Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1838-12-13

the constitution, aud to the latter by
Congress,) has been, BY its legislation,
vested in the circuit court of this Dis
trict. No such direct grant of power to
the circuit court of this District is claim,
ed; but it has been held TO result, by
necessary implication, from several sec.
tons OF the law establishing the court.
One OF these sections declares. that the
laws OF Mary land. as they existed at the
time Of the cession. should be in force in
that part Of the District ceded by that
State and. by this provision, the COM
mon law, in civil and criminal cases, as
1t prevailed in Mary land in 1901, was
established in that part of the District.
In England, theCourt ofKing's Bench,
because the Sovereign, who, accord.
ing TO the theory of the constitution, is
the fountain of justice. originally sat
there in person, and is still deemed to be
present, in construction of law,-alone
possesses the high power of issuing the
writ OF mandamus, not only to inferior
Jurisdictions and corporations. but also
to magistrates and others, commanding
Them in the Kings name, TO do what
their duty requires. in cases where there
is vested right and no specific remedy.
1t has been held in the case referred TO.
that as the Supreme Court of the United
States. is by the constitution, rendered
incompetent TO exercise this power. and
as the circuit court of this District is
court OF general jurisdiction in cases at
common law, and the highest court Of
original jurisdiction in the District, the
right to issue the writ OF mandamus is
incident to its common law powers
Another ground relied upon TO maintain
the power in question, is, that it was in,
Guided by fair construction, in the pow
er 1t granted to the circuit courts of the
United States, by the act "to provide
Tor The more convenient organization of
the courts of the United States" passed
18th of February 1901 that the act es.
tablshing the circuit court of this Dis.
trict, passed the 9th day of February,
1851. conferred upon that court and the
Judges thereof the same powers as were
by the law vested in the circuit courts
OF the United States and in the judges of
the said courts; that the repeal of the
first mentioned act. which took place in
the next year Invested the circuit court
oithis District Of the authority in dispute,
but left it still clothed with the powers
+ over the subject which. it is conceded
were taken away from the circuit courts
OF the United States by the repeal of
the act Of 18th February 1901.
Admitting that the adoption of the
: laws Of Maryland for a portion Of this
District confers on the circuit court
thereof, in that portion, the transcendeut
extra Judicial preroga:ive powers OF
the Coutt Of Kings Bench in England,
or that either of the acts of Congress,
by necessary Implication, authorize the
former court 10 issue writ OF mandamus
to an officer Of the United States, to
compel him to perform a ministerial du,
ty. the consequences Gre in one respect,
the same. The result in either case is,
that the officers of TIE United States,
stationed In different parts ofthe United
States, are, in respect to the performance
Of their official duties. subject 10 differ
ent laws and differen. supervision ::
those in the States to one rule, and those
in the District Of Columbia TO another
and very different one. In the Dis
trict their official conduct is subject 10
judicial control, from which in the States
they are exempt.
Whatever difference of opinion may
exist as to the expectancy of vesting
such power in the judiciary. in a sys-
tenn OF Government constituted like
that OF the United States, all must agree
that these disparaging Discrepancies in
the law and in the administration of
Justice ought not TO be permitted to cons
tinue; and as Congress can alone provide
the remedy. the subject is unavoidably
presented to your consideration.
NJ. VAN buren,.
WASHINGTON, December 3, 1888.