Evening star., 1940-03-21
Gwynne Bill Report Text
Measure Allowing D. c. Residents to Sue
Or Be Sued in Federal Courts Is in Senate

Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Vir-
ginia. This depends on the act
of Congress describing the juris-
diction of that court. That act
gives jurisdiction to the circuit
courts in cases between a citi-
zen of the State in which the
suit is brought, and a citizen of
another State. To support the
jurisdiction in this case, there
fore, it must appear that Colum-
bia is State.
On the part of the plaintiffs,
it has been urged, that Columbia
is distinct political society, and
is, therefore, "a State" according
to the definitions of writer's on
general law. This is true. But
as the act of Congress obviously
uses the word State" in refer
ence to that term as used in the
Constitution, it becomes neces-
sary to inquire whether Colum-
bia is State in the sense of that
instrument. The result of that
examination is a conviction that
the members of the American
confederacy only are the States
contemplated in the Constitution.
1t is true, that as citizens of
the United States, and of that
particular District which is sub
ject to the jurisdiction of Con-
gress, it is extraordinary, that the
courts of the United States,
which are open to aliens, and to
the citizens of every State in the
Union, should be closed upon
them. But this is a subject for
legislative, not for judicial con-
sideration.
New Orleans v. Winter q Wheat
80, 4 L. Ed. A Q816O. first dealt
with the question of whether a Ter
rltory was State within the mean
ing of the United States Constitu-
ton (article III, section D. 1t was
held that a controversy between
of the Mississippi Territory
and the State of Kentucky was not
a controversy between citizens oi
different States" relying on Hep.
burn v. Ellzey, supra.
In Watson v. Brooks Q3 Fed. 54(
(Cir. Ct, Greg, 1890, the court
reluctantly followed New Orleans v
Winter supra. that the Washington
Territory was not State within ar.
ticle III, section 2, OF the United
States Constitution. Although ar.
irving at this conclusion under the
of stare decisis, the court
indicated it's dissatisfaction with the
decision in Hepburn v. Ellzey.
However, the decisions since that
date have uniformly followed the
early decision of Chief Justice Mar.
shall.
The Federal district and circuit
courts are created by Congress un-
der the constitutional authority
granted in article III. These courts
receive and exercise the judicial
power granted by the Constitution
This judicial power cannot be in
creased or limited simply by ar
act of Congress.
This article, however, must be
construed in connection with other
provisions of the Constitution. Fol
example, in article /, section 8, il
is provided:
The Congress shall have power
:. to exercise exclusive legisla-
ton in all cases whatsoever over
such district (not exceeding 10
miles square, as may by cession
of particular States and the ac-
ceptance of Congress become the
seat of the Government of the
United States.
That the Congress under this pro.
vision has complete authority tt
govern the District of Columbia
and the affairs of it's citizens is vel
settled. This right is, of course
subject to constitutional restraint!
so far as applicable. AS was sale
in ODonoghue v. United State!
(289 U. S. 516):
1t is important to bear con-
stantly in mind that the Dis
trict was made up of portions of
two of the original States of
the Union and was not taken out
Of the Union by the cession.
Prior thereto its inhabitants were
entitled to all the rights, guar
antics, and immunities of the
Constitution among which was
the right to have their cases aris-
ing under the Constitution, heard
and determined by Federal courts
created under and vested with
the judicial power conferred by
article 3. We think it is not
reasonable to assume that the
cession stripped them of these
rights and that 1t was intended
that at the very seat of the
National Government the people
should be less fortified by the
guarantee of an independent ju-
dietary than in other parts Of
the Union.
In the above case it was expressl,
held by the court that the distric
and circuit courts Of the Distric
Of Columbia were constitutions
courts" within the meaning Of ar