Evening star., 1948-10-20
Decision Of 1904
Cited in Breton
D. {. Litigation
High Court Prepares
For Oral Arguments
On Case Friday

oAAoOo nA1A 4IlOi4Adc JCllCI CO1l lU 10U3
might have influenced Chief Jus
tice Marshall in taking cautiously
restrictive approach" to the rights
Of District citizens in Federal
courts outside the District, the Su-
preme Court was told today.
This reference to a 144-year old
ruling came in a written brief as
the high court prepared to hear
oral arguments Friday on the con-
stitutionality of the 1910 Gwynne
Act.
The act allowed District citizens
and corporations, as well as those
of Hawaii, Alaska and other Ter
ritories, to sue and be sued in civil
cases in Federal courts anywhere
in the United States.
The Federal court in Baltimore
and the United States Court of Ap-
peals in Richmond held the law in
valid last year.
The Supreme Court is asked-by
the Justice Department among 9TH
ers-to declare it constitutional.
The court is asked to rule that Fed
eral courts everywhere give District
citizens the same status as Is ex-
plicitly guaranteed to people of
other States and to aliens-includ-
ing aliens living here.
Involves Contract Case.
The pending case involves $4,000
which the National Mutual Insur-
ance Co. Of the District of Columbia
seeks to recover from the Tidewater
Transfer Co. of Virginia on charges
OF breach Of contract.
But the constitutional issue is re-
garded as so important that the
Justice Department, without COM
menting on the merits Of the $40 900
dispute. has intervened as a friend
of the court.
Solicitor General Philip B. PERL
man. in his written brief, today
described the 1910 Gwynne law as
"a belated response to Chief Justice
MarshallS suggestion" in 1904.
He urged that the Law be upheld
not only as being in line with the
Constitution, but also as a means
OF ending IAN unfair discrimination
against citizens of the District"
Chief Justice Marshall Is some-
thing Of pivotal figure in the areu-
ments, He held that the First Judi
ciary Act of September, 1889, did not
give Federal circuit courts jurisdic-
ton in civil suits between District
citizens and those of the several
States. He remarked that this was
extraordinary" but that it never
theless was subject "for legislative
not judicial consideration"
See Stand for Legislation.
Attorneys arguing in behalf of
such rights for District citizens do
not denounce the Marshall ruling,
They do not concede that he .in-
tended to reflect on the lack of con-
stitutional authority" for Congress
to extend those rights. They declare
on the contrary, that his stand gives
strong support, even at this late date,
Tor power Of Congress to enact
legislation such as the Gwynne Act
of 1910. ''
The brief prepared for the insur-
ance company. however, declares
that, even If Chief Justice Marshall
did mean to say Congress lacked
authority to help District people in
this way. his view In 1904 should be
re-examined in 1948 by the Supreme
Court.
Noting that the Washington popu-
lation now Is close to 1000 200
whereas 1t had only 5000 people,
including transients and foreigners.
In 1904, the brief suggests:
The contemporaneous struggle
between the Federalists and the
followers of Thomas Jefferson Gin
1900 and the resultant opposition to
the Federal courts may have in
f1uenced Marshall's cautiously re-
str1ctive approach in that case. .
The changed economic and political
scene requires a different approach
to and conclusion for the problem. /"
Ruling in Lower Courts.
In the pending case, the lower
courts held the Gwynne Act un-
constitutional mainly on the ground
that the District Is not a state"
within the meaning Of the constitu-
tional section for establishing the
judiciary; that Congress lacked
authority to vest Federal courts with
jurisdiction in civil cases between
District citizens and those of other
States, and that the exclusive legis-
lative authority of Congress over the
District is territorially limited to
the District.
The Justice Department brief con-
tends: That the District is q state
within the meaning of the judicial
power section of the Constitution
just as 1t is q state" within the
application of treaties, taxation,
statutes and other constitutional
provisions. That the Gwynne Act
was a proper exercise of the Judi
cial power as defined in Article III
OF the Constitution.
That 1t was an appropriate exer-
else of a far-reaching power of
Congress to legislate for the Dis
trict.
Maintaining that District citizens
and corporations should have access
to Federal courts equal to that
granted those of States and to
aliens, attorneys for the insurance
company argued:
That trainers of the Constitution
had no intention Of discriminating
against future residents of the Dis
trict.
That citizens of the District orig
inally were citizens of States and
were entitled to the same equal
legal processes.
That the Federal Governments