1st Session. No. 185. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. AUGUST 22, 1850. Mr. BUTLER made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 258.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill to reorganize the courts of the District of Columbia. respectfully report: That your committee have given to the subject-matter of this bill all the attention to which its importance fairly entitles it. The preamble of the bill recites that, since the retrocession of Alexandria county to the State of Virginia, it is expedient to reduce the number of judges in the District of Columbia;" and that "it is represented by citizens of the said District that the courts thereof should be reorganized." The courts of the District are the circuit court, the district court, the criminal court, and the orphans' court-the latter being a court of special and limited jurisdiction The district court is a part of the general judicial system of the United States, and is held by the chief judge of the circuit court, who is ex officio judge of the district court. Before the retrocession of Alexandria county, the circuit and criminal courts, as they are at present constituted, held terms there; and there was also an orphans' court for that county, which, of course, has ceased to exist. The bill does not propose to reorganize the criminal court, which, from its creation, has consisted of a single judge, the clerk of the circuit court, and the marshal of the District being charged with the ministerial and executive duties connected with it. It proposes to abolish the circuit and orphans' courts, and in lieu thereof to establish three other courts-one of chancery and probate, one of common pleas, and the third of appeals. But the orphans' court has not in any degree been affected by the retrocession of Alexandria county, to whose concerns it was entirely foreign... And the circuit court, as now constituted, held its terms in the county of Washington before the retrocession of Alexandria, just as it does now,. and had done for forty years-all the three judges making but one court.. The two terms which it held annually in Alexandria were of very short duration-the bulk of the business, both as to the number and importance of the causes, being on the Washington side. Here, too, in the nature of things, have arisen, and from time to time must arise, all those judicial questions in the District which are of interest and importance to the national government. The population of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, and the extra municipal part of the county, at the present time, very greatly ex ceeds the population of the whole District, including Alexandria, for many years after the establishment of the court; and the interests and concerns of the government within its jurisdiction have naturally increased in magnitude proportionally with the growth of the federal establishments at the metropolis. At the last census, (1840,) the whole population of the District was 43,712; of which total, the population of Alexandria was 8,459. It is calculated that, during the last ten years, the population of Washing ton county has increased to about sixty thousand souls. The number of the judges was evidently fixed without any reference to the Alexandria terms, and solely with regard to the extensive jurisdiction and probable magnitude of the interests, public and private, which it was deemed ne cessary to confide to it. If it be expedient now to commit these to a single judge, it would appear to have been even more expedient at the original creation of the court. The holding of alternate terms in the two counties is altogether independent of the question of the number of the judges. It seems to your committee, therefore, that, if the circuit court was wisely constituted in its origin, the retrocession of the county of Alexan dria has not so altered the state of things as to require or render expedient any change. Nor are they aware that any such representations are before the Senate as are entitled to be considered a safe exponent of the wishes and opinions of a population of this magnitude. Your committee have therefore been obliged to look for other reasons than those which are recited in the preamble of the bill to sustain its pr visions. In doing so, they have examined into the constitution and jur diction of the courts, and have applied to a number of the leading mem bers of the bar, and had recourse to the records, for the purpose of ascer taining whether any evil exists which demands either this or any othe remedy. The circuit court of the District of Columbia was created by the act 27th February, 1801, chapter 15, 2 Statutes at Large, page 103. By the third section, it is enacted "that there shall be a court in said District. which shall be called the circuit court of the District of Columbia; and the said court, and the judges thereof, shall have all the powers by la vested in the circuit courts, and the judges of the circuit courts, of the United States. Said court shall consist of one chief judge and two assis ant judges, resident within said District, to hold their respective offices during good behaviour-any two of whom shall constitute à quorum; ar each of the said judges shall, before he enter on his office, take the oath or affirmation provided by law to be taken by the judges of the cir courts of the United States." And by the fifth section it is enacted “that said court shall have cognizance of all crimes and offences committed within said District, and of all cases in law and equity between parties, bet or either of which shall be resident or found within said District; and als of all actions or suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, which the United States shall be plaintiffs or complainants; and of a seizures on land or water, and all penalties and forfeitures made, arising or accruing under the laws of the United States." The criminal jurisdiction has since been transferred to the crimisa court of the District of Columbia, established in 1838, (chap. 192.) The "powers vested in the circuit courts and the judges of the circuit courts of the United States," referred to in the third section, are the powers enumerated in the act of 13th February, 1801, (2 Stat. at Large, 89;) which act was repealed by the act of 29th April, 1802, ch. 31. These powers remain vested in the circuit court of the Dristrict of Columbia, notwithstanding that repeal. (Kendall, Postmaster General, vs. the United States, 12 Peters, 524.) The court has also the like powers and jurisdiction as a county court of Maryland, and as the high court of chancery of that State. The consequence is, that it has a larger jurisdiction and more extensive powers than any of the other circuit courts created by the act of 1802, above cited. Besides its original jurisdiction of civil suits at law and in equity, it has four branches of appellate jurisdiction, viz: 1st. Appeals on matters both of law and fact from the judgments of single magistrates for sums not exceeding $50. 2d. Appeals from the judgments and decrees of the district court of the United States, whereof the chief judge of the District is the sole judge. 3d. Appeals from decrees or orders of the orphans' court. 4th. Appeals from the judgments of the criminal court, from which appeals are allowed as a matter of right, and without limitation, to all persons convicted in that court of misdemeanors or felonies. The court is also invested, under the laws of Maryland in force in this county, with certain administrative powers and duties, such as the appointment and qualification of constables, notaries, &c.; the granting of tavern and retail licenses in the country portion of the county; opening and laying out roads; naturalization of aliens, &c. The case of Kendall vs. the United States, already cited, is an example of a branch of the jurisdiction of this court which is most important to the rights of the citizen on the one hand, and the interests of the government on the other. The chief judge is also charged with the duty of hearing and deciding appeals from decisions of the United States Commissioner of Patents. In the number of public contractors and disbursing officers about the seat of government, another field of interest to the country at large is found within the jurisdiction of this court. All these things, taken together, necessarily require that the judicial establishment should be maintained upon a very different footing from an ordinary court of common pleas; and this without any regard to the fact that the federal territory has been diminished in its superficial area, or lost a portion of its population. The amount of business transacted by the court, independently of orders at chambers in vacation, may be intimated from the certified copies of returns to the Solicitor of the Treasury, (marked A, Nos. 1, 2, and 3,) appended to this report, together with the letter of the clerk of the court (marked B) in reply to the application made to him by your committee. For the ability and fidelity with which all these onerous and responsible duties have been discharged by the present judges of the court, your committee have a sufficient guaranty in the testimony of a number of the more prominent members of the bar, some of whom have been actively engaged in practice before the court for upwards of thirty years, and all of whom must have not only a deep interest in the subject, but the amplest means and capacity to judge correctly in the premises. A circular letter was addressed to them by the chairman of your committee, and their several replies are appended to this report, (marked L, M, N, O, P, Q, R.) Your committee feel that is but an act of simple justice to these judges, to say that they are entirely satisfied from this testimony, as well as from an examination of the manuscript reports of the venerable Chief Judge Cranch, that they have not only maintained the purity and impartiality of their high office above all reproach, but that they have dedicated to it an amount of learning and labor which give them a just title to the respect and confidence of the profession and of the public. The papers marked C, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, appended to this report, and which were obtained by your committee from the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, furnish the means of instituting a comparison be tween the circuit court of the District of Columbia and the other circuit courts of the United States. They show that the general average of reversals of cases carried from the other circuits from 1790 to 1850 is 44 per cent.; while the average of reversals of cases carried up from the circuit court of the District of Columbia is only 37 per cent.; and that for the last twelve years the average of reversals from that court is only thirty-three per cent. When it is remembered that the learned circuit judges of the United States sit in the Supreme Court on the appeals from their own decisions, and thus have the opportunity of defending them, which is not the case with the judges of the court now in question, it is believed that no better evidence can be required than is found in these statistics to estab lish the competency of the judges whom it is proposed by this bill to legislate out of office, with implied condemnation. The bill contains an extraordinary provision against the granting of new trials, on the ground that verdicts are against evidence, or whelly without evidence. The power to grant new trials and rehearings on motion and cause I shown," is specially enumerated in the thirty-first section of the act of 13th February, 1801. It is possessed by all the circuit courts of the United States as now constituted, and, so far as is known to your com mittee, by all common law courts of record in this country and in Eng land, either in their appellate or nisi prius jurisdiction. Your committee regard it as an important and indispensable power in the administration of justice; it is expressly recognised in the constitution, (7th article.) Without it, half the value of the judicial office would be gone, and the most important legal rights of suitors would be wholly intrusted to a tbunal which, however justly esteemed to be the "palladium of liberty," must occasionally, from that very nature which gives it its chief value, be liable to be swept from its proper moorings by influences against which the judicial office is a reliable safeguard. Your committee have thought it proper, however, under the circumstances, to ascertain whether there had been any abuse of the power by the court in question. The paper annexed to this report, marked D, being a certificate of the clerk of the court, shows that for the last twelve years, including the last term of the court, there have been 126 motions for new trials made, of which 107 were overruled, and only 19 granted. Nothing apparently can be more unfounded than the charge of abusing this power. Not only therefore, are your committee decidedly opposed to the extraordinary novelty proposed by the bill in this particular, but they see no reason |