Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-07-08

The whole contention that the supreme
Court of the District of Columbia has or
eyer had, authority TO appoint such officers
rests, therefore. upon the very language OF
the sections of the Revised Statutes of the
United States relating to the District of
Columbia above quoted. namely, sections
go and 76l and TO- THESE sections in a
wcrd. possess the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia and the several JUS
tees thereof of the powers and iurisdic-
ton possessed and exercised by the Judges
OF the circuit and district courts. 1t would
seem that these provisions were clearly in
tended to vest the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia with the judicial ju-
risdiction and powers of the circuit and
district judges in their character as judges
of courts. as distinguished from their mere
administrative powers In giving operation
ana effect to the principles underlying the
division of functions in the union at large
between the federal and state judicaries
AS is stated in the case of the United
States VS.. Alfred, above quoted 1lo L. S.
z. .94. the duties of the commissioners
originally provided for by the act of 1913
were extended by different acts of Con-
SresS. until they nave become an import
ant feature of the federal judicial SYSTEM"
which language. and the necessity for
such officers can have no plausible relation
to the District Of Columbia. in which there
is no federal judicial system. as contrasted
with the judicial system of the .tates or
anv of them.
If however, it be rot certain that the
Supreme Court of the Dis.ric: of Columbia
has no power to appoint commissioners
under the act of lS.M, it NAV he confidently
submitted that there is sufficient doubt on
the subject to render it advisable to confer
upon that court clear authority in the
premises, If such authority be deemed ex-
pedlent or necessary to exist in the District
of Columbia 1t is matter of frequent
currence in this district that United
states commissioner is applied to 20 dis
charge a poor convict under section lu4o of
the Revised Statutes. The law required the
commissioner in such cases 10 give the dis
triCt attorney notice of everv such applica-
ton. and the district attorney has The right
to he heard thereon. Should such a case
arise and the considerations herein
above set forth be brought t. the notice of
the commissioner before whom the poor
convict should he brought it might well be
That the commissioner would refuse to dis
charge him. and 1T may we'll he that the
warden of the Jail would, for the same
reason, refuse to produce the poor convict
the duty of the district attorney Under the
act of lS!'; to approve III writing every sworn
complaint of a private citizen applying for
a warrant of arrest for violation of the in
ternal revenue laws, that officer might he
greatly embarrassed in reaching a decision
whether to have so essential part in the
arrest of a citizen upon the warrant of an
officer whose authority to issue it is open
to such grave doubt.
Il venture. therefore, to suggest the adj
visibility of an enactment removing the
doubt suggested. and comforting in terms
upon the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia authority to appoint United
States commissioners, as provided for by
the act of May -, 1886"