Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-03-15
THE GAZk IHl d /
Retrocession ofGeorgetown.
MONDAY EvENiNG!sAM

RetrOcessiOn Of GeOrgetOwn.
The Georgetown Courier says 1.-The retro
cessipsmo1emspsis,sB reiaioe seknaE awaken
ing some interest beyond the limits of the Dis
trict. A valued friend, writing this week from
New York, says:
see retrocession is again agitsted. 1t is a nice
constitutional question, and was ably discussed
in 1876. at the timgof tAe9esfp9esgof q Alea,
brought before the courts, so4hat the Question
could reach and be passed on by the supreme
Court whether retrocession ID or is not const-
tutioual measure Grave authorities have held
that it ia not ip spite of the Alexandra retroces-
sion. Tie lang uase; Of the Act Of 1880, whereby
the capital #As qecated item years after its pas
sage on the PUtSnSes sfVes' color 10 the pre-,
sumption against the right to retrocede any
part of the territory then coded to the United
States The cession was made between the
United States and the States Of Maryland and
Virginia as the two contracting parties, and the
t enS 5 ss H s ssa l9 ss 81 ts8
tract, and resolves itself to this lst. Can one
of the parties to the cession snnul it without the
consent Of the otheF party z And 2L IL Con-
gress, in eontenpl ation of constitute pow
ers, authorized to express the consent or dissent
Of the other party to the cession of $780, viz, all
the States of the Union? Some authorities hold
the affirmative and others the negative Of the
proportion. N Own ep!nion, a. tar as | haye
sI .SnkK ths 70 aoe IeEaSsSs
the Ssns ssi1s stsa1 ss ss
cd acceptance or rejection Of the. proposal 70 re-
troceed the whole or snYPsrt ofthe Federal Dis
trict to the Mother State of the territory in ques-
ton. In other words, it is ultra wires to retro
cede without the formal agreement of both par
ties to the,originA act = irs""S ~. cu:a..1
I'VE agres With buresteemed correspondent
that the question OF 'retrotession Involves some
nice constitutional points, and that at the time
OF the. retrocessioD of Alexandria they were
ably aoddearnedlyi discussed, Itis some proof
against thercorfectness of bis position, as Illus
,rated 10 the foregoing extract, that the. result
of such: debate was to place Alexandria again
under the projecting wing OF the Old DomlD-
ion, with certain Just aud proper reservations.
And We do not see how We are to make issue,
on account of such action, with the. General
Government, or wherein it has in any sense Of
Tended against the rights Of the several States
IF those rights have been invaded BY such act;
were the States not parties thereto, and,
through their representatives" IN G0ug rrss as
sembed, did they not yield -fuli'assene ~ 9
representative who raises his veiecesi4 the ma
tional council chamber, for any purpose, raises
it for every man who cast q vote at his cleo
ton: SO that the sense of Che whole people
had been reached when the act was passed
which returned Alexandria to her original con-
dition. IF it be contended in the present case
that this was not proper way OF reaching the
will of the country st large, with equal grace;
We may hold that there never WAS cession at
all; for when the District Of Columbia was
ceded to the General Government, i5 was not
ceded by the people of Virginia and Maryland,
but by the respective Legislatures representing
said people,"