THE SUPREME COURT

of the

District of Columbia

By FREDERICK L. SIDDONS

(Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, District of Columbia; Professor of the Law of Negotiable Instruments and Evidence, National University Law School.)

The judicial establishments set up in the Capital of the nation should be of interest to practicing lawyers and students of the law throughout the country, and doubtless such interest is felt by many of them. And it is for this reason that no excuse is offered for writing an article for a legal magazine, which will describe one of the judicial establishments mentioned.

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a court of original and general jurisdiction, and is an unique tribunal, possessing as we shall see, all the normal and usual jurisdiction and powers of a State court of original and general jurisdiction, and also the powers and jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts that exist throughout the United States. In addition, however, it has a jurisdiction and exercises powers, that are not possessed, it is believed, by any other trial court in the country. Its Chief Justice, and in his absence or disqualification the Senior Associate Justice, is clothed with the executive power of granting extradition, and it even has been granted powers that are essentially legislative in their character, as, for example, the power conferred upon it to review the findings and determinations of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, and in doing so, to establish rates which the Public Utilities may be permitted to charge for services rendered to the public.

This Court had its birth in the Act of Congress of March 3, 1863,' and it succeeded the Court known as the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, which was established by the Act of Congress of February 27, 1801. A brief summary of the judicial history of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia may be of interest at this point.

Prior to the establishment of the Federal District as the seat of the National Government, and by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Maryland was made a Federal Judicial District under the judicial scheme established by the Congress by the Act mentioned. One of the provisions of this Act undertook to confer upon the Supreme Court of the United States the power to issue writs of mandamus. Twelve years later, and towards the very end of the completion of the process of establishing or creating the Federal District of Columbia, the Congress, by the Act of February 13, 1801,* created a new federal judicial district to be known as the District of Potomac, and it was made to include the territory of Columbia and contiguous territory in Maryland and Virginia. Following this statute, and before the month of February, 1801, had expired, Congress enacted the first important Act providing a form of Government for the District of Columbia. This was the Act of February 27, 1801, supra, and it divided the Federal District into two counties one the County of Alexandria, west of the Potomac River, and the other the County of Washington, east of the Potomac. In the former County the laws of Virginia at that time in force were to apply, and in the latter the laws of Maryland in force were to apply, and it contains provisions pursuant to which the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, to consist of one Chief Judge and two Assistant Judges, who were to hold office during good behavior, was established. The Court was given similar powers to those vested in the United States Circuit Courts of the country. It was given jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed in the District and jurisdiction at law and in equity where one or both parties litigant were resident within the District, and in those civil cases wherein

the United States was a party plaintiff. Local actions were required to be commenced in the proper County, but jurisdiction did not exist unless the defendant was an inhabitant or found within the District of Columbia. Judgments of the Court in cases involving amounts exceeding $100 were reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States on error or appeal, as in cases from the United States Circuit Courts.

There was also established an Orphans' Court, with a Judge and Register of Wills with jurisdiction and powers similar to those exercised by the Orphans' Court of Maryland, and appeals from the Orphans' Court ran to the Circuit Court.

In the years that followed the establishment of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, Congress enacted a series of laws which gave to the Circuit Court of the District various additional powers, including the power of extradition, given to the Chief Judge of the Court, and requiring that Judge also to hold the Federal District Court of the District of Potomac, with all powers of the District Judges of the United States. Later the Federal District of Potomac was abolished, and thereafter the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court was empowered to hold a District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, with the same powers as the other Federal District Judges.' By the Act of July 7, 1838,' there was created a Criminal Court in the District of Columbia, with the Judge appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate, and that Court was given jurisdiction in all criminal cases and matters theretofore exercised by the Circuit Court of the District, and writs of error from the Criminal Court lay to the Circuit Court, making the latter to that extent an appellate tribunal to review the judgments of the Criminal Court.

By the Act of Congress of March 3, 1839,' the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, who was also, as we have seen, the Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, was given appellate review over the

Act of March 3, 1801, 2 Stat. L., 115

6 Act of March 3, 1801, 2 Stat. L., 123

'Act of April 29, 1802, 2 Stat. L., 166

8 5 Stat. L., 306

• 5 Stat. L., 354

decisions of the Commissioners of Patents. By the Act of August 19, 1841," the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia was given jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases. By the Act of March 3, 1845," the Court was given jurisdiction over offenses against the franking privilege.

From the foregoing summary, some idea can be formed of the extent of the jurisdiction and powers which became vested in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the Act of March 3, 1863, supra.

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia thus established consisted at first of one Chief Justice and three Associate Justices appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, and who were to hold office during good behavior. The Act provided for an organization into a General Term and Special Terms. The Court sitting in General Term was given all those necessary administrative powers for the establishment of a Court such as the appointment of a Clerk of the Court. The Court in General Term also sat as an appellate Court, reviewing the judgments of members of the Court sitting in Special Term. There was expressly conferred upon the Court the same jurisdiction as that possessed by the old Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, and one Justice of the Court was required to hold a District Court of the United States, and one to hold a Criminal Court for the District with the same jurisdiction and powers as the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia, which had been established by the Act of July 7, 1838, supra. The Special Terms of the Court were the trial courts, but a Justice holding a Special Term hearing cases at law or in equity, might order the case pending before him to be heard in General Term in the first instance. By the Act of June 21, 1870," an additional Justice was authorized, and the old Orphans' Court as a separate tribunal was abolished, and its jurisdiction and powers transferred to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

From time to time thereafter Congress added to the jurisdiction and powers to be exercised by the Supreme Court, including, by the Act of July 8, 1870," the power to hear

appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, but these appeals were to be heard by the Court sitting in banc.

By the Act of Congress of February 25, 1879," Congress provided for one more Justice of the Court. That gave a total of six Justices, one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, and the number of Justices has never been increased since then, although nearly forty-eight years have elapsed.

From the time when the Court became composed of six Justices until the establishment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, under the Act of February 9, 1893," there were three Justices usually available for trial work and three sitting in the General Term as the Appellate Court. Long before the establishment of the Court of Appeals the increase in the volume of judicial business, with the limited number of Justices holding trial or Special Terms, necessarily produced delays in the disposition of cases ready for trial, and by the time the Court of Appeals was established the period elapsing between the time when a case was ready for trial and when called for trial gradually lengthened until, in 1893, this period averaged between fifteen and eighteen months. The establishment of the Court of Appeals released three of the Justices of the Supreme Court from appellate duties, and added them to the number of trial Justices, in substance and effect doubling the number of the trial Courts. This brought relief for a time, but over thirty-three years have passed since the Court of Appeals was established, and the growth of population in the District of Columbia, the great increase in litigation, and, sadly enough, the increase in the commission of crime, together with many new Acts of Congress to be interpreted, construed, and enforced in this Court, has resulted in a constant struggle on the part of the Justices to keep up with the work of the Court without such delays of justice that too often amount to a denial of justice. In the opinion of the writer the struggle is a vain one, and relief to litigants and to those subject to judicial action should be given by increasing the number of Justices of the Court.