The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-02-01
TUESDAY, Jaanary 8.

[ CONTINUED.
Mr.. Soutbard-Mr. Chairman, H,ouII
have contented myfelf with giving lilent vote
on this queftion, had it not been for the ftronp.
lmpreiiions on my mind that more is infesded
than eebrs9e3 in the refoutions now on the ia
Die. 1t is not two years hnce two re(olutions
were introduced 70 this Houfe fin,ilar TO thoft.
now under confederation, with this difinetion.
that they went TO include the City of Wafhing
ton with the otner pats OF the oiaici. in the
traster to the fates OF Virginia and MARYLAND.
believe it to be tae Object of fome members
not only 70 recedc the branches of the dinriG
contained in thefe refolutions, but Iikewife the
City. ifthe doctrine, 70 ftrongly contended for.
that Congrefs has right 10 transfer or recede,
be once ettabliihed, take the hrt ftep, and Won
as eaiily take the fecond-I have no deire 70
call in Gueftion the Gncerity of the mover IS
theie retoiutlons, nor of many who fupport
them, yet there are Others who with receilion
of the qUboie territory.
This fubjed involves two quetions-If.
whether Congrefs has a constitutional power 70
make aretroceflion OF this diffri6t TO the fates
of Virginia and Newfoundland 2ndly, Whe-
Their it be good policy. As to the irf, MIR. s.
faid he had ftrong doubts on his mind, as TO
the rlghtful power of Congrefs to recede or
transfer.
The members Of the convention who framed
the contribution of the United States looked for.
ward TO day when it would becomen ecefTarvto
fix on place which niould become the perma
nent feat of the government. By reference to
the eighth fiction OF he frf article of the con-
ftitution, we fee it clearly expreffed that Con-
grefs lhall have power <" to exercife excluIive L.
Citation IN all . S whatfoever, over fuch diff
tri6t mot exceeding ten miles fqnare) as may BY
ceflion Of particular Gates, and the accordance
of Ccngrefs, become the feat of the government
of tire United States"
This article, with all others contained in that
inhrument, after publication for the confdera-
ton of the people of the United States, was A.
dopted, and became part of the contribution.
IN purfiauce of this obie3 Congrefs, OIL the 9th
Of July 1890, paFed an acc, entitled the cefion
act, in thewords following:
" That 4 diftri6t of territory, not exceeding
ten miles iquarc, to be located as hereafter d-
recled, on the river Potomac, AZ fonc place be-
tween the mouths of the Eatern Branch and
Connogochegue, be, and the fame is hereby ac
cepted for the permanent feat of the govern
ment of the United States"
Congrefs accepted a ceiFion Of ten miles fruare
for the exprefs purpofe, and on the express
condition Of exerchnG executive legination and
iurifdi6tion, and this too agreeaby to the fpe-
rit and meaning of the contribution and law.
right 70 violate. All the Gates in their legina-
tive capacity, and the people Of the United
States, including the inhabitants of this terrific
ry, are bound by this compact, ,vhich compact
is as 0rong the contribution itfelf.
But MIR. Chairman, we are told that there
can be no constitutional objection to the retro
cefion. The gentleman from North Carolina
MIR. Stanford) contends that this diRrie ftands
on the fame footing as plot of and purchafcd
b. the government, for navy-yard-hate of
North Carolina 20 the United States. Sir, there
is no analogy IN theft cafes. in the purchafe of
and for navy-yard, the government become
tie proprietor Of the foil, and in fuch cafe jurf
diStion and foil arc infeparable--fo afo in the
ceiiion by North Carolina, the rights Of foil PAT
FED with the jurifdi6ion. The cafe under con-
liberation is widely different the right Of foil
pailed not with the jurildiaion the right Of L.
gila'ion only being veted in CongreGs. Congrefs
cannot therefore, transerthe Toll, nor the inhabi-
ants,to the Rates ofvirgina & Maryland. nor to
my other Fate or nation, without their con-
ftnt.