Evening star., 1948-01-01

States may be brought Ia courts az
either Of the two States, or In Fed
|eral courts.
19lo Law Ruled Out.
The majority not only ruled out
the 1910 law under Section 2 or
Article 3 of the Constitution, but
also concluded "that any attempt by
Congress to proceed here under
Article /, Section 8, OF the Consti-
tuition, giving Congress exclusive
Legislative power over the District
|of Columbia, would likewise lack
validity"
Judges Dobie and soper declared
that the two articles cited must
be construed together so as to har-
monize the two and give meaning
to each; one article cannot be In
terpreted to fiout what appears the
clear meaning Of the other" They
continued:
Congress cannot, therefore, ex-
tend beyond the constitutional
limits the jurisdiction Of the United
States District Courts under the
guise of exercising its legislative
prerogative that is limited to the
District Of Columbia"
LEGISLATION Called Salutary.
Judge Parker argued that no one
would dispute the power of Con-
gress to create special courts to hear
litigation to which a citizen Of the
District of Columbia is party. BY
the same token, he reasoned, II see
no reason why Congress cannot
combine the jurisdiction Of such
courts with that of the ordinary
Federal courts already created ;"
The growth Of Washington since
John Marshall's time, he pointed
out, emphasizes the right Of the
Capitals citizens ITO invoke the jur-
isdiction Of the only sovereignty to
which they owe allegiance and to
which they can look for protection" !"
This right, he declared, has "at
length been recognized by Congress
in the passage Of legislation which
opens the Federal courts to them
on the same conditions that these
courts are open to other citizens Of
the republic"
He termed the legislation "salu-
tary," not unconstitutional.
The Senate District Committee
went into the question in 1922, when
it was making a favorable report on
the proposed constitutional amend
ment to give Washington national
suffrage and equal status in all
Federal courts.
The 1922 report, filed by the late
Senator Jones, Republican, Of
Washington, declared:
mo sound argument can be pre-
sented for the existing discrimina-
ton between citizens of the District
and those Of the States when it
comes to the question of affording
relief so far as suits In United
States courts are concerned. This
right is even granted an alien, but
denied under the Constitution to a
citizen of thes District. The right is
a valuable one and has been con-
sistently so recognized since the
adoption of the judiciary act in
| 1790. It is time that this discrimi-
nation should cease, and the people
of the District given the same rights
in all respects as citizens Of the
States, through adoption Of q
constitutional amendment, such as
provided in the present resolution -
In another part of the 1922 report,
1t was stated:
although there can be no doubt
that the trainers of the Constitution
never intended to discriminate in
this respect between the citizens
of the Districe and those of the
States. the fact remains that the
District of Columbia is not State
within the meaning of the consti-
tutional provision authorizing citi-
zens of one State to sue and be
sued by citizens of another State
| In the courts Of the United States
(Hepburn VS.. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, AS,
452; Geofrey VS.. Riggs, 1873 U. S.,
258, 269) although it has been held
by the Supreme Court to be a State
for the purpose Of direct taxation
N,oughborough VS.. Blake, 5 Whea-
ton. 317)"