Evening star., 1948-03-03
Supreme Court
Ruling Soughton
DC. Suit Rights
Review of Circuit
Decision Denying
Jurisdiction Asked

The Supreme Court today was
asked to rule on whether District
citizens should not enjoy the same
privileges as other United States
citizens in suing and being sued in
Federal courts outside Washington.
The court was told the Justice
Department plans to file a brief in
the case supporting today's petit
ton.
The court was urged to review
the recent decision of the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals at Rich
mond, which held unconstitutional
1910 act of Congress giving Dis
trict citizens the right to partici-
pate in civil cases in Federal courts
outside Washington
The case involves the National
Mutual Insurance Co. of the Dis
trict, which sued the Tidewater
Transfer Co.. Inc, in the Federal
District Court in Maryland on an
insurance contract. The lower court
dismissed the complaint, holding
that Congress could not empower
the court to hear suits between
District citizens and those of the
States. The Appeals Court upheld
the District Court.
Termed of Grave Importance.
In their brief today company law
yers declared: THE question pre-
sented is patiently one of grave i'm
portance to masses of American
citizens. The decision below-in
conflict with other decisions-adopts
all unnecessarily restrictive ap-
proach to the constitutional author
ity of Congress to provide adequate
judicial forums for citizens of the
District of Columbia.
only this court can finally re-
solve the constitutional question.
We therefore respectfully submit
that this petition for a writ Of
certiorari should be granted"
The 1910 act amended the judi
cial code to give Federal courts
original jurisdiction over suits OF a
civil nature between citizens of the
States and District citizens on the
same basis available to citizens Of
the States and aliens, it was ex-
planned.
Decisions Cited.
Morris Gewriz. president and gen.
eral counsel OF the insurance COM
pany, pointed out "the rights of
citizens of the District to sue in
the Federal Courts on a par with
citizens of the States and aliens
has never been decided in the Dis
trict where the problem should DO
decided.
Now for the first time the Dis
trict citizen is represented by Dis
trict lawyers who will present the
cause for the local citizenry,' he
said.
The brief pointed out the majority
OF the Appeals Court held the Dis
triCt was not State in the sense in
tended by Article III of the Federal
Constitution and, therefore, Con-
gress could not confer on Federal
courts, established pursuant to that
article, jurisdiction over suits be-
tween citizens of the States and
District citizens.
Dissent Noted.
The Supreme Courts attention
was directed in the brief to the fact
that Circuit Judge John j. Parker
of the Appeals Court dissented in
this case The brief said Judge
Parker was "of the view that since
a prime requisite of our system Of
government was the assurance of
equal justice to all, the Constitution
should not be so interpreted as to
fail to afford to large segment of
our population equal access to courts
created hereunder"
He held the authority conferred
on Congress by Article I, Section 8,
empowered 1t TO create courts to
sit in or outside of the District to
hear causes involving District citi-
zens or to combine such iurisdic-
ton with that of the ordinary Fed
eral courts already created by Con-
gress under Article III of the Con-
stitution, the brief declared.
Attorneys in the case are Alvin L.
NeWmyer, David G. Bress and
Sheldon E. Bernstein who filed the
petition today, and Mr.. Gewirz and
Theodore SherboW.