Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-03-29
OPINION.

This is an action on the case brought
by the Appellant against the Appellee,
as high Sheriff of the county OF Fairfax,
for refusing to pc, nit aim to vote, IN the
election of members to the General AS
sembly. Tho case made BY the Appel
LIANT in his declaration is, that having
been born within the Commonwealth Of
Virginia, and being resident In that part
OF the county Of Fairfax which now con-
stitutes part OF the district of Columbia,
at the time OF lis eession to the Unltes
States, he has continued to reside there
aver since. The ground taken by the
pleas OF the Appellee, is, tho general
ono taken by the act Of JanHary 18th
1908 palnely. that the Appellant dia
not reside within this Commonwealth,
but resided within the district OF Coium-
bia aforesaid, at the time he offered to
vote; and therefore did not come within
the exception ofthat act, in favor OF nom
resident citizens aho are employed IN
the service of the United States, or OF
this Commonwealth. These pleas being
demurred to, and issue joined thereon,
Judgment was rendered for the Appesle'
in tbs court below, FROM which Judg
ment an appeal was taken to this court.
Ii these pleas should even be adJudg-
ed to be bad, yet upon the principle OF
going up to the first fault. judgment
would still be rendered against the APP
pelIant, if on the case made by his de-
clarasion, he has no right to recover
and i, is evident that his right may be
much weaker under the declaration,
than under the pleas, as TIE latter 90
not exclude, Gas The former does) the
idea of his having been still citizen OF
this Cemmonweaith, at the time he Of
fsred to vote. We infer this diversity,
fipn its being stated in the declaration,
that the Appellant was inhaeltIng within
the district of Columbia, at the TINE OF
it's Sc paralien from this Common wealth;
he was consequently expa'riated there
by, from the government of Virginia.
The act Of Virginia on the subject OF
expatriation, yeiates only TO individual
cases. 1t dees not relate 70 these pub
lie and general acts of expstriation, by
cession or otherwise, which are more
or less incident to all governments and
countries. With respect to the partlcu-
lar cessien now in question. it was con-
,emplated and provided for BY the con
str,ution of the United States-agrsed
to by the Commonwealth OF Virginia
by it's act rendering the territory to the
general government, and also BY the
Congress OF the United States, who &C.
cepted thu cession. TO all these acts
the Appellant by his representatives was
\ party-He has therefore no reason to
complain, that he has been cut off from
the dominion OF Virginia, in considera-
ton Of, perhaps, adequate advantages
That he is ne longer within the lurls-
dietien of the Commonwealth OF Virgl-
MIA, 10 manifest from this consideration
that Congress are vested by the con-
stitution, with exclusive power OF legls-
lstior, over the territory in question /;
aod il is only by the consent and eourte-
~ Of Congress, that any OF the laws OF
Virginia have bean permitted to operate
therein. This last fact will be fully ma
infested By recurring to the several acts
of congress on the subject. II follows,
that the district of Columbia, being With
out the jurisdiction of the laws OF VirEi
MIA, is, as to it, another and distinct Ja-
risdictlon, and thst the Appellant il not
merely citizen of Virginia, abiding or
ipbsbitipg therein, bpt passed With that