Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1831-01-07
PUBLISHED DAILY By
NUEL SNOW ID EN-,
FRIDAY, JANUARY :, 1881.
COMMUNICATED

The above is suit brought in the District
Court for the District OF Columbia which, by law,
holds its sessionsiu Alexandra. When the case
was to be argued. instead of holding the Court
at the place appointed by law for the session of
il, the District Attorney and the counsel for the
Complainant agreed to have the argument made
in Washington before the Judge there. After
the Judge had considered the case, and was ready
to deliver his opinion, he came to Alexandria,
held the Court, and entered his decree by ap-
pointing Auditors to audit the claim The Court
met again at Alexandria on the 4th of January,
and received the Auditors report; upon which a
final decree was entered against the United
States. The Attorney for the United States
took an appeal from the decree to the Circuit
Court The convenience of the parties and their
counsel was to be consulted, as to which Court
the appeal should be taken-whether to the Cir
cult Court now sitting in Washington, or to tie
NEXT Circuit Court for Alexandria. The Court
directed the appeal to the Washington Court.
From this statement of the case, two questions
arise-ist. Whether it was legal to grant the
appeal to the Circuit Court now sitting in Wash
instons Cd. II it was, whether it is not prac-
tice which the people of Alexandria ought to en-
deay0r to have corrected BY an application to
Congresss As to the first question-By the elst
section of the General Judiciary Law of 1889.
II. IL
:. from final DEGREES from the District Court.
shall be aAotred to the neat Circuit Court to be
held in such District The present Court in
Washington is not the neat Circuit Court to be
held in the District, any more than the present
session of Congress is the neat Congress. The
nsrt Circuit Court to be held i'll the District Of
Columbia, is to be held on the second Monday in
April next, at Alexandria.
Bv the Act of Congress passed IN 1901, a new
District was formed, embracing part of the
States of MARYLAND and Virginia, with the Dis
trict Of Columbia, which was called the District
of Potomac, the Court for which was directed to
be held at Alexandria. BY the SD section of
the same law, vol. 5th. page 25S, an appeal is
allowed from the final judgments and DEGREES of
the District Courts to the Circuit Court neat to
be holden in the District, when such final judg-
ment or judgments, decree or DEGREES, may be
rendered.
By the act of April, 1902, the above mentioned
act Of 1901 is repealed, and by the cath section
- the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia is
required to hold District Court of the United
States in and for the said District" 1t is also
declared that this Court shall have and exercise
within the said District the same poWcrs and ju-
risGicton which are by law vested IN the District
Courts If ;he Uniied STATES. One of the 'po,cers"
vested in The District Courts of the United States
is that Of allowing an appeal to the meet Circuit
Court OF the District in which the District Court
~ held" 1t is contended by some, that, as the
District Court is held for the whole District OF
Columbia, the writ of error or appeal may be
granted to either the Circuit Court sitting in
Washington or in Alexandria The practical
construction on the right of appeal has been In
opposition tn that adopted in this case. In every
case In which writ of error or appeal has been
taken from Judgment or decree OF the District
Court, il has been to the Circuit Court sitting ia
Alexandria.
IL seems but fair and reasonable construc-
ton of the words of the law, that Congress in
tended the appeal should be to that Circuit Court
held at the same place where the District Court
is held. Ii the Legislature thought the pub
lie interest or convenience required that the Dis
trct Court should be held at Alexandra, it seems
but fair to believe the same public interest and
convenience required that opinions OF the District
Court should be reviewed and decided by that
Circuit Court which is held in Alexandria.
The present case is the first departure from
the heretofore uniform practice, since the estab-
lishment Of the Court. If it was to be the last,
there would not be SO much ground OF dssatis-
faction. Ii may not be the last--it may lead to
il Uniform different practice. Ii, therefore, the
existing law does support the course which has
"
some steps be taken to have the law amended
as 10 prevent similar occurrence? 1t is to be
feared. what with the right of taking appeals from
the District Court to the Circuit Court of Wash
ington, and the right, which is of late exercise,
of removing suits from one Court to another, un-
der the law authorizing the change OF venue. up.
on the ground that twelve competent, dis,nter-
ested and impartial persons cannot De selected
out Of population of from ten TO twelve thou
sand people. 10 try cases Of more than ordinary
interest, that we shall have, by degrees. most, if
not all, our cases transferred to the Washington
Court.
Is it not time for the people here to attend to
their own interest in this respect? Washington
has already more than her full share of Govern
ment patronage. All the Officers OF the General
Government reside there-all the Judges, the
Chief Marshal. and the District Attorney, reside
there. Vast sums Of public money are expended
there. What little patronage has been left Alex