Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-03-26
THE DISTRICTS RIGHT OF APPEAL.
Relations of the District Court and the
United States Supreme Court.

TIE WHOLE GROUND MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE
Cross cAsE-ISTERrsrISe QUESTIONS RAISED
BIT THE HEATH pycrsIoS-IHE EXISTING RIGHTS
As STATED BIZ LAWYERS
The demurrer of the United States Supreme
Court in the case Of Heath. convicted In the
District courts Of granddaughter, denying an
application FOR writ Of error, has raised an
interesting and important question as
to the status of the District courts
In the matter of appeals to the
United States Supreme Court The opinion
given in the Heath case, the text OF which is
printed elsewhere in todays STAR. covered, Of
course only branch of the subject, but 1t is
thought the whole question will be reviewed In
the case Of Cross convicted of wife murder
But few members Of the bar have had an op-
portunity OF reading the opinion
THE EXISTING RIGHT OF APrEAL-
Mr. F. II. Maekey, to whom the opinion was
shown BY q STAR reporter, said: The right oil
appeal from the Supreme Court OF the Distrlct
70 the Supreme Court Of the United States is
regulated, except in habeas corpus cases, ot
the act of March 8, 1885. That statute gives no
right Of appeal in criminal cases Unless there.
FORE the act of March g. 1891, gives that riHnt
of course there can be none, anu az
the Supreme Court of the United states mas
is91 does not extend to cases decided IN this
Jurisdiction the question must De consiueIeu
as settled. The only appeals allowed, 'nere-
fore from our District courts are In eiNh cases
where the amount in controversy eheeeus
A. coo or where the case involves the validity
of any patsut or copyright or where the
ysliCity OF treaty or statute OF. or an authority
exercised under the United States Is drawn In
question II there Is any other rlSht OF APP
peal than this do not know of it, excepting,
OF course appeals IN habess corpus cases. which
are governed BY the construction placed DN
the Supreme Court Of the United states upon
section S46 Of the Revised Statutes oil the DIS
trict."
Mr.. " A. Cook says that the District pos
sssses as TO civil causes all the rights of other
Jurisdictions. that is in causes involving So'u"
or over. The right OF appeal IN criminal Cases
in the District has always, he says. been very
limited, and perhaps the only right was through
writ Of habess corpus or IN capital case OF
when q constitutional question arose or one
under q statute. There Is. he says, no general
right of appeal in the District
QUESTIONS STILL TO BE SETTLED
prominent member of the bar, who at the
request Of 9 STAR reporter read over the de-
cision in the Heath case, said: All that Is actu-
ally decided in the Heath case is that that part
of the act Of Congress of 1891 which allows a
writ of error to the Supreme Court
Sin cases Of conviction of CAPT
tai or otherwise infamous crime does
not apply to the District OF Columbia
But the reasoning OF the chief justice III denv-
ering the opinion of the court would seem to
lead to some important and unexpected eonclu-
sions not actually embraced in the case before
the court
Ever since the decision Of the Wales case
seven wears ago and indeed since the organ
ization of the Supreme Court of the District 1t
has been supposed that acts OF Congress relat-
ing to 1.-THE courts of the United States apply
to the District of Columbia. In creating the
present court Congress provided:
The Supreme Court (of the Dlstrlet) shall
possess the same powers and exercise the same
jurisdiction as tine circuit courts OF the United
States"
Ii has been assumed that this provision
operates as to powers and jurisdiction con
ferred upon the circuit courts or upon the
courts Of the United States generally since
1868, when the present court was created but
the opinion in the Heath case points to differ
ent conclusion
The decision Of the Supreme Court in the
case Of Cross will now be looked forward to by
the profession with great interest. His eoun-
BEL have taken a writ of error 10 the supreme
Court Of the United States and claim the right
TO maintain 1t under section OF the ACT OF Con-
gress of February6 6. 1889. That act has a number
OF other sections which apply to the circuit
and district courts of the United States, but
the section in question says THAT hereafter In
all cases of conviction of crime, the punish
ment Of which provided by law Is death, tried
by any court of the United States the final
Judgment may be reviewed IN the supreme
Court
The decision in the Heath case will prevent
the Supreme Court from entertaining the
writ of error IN the Cross case unless 1t shall
be held that the supreme Court OF the Dis
trict is court of the United States" This is
q question that has several times been pre-
sented to the Supreme Court, but II has
never expressly decided it. 1t has, however,
been intimated by the Supreme Court on more
than one occasion that the expression courts
of the United States" does not include the ter
ritorial courts or the courts of the District of
Columbia The doctrine seems to be that by
the phrase courts Of the United States Is
meant only those courts which have jurisdc-
ton in the states and are distinguished from
the state courts by the words ''of the United
6tates"
The question the determination Of which
thus seems to be involved in the Cross case is
Of great significance IN this District II the
courts Of the District are not courts of the
United States. then the judges of the courts
of the District are not entitled as = matter of
right to hold their Offices for life. and they can
be removed at any time by an act of Congress
without impeachment proceedings
Section ia of the Revised Statutes of the
United States allows'an judge of any court of
the United States to retire on full paw after hav
ing attained the age of seventy and ha wing served
ten years Ii has been held that this section
applies to the judges of the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia. and several of them
nave Actually retlreu uuOtr the section In
question But il the Supreme Court of tine
District is not court of the United States
this section is obviously not in force in the
District
There are many other acts Of Congress apply
ing to courts Of the United States relating to
the taking Of dispositions and to practice and
pleading which have been considered in force
In the District on the ground that
the Supreme Court Of the District is a
United States court and there will be grea, un-
certainty and confusion Ill regard to these mat
tiers until the question of the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in the Cross case shall be
decided.
An act Of Congress passed February 81, 1871,
enacts that the laws of the United States
which are not locally inapplicable shall have
the same force and effect within the District as
elsewhere within the United States
IL has always been taken for granted that
this provision also applies to acts Of Congress
passed since February 81. 1871. But the
decision in the Heath case would seem
10 determine that this is all wrong
There are q great many acts of this character
ana manifestly II will be no longer safe to pro-
coed upon the theory that they are in force
here. In short the decision in the Heath case
unsettles the practice and proceedings in
the District and there would seem to be
no sstisfsctory way out Of the difficulties
In which the cOurts of the district will now h.