Evening star., 1948-03-27
Why 1t Should Be Reviewed

AS SOllClGOr General Perlman argues,
1t is important that the Supreme Court
resolve the constitutional issue under
which citizens of Washington are denied
access to the Federal courts. The highest
court may agree with those below, that
they are barred by the Constitution itself.
If so, then a very obvious injustice should
be removed by amendment of the Con-
stitution.
The injustice is this: Citizens of differ:
ent States settle their differences through
the Federal courts. Such courts are free
of the prejudices which may exist in local
courts, as between "home town" litigant
and somebody from another State. Even
an alien can sue citizen or be sued by
him in the Federal courts. But resident
of the District is not resident of
"state." Therefore, the courts hold, he is
denied this right in litigation with
citizen of State.
Congress thought the discrimination was
easily removed In 1910 it enacted law
extending the Jurisdiction of the Federal
courts to cases between citizens of the
District and those of a State Ten de-
cisions in the lower courts held the law
unconstitutional; three upheld it. The
case gave the courts, according to one
opinion, "a field day in constitutional
erudition." The argument against the law
was that the Constitution, in defining the
judicial power, spoke specifically of cases
between States" citizens of a State"
"citizens of different States" etc. But
citizens of the District are not citizens of
a State. The same Constitution, however,
gives Congress the power to establish such
inferior courts as it may choose. A
minority of the judges on the other side
argued that as Congress could establish
courts to handle litigation between
citizens of the District and citizens of
State, why can Congress not assign such
jurisdiction to existing courts?
Such pros and cons aside, however, the
fact is that decision of the Supreme
Court in 1905 pointed out the discrimina-
tion against citizens of the District and
suggested that its removal lay with
Congress. One hundred and thirty-f1ve
years later Congress tried to remove it,
only to produce food of litigation which
put it back again. AS Mr.. Perlman argues,
no law of Congress should be set aside
except by the Supreme Court. He, with
others, is highly doubtful that it was
ever the intent of the trainers of the
Constitution to set up the discrimination
now existing. 1t is highly illogical, as we'll
as unjust.
Mr.. Perlman points out that the trainers
of the Constitution and those who rati-
fed their work did not know where the
federal district" would be located, who
would live there or what their rights as
citizens would be. Undoubtedly they
thought that any omissions on their part
in spelling out such details would be sup
piled by their successors.
The value of Supreme Court review
would be in determining whether the
judges have been wrong in Interpreting
what the Constitution means, or whether
they have been right And If they have
been right, then the Constitution itself
should be changed to meet conditions as
they are. Such changes should give Amer
leans who live in Washington not merely
their rightful access to the Federal courts
but their right as citizens to be represented
in their Government.