Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-13


The court affirmed the decision below, judge
Cartier delivering the opinion Of tie court.
THE THsATRP RESERVED SEAT CAeR-
ConstitHtltnaitty q tie Police Court Gai he Late
Dtstrict legislature Questioned.
The case of the District of Columbia against
j. u. Saytlle and Nj. W. Canning, of the Ma
tional Theater, was cslIed-Mr. Z. L. Stanton
for the District and Messrs. Merrick and Morris
information fled in the Police Court TO enforce
the provisions Of the act or the legislature of the
District Of Columbia approved June %, 1873,
TO regulate shows and exhibitions in the sale or
disposal of seats. This act provides that after
the opening for the reception or Entertainment
or persons of any show or public amusement for
winch money or other reward is received it
shall be unlawful for any person to sell or ner-
NIT the sale of such tickets or seats so as to re-
serve any particular seats, or to mark or de-
scribe as reserved any seats which have not
been reserved by the sale of tickets therefor
previous to the opening; snd imposes penalty
OF from hve to ten dollars for each ticket or
of the act.
The defendants, lessees of the National Thea
TER, were advised to disregard the enactment as
unconstitutional, and they did so. Thereupou
they were arraigned before the Police Cont
~heTe Judgment pro fOTMd was entered, and
an appeal taken TO the Criminal Court; thence
IL was certified 10 this court for the final adiudi-
cation OF the questions OF law involved in the
controversy. The defendants ubmit that the
enactment under which these proceedings have
been instituted is uncOnstitutional-nulI and
void, and the proceedings themselves are unau-
thoFlZedj and assign the following reasous:-I
The alleged offence il not COgni za6le by the Po-
rec COuit, ana that tribunal is incompetent to
exercise jurisdiction In the case. ,. The legis-
latVe assembly of the District OF Columbia
which passed the enactment was an uncOnsti3
tuiional body, and its enactmeDts are wholly in
FaIlu' .. Inc enactment itself is an uucOnsti-
tDtional and unauthorized violation of the rights
OF private property. There are grave reasons
Lor Goubtng the constitutiOnalty of the Police
Court, and this point they discuss, referring To
the third article of the constitution, which 1ro.
wees that Judges shall hold their offices dxriag
good bshari9r, and the trial of all crimes shall bs
oy JNfy, while the act establishing the Police
Court limits the term of the iudge tn
SIX years; provides that prosecutions shall
be on Information without indictment by
me grand Jury OF trial by petit jury, aud that
eue court snail have original aud exclusive
jurisdiction of all offerses against the United
states committed in the District nor deemad
oaPiIs. or otheTwlse infamous, and sll offenses
against any of the ordinances of the cities or
laws or the Levy Court. They claim that this
act clearly attempts to vest in the Police Conrt
q q portlon OF the judicial power of the United
STATES, ana yet 1t has been decided that courts
IN which the judges bold their offices for a term
OF years are not constitutional courts much less
80 are eoGI unprovided with jury. Admitting
that the Police Court is valid there ia still ths
objection that it has not jurisdiction for the
INFERIOR courts of the United States are re-
sulcted TO the exercise of such powers as Com
are not entitled to exercise general iurisdicfion
Now, there is no provision to be found anv-
Were authorizing the Police Court to tale
cogntZance of violations of the enActments Of
.his Legislative Assemble.
Inc legislative Assembly OF the District OF
Columbla was an unconstitutional bo1y ami
"a. ts ehactmenS are invalid. Congress lie charged |
~ the constitution ''to exercise excIusiVa 80,
au0n In all cases whatsoever" over the Distsrct |
u columbia. Now, legislative mower csnnot |
30 ueISgateo; yet, by the act OF February o. !
g., EO9 tsit mas attempted to delegate this |
,oMeT - thls Legislative Assembly BY enectin0
-: ct legislative power aud authority in said |
District shall be yesJy,, m = ,,,iy. Assem-
,iy;' and "that the legislative power of the
district shall extend TO all rightful subjects of /
gisiation within said'Dstrict." Such grant
Il general legislative authority cannot he sDs
AIMED on any principle Of constitutional law,
ms enactment Is void az being an unconstitu-
lobsl ahu unWarrahtable invasion of the rights
4 private property, contrary to the provisions
4 the constitution of the United States the
maryland bill OF rights or magma charta, and
ne common law. From the fundamental prtu-
lples which guarantee that life, liberty or prop
rty shal not be taken without due process of
aW" the deduction Is plain that existing rights |
: property cannot be destroyed or impaired |
y superveniDg legislative enactment, even |
hough process and q tribunal should be !
appointed TO execute the sentence. The risbt !
I property means the free, absolute, aud
uncontrolled right, to use, enjoy, aud dis
'Ose OF property; aud the right of disnosaI !
$ as absolute as that Of use and enjoyment |
he restrictions upOn the right, apart from
hose contained in revenue laws, which have !
/
are reduced TO the head OF "Police /
tegulau0ns,D and may be summed up i'm the !
ne maxim" JtsTe tuO a. dlfenO non JIeIJs.J |
Sc thine own in such manner thas thau wiz
.ot injure that Of auother.' Legislative re-
Ilcuons on the rights of property are valid |
gly when they are demanded Tor the projection
i tIe pubic health the public peace, the pub
&c ssle'y; or the public morality. There is no
,tetense That the Enactment in question is de-
nsHQt1 by one org OF these C0nSi ieratiOns; Il |
aio' tiA1''-~u TO have any such scope. 1t is a
n attempt Of this legislative Assembly to !
oWPel Elau TO use bis property, not accord |
ng to his Own views, but according to the views !
Il others; and u cannot be defended upon any |
'TOuEd OF public policy. The practice COM |
'ia1Ded OF, ard against which the act is direct |
%, does not conflict with any public or private !
ight, and is not therefore the rightful subject |
II legislation.
The plaintiff contends that the Police Court
: not organized under the third article OF the |
but under an act pursuant 70 sec
ion eight article one Of the Constitution, con- !
erring upon Congress exclusive egisIatiOn over
he District. Consequently Congress has au-
hoTity tOimit the tenure Of Office of the iudge
hat the right OF trial by jary does not, under
be constitution or common law, attach to mere
'fenses against municipal ordinances or police
equations, ike that under which the defend
lnts are arraigned. And the Police Court has
urisdicton OF the case under section one act of
Congress OF February Il, 1871. The creation of
he legislative assembly by Congress was not
delegation or the power of exclusive legislation
;yer this District lodged in Congress by the con-
ututlCn. Tie very terms of section eighteen
ict Of Congress approved February II, 1871 re-
ute such proposition. Moreover, the organt-
zatiOn by Congress of legislatures in the terrific
lies Of the United States, under less stringent
restrictions than those which limited the an
hority Of the legislative assembly of the Dis
rict, has, notwithstanding that the power OF
egisation over the territories is by the consti-
uti0n vested in Congress, been sustained
ly the supreme Court of the United States
this very question, "a respects gen.
,rsl legislative power OF the Legislative Assem-
bly,, is res jUdicdtG by tins court under decisions
u the four million bond case and others, And
he legislation in the pending case, being a
mere police regulation, is such as constantly Is
enacted be- the proper authorities of a NUM-
,ipshty exercising power delegated BIZ a state (
legislature. The enactment by the Legislative
Assembly, under which defendants are ar
-aigned, is constitutional. The power to regu-
ate as well as to license occupations and amuse-
ments has repeatedly been conferred up9D
by state legislatures, repeatedly
exercised and always upheld by the courts The
power may be more literally exercised in respect
Of public amusemeDts and exhibitions than in
the case Of occupations. The very enactment
n question in this case, against the sale OF
seats after the beginning of a theatre /
cal performance, is drawn from a similar ordi-
nance passed in the city of Cincinnati,
The court reserved its decision.
CRIMINAL CoURT-JudGe Hunpfyegs
Yesterday, Charles Wilson, Indicted with !
Frank Smith for burglary and Iarceupv