Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-27
A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.


FORT SMITH, Ark, April 26.-In thu
| United States court today the motion FOL
a new trial in the case of Joseph Martin
convicted of murder at the present term
W as taken up. argued and submitted tc
the court. Among other things set up in
the motion was that there was no lawful
jurisdiction in the court TO try the defend
| ant, because the offense for which he was
| tried and convicted was alleged to have
! been committed in that part Of the Indian
territory annexed to the eastern judicial
district of Texas, "the Paris district" by
the act of congress of March /, 1889 The
offense committed by Martin was before
before that time and the case was at time
pending in court here. 1t was claimed the
act comforting jurisdiction an this court to
try such case when occurring IN the
Indian country, when 1t did occur had
been repealed by the act OF congress re-
ferred to above. This act detached from
the western district of Arkansas. and at
tached to the eastern district of Texas, the
country where the murder occurred.
Judge Park held, as the act of congress is
silent as TO when cases pending in the dis
trlct court of the western district OF Ar
kansas at the time of the passage of the
act should be tried, when the crime
tory detached and attached to the Texas
district, such cases must be tried in the
court here: that the act assigning to the
district court at Paris Tex, the power to
try certain offenses when committed in
certain parts of the Indian Territory, did
not deprive the district court here of the
power of trying an indictment pending
therein at the time of the passage of the
act, but that such court alone, under the
language of the act of Mar b l, could try
such cases. The judge further held that
all crimes committed in the Chicka-
saw nation, and in that part
OF the Choctaw nation detached
from the western district OF
Arkansas, before the passage of said act,
must be tried in the federal court here, as
the act of congress is silent as to when
they shall be tried; that congress had
the constitutional power to assign them
for trial to the federal court at Paris,
Tex, but unless the act OF, congress
clearly and in express and appropri-
ate language had done so, they can be
tried only in the United States court here,
as it is cardinal and well estab-
lished principle that court will never
give TO a statute retrospective opera
ton unless it clearly appeared from the
language used that it's makers intended
it to have that effect, because laws are
generally made to operate upon the future,
not the past. TransactorS OF new legisla-
sion seldom, if ever, especially in the
enactment of criminal laws, intend them
to have retroactive effect, and courts will
never give them that operation unless the
intention is clearly expressed. Unless SO
expressed the court at Paris. Tex, could
not try such cases. If it could not, and
the court here could not, congress, by its
legislation, has given immunity from pun
ishment to large number of criminals,
and some of them charged with the most
wicked murders. That congress had any
such intention is presumption not to be
INDUCED in for moment.
This is decision of great Importance;
The judge sustained 1t by very strong
array of authorities, and it is conceded by
all lawyers to be prominently sound and
a clear and able exposition of the law.
Does gentle spring" find you weak and