Evening star., 1949-06-22
The Result Is Good

The layman who lives in the National
Capital is not going to get much enlight-
enment as to his future status as an
American citizen from the Supreme Courts
latest discussion of that much discussed
subject.
He will understand, and he will welcome
the fact, that henceforth he will have the
right to bring law suit based on claim
arising under State law in a Federal
Court in any one of the States This, at
least, will raise him to the dignity Of
aliens, who have previously enjoyed this
privilege. II the courts opinion does any
thing to secure for him some of the more
fundamental rights, however, such, for
instance, as the right to vote in national
election, the layman will be hard put to
discover what 1t is.
Actually, there were four opinions, the
decision of the court being written by
Justice Jackson, with the concurrence of
Justices Black and Burton.
In 1904 the Supreme Court, speaking
through Chief Justice Marshall, ruled that
a citizen of the District could not sue a
citizen of State in Federal court in the
State under the diversity of citizenship
clause of the Constitution. (He could, of
course, sue in the State courtsD For 1856
years the doors of the Federal courts in
the States were closed to citizens OF the
District under John Marshalls interpreta-
ton of Article III of the Constitution and
the Judiciary Act of 1889.
Then, in 1910, Congress enacted a law
extending this right Of suit to citizens OF
the District. The law was struck down as
unconstitutional in the District Court and
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But
Justice Jackson found way around the
constitutional barriers He did not, at least
In express terms, override the old finding
by Chief Justice Marshall nor did he
conclude that citizen of the District has
the standing of a citizen of one of the
States. He did conclude, however, that the
1910 law was valid under that section OF
Article of the Constitution which gives
Congress exclusive legislative power over
the District of Columbia.
Justice Rutledge, with the concurrence
Of Justice Murphy. agreed with the result
of the Jackson decision, but dissented
vigorously from its reasoning. Justice
Rutledge felt that the Marshall ruling OF
1904 should have been fortnrlgntly over
ruled on the theory that the trainers OF
the Constitution in giving citizen of one
State the right to sue citizen of another
State in a Federal court, never intended
to deny citizens of the District the same
access to Federal courts in the States.
Chief Justice Vinson, joined by Justice
Douglas, wrote one dissenting opinion. The
other dissent was written by Justice Frank
furter, with the concurrence of Justice
Reed The gist of the dissents was that
Congress has not the power to accomplish
what it sought to do in the 1910 law, the
inference being that the desired result
could properly be accomplished only
through constitutional amendment.
There is much that Is tortured, or at
least much that seems tortured to the
layman, in the reasoning Of all the
opinions. Justice Frankfurter summed up
the confusion when, in his final sentence,
he said: "And so, conflicting minorities in
combination bring to pass result-para-
doxical as it may appear-which differing
majorities of the court find insupportable."