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

this court over these writs OF error pre-
sents Itself at the threshold. 10 was not
suggested by the counsel for the united
states at the argument, nor referred "
by the counsel for the plaintiff 10 ere
ror. for the reason, as the court has
been advised by both parties since me
argument that a decision on the merits
WAS desired and for the further red-
gon. thar this court nj the present term,
In Cannon vs. United states, ll6 u 3,
30. took copnizance OF a writ Of error
I'm a like case. But the question has
presented itself 20 the court, and since
the argument. ave have been furnished
with "a brief on the part ~ the plaintiff
IN error In support of the jurisdiction
After reviewing the statutes and
numerous cases bearing upon the sub
jcct the court further says;
eve conclude. therefore, that wa
have juripsdiction OF these writs of er-
ror, ana that they must be dismissed
for that reason
In previous similar case the same
court had passed upon its merits Boz
cause the question OF jurisdiction had
not been raised on either side, SO the
court made the accompanying further
explanation and ruling in It's opinion
already cited.
at Is urged however, that this court
took Jurisdiction of the writ OF error IN
Cannon VS. United states, li6 u. 3. DO,
and affirmed the judgment on a con-
victlon under the same section OF the
act of 1882 The question of jurisdlc-
ton was not considered I'm fact In that
case nor alluded TO I'm the decision nor
presented to the court by the counsel
Tor the United states, nor referred TO
by either party at the argument or IN
the briefs. Probably both parties de-
sired decision on the mcrlta THE
QUESTION WAS OVERLOOKED by
ALL THE MEM BEERS OF THE
COURT. But, as the case was decided
at the present term, and the want OF
jurisdiction I'm II IS clear, we have de-
cided to vacate our judgment, and re-
call the mandate ana dismiss the writ
of error for want Of Jurisdiction, IN
order that the reported decision may
not appear to be u precedent for me eN-
ercise Of jurisdiction by this court IN
case OF the kind
Thus It win be seen that the question
of jurisdiction is most important In
judicial proceedings, and having acted
ON matter In which It afterwards dis
covered II had no jurisdiction, the SUI
prcme Court OF the United states va
Gated its own Judgment, delivered
without considering It's lack Of juris-
dicton, so that il might not be cited
as a precedent.
From the foregoing 1t is perfectly
clear that the question Of the jurlsdic-
ton of the Federal court here, In the
salaries case. was properly raised by
counsel for the defence and that they
would not have performed their duty to
their clients, or TO the court, II they
had not interposed It, To find fault
with the state officials who were at
tackled and with the attorneys who
defended them, because they raised at
the proper time, the pivotal question of
the power OF the court TO adjudicate the
matter In dispute, Is very unjust and
shows lack of legal understanding
that is pitiful
The Federal court cannot entertain
n question OF law over which 1t has
no jurisdiction. Judge Marshalls
standing as lawyer and jurist Is
not doubted by anyone who is familiar
with Utah affairs, of bar and bench,
and 1t is folly to talk of his acting
upon such agreements as those sug-
gested by our fautnndng contempo-
rary.