Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-01-18

L "a
ed by the Supreme Court from the Cir
cult Courts Of the District.
willnext endeavorto shew how the o.
pinions thrown out by the Supreme
Court on this subject, tend to supporting
own. In the case of Clarke o. Baza-
done, l. Cranch 2l2, the Court quash-
ed the writ, because the act Of Congress
had not given that Court appellate ju-
risdiction in cases from the territories.
From which we may infer that the
Court thought Congress might autho-
rise such an appeal, although terrific
ry is hot State.
In the case Of Hepburn and Dundas
o. Ellzey, I'd Cranch AS, Chief Justice
Marshall, in delivering the opinion OF
the Court, says--"The question in this
case is whether the plaintiffs, as resi-
dents of the District of Columbia,
can maintain an action in the Circuit
" Court of the United States for the dis
trict of Virginia. "This," he conti-
nues, "depends on The act of Congress
describing the jurisdiction Of the
" Court. That act gives jurisdiction
"between citizen of the State, in which
"the suit is brought and citizen of a
Smother State, to support the jurisdic-
+" ton in this case il must appear that
+" Columbia is State" In concluding
his opinion, the Chief Justice says,
cit is true that as citizens Of the Unit
"ed States, s Of that particular district,
(which is subject to the jurisdiction OF
"Congress, 1t is extraordinary, that the
Courts Of the United States, which
care open to aliens and to the citizens OF
every State in the Union should be
"closed upon them. But this is a sub
eject for legislative, not for judicial con-
sideration."
In the case Of the Corporation OF N.
Orleans q. Winter, lst Wheaton, 90,
the Supreme Court say, "That every
"reason for the opinion of the Court
"that citizen of the District Of Co.
"lumbia was not capable Of suing in the
"Courts of the United States, under
"he judiciary act is equally applicable
"to a citizen of a territory"
In the case Of Loughborough o.
Blake, 5th Wheaton sly, the question
arose as to the constitutionahty of the
act of Congress, which imposed a di-
rect tax upon this District for other
than District purposes. twas contend
ed that as the Supreme Court had de-
cided that the District was not State,
Congress could not lay direct tax for
general purposes. But the Court decid-
ed exactly otherwise, and say that the
right of Congress to tax the District
does not depend solely on the grant OF
erclusice kgislation''-that the power OF
Congress to lay direct tax, and col,
lect duties, sc. extends to the District
of Columbia and the territories Of the
United States-that the provision that
"direct taxes apportioned among the
"several states, according to their re-
" spective numbers, to be ascertained by
4" a census" was not intended to re.
strict the power of imposing direct tax,
es to the States only, and that Congress
are not bound to extend direct tax to
the District and Territories. The
Court further decide that the power OF
exclusive legislation over the District
includes the power of imposing taxes,
as well direct as others, for general p,o-
poses.
The Court having sustained the ACT
of Congress, imposing a direct tax or
the District, for general purposes, upon
the grounds before stated, decide thai
the term state, as used in regulating
the taxing power of Congress, include:
this District and the Territories, and
thus adopt the Interpretation given il
| by Mr.. Madison, in the report above
mentioned.
| But if, under the authority ofexercis
ing exclusive legislation over this Dis
trict, Congress can, as the Court ha:
decided, lay direct tax upon the Dis
trict, for the general purposes of the go
vernment, then no just rule of construc
ton will forbid Congress to extend TIT
Jurisdiction Of the Courts, created and