certain administrative powers, the same as made some contribution to the finances of those vested in the county and levy courts the city, but the residue was raised by taxof Virginia and Maryland, respectively, and ing the inhabitants of the city and District it was declared that the magistrates to be just as the inhabitants of all municipal bodappointed should be a board of commission-ies are taxed. In 1871 an important modi. ers within their respective counties, and fication was made in the form of the Dishave the same powers and perform the trict government. A legislature was estabsame duties as the levy courts of Maryland. |lished, with all the apparatus of a distinct These powers related to the construction government. By the act of February 21st and repair of roads, bridges, ferries, the care of that year, entitled “An act to provide a of the poor, etc. Act March 3, 1801, (2 St. government for the District of Columbia," 115.) On May 3, 1802, an act was passed to (16 St. 419,) it was enacted (section 1) that incorporate the city of Washington. 2 St. all that part of the territory of the United 195. It invested the mayor and common States included within the limits of the Discouncil (the latter being elected by the white trict of Columbia be created into a governmale inhabitants) with all the usual pow-ment by the name of the "District of Coers of municipal bodies, such as the power lumbia," by which name it was constituted to pass by-laws and ordinances; powers of "a body corporate for municipal purposes,' administration, regulation, and taxation; with power to make contracts, sue and be among others, specially named, the power sued, and "to exercise all other powers of a "to erect and repair bridges; to keep in re- municipal corporation not inconsistent pair all necessary streets, avenues, drains, with the constitution and laws of the and sewers; and to pass regulations neces- United States." A governor and legislasary for the preservation of the same, agree-ture were created, also a board of public ably to the plan of the said city." Various works; the latter to consist of the governamendments, from time to time, were made or, as its president, and four other perto this charter, and additional powers were sons, to be appointed by the president and conferred. A general revision of it was senate. To this board was given the conmade by act of congress passed May 15, trol and repair of the streets, avenues, al1820. 3 St. 583. A further revision was leys, and sewers of the city of Washington, made, and additional powers were given, and all other works which might be inby the act of May 17, 1848, (9 St. 223,) but trusted to their charge by the legislative nothing to change the essential character assembly or congress. They were empowof the corporation. The powers of the levy ered to disburse the moneys raised for the court extended more particularly to the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys, country, outside of the cities, but also to and sewers, and roads and bridges, and to some matters in the cities common to the assess upon adjoining property, specially whole county. It was reorganized and its benefited thereby, a reasonable proportion powers and duties more specifically defined of the cost, not exceeding one-third. The in the acts of July 1, 1812, (2 St. 771,) and of acts of this board were held to be binding March 3, 1863, (12 St. 799.) By the last act on the municipality of the District in Barnes the members of the court were to be nine in v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540. It was number, and to be appointed by the presi-regarded as a mere branch of the District dent and senate. In the first year of the government, though appointed by the presiwar, August 6, 1861, (12 St. 320,) an act was dent, and not subject to the control of the passed" to create a metropolitan police dis- District authorities. This constitution trict of the District of Columbia, and to es- lasted until June 20, 1874, when an act*was* tablish a police therefor." The police had passed entitled "An act for the government previously been appointed and regulated of the District of Columbia, and for other by the mayor and common council of Wash- purposes." 18 St. 116. By this act the govington; but it was now deemed important ernment established by the act of 1871 was that it should be under the control of the abolished, and the president, by and with government. The act provided for the ap- the advice and consent of the senate, was pointment of five commissioners by the authorized to appoint a commission, conpresident and senate, who, together with sisting of three persons, to exercise the powthe mayors of Washington and George-er and authority then vested in the governtown, were to form the board of police for or and board of public works, except as the District; and this board was invested afterwards limited by the act. By a subsewith extraordinary powers of surveillance quent act, approved June 11, 1878, (20 St. and guardianship of the peace. This gen- 102,) it was enacted that the District of eral review of the form of government Columbia should "remain and continue which prevailed in the District of Columbia a municipal corporation," as provided in and city of Washington prior to 1871 is section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to sufficient to show that it was strictly mu- said District, and the appointment of comnicipal in its character; and that the gov-missioners was provided for, to have and ernment of the United States, except so far to exercise similar powers given to the comas the protection of its own public build-missioners appointed under the act of 1874. ings and property was concerned, took no All rights of action and suits for and against part in the local government any more than the District were expressly preserved in any state government interferes with the statu quo. Under these different changes municipal administration of its cities. The the administration of the affairs of the Disofficers of the departments, even the presi-trict of Columbia and city of Washington dent himself, exercised no local authority in has gone on in much the same way, except city affairs. It is true, in consequence of a change in the depositaries of power, and the large property interests of the United in the extent and number of powers conStates in Washington, in the public parks ferred upon them. Legislative powers have and buildings, the government always now ceased, and the municipal government

trict of Columbia is a state in the sense of being a distinct political community, but held that the word "state" in the constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several "states," refers to the states of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a state; but the sovereign power of this qualified state is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character, which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United States. Therefore, while the District may, in a sense, be called a state, it is such in a very qualified sense. No more than this was meant by Chief Justice TANEY, when, in Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer, 14 Pet. 141, 146, he spoke of the District of Columbia as being formed, by the acts of congress, into one separate political community, and of the two counties composing it (Washington and Alexandria) as resembling different counties in the same state, by reason whereof it was held that parties residing in one county could not be said to be "beyond the seas," or in a differ

is confined to mere administration. The sel in this connection is that the District of identity of corporate existence is continued, Columbia is a separate state, or sovereignand all actions and suits for and against ty, according to the definition of writers the District are preserved unaffected by the on public law, being a distinct political sochanges that have occurred. In view of ciety. This position is assented to by Chief these laws the counsel of the plaintiff con- Justice MARSHALL, speaking for this court, tend that the government of the District of in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, Columbia is a department of the United 445, 452, where the question was whether a States government, and that the corpora- citizen of the District could sue in the circuit tion is a mere name, and not a person, in courts of the United States as a citizen of a the sense of the law, distinct from the gov-state. The court did not deny that the Disernment itself. We cannot assent to this view. It is contrary to the express language of the statutes. That language is that the District shall "remain and continue a municipal corporation" with all rights of action and suits for and against it. If it were a department of the government, how could it be sued? Can the treasury department be sued? or any other department? We are of opinion that the corporate capacity and corporate liabilities of the District of Columbia remain as before, and that its character as a mere municipal corporation has not been changed. The mode of appointing its officers does not abrogate its character as a municipal body politic. We do not suppose that it is necessary to a municipal government, or to municipal responsibility, that the officers should be elected by the people. Local self-government is undoubtedly desirable where there are not forcible reasons against its exercise. But it is not required by any inexorable principle. All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the state or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior legislature sees fit to confer upon them. The form of those agencies and the mode of appointing officials to execute them are matters of legislative discretion. Commissioners are not unfrequently appointed by the legislature or executive of a state for the administra-ent jurisdiction, in reference to the other tion of municipal affairs, or some portion thereof, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. It may be demanded by motives of expediency or the exigencies of the situation,-by the boldness of corruption, the absence of public order and security, or the necessity of high executive ability in dealing with particular populations. Such2. But the supreme court of the District. unusual constitutions do not release the supposes that municipal corporations are people from the duty of obedience or from not embraced in the words of the statute taxation, or the municipal body from those of limitations. Let us see whether that liabilities to which such bodies are ordina-view can be maintained. The statute in rily subject. Protection of life and prop- force in the District is that of Maryland, erty are enjoyed, perhaps, in greater degree passed in 1715, c. 23. The act, as regards than they could be, in such cases, under personal actions, is substantially the same elective magistracies; and the government as that of 21 James I. It commences with of the whole people is preserved in the leg-a preamble, as follows: "Forasmuch as islative representation of the state or gen-nothing can be more effectual to the peace eral government. "Norcan it in principle," and tranquillity of this province than the said Mr. Justice HUNT in the Barnes Case, quieting the estates of the inhabitants "be of the slightest consequence by what thereof, and for the effecting of which no means these several officers are placed in better measures can be taken than a limittheir position,-whether they are elected by ation of time for the commencing of such the people of the municipality or appointed actions as in the several and respective by the president or a governor. The peo- courts within this province are brought, ple are the recognized source of all author- from the time of the cause of such actions ity, state and municipal, and to this au- accruing." It is then enacted "that all acthority it must come at last, whether im- tions of trespass quare clausum fregit, all mediately or by a circuitous process." actions of trespass, detinue, sur trover, or Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540, replevin, * all actions of account, 545. One argument of the plaintiff's coun-I contract, debt, book, or upon the case,

county, though the two counties were subject to different laws. We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, having a right to sue and be sued, and subject to the ordinary rules that gov ern the law of procedure between private persons.

*

•11

# *

*

铃

* *

*

all actions of debt for lending, or out express words, bound by statutes of contract without specialty, shall limitation. Although municipal corporabe sued or brought by any person or persons tions are considered as public agencies, exwithin this province, * * * shall be com-ercising, in behalf of the state, public dumenced or sued within the time and limita- ties, there are many cases which hold that tion hereafter expressed, and not after; that such corporations are not exempt from the is to say, the said actions of account, and operation of limitation statutes, but that the said actions upon the case, upon sim- such statutes, at least as respects all real ple contract, and the said actions and personal actions, run in favor of and for debt, detinue, and replevin, *against these corporations in the same within three years ensuing the cause of manner and to the same extent as against such action, and not after. *" 1 Kil-natural persons." In Evans v. Erie Co., 66 ty, Laws, April, 1715, c. 23. There is noth- | Pa. St. 222, 228, SHARSWOOD, J., says: “That ing in any part of the act to restrain the the statute of limitations runs against generality of this language: “All [enumer- a county or other municipal corporation, ated] actions sued or brought by any per- we think, cannot be doubted. The prerogason or persons within this province * *tive is that of the sovereign alone; nullum shall be commenced within three years." tempus occurrit reipublicæ. Her grantees, Corporations are "persons" in the law. though artificial bodies created by her, are There is no apparent reason why they in the same category with natural_pershould not be included in the statute. It is sons." See also, Dundee Harbour v. Douconceded that private corporations are in- gall, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 317. But we forcluded. On what ground, then, can munic- bear to quote further authorities on the ipal corporations be excluded? Not on subject. We hold the doctrine to be well the ground that they are not "persons," for settled. What may be the rule in regard to that would exclude private corporations. purprestures and public nuisances, by enThey are therefore within the terms of the croachments upon the highways and other law. public places, it is not necessary to determine. They are generally offenses against the sovereign power itself, and, as such, no length of time can protect them. Where the right of property in such places is vested in the municipality, an assertion of that right may or may not be subject to the law of limitations. We express no opinion on that point, since it may be affected by considerations which are not involved in the present case.

3. Are they not also within the spirit and reason of the law? They are certainly within the reason of the preamble. It is just as much for the public interest and tranquillity that municipal corporations should be limited in the time of bringing suits as that individuals or private corporations should be. The reason stated in the preamble for the passage of the law applies to all; and, moreover, it shows that the objects of the law are beneficent ones, The court below, in its opinion on the deand, therefore, that it should be liberally murrer, suggests another ground, having construed. It cannot apply to the sover-relation to the form of the action, on which eign power, of course. No restrictive laws it is supposed that the plea of the statute apply to the sovereign unless so expressed. of limitations in this case is untenable. It And especially no laws affecting a right on is this: that the action is founded on a statthe ground of neglect or laches, because ute, and that the statute of limitations neglect and laches cannot be imputed to does not apply to actions founded on stathim. And it matters not whether the sov-utes or other records or specialties, but only ereign be an individual monarch, or a re- to such as are founded on simple contract public or state. The principle applies to or on tort. We think, however, that the all sovereigns. The reason usually assigned court is in error in supposing that the presfor this prerogative is that the sovereignent action is founded on the statute. It is is not answerable for the delinquencies of an action on the case upon an implied ashis agents. But, whatever the true reason sumpsit arising out of the defendant's may be, such is the general law,-such the breach of a duty imposed by statute, and the universal law, except where it is expressly required performance of that duty by the waived. The privilege, however, is a pre- plaintiff in consequence. This raised an rogative one, and cannot be challenged by implied obligation on the part of the deany person inferior to the sovereign, wheth- fendant to reimburse and pay to the plainer that person be natural or corporate. It tiff the moneys* expended in that behalf. is scarcely necessary to discuss further the The action is founded on this implied obliquestion of the applicability of the statute gation, and not on the statute, and is realof limitations to a purely municipal corpo-ly an action of assumpsit. The fact that ration when it is embraced within the gen- the duty which the defendant failed to pereral terms of the law. It was expressly de- form was a statutory one does not make cided to be applicable in the cases of Kenne- the action one upon the statute. The acbunkport v. Smith, 22 Me. 445; Cincinnati tion is clearly one of those described in the v. First Presbyterian Church, 8 Ohio, 299; statute of limitations. The case of Carrol Same v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594; St. Charles v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, is strongly in point. Co. v. Powell, 22 Mo. 525; Armstrong v. That was a bill against stockholders of an Dalton, 4 Dev. 569; and other cases cited in insolvent bank to enforce their liability for the notes to Wood, Lim. § 53, and to 2 Dill. double the amount of their stock, accordMun. Corp. § 668. Judge DILLON, in the sec-ing to the provisions of the charter. It tion last cited, accurately says: "The doc- was held by this court that the liability of trine is well understood, that to the sover-the stockholders arose from their accepteign power the maxim ‘nullum tempus oc- ance of the charter, and their implied promcurrit regi' applies, and that the United ise to fulfill its requirements, and that the States and the several states are not, with-legal remedy to enforce it was an action

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for the defendant on the demurrer to the pleas of the statute of limitations, and it is so ordered.

(132 U. S. 84)

ARON V. MANHATTAN RY. Co.1

on the case, to which the statute of limita- | or on a car while in motion, to provide the tions would apply, and hence that it ap- entrances to the car platforms with gates, plied to a bill in equity founded on the same by which they can be closed except at the obligation. To the same effect is the case proper times. These gates are usually in of Beatty's Adm'rs v. Burnes' Adm'rs, 8 charge of a guard or attendant, whose Cranch, 98, where an action for money had duty it is to close the gates before the train and received was brought, under the Mary- commences to move, and to open them only land act of 1791, against a party who had after the train has come to a full stop. As received from the United States payment there is usually but one guard or attendfor land situated in the District, which land ant stationed between each two adjoining was claimed by the plaintiff to belong to cars, it follows that to open or close both him. This court held that inasmuch as the gates he must pass around from one to the form of the action was covered by the stat- other of the adjoining platforms. This ute of limitations of Maryland, it could be passing from one platform to the other, bepleaded in bar, notwithstanding the action sides being a source of annoyance to the was given by the statute of 1791. So, in guard, occasions some delay, which is very McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270, 277, it was annoying to the passengers particularly at held that the statute of limitations of Ohio times when a large number are required to was pleadable to an action on the case get off or on a car in a very short time. It brought against a receiver of the land-office is the object of the present invention, among to recover damages for his refusing to en- other things, to provide means by which ter the plaintiff's application in the books the guard or attendant can, without changof his office for certain lands in his district. ing his position, open or close both gates It was contended that such a case could simultaneously, and with the least possible not have been contemplated by the legisla- delay. To that end, one feature of the inture; but the court held that the action vention consists in providing the gates with was within the terms of the statute, and connections so arranged that any two adthat this was sufficient. Many more cases joining gates can be simultaneously opened might be cited to the same point, but it is or closed by the guard while standing in wholly unnecessary. the passage-way leading from one of the cars to the other." The drawings annexed to the patent represent two ordinary railway cars, with platforms adjoining each other, and the usual entrances from the station platform, and gates of the ordinary construction for closing such entrances. The gates are hinged in the usual manner to posts which rise from the corners of the platforms, and close against the usual jambs which project from the sides of the The platforms are provided with the usual guard-railings, extending inward from the above-mentioned posts to similar posts which are located a sufficient distance apart to leave a passage-way from one car to the other. When the gates are thus arranged, it is necessary, in order to close or open both gates, for the guard to pass from one platform around the inner post to the opposite platform, thus causing some delay in opening and closing one of the gates, adding to the labor of the guard, and causing annoyance to the passengers. In order to avoid this, each of the gates is provided, at a suitable distance from its hinge, with BLATCHFORD, J. *This is a suit in equity, a curved lever, which extends rearward, brought by Joseph Aron against the Man- and terminates a short distance outside of hattan Railway Company, in the circuit the guard-railing. This lever in connected court of the United States for the southern by a link, e, with a rod, f, which slides in district of New York, to recover for the in- or on a suitable bearing secured to the fringement of letters patent No. 288,494, guard-railing, and is provided at its inner granted to the plaintiff, as the assignee of end with a handle by which it can be operWilliam W. Rosenfield, the inventor, No- ated. The guard or attendant, while standvember 13, 1883, for an "improvement in rail-ing in the passage-way, can, by graspway car gates," the application for the pat-ing the two handles, and pushing or pullent having been filed April 3, 1883. The cir- ing the rods, f, open or close both gates cuit court, held by Judge WALLACE, dis- simultaneously, and without loss of time. missed the bill, and the plaintiff has ap- The specification states that the rods, f, will pealed. The specification of the patent preferably be provided with some form of says: "In many classes of railway cars, locking mechanism by which the gates can and particularly those used upon the ele- be fastened in their opened or closed posivated and other city railways, it has been tions; and that such locking may be acfound necessary, in order to prevent passen-complished by having the handles pivoted gers from falling from the train, and also to prevent persons from attempting to get off 'Affirming 26 Fed. Rep. 314.

(November 11, 1889.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-NOVELTY. Letters patent No. 2SS, 494, of November 13, 1883, to Joseph Aron, for a device for opening or closing simultaneously both gates of railway car platforms, consisting of links connecting the gates with rods sliding in or on bearings secured to the guard-rails of the platforms, and having handles whereby the attendant standing at the end of such guard-rails may open or close the gates, are void for want of novelty.

Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

M. B. Philipp, for appellant. Edwin H. Brown and Julien T. Davies, for appellee.

cars.

to the rods, f, as shown, and provided with extensions which can be turned so as to extend in front of the inner posts, and hold the gates closed, or so as to lie in the rear

00

of lugs and hold the gates open. It then the prior state of the art, as shown by vadescribes an arrangement whereby the rods, rious prior patents which have been introf, and links, e, may be placed upon the inside duced in evidence, it appears also that of the guard-railings, as well as upon the mechanism to open and close the entrance to outside; and also an arrangement by which passenger cars at a point distant from the the connections for operating the gates operator was likewise old; as where the may, if desired, be placed beneath the plat-operator standing upon the front platform forms; and also an arrangement whereby employed such mechanism to open or close the gates may be so hinged as to lie against a door at the rear platform. One prior the body of the car when open, instead of patent alone-the one granted to John against the guard-railings; and also an ar- Stephenson, September 15, 1874-shows five rangement whereby sliding gates may be methods of closing and opening the rear used, instead of swinging gates. There are door of street-cars from the front platform. six claims in the patent, only the first five Mechanism for closing and opening aperof which are involved in the present case. tures at a distance from the operator, in They are as follows: "(1) The combina- which the same devices were employed as tion, with a gate arranged to close the side are employed by the patentee, was old, and entrance to a car-platform, of an operat-is disclosed in a number of earlier patents, ing handle, located at or near the inner end which have been put in evidence. It will of the platform guard-rail, and means con- suffice to refer to two only. The patent to necting said gate and handle, whereby the *Woolensak of March 11, 1873, for an improveattendant may open and close the gate ment in transom-lifters, describes the means while standing at the end of said guard-rail, for opening and closing the transom as substantially as described. (2) The com- consisting of a sliding rod, which is conbination, with gates arranged to close the nected by a pivoted link to the arm of the side entrances to the adjoining platforms transom frame. The patent to Carrigan, of two cars, of operating handles, located granted April 16, 1878, for an improvement at or near the inner ends of the platform in blind-adjusters, whereby outside blinds guard-rails, and means connecting said are opened and closed without lifting the gates and handles, whereby the attendant window-sash, describes as the mechanism may open or close both gates simultaneous- employed a sliding bar connected by a pivly while standing at the ends of said guard- oted link with a hinged shutter. In both rails, substantially as described. (3) The of these patents the aperture to be opened combination, with a railway car and its and closed at a distance from the operator platform, having an end guard-rail, by in the one case a shutter, and in the other which a side entrance thereto is provided, a transom-is opened and closed, as is the of a gate for closing said entrance, a rod, case in the patent in suit, by pushing or as f, sliding in or on guides secured to said pulling the sliding rod or bar. In both of guard-rail, and a link, as e, connected to these patents there is likewise described a said gate and rod, all substantially as de-locking device, by means of which the slidscribed. (4) The combination, with a rail-ing rod or bar is retained in a fixed posiway car and its platform, having an end tion, so that the shutter or the transom will guard-rail, by which a side entrance thereto remain fastened when opened or closed, at is provided, of a swinging gate for closing the option of the operator; thus showing said entrance, a rod, as f, sliding in or on a opening, closing, and locking apparatus in guide secured to said rail, a link, as e con- all essentials like that of the patent in suit. nected to said gate and rod, and means for Moreover, the patent to Carrigan shows locking said gate in its closed position, all this apparatus arranged to open and close substantially as described. (5) The com- the two shutters of the window, at the opbination, with gates arranged to close the tion of the operator, simultaneously, the side entrances to the adjoining platforms sliding bars being so arranged as to be of two cars, of rods, as f, sliding in or on pushed or pulled each by one hand of the guides secured to the guard-rails of said operator. Mechanism for opening and closplatforms, and links, as e, connected to said ing apertures distant from the operator, in gates and rods, substantially as described." which the devices used for the purpose are The opinion of Judge WALLACE is re- the mechanical equivalents of those emported in 26 Fed. Rep. 314. The only ques-ployed by the patentee, is shown to be old tion he considered was that of the patent- by a large number of patents which have able novelty of the improvement, saying: "A brief reference to the prior state of the art will indicate that the combinations referred to in the several claims are merely an application to a new situation of old devices which had previously been applied to analogous uses. Devices to open and close an aperture at a distance from the operator, in a great variety of forms, were old. As illustrations of those things which are matters of common knowledge, and of which the court will take judicial notice, it is sufficient to allude to the strap used by the driver at the front of the omnibus to open and close the rear door; to the devices for opening or closing valves at a distance, in steam and hydraulic apparatus; and to the devices used at railway switches for opening and closing the rails. Referring to

been put in evidence. This partial exhibit of the prior state of the art demonstrates that what the patentee did was to adapt well-known devices to the special purpose to which he contemplated their application. It was necessary that the gate should swing inward to open, and outward to close; that the sliding rod should be located where it would be out of the way of passengers entering or leaving the platform; and that the end or handle of the rod should be located where it could be conveniently oper ated by the attendant, without inconveniencing outgoing or incoming passengers. The new situation required adequate mod-* ifications of existing devices for opening and closing an aperture at a distance from the operator, appropriate to the new occasion. Accordingly, the patentee located the