Evening star., 1927-03-20


Fitzgerald, chairman of the cOmmittt
committee appointed by the presiden
Of Maryland law and a score or more
of other books to see that laws of
Congress are not locally" applica-
BILE and all the acts that are locally
applicable. all of this research that
has previously had to be done indi
vidually by the lawyers and judges
is now being done for the common
benefit of all of them and for the
protection of the rights of the
people and as a great economy in
time and money for the Government
in this codifcation by Hegarty and
Moers under the supervision of the
House committee on revision Of the
laws and with the cooperation of the
leaders Of the bench and bar in the
District
Several illustrations may be given
of what Chairman Fitzgerald and
members of the judiciary and the
legal profession have meant by
claims that the law in the District
is now chaotic In the famous Comp
ers' contempt case. for example,
growing out of the Buck Stove and
Range litigation, Mr.. Gompers
escaped under a statute in force
since 1874, but not raised in the Dis
trict until the Gompers case. with
regard to the statute of limitation
on prosecution of Federal crimes.
Other Notable Cases Cited
Another case was decided in 1912
johnson VS.. United States. John
son was accused of murder. The
code of the District provided death
by hanging. But subsequent to that
code the Congress had provided a
general penal act which was sup
posed TO be applicable in the Dis
trict. and nearly every provision of
which was subsequently held to be
i'm force in the District. Under that
penal code the jury could qualify
its verdict of guilty by adding with
out the death penalty" Johnson
claimed that he was entitled to the
benefit Of the new law of Congress.
The court held that particular pro-
vision of the penal code was not in
force in the District.
Then there is another illustrative
case-that of Wilkes against Wilkes
Here was a case where heirs-at-law
were attempting to Immediately evict
widow. The court held that the
act 9, Henry III, chapter z. sec
ton l. allowing the widow ito remain
in the chief house Of her husband"
for 40 days after this death held in
force in the District of Columbia.
Then, too, there is the case that
Chairman Fitzgerald cites, in which
James S. E;asby-Smith in a suit for
waste, under q statute centuries old,
secured payment of three times the
damage.
Code Not Clearly Defined.
The courts here are operating with
out any clear definition in the code of
their Jurisdiction. For example, sec
ton 81, relating to the creation of the
Supreme Court OF the District, says
that the court shall exercise the same
Jurisdiction as was previously eXer-
cised by a prior court without saying
what that Jurisdiction is--so you have
to go far beyond the code TO see what
the law was in force March g. 1868.
when the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict was instituted.
Then again--up until 1905-we had
justices of the peace here in Wash
ington. In 1905 Congress changed
that system by setting up the Munich
pal Court. Instead of defining the
new court and it's Jurisdiction, the sub
stantive law said that the Municipal
Court would have all the jurisdiction
of the justices of the peace. but the
code in force then did not define all
Of the Jurisdiction. In 1921 the Mu-
nicipal Court was reorganized. but
without any further definition of its
Jurisdiction, using exactly the same
language.
Since 1901 Congress has passed d
great many acts that should have been
amendments to the code. but which
were not so phrased. and others that
did not purport TO relate to the Dis
trict code at all. but which inferential-
| ~ did repeal portions of the code
| for example. the espionage act, with
! provision for issuance of search war
rants.
Congress Authorizes Code.
| On February 27, 1901, lawmaking
| was started for the District of Colum-
| bia as the seat Of Government, and
| the old British common law and Mary
| land statutes were set as corner
stone of the law edifice in section /.
| Under an act of April 30, 1916, Con.
gress itself directed the judges of the
| Circuit Court of the District 10 pre-
| pare a code. That code was actually
| submitted to the House November 10,
| 1918. written by Judge w Cranch.
1t was printed but never adopted by
| Congress. 1t had the Virginia law
as we'll as the Maryland law as a
portion of the District area at that
| time was Virginia territory, since
| ceded back A Washington lawyer
recently paid 500 for copy of this
old code.
A private effort to work out a code
was made in 1881 by William A.
Davis. copies of which are extant.
| Another code was printed in No
vember. 1887, pursuant to an act of
Congress Of March 3, 1855 That act
appointed Robert Ould and William
Is. b. Cross as commissioners to pre-
pare the code. That act provided that
the code should be certified TO by the
| President of the United States and
published.
Then in 1875 under the provisions
of the act Of June 20. 1874. a District
code was edited by the State Depart
ment
Compilation Appears i'm 1894.
Under authority in d resolution ap
proved March 2, 1889, a compilation
| Of District laws by William Stone
Albert was published in 1894
One of the best attempts at a Dis
trict code. which has proved extreme.
ly valuable TO the legal profession
was published in 1901. 1t was sponsor
ed by the Washington Board of Trade
which has the active cooperation of
the District Bar Association and OF
the courts
1904 ,hn r.nst rnrapt cnda hrir n o.