In 1859 an informal convention was entered into between the high-contracting parties by which the laws and civil officers of both nations were excluded from the territory in dispute; the islands in the meantime were to remain in the joint military occupation of the two nations. Hence, there was a British military post, and also an American military post, on San Juan Island, fully garrisoned. This informal understanding had not the dignity or force of a treaty, and was therefore binding on the courts only as a matter of policy and comity. It was binding only in the court of honor. Such being the facts, a man by the name of Charles Watts, an American citizen, foully murdered another American citizen near the military post of the United States. Watts was arrested by the Federal military authorities and held in confinement. There was a good deal of feeling and excitement over the matter. When I went to Port Townsend to hold Court, I issued a warrant, directed to the United States Marshal, to arrest said Watts and to bring him to Port Townsend for indictment and trial. He was readily delivered by the United States military authorities to the United States Marshal, and brought to Port Townsend. He was indicted by the grand jury for murder in the first degree, and tried and convicted at that term. He was sentenced by me to be hanged until he was dead. An appeal was taken from the final judgment in the case to the Supreme Court of the Territory; and, upon hearing, a majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of Judges Greene and Kennedy, reversed the judgment on the ground that the Federal side of the Court had no jurisdiction. To the general reader, it may be well to state that the Territorial Court had all the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts of the United States, and such jurisdiction constituted what was called, the Federal side of the Court. It also had all the jurisdiction arising under the Territorial laws, and the common law suited to the conditions; and this constituted the Territorial side. Watts was indicted and tried on the Federal side of the Court, and the Supreme Court held that he ought to have been indicted and tried on the Territorial side of the Court--hence the reversal. I delivered a dissenting opinion which, as the case assumed a national importance, I give in full: OPINION. "As I cannot assent to the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court in this case, I will state as briefly as possible the conclusion of my own mind upon the question of jurisdiction involved in the case, with my reasons therefor. "I have come to the conclusion that the United States side of the Court had jurisdiction, and for the following reasons:--