Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-08


| that congress cannot delegate the power
. of le5islating, for the District of Columbia,
: To another body".(bJJ Admitting, there
fore, that this act ifpassed by congress, might
nave had the extensive operation now in
question:, yet being passed by the corpora
ton aforesaid, it's not to be considered, as
statute ofthe United States, even for the
! purpose oi sustaining the courts jurisdiction
Ii should have been secuted, by the court
from its view, as il appears from the first
enactnS clause thereof, to have been only an
act, ordained by the corporation of the city
| of Washington.
But If this document, had been enacted
by the congress itself, and the words had
been supplied in it, which the court thinks
are only wanting, il could not have had the
very extensive effect, now contendcd for.
Such an act could not have had this effect,
| considered as an ordinary act of congress,
under the grant of legislative power TO it, by
the constitution, because that grant does not
carry with it, a right to establish lotteries,
and would be, besides, at most, concurrent
with the admitted powers, reserved TO the
several states. 1t could not have an effect
within the territory of Virginia, which no act
oil congress, as such, can have which the
acts oil no state in the Union, can have and
which would not be reciprocal, in favour of
Virginia, either i'm the territories ofthe other
states, or in that tf the district in question:
Nor could it have that effect, considered
merely as an act of the local legislature, of
the district. 1t is in this character, think,
that congress would be considered as acting,
IN such a case. The powers of a local legis-
iature, were devolved on congress, by the
clause IN the constitution, relating to this
district. Theywere not the less, so devolv-
ed, because congress acted, also, in another
character. Where two rights concur in the
same man, or set of men, they are to be con-
sldered, as if the man or men were different
and if the right of legislatinS for the district,
had been conided to three men, by name,
and their Successors, the ambiguity which is
supposed to exist, in this case, would not
have appeared. Ii is not, indeed, expressly,
said that this function is involved on the
congress, az Gltter dro't nor was it neces-
sary. This will be Inferred from the nature
OF the grant itself. The terms " exclusive
legislation," used in the constitution, on this
subject, she,e that their legislation, in this
particular, was to be confined to the limits of
the district. That is not a mere exclusive
legislation, over the district, which scars as
high as does the pretenson now in questi-
on. The claim now set up, is that of exclu-
sve legislation, also, in and over the terri
tory of all the states The congress would,
in this case, then, so beyond its charter as
the local Legislature for the district That
charter does not authorize them to override,
the, at least, concurrent powers of the seve-
raj states, within their own territories. Far
less can they devolve, this great power upon
the corporation ofthe city of Washington.
would here remark that, if the act in ques-
ton has not an operation, as the cour. has
decided, beyond the limits of the district, for
| want of adequate icorlLs to that effect,
neither can the constitution have such ope-
| ration, for want of similar words, in the clause
In question. There is not only an omission
of positive words, TO convey this power, to
the extent to which it is now claimed but
there are restrictive words to coniine the ope-
ration of its laws, to the limits of the terri
tory.
If we advert to that history, in relation to
this district, to which the court is so fond of
| referring, we shall find, that it gives no man
ner of countenance, to its construction in the
present instance. The territory in question,
| and the powers coniided thereto, grew ont
of particular circumstances, aud the jurisdc-
ton reserved to the district, was intended
merely as a shield of defence to the dclibe-
rations of Congress, and not as sword of
annoyance uponth rights of the states-.We
authority at the seat of government, was ne
cessary, to secure the public authority from
insult, and its proceedings from interruptions
In the convention we were told by MIR.
Grayson (dd) that what originated the idea
OF exclusive legislation, in the district, was,
an Instruction in Philadelphia, whereby
Congress was insulted, and for which, they
left the state. Mr.. Madison said feel that
without such exclusive legislation, Congress
could not be guarded from insults. Aud,
again, he says, [f1 that Congress should not
carry on their deliberations under the control
of any state; that it would impair the dignity
and hazard the safety of Congress; and that
gentlemen could not have forgotten the dis
graceful insult which Congress received in
Philadelphia. Mr.. Marshall said (ggJ that
the power of legislation, in the district, is
ercInsiue of the states, because it is expressed
to be exclusive. Mr.. Pendlcton said, mn
that the power of exclusive legislation in the
district, was given, in order to preserve The
police of the place, and that Congress NAV
not be overawed or insulted. This great
judge, also, emphrfically, declared, that this
exclusive legislation, could have no power,
ioithom the limits Of the diStric.."-These
quotations show, the express end and objects
of the power, as well as the limits of the
grant. That grant was intended, as shield
of defence to the deliberations of Congress,
and not as sword which should cut up and
destroy the rights of the states. So the act
of Virginia cedng this district, TO the United
States, lii) gives up the exclusive jurisdiction
and soil, in that territory, but it cedes no
| right to interfere with, the reserved territory
of the commonwealth.
But if such had not been the avowed object
of the grant in question; if the Legislature
of the district, is not to be limited by those
circumstances, but, on the contrary, if il had
| the most extensive commission of legislation,