Evening star., 1926-06-14
JENNINGS ENUMERATION ASKED
ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON LAW
Counsel Denies Commissioner Is Civil Officer of
U. S. Subject to Impeachment-SeesA Abuse
of High Privileges of House.
that a Commissioner is not subject to
impeachment?
Origin Of d. c. Government.

| that a Commissioner is not subject to
impeachment?
Origin Of d. c. Government.
Taking up it's argument to show
that Mr.. Fenning is not impeachable
by the House, the brief sets forth
that Congress long ago elected to
create. for certain purposes within
the District, "a municipal corpora
ton. endowed with all the power and
subject to all the liabilities of the
ordinary body corporate" and argues
that Congress could have governed
| the District by joint committee of
the two houses or in any other man.
ner which by legislation it chose.
1t points out that certain Federal
property has never been delegated to
| this corporation. that there are two
separate and distinct police forces.
one under officers of the United States
| and the other under officers of the
| corporation. That the District is a
| municipal corporation, and not de-
| partment of the Government, is
settled. the brief states, first, by ex.
press legislation of Congress: second.
by decisions of the United States Su-
preme Court in cases directly present
ing the question: third. by opinions
of the attorneys-general. including
Garland, Griggs. Wickersham and
Bonaparte; fourth. by the Court Of
Claims of the United States. and
finally, by the Court Of Appeals Of
the District of Columbia.
The brief then presents its legal
authority In each of the above cases.
Quoting the language of the or
ganic act of the District, the brief
disposes of the question that Con
sress deliberately created the District
Of Columbia a municipal corpora ton.
This language follows:
The District of Columbia shall re-
main and continue a municipal cor
poration. as provided in section 2
Of the Revised Statutes relating to
said District. and the Commissioners
herein provided for shall be deemed
and taken as officers of such cor
poration."
Quotes Supreme Court.
The brief then proceeds to quote
number of decisions by the United
it's contention that the District Is
municipal corporation. In the first de-
cision, that Of Barnes vs. District Of
Columbia. 81 U. S.. 540." in which
the plaintiff brought suit to recover
for personal injuries received In conse-
quence Of defective streets. the court
held that the District is a municipal
corporation and nothing else; that the
Board Of Public Works was a board of
officers Of the municipal corporation.
and that the fact that the board was
appointed by the President, with the
advice and consent OF the Senate. was
not, Sin principle, of the slightest con-
sequence to the determination of the
question"
After quoting other decisions at
length. the brief goes into the case of
the District Of Columbia VS.. Wood
bury, 1876 u. S.. 450. In this case the
plaintiff fell down a hole in the side.
walk. sued and recovered damages for
his injury. The judgment was brought
into the Supreme Court of the United
States for re.eXamination. which. in
an opinion delivered by Justice Har.
Ian, according to the BRIEF" re.
viewed and reaffirmed the Barnes case,
applied its principles to the subse-
Quently enacted legislation. analyzed
the provisions Of the act of 1873,
which, as we have seen, expressly
enacts that the District Of Columbia
shall remain and continue a municipal
corporation and the Commits.
sioners q shall be deemed and
taken as officers of such corporation,
and held that the District of Columbia
was in every respect mere municipal
corporation. the Commissioners there.
Of officers Of that corporation and the
municipal body liable for negligence
in connection with the maintenance of
the streets of Washington
The brief then quotes from Justice
Harlan's opinion as follows:
The question to be first considered
is whether the District of Columbia
is, under any circumstances. liable
In damages for personal injuries re-
sulting from the unsafe condition of
the avenues. streets and sidewalks in
of the court below proceeded upon
the ground that such liability existed.
The District contends here, as it did
at the trial. for the opposite view.
And 1t insists. that fna. oiiAefiona In