Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-05-16
The Retrocession Case.

Supreme Court of the United States 10 the case
recently before that court involving the legality
of the retrocessiou of Alexandria to the State
of Virginia, the purport olwhlch Was published
at the time ii was rendered.
r. A. Phillips, Pr fin Error lu errorto the gu,
preme Court OF
VS.. the District OF
Charles w. Payne. Columbia
MIR Justice Swaync delivered the OPINION OF
the Court.
This suit was brought to determine the va
lidty of the retrocessiou by Congress to the
State of Virginia Of that part OF the District Of
| Columbia, az originally constituted, which was
coded by Virginia to the United States. The
plaintiff 10 error was the plaintiff in the court
| below. The case upon which he retles is thus
set forth 10 his declaration
In pursuance OF the Constitution OF the Urlt"
| ed States, Virginia, by an act of her LeslsIa,
ture of d ccmber 8. 1889, coded to the Unltcd
| States that part OF her territory snbN qucuty
| known as the county Of Alexandria, Congress
| passed an act accepting the cesslon. Maryland
| cedcd to the United States the county of Wash
| ngtou, aud Congress accepted that cesslon also.
| The two cour,lcs constituted territory ten
miles square, which Congress set apart as the
seat of the government of theU. S.aud organic ID
as the District of Columbia, over which the Co1-
stitu,iou of the Uuited States required that
Congress should exercise exclusive legislation
10 all cases whatsoever Thereafter, on the OH
of July, 1916, Congress, In Violation OF tue
| Constitution, passed an act purportng to au'
| thorze vote to be taken by the people OF Alex
| andria equity to determine whether the couu-
~ should be relroceded to the State Of Virginia,
and declaring that 10 case majority OF the
| Ia r in Favor If rpf tnp
| county should be retrocedcd aud forever re-
| Iinuuished 10 full and absolute right aud jurls-
| dictiou A majority of the votes were cast Tor
retroccssioo, whereupOu, without any turthcr
action by Congress, the State OF Virginia passed
| an act declaring that the county was reanncXcd
and formed part of the State. Since that tune
the State has assumed 70 cX :rclse full jurlsdlc
ton and control over the county, aud 10 au-
thorize the election of officers Tor the couDy,
amoug whom is one known as the collector Tor
the township of Washington. The defendant
was elected such collector, and assumed to ex-
crcise the duties of his ofic.. The State has
also assumed to enforce the assessment aud col
lection of taxes upon persons and property IN
the county. The plaintiff resides 10 the county
aud owns large amount of real estate and other
property there. The defendant alleged that aD
assessment had been made upon this property;
that there was payable 10 him as such collector
upon the assessment the sun oil Sl6o. Island he
demanded payment. lu the event OF refusal to
pay he would have sold the property pursuant
fee which this would have involved, the plain
tiff paid the money under protest, notifying
the defendant at the time that he regarded the
exaciou as illegal and unauthorized, upon the
ground that the county OF Alexandria was aoi
within the jurisdiction of the State OF Vlr-
glnia, but tina! 1t was within the District OF
Columbia. He AYERS that the act OF Congress
Of 1916, before mentioned, every thing done
under It, and the law of Virginia reauncxlDg
the county to the State and extending her
jurisdiction over ii, are contrary to the Constr.
tuition of the Uultld States, and illegal and
void.
He therefore claims to recover the amount
so paid to the collector.
The defendant demurred. The court below
sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment Tor
the defendant.
The question presented for our determine
tion is whether there was error IN this ru'log.
The law of prescription applies 10 nations
with the same effect as between lndiv'duaIs.-
Lawrence's Wheaton, 3O3, SD; Natel, Book :,
: ch. IL, secs. al, 49, l47, l4y.
La cases involving the action of the political
depar mcuts of the government, the judiciary
is bound by such actioD.-Willlams VS.. The
Suffolk lus. Co., Ii Pet, APO; Garcia vs.. Lee,
- Pet, 5l1; kennet vs.. Chamberlain, II
How, SO; Foster vs. Nelson, . Pet, 209; Ma
bob OF the Carnatc W. The East lnd. Co.,
Vessey, Jr. 10; Luther W. Borden, How,
/; Rhode Island vs.. Massachusetts,, II Pet.
ia. ''
The judiciary recognises the condition oil
things with respect to the government OF au-
other county which once existed as still sub
sisting, unless the political depar' ment OF 1t:
own government has decided otherwise. Ken
net vs.. Chambers, How, 3S.
For certain purposes the States OF the Union
are regarded as foreign to each other. BUCK
ner vs. Finley, ? Pet. $50; Warden VS.. ARIEL,
= Wash. Va. Rep, 29S.
Und r certain circumstances, constitutional
provision may, like forfeiture, be waived by
party entitled to insist upon it, 6 Hill, As;
"a Wcnd., 337; Comst., 1879, Sill; IS BARI.
5S5
he acts Of an officer de facto, within the
sphere Of the powers and duties Of the Office
be assumes to hold, are as valid and binding
with respect to the public and third persons,
as if they had been done by an officer de iure.
Elwood Vs. Monk, East, 1885, King VS.. Corp.
Bedford, 6 East, 36o; Tucker vs.. Aiken, New
FL, l34; Fowler vs. Babe, 9 Mass, 23l; Com.
VS.. Fowler 10 Mass, 29l People VS.. Collins,
7 j. r., $40 These propositions were refer
Fred to 10 the discussion at the bar, and We have
not overlooked them.
But We do not invoke their aid and have
found it unnecessary to consider the effect OF
either Of them 10 this case
We shall place our judgement upon another
aud different ground, and shall contiue our
further remarks to that subject.
The State Of Virginia is de lacto in posses
sion of the territory 10 question She has been
in possession, and her tide and possession nave
been undlsputcd, siucc she resumed possession,
in lS47, pursuant to the act oil Congress Of the
preceding year. More than quarter of Il Gee.
fury has since elapsed During all that time
she has exercised jurisdiction over the territory
in all respects as before she ceied it to the
United States. She does DOT complain of the
retlocession. The political departments of her
government, by their conduct, have uniformly
asserted her title, and the head Of her judicial