The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-02-12
Debafr,
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE UNITED STATES.
TUESDAY, JeHuary 8.
DEBATE on rreedisg tie D;0,i9 qf Colus4lie.

cuned, rife with the greateit diffidence in
deed do rife not 70 much in hope to throw
/ light as TO jultify the vote Which / intend te
gave.
That may preferve perfpicuity, l ilal
inve!tigate the following points in their proper
order:
Hath Ccngrefs the constitutional power to
cede 10 the Gates of Maryland and Virginia,
part of the ditritt of Columbia f? Hath Con-
grefs The power 70 cede il without the confru,
of the inhabitants of the part intended to be ce-
ded Is 1t expedient 10 make that ceifion, both
with refpef to the United States and with re-
fpef to the inhabitants Of the part intend.,. to
be cedcd
| The power vefted in Congrefs By the conni-
tuition to accept Il diftriet not exceeding ten
miles fqsare, to become the feat of govern
ment, IS power which appears to itand OH A
perfect level with all the other powers enu,ne-
rated IN the eighth fection of the firt article il
isas optionalto Congreisto accept ornot ACCEPT 4
diftrict not exceeding ten milec, az 10 ayor not
to lay duties, impofs and exci.es. There was
feat Of government before the di0riGt of Co
lumbla was in exiftcncr, and there NAV be 4
! feat of government after the difri3t of CoIum-
| bia may have ccafed to exit. IF it be urged
| that in as much as there is not in the conftitp.
ton an expreis delegation of powers to cede The
ditr'ct, Congreis cannot cede il, h.all retort
that as there is no eXprefs power delegated hy
| the contribution to repeal laws laying impol or
excite, Consrefs cannot repeal fuch Laws. This
| argument proves too much to prove any thing.
My apprehension cf the power of Corgrels.
rs that whatever it hath the power to do:sit hath
the virtual power to undo indeed without
| that power Congrefs could not change Its opsra-
tons with circumstances, nor improve the fyf
tenn of legilaton.
The next queftion is this--hath Congrefs the
power to cede a part ofthc diarct Of Columbia
without the content of the inhabitants Of that
part This point leads to a previous one.
Could the legislatures of Virginia and MARYLAND
originally cede to Congrefs part oftheir fatcs
not exceeding ten miles fquaTe, without the
content of the inhabitants ofthe parts coded
l believe that thoie legislatures had not thar
power 1t ought TO be remembered that the
inhabitants ofthe dtritt of Columbia, although
they have been Represented in the cou1ie Of The
debates as men IN fate Of degradation, were
part of the people who, in the preamble OF
the contribution of the United States, did ex-
preis themtelves in the following manner -
" We, the people of the United States, in or
der to form more perfect union, eltabliih ilf
tee, Iniure doinefic tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general well
fare and fecure the bleliings OF liberty 10 our
ielveS and our poferitv," sc. The right Of
being repreiented III the legislatures of their re-
ipeetive itates, and in Congrcfs, was the right
OF the inhabitants of the difsriS ofColumbis at
the time they were component parts &C The
tateS or virginia and Maryland. Thofe Ilcf-
hnSs OF liberty were fecnrcd TO them and their
poiterity by their REFLECTIVE fate contributions,
and by the federal compact. How then can it
be conceived that the legislatures of Virginia
and Maryland had the power to give them A.
way, to become fubjed to the " executive legiC
lation of Congrefs in all cafes Whatsoever p
that is, TO be deprived of their elective franchif
and right of representation ? How can il be
conceived thatthe legislatures Of thcfe Rates,
that are the creatures Of the contribution, had
the power to bereave Americans of the mof
valuable rights that the contribution of their
country guaranty 10 them II is the comfort
and pride OF an American, that no power on
earth but his own can deprive him Of his con.
ititutional rights this is a principle fef.cvi-
dent. But il is urged, that the Inhabitants Of
the diftriG of Columbia, notwithstanding this.
are actually fubject % Co1grcfs. without cleo
tive franchiie. This grant. But if they are
10, 1t by their content, without which the
ceiiion could not have been legitimate. Tins
1t hath been their pleafure TO barter their cleo
tive franchlfe for pecuniary advantages, or O.
Their considerations ariiing from being within
the bounds 81 the feat of government. 1t is C.
videntlya matter of choice on their part, and
tnSy have Deth put IN tnat mutation neither b.
violence or conqueit. To thofe who contend
that the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia
were OF themfelves as competent to make the
cefiion to Congrefs as Congrefs was competent
to accept, beg leave to obfervc, that vet as BY
thote acts the right of elective franchie of the
inhabitants Of the parts ceded would have been
virtually defeated, this brincs me back TO nv
former petition, that the ceiIon made by Ma
ryIaDd and Virginia could not be legitimate
without the content of the inhabitants Of the
part coded, otherwife the contribution would
give power to invade liberties which at the fame !
time the contribution intended TO fccure, This
content was given by acclamation, even the yo-
men and children of the diftricf reoiced on that
location. Hence the content of the inhabitants
OF the diit-ict having been necefsry TO render
the ceilion legitimate, and that content having
been given, 4 contract exits between them and
Conyref',a contract may exit and does gene
rally EXIT between the governors and the row.
erned the protection and GUbie6tion are reci-
procaI obligations even in monarchies the
wings OF England contendcd in 1858, that
james the Second had violated the original con-
tract between him and his people; contract
which no body pretended to be reduced to
written forms but which nevertheless was
binding, and derived IFS force from the relati
ons, necefiarily exiting, between tae monarch
and the fubjea.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman. tie ;r'.,t;f.,,, -