 me supreIn eo ,'I,,
who affirmed Judge Smiths rulings III every
particular This decision is Tebuke 10 any
assumption of Jurisdiction by Judges not
specifically conferred by the Legislature.
What the bench needs most IS men VINO are
content 10 administer law as Il is, rather IMAM
those of the progressive tendency, whose
imasinations supply what in their minds
seem TO be deficiencies in it.
The above appeared in the local de-
paTtment of the Minneapolis section OF
last Sundays GLOBE. SO far as the re-
porter undertook to state facts he per
formed his duty well, but when he de
parted from his province as reporter,
and turned himself loose as an editor.
whose province it is to criticiSe, he made
@ failure of il.
The charter Of Minneapolis was first
granted in 1867, and the power to I'M
pose BOTH fine AND imprisonment was
then specifically conferred by leglsla-
ture" upOn the common council. The
municipal court was organized and ere
Rted in 1877, and in that year an ordl-
nance-the one i'm QueStiOn-WaS passed,
authorizing "a fine of 800 AND lmprlS-
onment for ninety days, EITHER OR
BOTH, IN the discretion of the court. "
This ordinance and charter power
have never been revoked, but have
stood unchallenged, and frequently en-
forced, for twenty years IN TINS city,
and frequently in this court. During
ali this time at frequent Intervals the
court has deemed it proper to impose
the extreme penalty, and has always
believed it was fully empowered and
authorized to do so.
At length, upon an able and eXhaus-
tive review of the power of the supreme
court. this charter and ordinance have
been held unconstitutional and the for
mer judgments void.
If inferior courts were never III error
there would be no need of the appellate
court.
1t will readily be believed that it was
not the wanton exercise of the ''imagin-
atiOn," but the imperative demands OF
duty in a grave public crisis which
called for the exercise of the full power
conferred by the city charter, that led
TO the convictions and sentences now
reversed by the supreme court. BY
reference to section of chapter of
the city charter. and the ordinance sup
pressing disorderly conduct, etc, on
page 1914 of the published ordinance,
it will be observed that the power eXer-
cised by Judge Emery was specifically
conferred by the legislature; and that
this act of the legislature has been, after
twenty-five years. pronounced By the
court of last resort unconstitutional,
does not stamp the action of the in
ferior court as "imaginative" or un-
warranted.