Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-08-06

" That the Circuit Courts for the District ol Co
"lumbia shall be and they are hereby invested
with the same power respecting constables.
" inspectors of tobacco and -four, surveyors
" mills highways and ferries, for the County OF
" Alexandria, as have heretofore been invested
" in the County Courts Of Virginia, and for the
County of Washington, the same power and
authority as have been heretofore exercised
by the County and Levy Courts of the State OF
Maryland; with power to appoint to all other
offices necessary for the said district under the
respective laws of Maryland and Virginia.
And by the Sd section of the same act of the 81
OF March, 1901 il is enacted that "the Circuit
"Court for the said County Of Alexandria shall
possess and exercise the same porers and ju-
"risdiction, civil and criminal, as is now pos
| "sessed and exercised by the District Courts of
"Virglnia." These provisions show clearly
that this Court could not derive powers or u-
risdiction from the laws of Virginia and Mary
land granting powers and jurisdiction to their
Courts; and it seems to follow that our powers
I'D jurisdiction could not be limited or abrdg.
"A by any law of either of those States limit
or abridgng the power or jurisdiction OF
I'D 7. own Courts IL therefore there had
n any law of the State of Virginia express
y bidding to its Courts TO send its sujpqRas
for witnesses beyond the limits of the State it
would impose no restriction upon the power of
this Court to issue its subpRnaS beyond the limits
of the district.
There is, however, no such express law of
! Virginia. That State has laid no such restraint
upon herself 1t is restraint imposed upon
her by other sovereign States. But it is said to
be 90 a fixed principle of those laws" lie. Of
the municipal laws of Virginia and MarylandD
" that the process Of their Courts should not is
"sue beyond their territory" 1t is not. how
ever, principle Of the municipal laws of Viz.
! ginia, except so far as the law Of nations may
! be considered as part Of those municipal laws
! 1t is restriction imposed upon sovereignS by
I the law of nations; and results from the princi.
pie of equality among sovereign states The
rule is that all soverelgns are equal, and that no
one can exercise any authority within the ter
ritory of another without his consent 1t the
mutually repellant power of each that supports;
the rule and not the municipal law OF either.
| 1t was not a principle which could be applied to
the District OF Columbia, unless that district
were sovereign co-equa with Virginia. (Which
! is not the case.) The sovereign of the District
of Columbia is the United StateS-and if the
principle is applicable at all. it must apply to the
United States and Virginia-not to the District
of Columbia and Virginia. But Virginia, by
adopting the Constitution of the United States
has given permission to the Courts Of the Unit
ed States to send their process into Virginia in
all cases Of which the judicial power OF the
| United States has cogniZance and II IS admit
ted, in the argument, that Circuit Court OF the
United States sitting in another district, COM
posed of another state, has power to send lis
subppna into the District of Virginia, but il is
denied that Circuit Court Of the United States
sitting in the District Of Columbia has any such
power except in cases supposed to be OF pure
iy federal jurisdictions; and we are thus brought
back to that point part of the argument in
support of which has been already considered.
II seems clear to u.s. that it cannot be supported
upon the principle that the process of one State
cannot run into another; because the District of
Columbia is not State-and because as be-
tween the State Of Virginia and the United States,
the principle is yielded by Virginia as to all the
jurisdiction given to the United States by the
Constitution.
Nor is it supported by any supposed dstinc
ton between our powers in relation to our sup
posed federal and municipal jurisdiction; for
it is all federal
1t is admitted in the argument that this Court
has the power to send its subpGna into another
district GO in federal cases;' and among the adj
mitted federal cases are all cases arising I'M
" der the Constitution and laws of the United
" States" and controversies to which the l.
" nited States shall be party"
Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the OPT
Mon of the Supreme Court of the United States
in Cohen's case, (6 Wheat. 800 says: GA case
s. in law or equity consists ofthc right ofthe one
" party as well as of the other, and may truly
" be said to arise under The Constitution or a lar
" of The United States, Thenerer its correct DE-
" cision depends on the construction Of either"
All cases arising in the District of Columbia
are cases arising under the Constitution and
laws Of the United States; for there are no other
laws in force in the District than the laws u
the United States no other sovereignty to be-
offended than that Of the United States. a.!
crimes and offences committed in that District
are offences against the United States, and eye
ry prosecution therefor is a controversy 10 Thira
the United States is a party. Every case there
fore, arising in the District, is a tederM CAST
and therefore, according to the admission ofth'
argument this Court has right TO send itsS"b-
pgna into another district in all cases--in on.
minal cases, to any distance; in civil, to the e%-
tent of one hundred miles. And such has been
the unquestioned practice of this Court eyer
since its establishment in 1901.
But there is another ground taken in the al.
gument, which also deserves consideration
1t is said that Congress stands to the d.,
trct in the same relation that the State Legs
" latures do to the respective States and as
State Legislature can only Iegslate for is