Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-11-11
JUDICIAL JURISDICTION.

The judicial salaries case, dismissed
by Judge Marshall In the Federal court,
is the subject OF an editorial In a morn
Ing paper which sets forth some very
peculiar legal doctrine The facts in
the case have been stated and the rea-
son for its dismissal explained in these
columns, and the whole matter is clear
and definite. The court decided that II
had no jurisdiction That settled 1t so
far as the Federal court was concerned,
and, as we believe, should end the dis
pute entirely.
But our contemporary Is not satisfied
with this finale, II throws out some IN
situations which reflect unjustly on
the Judges Interested I'm the outcome,
and also on the counsel in the case,
and further It offers advice which eX-
perlenced lawyers win meet with "A
very broad smile, Here IL n paragraph
OF two from the editorial referred to.
Instead Of ALLOWING the matter to go
before the court they permitted their
paid attorney 10 interpose a technical
objection that prevented Judge Mar
shall from taking jurisdiction. 1t looks
as II the judges were afraid TO have an
impartial court say whether or not
they are entitled to this extra money.
There is yet way, however, for them
TO clear themselves OF this justihable
imputatlon,
Let them get together and agree on
statement Of facts. This should be
easy. Then let them submit the case
on an agreed statement and bind them
selves to abide by the decision Of Judge
Marshall II he can be persuaded to ac-
cept the responsibility. District and
supreme court Judges are not always,
but they should be always men OF the
highest stndards Of honor and in
tegrity. They should be willing to re-
sign their positions rather than accept
n single cent that Is questionable, They
all know the dollars they are drawing
now from the state In excess Of the
salaries for which they agreed to serve
are questionable dollars.
will they be brave enough to set
aside technlcallties and ask Judge Mar
shall to pass on the case?
Does not our contemporary under
stand that agreements among litigants,
or their attorneys or both, do not con-
fer Jurisdiction upon court? II the
Federal Judge takes up a case Of any
kind he win not ait as court Of arbi-
tratlon but OF law, And he cannot as
sumo authority other than that con-
ferrcd upon him by law, It would not
matter how many agreements as to
facts were made by the parties litlgant;
they would not increase his judicial
powers a jot, nor justify him In over
stepping his legitimate jurisdiction one
hairs breadth
The judicial powers Of United states
courts are defined IN the national Con-
stitution. It does not require the learn
ing of lawyer to understand them
lie who reads may comprehend, II
our contemporary can find in the emu
meration any such authority as that
which It wants Judge Marshall to eX-
ercise, We viii be pleased to publish II
and acknowledge our mistake.
But the meaning Of jurisdiction" and
the question of it's exercise In Federal
courts have been definitely settled, as
viii be seen from the following cita-
lions, to which we invite careful atten-
ton, As to the meaning Of the term,
see. II Am, and Eng. Ency. Of Law:
Jurisdiction is authority to hear and
determine cause D. l0N,
Jurisdiction Of the subject matter ls
given only by law and cannot be con-
ferred by consent p. 1000.
This definition is fortified IN an ao-
companyIng note citing cases from
England, supreme Court ot the United
States, and most Of the states In the
Federal Union, The annexed is from
Bailey on jurisdiction, Sec 40;
is general rule that consent can
not confer upon a court jurisdiction OF
the subject matter The authority of
the court In judicial proceedings Is COM
ferred by law, The cases are so numer-
Gus and the doctrlhe so universal that
nothing can De gained by special refer
ence TO many individual cases.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States has passed on this question, in
manner that precludes It's further dis.
cusslon among lawyers who are posted
In the case OF Lorenzo Snow vs. United
States, the question OF jurisdiction was
considered ana the ruling OF the court
rs follows, win be found in rs, T. S.
3i7, 354.
THE question OF the Jurisdiction OF