Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-04-04

MIR. Varnum from the Committee on the Dis
trict OF Columbia, made report; which was read
and adopted by the House, on the petition of
Committee of the Delegates, appointed by the
Citizens Of Washington, and the Memorial of the
Citizens OF the County of Washington, praying
that they may be authorized TO elect Sheriff for
said County, have had the same under censidera-
| ton:
| Resoived, That the prayer of the petitioners
and memorial, aforesaid, ought not to be granted
Mr. Vance, from the Committee on Military AZ
fairs, to which was referred the bill from the Sc
nate, entitled An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown
widow OF the late Major General Brown" reported
the same without amendment; and the bill was
then committed
| ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS.
| MIR. Tucker of South Carolina, moved the con-
| sideration of a resolution introduced by him some
days since, for the appointment of Joint Commit
tee to fix upon day for the adjournment of the
present session of Congress.
| On this motion,
| BIZ. Sterigerc called for the yeas and nays, and
they were ordered by the House.
| Mr.. McDuiiie said, that hc seconded the motion
OF his colleague, and hoped that this would not be
| considered tariff question.
| MIR. Mallory wished TO make a single remark in
reply, which was, that this vote would have an i'm
portant influence on the tariff question.
1 The question was then taken by yeas and nays,
, and decided in the negative-yeas 73, nays SO.
| So the House refused TO consider the resolution
| An engrossed bill, entitled ''An act in addition
to the act, entitled AN provide for the sale
of lands conveyed to the u States in certain cas-
es, and for other purposes" read the third
time, w hen
Mr.. Gilmer moved an amendments TO which
he supposed there would be an unanimous assent
which, therefore, would be in order at this stage
o! the bill, viz TO strike out the words ''consent
and session of Jurisdictions" as applicable to the
State Governments, and inserting the words eek
elusive legislation" The latter words were those
, employed by the Constitution, and it appeared TO
have been important, that, wherever reference
was specially made by acts of Congress TO Consti
tutional provisions, it should be in the precise
r terms thereof
| Objection was made to this amendment, which
excluded it from being received at this stage of
business. Whereupon,
MIR. Gilmer moved to recommit the bill for the
purpose OF making this amendment. He did so be-
cause II there was any difference in the import of
the words ''jurisdction'' and exclusive legisla-
f tion, as here employed, he thought it important
that the very words of the Constitution should he
used.
Mr. Wright Of Ohio, said, that the language of
this bill precisely that OF all other acts which
have been passed to obtain cessions of Territory
from the States. He referred to the Constitution
al provision respecting cesSions OF Territory, and
thought that the words employed in the bill were
perfectly fit and proper for the object for which
they were intended. The manner in which Con-
gress are to exercise jurisdiction, is defined by the
constitution to be by exercising exclusive legisa-
ton; but the cesson ofjurisdicon bya State is
cessary; for the sovereignty OF State cannot be
Withdrawn from thisparucular species of property
unless by the express act OF the State, sc. He
supposed therefore, that the terms Of the bill
n perfectly proper.
Mr.. Gilmer defended his amendment INSISTING
that there were two kinds ofpowers, which might
be exercised by the u States, over territory com
ing into its possessioni the sovereign right Of
jurisdiction, s. the Others sovereign right of e0isa.
ton; the latter very distinct from the former
and included in tothcr rights, besides that ofuris-
, diction. As he understood the gentleman from Ohio
that gentleman held that there was a difference
between the power of the United States over
the ten miles square, coded to il for seat oil
r Government; and that which il exercised owe.
t forts, dock yards, SC. acquired in the Different
States.
MIR. Wright explained. What he had meant te
insist on, as, that the sovereign power of every
State acts upon the whole of the soil of that State
and cannot be withdrawn from ony portion of il
4 except by the consent of such State.
It Mr.. Gilmer replied, that the right of iursdc-
ton was distinct from the right of soil; the latter
regarding the property of the soil only the former
having respect 10 the persons who inhabited il: but
both were included in the right of exclusive legis
lation. This distinction had been recognised in
every cesson OF SOIL made by any OF the States &c
e the u. States. These sessions uniformly men.
toned both the right of SOIL and the right OF uris
dIctIon The right ofsoil was thing more thar
the right of individuals, TO the several portions in
!, to which the soil was divided because, in addition
10 these private rights oil individuals the State as
= such, possessed right over the whole soil fol-
= purposes OF public utility, such as roads, canals
&c. This right of the State mustbe ceded as wei
as the private right OF the individual, before the
: U. States could possess a complete right of sol
within any State. As Mr. G. wished that the bill
should convey the right both of soil & jurisdiction
= he was DESTROYS that the term "excluSive legis
a lation' should be employed. This was the term
employed by the Constitution, when providing
for this subject, and it included both the others
Mr.. Wickliffe said, that it seemed to him tina
the gentleman from Georgia had insisted upon 2
: distinction which lay more in terms than in sub
stance. The act, il now stood, enabled the Pre-
sident to acquire that description of Jurisdiction
n which is contemplated by the Constitution. The
l terms 1t employed were the most comprehensive
that could be used, including all sorts of iurisdc.
f ton, legislative, executive, and judicial
t MIR. buchanan was persuaded that neither Iii,
friend from Georgia, nor any other person, could
show the distinction between the terms exclusive
jurisdiction, and exclusive legislation, as applied tc
the acts OF Congress Jurisdiction is the rghrs tc
prescribe laws, and whoever has this has supreme
power. The two words were, in his Judgment. as
/ here used, precisely SYNONYMOUS. The right Of
jurisdiction was entirely distinct from the right o
property. He could not think there was anv need
to send the bill back 70 the committee for such
an amendment. He would willingly have con.
scnted to substitute the word legislation for the
word Jurisdstion, n ad he known il would have era
tined any gentleman, but since the bill had now
been read third time, he considered it improper
TO eejay ltS passage for difference between two
words which were the same in substance
The debate was further continued by hTessrs
Wright, Gilmcr, Mercer Livingston and Blu.
chanan, when, at the suggestion Of Mr.. Wright,
the motion OF Mr. Gilmer for the recommiifnent
oil The bill, was Withdrawn, and the proposed al.
teration was made by unanimous consent of the
House.
Mr.. Marvin of New York, stated some obiec-