Evening star., 1937-12-12

tions. do not make those bodies sovereign.
Crimes committed in the District Of CO.
lumbia are not crimes against the District,
but against the United States"
In Shoemaker VS.. United States, wherein
1t was held that the owners Of real estate
condemned for public parks in the District
Of Columbia should not be allowed the
value Of prospective gold mines and that
II sach gold mines existed, they were
the property Of the United States, the
court adopted the opinion Of Mr.. Justice
Cox OF the Supreme Court a most en-
tightening treatise on the subject of land
titles within the District of Columbia, Mr..
Justice Shiras, in delivering the opinion
OF the court, proceeded upon the con-
clusion that:
The United States possess full and un-
limited Jurisdiction, both of a political and
municipal nature, over the District Of Co.
lumbia"
In the case of Stoutenbergh VS.. Hennick
Q29 U. S., l4D, Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller.
delivering the opinion of the court, said:
Congress has express power to- exer-
else exclusive legislation In all cases what
soeVer' over the District Of Columbia thus
possessing the combined powers of a gen.
eral and OF State government in all cases
where legislation is possible, but as the
repository of the legislative power of the
United States Congress in creating the
District OF Columbia a body corporate
for municipal purposes could only au-
thorlze 1t to exercise municipal powers.
and that Is all that Congress attempted
| to do"
SuDreme Cnurt nn;r,or
The Supreme Court of the United States
during the October term of 1898, in the
case OF Capital Traction Co. vs. Charles
Hof Q74 u. S.. y said:
| The Congress of the United States, being
empowered by the Constitution to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever
over the seat Of the national government,
has the entire control over the District of
Columbia for every purpose of government,
national or local. 1t may exercise within
the District all legislative powers that the
Legislature of State may exercise within
the State; and may vest and distribute the
Judicial authority in and among courts and
magistrates. and regulate judicial proceed
lngs before them, as it may think flt, so long
as 1t does not contravene any provisions of
the Constitution Of the United States"
| ~. y. &, 81
52D; Mattingly vs. District of Columbia
ts7 U. S., 68O and Gibbons vs. District of
Columbia GIG U. S., 400
In Pollard VS.. Hagan g How, 223), after
quoting the 18th clause of the eighth Sec
ton OF the first article of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court Of the United States
said:
Within the District of Columbia, and
the other places purchased and used for
the purposes above mentioned, the national
and municipal powers Of government of
| every description. are united in the Gov
ernment Of the Union. And these are the
! only cases, within the United States. in
which all the powers Of government are
united In single Government, except in
the cases already mentioned of the tenn
| porary territorial governments, and there
local government exists"
In Cohen vs. Virginia (6 Wheat, 424):
'The Power Of the Union"
80 The United States in Congress
assembled. are the local sovereigns of the
District, and it is by them that this law is
passed. Is 1t less q law of the United
States because it does not operate directly
upon the Union at large? A statute is
not law Of the United States on account
OF the subject on which it acts being
limited or unlimited It is a law Of the
United States because it Is passed by the
legislative power Of the United States. The
legislative authority over the District Of
Columbia Is that OF the Union. It's sphere
Is limited, but the power itself Is even
greater than the general Federal power
OF the Union. It IS the power of the
Union. 1t is the power of the people and
the States combined exerted upon their
peculiar domains. It is the same Congress
which passes both descriptions Of laws"
Penn. Bridge Co. W. United States (29
App. D. c., 452).
'The government Of the District Of Co.
lumbia is simply an agency Of the United
States for conducting the affairs of its
Government in the Federal District"
On May 20. 1888, Mr.. Justice Sutherland
in delivering the opinion Of the United
States Supreme Court in Daniel ODonohue
vs.. United States and William Hits VS..
United States, said:
The District Is not an 'ephemerar sub
division OF the outlying dominion Of the
United States but the Capitalize very
heart-of the Union itself, to be maintained
as the permanent abiding place of all its
supreme departments and within which the
immense powers of the general govern
ment were destined to be exercised for the
great and expanding population of 4s
States, and for a future immeasurable be-
yond the prophetic vision of those who de-
signed and created it,
The court cited the opinion of Justice
Taft in the case of Grether VS.. Wright CTS
Fed, 742). That Judge, thereafter the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States said:
1T was meet that so powerful a SOW
ereignty should have local habitation the
character OF which it might absolutely
control and the government of which it
should not share with the States in whose
territory it exercised but a limited sov-
erelgnty, supreme, 1t is true, in cases where
1t could be exercised at all, but much re-
str1cted In the field Of its operation. The
object Of the grant of exclusive legislation
over the District was, therefore, national
IN the highest sense, and the city organ
lied under the grant became the city, not
OF State not of a district, but of a Nation.
In the same article which granted the
powers Of exclusive legislation over its seat
OF government are conferred all the other
great powers which make the Nation. in
cluding the power to borrow money on the
credit OF the United States He would be a
strict constructionist, indeed, who should
deny to Congress the exercise OF this latter
power In furtherence Of that Of organizing
and maintaining proper local government
at the seat OF government Each is for a
national purpose, and the one NAV be used