Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1822-02-12
THE GAZETTE.
TUESDAY, FEB. IL, 1922.
FOR THE GAZETTE.
No. l.

and number of copies sent to this place with a
town. The object Of which is to get Congress
to pass law, authorisirg convention of the
people of the District, to decide, as the memo
rial processes, upon the expediency of establish
ing a local government, by which is meant
Legislature and Governor for the District.
1T is plain that another object is also in view.
1t will be well for us to consider whether the
reasons assigned for our discomfort are real or
imaginary.
the Legislature over this district vested in Con-
gress has not been tcissly and beaignly exercised
SO as to secure inviolate, every civil right, and
to extend to the people of the District, the en-
joyment of those political franchises, which are
not less the pride than the safeguard ofour coun-
try. Here would ask, in what instance have
our rights been invaded byt general govern
ment. The memorial, it is true, charges one
department of the general government, with
the maintenance of doctrines, whose eventual
prevalence threatens the subversion of all their
distinctive rights as frsemen. This department
presume, is the Supreme Court. What are
the doctrines which the Supreme Court have
established that will have such deterious eff,
feet on our rights. confess have not heard
OF, or read any decision of the Supreme Court
that justifies such charge upon such an en-
lightened, virtuous and Independent court. 1t
would have been proper in the Trainer or franz
ers Of this memorial, to state, what were the
particular doctrines alluded to, which were
maintained by the court, before the people were
called upon to sign memorial to congress, ma
king such charge.
The memorial alledges, that according to the
decision of the Supreme Court, the Inhabitants
of the District, are not constitutionally entitled
to many of the civil rights of the citizens ofthe
stateY, guaranteed to them, merely because their
rig hts are secured to them as being citizens of
state. The Supreme Court, venture to as
sert, have never SO decided. That Court has
never decided, that the constitution of the Uni
ted States did deprive the inhabitants of the dis
trict, of any of the essential rights, secured by
that instrument, to the citizens of the states.
The writer of these remarks, cannot conjec-
| ture, to what decision of the Supreme Court,
| the preparer of this memorial can allude, ex-
| cept it be to that made In the case of Hepburn
and Dundas Us. Thomazen Ellzey, reported in
| Cd Cranch Reports, AS. If this be the deci-
sion alluded to, the writer of the memorial
has entirely misunderstood 1t. In that case the
court did decide, and very properly too
| "That citizen of the District of Columbia
could not sue citizen of Virginia, in the Fed
.ral Court of the State; not because the consti-
tuition prohibited it., but because congress in the
| judiciary act, had not authorised it." The
court at the same time declaring that it was
competent for congress to give the jurisdiction
| in such cases. There is no doubt that congress
has such power; fer they have given the right
In all cases arising between a citizen of the Yves
tern Territories and citizen of any of the
States. This is remedy, that local legisla-
ture could not give, and five had local iegisla-
ture; still congress must pass a law giving the
jurisdiction In such cases to the Federal Courts.
| The writer of the memorial further alledges,
that under the construction which theSupreme
Court has given to the term states, as used in
the constitution, the discretion and power OF
Congress to legislate for the District, is render
ed absolute In the instances enumerated In the
memorial.
| In this the writer is entirely mistaken, he ex-
| tends the argument of the Supreme Court in
| the case before mentioned, beyond the lair and
legitimate meaning of it. But suppose thai
was the meaning and fair conclusion from the
decision of the court. The question again re
Ours, would the establishment of a local go.
verhnlent for the District, under any form or
name, alter or abridge the constitutional power
of Congress, whatsoever, that may be. to pass
the laws, which this memorial alledges Con.
gress may enact, according to the decision Of
the Supreme Court. 1t surely could not have
this eject, and we should have the same difficult
ties to exist, under the government of the u
MON with or without the local legislature.
Theother decision of the Supreme Court, to
whichitis possible the memorial may allude, is
that in which the court decided, it was consti-
tutional for Congress to impose direct tax on