Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1849-11-21
THE ALEXANDRIA QUESTION.

The following communication to the Alexandria
Gazette gives an interesting abstract of Judge
SCOTS opinionin the important case of iurisdic
andria county to Virginia
In the late u S. Circuit Court Of the District OF Co.
lumbia for the county of Alexandria decree made
IN favor OF the plaintiff upon which appeal was taken
by the defendant to the Supreme Court of the u S.
which Court the appeal pending prior to the passage
OF the several acts relating to the retroceson OF Aexan
dria county to Virginia. Subsequently, however to the
passage and carrying of said acts and as was main
tanned by the plaintiff, in virtue thereof mandate in
reference to the appeal directed by the Supreme
Court of Law and Chancery of Virginia for Alexandria
county 1t argued by the counsel for the defendant
that the latter Court could take cognzanee of such
mandate emanatng as did from Federal Court and
directed to State Court, in not provided for by
the act OF reocession even concedng the constitution
atty OF said act
The Court Judge Scott in passing upon the case on
Friday referred very fully to the powers of Congress and
to the Supreme Court well as those OF the State Lee
gsatures and State Courts He remarked thatit always
to the present time, had been held unquestonable
that Congress could not exercise powers granted
by the constitution derived from its creators The
constitution OF the U. S. described the judicial powers of
the Federal Courts and limited their objects and that
powers could be exercised other than those enumera
ted, while all powers not delegated to the Supreme Ju-
dietary remained TO the States, and were conferred by
them upon the State judiciary, none exercising such
The constitution vested in Congress legislative powers
which could not be transcribed, and any power exer,
cised by Congress, not delegated was without au-
thorty The constitution, he remarked was co,nnoct
between all the States which could not be increased or
diminished by its act or that of anv one of the
States and the power exercised be not one conferred
by the compact, act OF Virginia or between Virginia
and Congress could change compact which virginia
was only one part:
We go back then to the Constitution said the JUDGE.
and enquire if this power has constitutional authority
and we lind that gives to Congress the power to ac
cept certain territory which its power penary as
to all government purposes That it embraced the pow
e to retrocede is conceded; and the next question is
mad Virginia the power to accept? What is this act Of
Retrocesslon! 1t is compact between Congress and
the legislature OF Virginia, Congress taking the initiative
cohornaoe to certain terms and stipuatons as between
grantor and grantee The right to recede and accept
beng admitted the right TO stpuate is undoubted and
the parties having full power over the subject what were
the terms! Virginia accepts with SaluO that the Su-
preme Court shall have jurisdiction over this matter
The Supreme Court had power over this case before re-
PROCESSION it clearly embraced in the stpuatiops and
Is entirely consistent with the grant The Supreme
| Court did not exercise any power illegally
1t was contended by the defendants counsel that the
case was out OF Court, at the time of retrocesson and
formed no part OF the "records covered by the act The
Court ruled not the records remained in Court
while transcript only was sent to the Supreme Court
1t seemed to be generally admitted that Federal
Court could not legally issue mandate to State Court
unless it might be in few cases, reference to a
| treaty, or by state stipulation, &c.
| The November Term of the Superior Court for this
county, was concluded Saturday last The last day
session OF the Court occupied with Chancery cases.