Washington sentinel., 1855-01-11
THE REFORM BILL. FOR THE DIS
TRICT,

bia. In the outset it is necessary to correct
typographical error which occurred in our ar
ticle Of yesterday. We are represented as say.
ing that the limit to the jurisdiction of the ap-
pelate court Of the District is ten thousand
dollars, instead of t,co thousand, as we had
written. With this correction, we proceed to
consider the bill in its other aspects.
Among the most prominent objections to the
eonstitutonality of the Reform Bill, is that
which refers to the removal of the present in.
cumbents of Office, and the appointment Of
new judges in their stead. 1t is urged, and
with some plausibility, that under the third ar.
Icie OF the Constitution the present Judges of
the District hold "their Office during good
behavior" We are inclined to believe that
the judicial system Of the District of Columbia
Is framed in pursuance Of another clause of
Inc Constitution, vesting in Congress the ex.
elusive Legislative power over the District
winch IS ceded as the seat of government of
1ne United States" This opinion has received
the sanction of some of the best authorities in
the law. It is clear, even from casual refer
ence to The judicial article of the Constitution,
that it alludes entirely to such cases of federal
1urisdiction as may arise within the States.
ana TO questions involving the interests of the
"noie confederation. No one who is not
imbued with the prejudices of partisan,
can read that article without being con-
Vinced that these and these only are its OBJ
Jects. Can it be supposed, for example, that
the judicial power granted by the third article
OF the Constitution, embraces the courts estab-
lished by Congress in the Territories7 If this
be 30, the Constitution has been infringed
by The removal of territorial Judges, and vet
without the slightest objection on the part
OF the watchful guardians of the Constitu-
ton. But the courts authorized in the
District Of Columbia, stand upon higher
ground than the mere temporary establish
ment of judicial power in the Territories. In
the one case, the power is merely temporary, in
the other it is permanent-in the one, it is
merely rule and regulation for existing emer-
gencies, to be superseded by more fixed and
organized system, when the Territory is erected
into State; in the other, it is the free and un-
restrained exercise of legislation on district,
which is ceded to Congress for federal use.
By reference to the Constitution it will be seen
that the power of Congress over the District is
identical with the power of Congress over GER
tain other "paces," ceded to the general Gov
ernment for special purposes, for the erection
Of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and
other needful buildings. Can it be contended
that the judicial power Of Congress over fort
or an arsenal-which is frequently only martial
in its characters derived from clause in the
Constitution providing for the organization and
establishment Of federal courts? Yet it is
plain, that the same power exercised in these
cases, is exercised in the organization of the
judicial system Of the District of Columbia.
We contend, therefore, that the power OF
Congress over the District Of Columbia is
nearly identical nth the power Of State Leg
stronger and more extensive in its character,
for the organizing power is vested in Congress
as well as the mere legislative control. 1t is
from this clause Of the Constitution that Con.
gress derives the right to organize courts, to
provide Legislation, and to control the rights Of
property in the District of Columbia. This
view of the question is rendered more apparent
from reference to the judicial clause itself.
Thus it viii be seen that it is the judicial
power Of the United States which is spoken
OLA power vested in Certain courts ordained
by the Constitution or established by Con-
gress--a power general in its character, and
extending to certain specially prescribed
cases--a power only to be exercised between
certain parties-a power, in fine, which no
thing but the specious sophisms of mere ad-
vocate could contend applied TO the exercise Of
local jurisdiction.
But we take higher ground. Suppose, for
the sake Of argument, that the judges in the
courts Of the District Of Columbia hold their
Offices under the judicial clause Of the Consti-
tution-suppose that they are specially REFER.
ed to in the language Of the Constitution,
which provides that they a. shall hold their
Offices during good behavior still, we con.
tend, there is no constitutional objection 10 the
bill. By the reformation proposed, they are
not removed from Office. The Office is itself
abolisbed--nor can they complain that under
an entirely new judicial system they are not
retained. The judicial power Of the United
States is "yested in one supreme court, and
in such inferior courts as Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish" Now, if at
This time Congress may ordain and establish
another system Of courts in the District Of Co.
lumbia, it may surely provide that such sys.
TEN may supersede entirely the system which
preceded it; else the absurd consequence
would result Of two systems different in their
organism and conflicting in their jurisdiction
existing within the same territory and among
the same people. Nor is such reasoning
as this sophistical and abstract in its char.
acter 1t has a practical bearing upon the