Evening star., 1952-05-26
Court Bill Effect
III DC. Likely
To Be- Slight
D. c. Jurisdiction
Mostly Unchanged
By Smith Measure

By Smith Measure
A House-approved bill to free
Federal Courts from many cases
that, State courts could handle
might affect a few District citizens
and corporations, officials said to-
day. But the court situation here
would remain unchanged. they
explained.
The bill, sponsored by Repre-
sentative Smith. Democrat, of
Virginia, was passed by the House
last week. Authorities said the
measure would not change Dis
trict Court jurisdiction, add to the
Municipal Court burden, or cause
any no-man's-land of litigation
here.
It nevertheless is tied in with q
century-old controversy on which
the Supreme Court ruled three
years ago. The tribunal, in a 5-4
split, upheld the right of District
citizens to sue and be sued in Fed
eral Courts in the States.
The Smith bill could narrow
the opportunity Of District liti-
gantS to engage in certain kinds
of suits in Federal Courts outside
Of the DiStrict. But it would not
conflict with the Supreme Court
decision or deny District residents
the general privilege Of suing resi-
dents of other States in Federal
instead Of State courts.
Would Raise Amount.
Under present law a case in
volving such diversity of citizen
ship or arising under the Consti-
tuition comes within the jurisdic-
ton of q Federal Court, under
the United States Code, when the
amount in controversy is more
than $4,000.
The Smith bill would raise the
amount to $4,000. Any such case
with q lesser sum in dispute
would not be eligible for removal
from State to Federal courts. A
litigant in that event would have
to go to the State courts.
The same would apply to q Dis
trict resident a suit of that kind
in another State. officials had no
estimate Of the number of such
cases brought annually by Dis
trict citizens or corporations. They
believed that District litigants in
other States in the recent years
sought removal Of their cases
from State to Federal courts in
the respective States. They added
that most such removals probably
involved more than $4,000.
Congress in 1910 passed the
Gwynne Act allowing District resi-
dents, as well as those Of Hawaii,
Alaska and other territories, to
sue and be sued in civil cases in
Federal Courts anywhere in the
United States. Federal Court in
Baltimore and the United States
Court Of Appeals in Richmond in
1947 ruled the law unconstitu-
tional. The case involved $4,000
which the National Mutual In
surance Co. Of the District sought
to recover from the Tidewater
Transfer Co. of Virginia.
Opinion BY Marshall.
The basic argument over status
Of District citizens in such cases
went all the way back to an
opinion by Chief Justice John
Marshall in 1904. He held that the
First Judiciary Act of 1889 did
not give Federal circuit courts,
outside of the District, Jurisdiction
in civil suits between District citi-
zenS and those Of the several
States.
The Supreme Court in June,
1949, ruled in the National Mutual
Insurance case that Congress had
q constitutional right to give. as
1t did in 1910, Federal courts in
States the jurisdiction to admit
suits by District citizens against
citizens Of the States.
The $4,000 floor which the
Smith bill would put under diver
sity case removals to Federal
courts would not apply in Dis
trict code procedure officials said.
Municipal Court has jurisdic-
ton in disputes up to $4,000. All
suits above that amount, in this
jurisdiction whether between cit
izens Of the District or between
District residents and those Of
other States, would continue to
be tried in District Court.
The House was informed that
the $4,000 provision would re-
duce by about 3,100 the number
of cases removed annually from
State to Federal courts. This would
ease congestion in some of the
bigger Federal court Jurisdictions
without unduly adding to the
number of cases in States, Mr..
Smith said.
Similar proposals have been
made in Congress in recent years.
The jurisdictional amount was
$500 until 1887 when 1t was in
creased to $4,000. It has been
$4,000 since 1911.