Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-06-21

National Mutual irkuYaEee Co OF the Dsx-
trtct AGAINST the Tadenctev TraaFfry Co
Inc. OF Fvc;EsG-ErGS announced By Justice
Jackson n ar opsHaoH ~ Khsch Justices
Black and Button tofsed. partial text Of
that opinion lolsotfs
This case calls I'D for review holding
that it is unconstitutional for Congress TO
open Federal courts in the several States 10
action by a citizen Of the District Of Column
bia against q citizen OF one Of the States
Ene petitioner. as plaintiff. commenced IN
the United States District Court for Mary
land an action for money Judgment on .
claim arising out OF an insurance contract
No cause Of action under the laws or Con-
stitution OF the. United States was pleaded
jurisdiction being predicated only upon an
allegation Of diverse citizenship. The d.
versity set forth was that plaintiff Is q corpo-
ration created by District Of Columbia Law.
while the defendant is a corporation char
tered by Virginia. amenahle TO suit In Mary
land by virtue OF q license to do business
there. The learned District Judge concluded
that while this diversity met jurisdictional
requirements under the Act Of Congress. II
did not comply with diversity requirements
II the Constitution as to Federal Jurisdiction
and SO dismissed. The Court Of Appeals by
Q divided court. afirmed,
The history OF the controversy begins with
that Of the republic. In defining the cases
and controversies to which the judicial
power of the United States could extend
the Constitution included those between
Citizens Of different States" In the Judiei-
airy Act Of 1889. Congress created system
of Federal courts of first instance and gave
them Jurisdiction Of suits between a citizen
of the State where the suit is brought and
q citizen of another State"
In 1904 the Supreme Court. through Chief
Justice Marshall held that a citizen Of the
District OF Columbia was not a citizen OF a
State within the meaning and amendment
OF this Act. This decision closed Federal
courts In the States to citizens of the Dis
trict of Columbia In diversity cases. and for
1856 years they remained closed. In 1910
Congress enacted the statute challenged
here. 1t confers on such courts jurisdiction
II the action lis between citizens of different
States, or citizens OF the District of Column
bia, the Territory of Hawaii. or Alaska. and
any State or Territory" The issue here de-
ponds upon the validity OF this Act, which.
in substance was re-enacted by later Con-
greSs as part of the judicial Code.
Our first inquiry is whether under the
third. or Judiciary, Article Of the Constitu-
ton. extending the judicial power OF the
United States to eases or controversies be
tween Citizens of different States" a citizen
of the District of Columbia has the standing
of citizen of one of the States Of the Union
This Is the question which the opinion OF
Chief Justice Marshall answered In the neg
alive by way OF dicta II not OF actual
decision, Hepburn d Dundas v. Elzey.
Among his contemporaries at least Chief
Justice Marshall was not generally cenSured
H. ~rSu 49,. l~<R~ eS.,a tAA Ia
guage of the Constitution to deny Federal
knowledge Of the Founders and the founda-
ton of our Constitutional structure.
To now overrule this early decision of the
Court on this point and hold that the Dis
trict of Columbia Is State would. as that
opinion pointed out. give to the word State"
q meaning In the Article which sets UP the
judicial establishment quite different from
that which 1t carries in those Articles which
set up the political departments and In other
Articles of the instrument.
There is no evidence that the founders.
pressed by more general and immediate
anxieties, thought Of the special problems OF
the District Of Columbia in connection with
the judiciary.
We therefore decline to overrule the opin-
ion Of Chief Justice Marshall. and we hold
that the District of Columbia is not State
within Article III of the Constitution. In
other words. cases between citizens of the
District and those of the States were not in
cluded in the catalogue of controversies over
which the Congress could give jurisdiction to
the Federal courts by virtue Of Article III
This conclusion does not. however. de-
termine that Congress lacks power under
other provisions of the Constitution to en-
act this legislation. Congress. by the Act in
question, sought not to challenge or disagree
with the decision of Chief Justice Marshall
that the District Of Columbia Is not State
for such purposes 1t was careful to avoid
conflict with that decision by basing the new
legislation on powers that had not been
relied upon by the First Congress in passing
the Act Of 1889.
The Judiciary Committee OF the House OF
Representatives recommended the Act OF
April 20. 1910. as "a reasonable exercise OF
the Constitutional power Of Congress TO
legislate for the District of Columbia and
for the Territories" This power the Consti-
tuition confers in broad terms. By Article I,
Congress Is empowered ITO exercise exclusive
Legislation In all Cases whatsoever. over
such District" And OF course IL was also
authorized ito make ell Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Exc
cution" such powers.
Unless we are to deny to Congress the
same choice OF means through which to
govern the District OF Columbia that We
have held 1t to have In exercising other
legislative powers enumerated In the same
Article we cannot hold that Congress lacked
the power 1t sought to exercise In the Act
before us.
We therefore hold that Congress may
sxsrf its newer In eoyern the District of
Columbia by imposing the judicial function
of adjudicating justiciable controversies on
the regular Federal courts which under the
Constitution 1t has the power 10 ordain and
establish and which 1t may invest with juris-
diction and from which It may withhold
jurisdiction +ia the exact degree and char
acter which to Congress may seem proper
for the public good"
The argument that congressional powers
wirs "a , Awefrixed