The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1813-02-23

ling the sane" enacted, " That no persoi
{" iuhabiting within the district of Colum
. bia or elsewhere. not within the jurisdic
" ton OF this Commonwealth, shalt be en-
=" titled to exercise the right of suffrage
therein, except citizens thereof, employ
ed abroad. in the service of the United
" States, or of this Comm OH " ealth, * whose
C. foreign residence is accustomed by such
service."-On the 18th of April. 1909,
u. w. Z. Custis, the Appellant, VINO was
born IN Virginia, but resided within that part
of the County OF Fairfax, which is now com
pretended within the district of Columbia,
| at the time of its separation from this Com
mcnwealtl,, offered to vote at the election of
members of the General Assembly, FOR the
said county OF Fairfax, in virtue of a free
hoid held by him in that county. He was
prnhil,ited therefrom, by the Appellee. the
hiPh Sheriff. under the provisions of the
act above mentioned, and this action was
brought against him therefor: with a view.
as is supposed, to settle the right of the
inhabitants of that district, 20 vote within
this Commonwealth. or, in ether words, to
try the cons,itutionality Of the said act
The case was ably argued by Messrs L. !.
Lee ana Call for the Appellant, and by
MIR. Writ for the Appellee, and, on the day
first above mentioned, the following opinion
and resolution OF the Court, was delivered
by Judge RoGne; all the judges being pre-
sent. except Judge Cd5eN.
OPINION
his is an action on the case brought by
the Appellant against the Appellee, as high
Sheriff of the county of Fairfax, for refu
sing to permit him to vote, i'm the election
OF members of the General Assembly. The
case made by the Appellant in his delara-
ton, is, that having been born within the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and being resi-
dent IN that part OF the county of Fairfax,
which now constitutes part of the district
ct Columbia, at the time of its cession to
the United States, he has continued to re-
side there ever since. The ground taken by
the pleas of the Appellee, is, the general
one taken by the act Of January 18th, 1908 !;
namely. that the Appellant did not reside
within this Commonwealth, but resided
within the district of Columbia, aforesaid.
! at the time he offered to vote and that he
did not come within the exception of that
act, in favor of nonresident citizens who
are employed in the service of the United
states, or of this Commonwealth. These
pleas beng demurred to, and issue Joined
thereon, Judgment was rendered for the
Appellee in the Court below, from which
judgment an appeal was taken to this Court.
Ii these pleas should even be adiudeed
70 be bad, yet upon the principle of going
up to the first fault, judgment would still
be rendered against the Appellant, if on
the case made by his declaration, he has no
right to recover: and it is evident that his
right may be much weaker under the de-
claration, than under the pleas, as the lat
ter do not exclude, Gas the former does, J
the idea of his having been still a citizen of
this Commonwealth, at the time he offered
to vote. We infer this diversity, from its
being stated in the declaration, that the
Appellant was inhabiting within the dis
trict of Columbia, at the time of its sepa-
ration from this Common wealth be was
consequently expatriated thereby, from the
government of Virginia.
Ihe act OF Virginia on the subject of ex-
patriation, relates only to individual cases.
1t dees not relate to those public & general
acts ct expatriation, by cession or other
wise, which are more or less incident to
all governments and countries With res
lpect to the particular cession now in ques
ton, it was contemplated and provided for
by the constitution of the United States -.
agreed to by the Commonwealth OF Virginia
by it's act rendering the territory to the
general government. and also by the Con
gress OF the United States, who accepted
the cession. II all these acts the Appellant
by ms representatives was party.-He has
therefore no reason to complain, that he
has been cut off from the d lminion of
Virginia, in consideration of, perhaps, a.
deq"ate advantages I hat ile is no longer
within the jurisdiction of the Common
wealth OF Virginia, is manifest from this
consideratlon-that Congress are vested by
the constitution, with exclusive power OF
legislation. over the territory in question
and 1t is only by the consent and Courtesy of
Congress. that any of the laws of Virginia
have been permitted to operate therein
This last fact Will be fully manifested by
recurring to the several acts Of Congress
on the srbJect.--it follows, that the district
OF Columbia, being without the Jurisdiction
OF The laws OF Virginia. is, as to it, another
and distinct jurisdiction, and that the Ap.
peilant is not merely a citizen of Virginia,
abiding or inhabiting therein, but passed
with th at territory, from the Jurisdiction of
this Com monwealtf, by the act of cessiop.
and owes no allegiance thereto.-It might
well therefore be true, that the case made
by the pleas, might be in favor of the Ap
peliant, and yet that he is prohibited from
recovering upon the weaker ground of
claim admitted by his own declaration.
With respect to the right of a citizen or
subject OF a foreign government, to intermed
die with the civil polity of Virginia, and es
pecially. to exercise the all-important func-
ton of legislation, the matter cannot admit
of possible doubt. Such subjects or citi
zens cannot exercise this inestimable right.
as they owe to the commonwealth no cores
ponding duties, & would not be amenable %
the laws by them enacted. They cannot
exercise this right in pprson for tbe;, ,,e,,.