Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-08-06
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
To the Editor of The Alexandria Gazette.

OF JH1ge Br0ckeRb0r0ugh, In the case Vi MI.
Peasants upon Habeas Corpus. Mr.. P. had
been taken in the Eastern District Of Virginia,
upon an attachment issued by the Circuit Court
of the District of Columbia sitting in Alexan-
dria, for not attending as witness before the
Grand Jury, who was investigating a charge
against r. b. Randolph and others for con-
spiraey to assault the President Of the United
States, and was discharged by the Judge.
At the last November term of the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia for the Coun-
ty of Washington, in the case of the United
States y Christiana Uilliams, who was indicted
for misdemeanor at common law, that opin-
ion was cited by the counsel of the defendant,
To support the position, that the powers con-
ferred upon this Court by the Sd section ofthe
"act of the 27th of February, 1901, which re-
" fers to the powers of the Circuit Courts Of the
united States, can only be exercised in the
"same cases in which they could be exercised
"by Circuit Court of the United States sitting
ain State; and that, as such Court could
mot exercise them in case of Stale munich
"pal jurisdiction, this Court cannot exercise
"them in a case supposed to be of District mu-
"nicipal jurisdiction"
bia, in delivering its opinion in the case of
Christiana ViLHams, went into full consider
alton of the opinion of Judge Brockenborough
The opinion of the Court is too long for your
columns; but the following extracts have been
made from it:
The UNITED STATES, | Indictment for a mis-
demeanor at common
law-Motion i'm ar
CRristiana UniiamS. rest Of Judgment.
The Court after stating the principle in sup
port of which the authority of the case, ca parte
pieasants, was cited, proceeds thus:
cit is the argument of the Judge upon this
point which has been urged upon this Court in
the present cause. As we understand it, it is to
the following effect: In each State there are two
sets of Courts Federal Courts and State Courts
The Federal Courts can only exercise the jul
risdiction expressly granted by the Constitution
of the United States: all other jurisdiction is to
be exercised by the State Courts. The Fede-
raj Courts had power, by the act of 1898, to
send their subpRRds into other districts; but the
State Courts had no power to send their subpue-
mas into the other States. In all cases of NUM-
cipal jurisdiction, therefore, no subpoena could
90 out of the State. Congress, in organizing
the District of Columbia, might have establish
ed two sets of Courts in the District, one to ex-
ercise the federal jurisdiction and one to eXer-
else that portion of the municipal jurisdiction
time of the transfer ofjurisdiction to the United
States. lift had done so, one set of the Courts
would have had power to send its SubpGnas out
of the district, and the other would not; because
when Congress assumed the jurisdiction over
this district and adopted the laws of Virginia
and MARYLAND as the laws of this district, they
also took with them the principle that no Stale
process could run beyond the limits of the State
Congress- however established only one Court
in the district. But still" the Judge observes,
"they kept up the distinction between federal
"iudcia power and municipal or quasi State
"Iudcial power, although they conferred both
"kinds Of power on the same Courts. Ihus,
Gin the first section, they enacted that the laws
g of the State of Virginia should continue to be
"the law'of one part of the district, and the
claws of MARYLAND Of the other" Those were
the municipal laws Of Maryland and Virginia,
disrobed of the judicial powers which had been
conferred exclusively on the federal tribunals,
and connected with the principle just mention
ed that the process of their Courts should not
tissue beyond their territory, and consequent
"ly the process of the Courts OF the district, so
" far as il was required to carry into effect those
claws could not issue beyond the territory OF
"the District"
"Congress," 1.-THE Judge proceeds,) Gin thus
"prescrbng for the district a code OF munich
"nal laws, intended to act for them in the same
character that the legislatures of the several
Estates act towards the people OF their States
" Tney mao previously PioNlueu ioi toe'h SCI
"of federal laws in common with the rest OF
'sthe United States.n "Thus the people of the
.dstrict were Immediately provided with two
'sets of laws, municipal and federal"
cit then became necessary to provide Court
cor Courts to carry into effect within the Dis
strict, as well the federal as the municipal laws
"They created one Court for the whole district,
q and vested it with all the powers by law vest
''ed in the Circuit Courts of the United States
dissection 81 The power conferred by this Sd
section, on the Circuit Courts of Columbia is
''he same with that conferred on the other Cir
"cuit Courts, and not greater. What, then,
"were the powers, quoad hoe, conferred on the
" other Circuit Courts2 To issue subpGnds in
to another district, in cases before them of
(which they had cognizance: that is, in federal,
"not municipal cases; of these latter they have
"no jurisdiction, and therefore cannot in such
leases, issue subpenas into another district.
"But the Circuit Court of Columbia has the