Year: 1869




ers a fair understanding as to the
positions taken by the different Dis
trict Judges of the Territory on the
question of whether or no there is a
u. S. District Court. by name, in
this Territory, wa have been misun-
derstood as wishing to attack the
soundness of Chief Justice Noggle's
decision in the Gibson case, when in
fact we had no such intention for
while we assume the right to com
ment on any matter of public inter
est, we do not arrogate TO ourself o
knowledge Of law, nor the ability
/ to decide, especially upon technic-
ality SO fine as the one involved in
the ellison case,as to the title Of the
Court in which the action should be
brought neither do we consider it
of sufficient public importance
whether the Courts shall be called
/ u. S. or Territorial so long as the
jurisdiction is the samo in either
case, to get up controversy, if we
were so inclined, which we are not.
Our only object was to give the
reader an understanding Of the DRIFT
Of the decision and to inform the
public of the fact that a majority of
the Judges were of different opln-
ion, without assuming to decide
which was right. Having been re-
quested to publish the opinion, in
order to show what was decided, we
regret a want of space to enable US
TO do so, and give few extracts and
refer the reader TO the Capital Chron-
icle of the 18th for the document
complete:


This is a motion TO quash the sum
mons because it is issued out OF the
Third Judicial District Court OF Ida
ho Territory, and because it Is no
in form issued by and out Of th'
United States District Court. u
this case the summons may be IN
formal. but tits substantially cor
rect The suit was properly com
: menced in the Third Judicial Copr
Q for Idaho Territory.


The Judges Of the Supreme Cour
oe Idaho Territory are appointed a
such and may legally hold the Terri
torial Supreme Court and that Cour
is opened and closed by the Mar
shall for the Territory and that Cour
!. has appellate power over all case
arising under the constitution an


laws of the United States and in al
cases in which the United States
A party or is interested. That bein


So is there an attorney who woul


dare entitle papers in that Com


"The United States Supreme Court,
mr. who would dare, in any case,
SO styIe that Court. Such an attol
: uey has not yet reached the proie'


sion in Idaho Territory.


If By law there was case propt


to be brought before Justice Of III


Peace by the United States. coul


the Justice Court be called by an


other name than that given to it


and by the law creating 1t?


We may repeat that the Judicii


mower OF Idaho Territory is create
, bv section nine of the Organic Ac
: which provides THAT it shall l


vested in a Supreme Court, Distri


Courts, Probate Courts and In Ju


tices Of the Peace"


If these Territorial courts al
8, United States Courts, why did Co


gress so carefully provide in our y
." ganic Act that each Of the Territ
Rial I" District Courts shall have an
exercise the same jurisdiction in q


cases arising under the constitute


and laws OF the United States, d
E. If Congress designed that the
is Territorial District Courts be know
N and called United States Courts WI


were they not so named IN the a
Ill creating them, and if these Coul


are United States Courts in name
well as in power, of course To


nossessed all the jurisdiction a
L tTrxrt a