Evening star., 1948-11-09

the 4s States more than against
the District.
IF this court says Congress can
give Federal courts in the States
jurisdiction over District civil suits
then you will be giving Federal
courts power that was. reserved to
the States in the Constitution" Mr.
Burch contended.
Mr.. Allen said that, if Congress
were Constitutionally able to give
legal rights to Washington citizens
in Federal courts outside Wash
ington, it also could give broader
political rights to District people.
That, he added, could include the
right to vote.
Mr.. Allen made it plain, how
ever. that he does not favor suffrage
for District citizens. He remarked
that he stood by a good homespun
opinion" he obtained from a school
teacher many years ago that people
in the District weren't allowed to
vote because so many Of them were
in the civil service and therefore
shouldn't take part in politics"
Denies Discrimination.
But" he conceded, IF District
citizens are Disseminated against
in this matter of Federal court
jurisdiction, then they are discrim-
mated against by not being able
to vote.
1--WE hold. however, that they are
not Disseminated against. wash
ington is the seat of the national
Government. Washington citizens
ana corporations cannot contin-
ually be running to Federal courts
IN other States. Besides, Washing
ton people have many advantages
over us of other States. They seem
to have enjoyed the recent election
as much as we did in Maryland.
Mr.. Allen and Mr.. Burch based
their argument on these main
points:
District citizens are not citizens
OF a State within the meaning OF
the diversity OF citizenship clause
Oh IIe constitution.
Congress does not have power
to enlarge the Federal Court juris.
diction for District cases, because
Article I of the Constitution limit.
the exclusive legislative control o1
Congress over the District to the
boundaries Of the District.
Amendment Suggested.
If Congress believes the present
situation is unfair to the District
it can propose a Constitutions
amendment.
If Federal court jurisdiction were
broadened to the extent provided by
the 1910 act, many grave constitu.
tional questions would arise" These
might threaten jurisdiction of State
courts in cases involving District
citizens, restrict the power of Con-
gress to impose excise taxes on Dis
trict citizens without imposing them
on all American citizens and stir ur
numerous" questions about the
right of suffrage and national rep
resentation for the District.
Referring to the 1910 act, Justice
Reed observed that it affects citi-
gems of States as well as citizens ot
the District"
Mr.. Burch replied that Justice
Reed had "hit the nail upon the
head" The attorney said the 1s4C
act is unconstitutional, because il
goes beyond the power ceded by
the States to the Federal Govern
ment."
The restrictive property covenant
cases of last spring also came into
the argument when Mr.. Perlman
noted that the Supreme Court deci-
sion banning court enforcement of
such covenants referred to District
citizens as having the right of citi-
zens Of all States" Justice Frank
furter interrupted to say that a
different matter" was under consid-
Grafton in those civil rights cases.
Mr.. Bress argued that Chief JUS