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


trict &C. is evidence that they could not so ruh
before that act; and as an act of Congress was
necessary to enable them so to rum an act OF Con-
gress is equally necessary to enable writs OF at
tachment for disobedience of such subpGnds to
run into any other district, &c.
But this is not necessary consequence. In
one case an act might be necessary to remedy
an evil, or to supply defect, or to remove
doubt-but in the other there might be no evil to
be remeded, no defect to be supplied, and no
doubt to be removed.
The evil to be remedied by the 9th section of
the act of I'd of March 1893, was the uncertain
ty whether the Circuit Court could lawfully
summon a witness who resided out OF the pis-
trct in which the Court sat; and whether, II
summoned, the witness was bound to OBEY the
summons. But there was no uncertainty wheth-
err. if the witness were lawfully summoned, and
bound to obey the summons, the Court could
compe him to attend. There was reason,
therefore, for passing an act ascertalnihg the
power of the Court to send its summons cur ~
its district, and the consequent obligation OF tn
witness to obey it; but none for giving turtns.
powers to the Court to compel obedience 10 us
lawful commands.
Ifthe act of 1898 is evidence that an act OF
Congress was necessary to enable The Court
to send its subpoena into other districts, the
omission Of Congress to pass an act authors
ing the Court to follow up its subpoena by an at
tachment for not obeying it, is equally evidence
that no such act was necessary, and that the
| Court already possessed the power.
All that the Court wanted, was lawful auho-
rity, in criminal cause, TO command the atten-
! dance of witness who resided out of the dis
trict 1t had already, all the power necessary
to enforce its lawful commands.
But it is said, that when Congress organized
this district there were in each State, two sets
of Courts, viz Federal Courts, exercising Fe-
Hicin
nicipal powers. That the Federal Courts had
| the power to send subpGnas beyond the limits
| of the State but the State Courts had not. That
the distinction between the subjects of jurisdic-
! ton Of these Courts was in view of Congress
when they were adopting system OF laws for
the district That :" it was in their power to
81 have two sets Of Courts, as in every part OF
the United States-that is, one Court to be yes
''ted with federal powers, another, Court with
"municipal powers But that the size Of the ter
rtory, and the number of the people, did not
- require such a division Of Courts; and that
considerations Of economy, probably, forbade
the appointment ofso many Judges, and that
"they therefore, decided on having one Court.
% But still" Git is said they kept up the distnc-
"tion between federal judicial power, and mu-
''nicipal or quasi State judicial power; although
| q they conferred both kinds OF power on the
| same Court"
| The fact relied upon to support the assertion
that Congress in granting jurisdiction to this
| Court still kept up the distinction between its
federal and its municipal jurisdiction is, that
Congress adopted the laws of Maryland and
| Virginia as they then existed as the laws of
this district "That it was a fixed principle of
GO those laws that the process of their Courts
should not issue beyond their territory;" chat
| "when those laws were adopted, that principle
81 was adopted with them, and consequently, that
the process Of the Courts of that district so far
as il was required to carry into effect those
claws, could not issue beyond the territory OF
| u the district"
II has been before observed that this Court de-
rives no part ofits powers or jurisdiction from
| the laws of Virginia or Maryland, thus adopted
nor can those laws III any manner unit or
| abridge the powers or jurisdiction OF this Court.
If that be the case there is no pretence for say
| ing that Congress in granting powers and Jurls-
diction to this Court, kept up the distinction
! between federal judicial power, and municipal
or quasi State judicial power" The terms in
which our powers and jurisdiction are given,
and which have been already regretted, indicate
no such distinctions; nor is it intimated or sug
gested in any subsequent act of Congress; nor
could it be; for no such distinction existed
in this district. That distinction is only appIi-
cable to the federal powers as exercised within
the States Here it is all federal power and fe-
deral jurisdiction. In the States there is fede-
raj Jurisdiction and State jurisdiction, and it is
necessary to keep up the distinction and draw
the line between them. But here there is no dan
ger of cosion-here are no conflicting State
rights-no Executive but that of the U. States
no Legislative but that Of the United States
and no judiciary but that of the United States
All the powers, authority and jurisdiction eX-
ercised here are as much and as purely fede-
raj, as the powers authority and jurisdiction
exercised, by the United States within the res
pectve States.
This district is federal II is the creature of
the Constitution of the United States. 1t is the
seat of the Government of the United States.
The reasons for providing such district are
to be found in the history OF me Congress OF
the Confederation; who found by experience
that they could not rely upon State Govern
for protection from insult and VINO no et
for protection to the State authorities. The
trainers of the Constitution, therefore provided
for national district TO be under the sole and
exclusive legislation of Congress, where every
member might feel that he was standing upon
his own ground: where the officers of the Ma