Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-16
STATUS OF DISTRICT
DECISION OF COURTS PREVENTS
kEcEIPT or BENEFITS.
Opinion of Cooperation Counsel on
Pending Proposition-oHer OF
Preferred Bonds.

I,,- the second time within the past rev
months the anomalous status OF the lis
trict of Columbia, as construed by the
courts has prevented the District from re-
ceiyjnC benefits that might accrue 10 II as
A state Corporation Counsel Duvali. In an
cpjn un submitted to the Commissioners To-
day. holds that the District cannot peneiit
~ the offer of New York broker to fur-
nish the District with $lj.o00 worth OF re-
pud.ated bonds Of the state OF South caro-
iina The District lie barred from enjoying
the benefits that might accrue TO IL from
this offer. Mr.. Duvall states, because, ac-
cording to court decisions, 1T is not state
within the meaning of section 2, article b.
of the Constitution of the United States.
The other recent instance wherein the
status of the District prevented II from re-
cpiving benefits that might fall to 1t as
state was in the case OF the award OF
sc,ols rships in Oxford University under the
provisions of the Cecil j. Rhodes WILL Inc
trustees of the will decided that since the
District is not n state or territory. 1t Is
barred from receiving any benefits under
the Rhodes viii.
About a week ago Commissioner Macfar-
land received communication from John
t. Manning of No. Wall street, New
York. requesting the Commissioners to look
into the wisdom of beneffting the Distrlct
by having an enactment passed by Congress
and bet,uests for the benefit of hospitals,
schools and pensioners and to have the
law department enforce the collection Of
such donations In any of the courts of the
United States. Mr.. Manning offered to fur
nish the District $4,000 of the bonds OF the
state of South Carolina, which, he said.
will enable the Commissioners to bring
action in the Supreme Court, and use the
proceeds of the suit as they may deem best
Cites Decision.
The writer referred the Commissioners to
the fact that the state of South Dakota
brought action and secured judgment in the
United States Supreme Court against the
state of North Carolina for the payment by
the latter commonwealth of certain repudi-
ated bonds of North Carolina given before
the war.
The bonds it was stated. were donated to
the state of South Dakota. which stare
pI or to the donation, passed law requir-
ing the acceptance and collection of grants,
dcLatious. devises &c, to the state.
MI Mannings offer, II appears, is Daseu
ton would be secured from Congress by the
District. and that like action would be
taken by 1T in the Supreme Court.
The corporation counsel calls attention 10
tie fact that the Supreme Court in several
IT. stances has passed upon the question
whether the District is state within the
meaning of section z, article ., OF the COZ
stitution. in which the Supreme Court is
given Original VI
Between two or more states. He quotes the
opinions of the court in three cases, and
says:
I'm view of these decisions he Is of The
opinion that the District, not being state
wi hin the meaning OF the Constitution.
that the Supreme Court of the United
States would be without jurisdiction to en-
terrain suit by il against the state OF
South Carolina to enforce the payment of
the preferred bonds. as was done in the
case of South Dakota against North Car
DINA
Ii is pointed out that Congress exercises
the same jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia as it does over dock yards and
certain other government property