Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-03-24
FROM WASHINGTON.
RetrOcessiOn Before the Supreme
(Onrt.

Court.
WASHINGTON, March 24.-The long. talked
of re,rocessiou case of Philips vs. Payne came
up before the Supreme Court of the United
States to-day.
This case, as is we'll known, arises out of a
collection of State taxes 10 Alexandria, Philips
having some two years ago paid Collect or
Payne his taxes under protest and sued 10 re-
cover them.
Judge WilIouQhhy appeared for Mr.. Philips,
and the Attorney General If Virginia, Mr..
Daniel, for Mr.. Payne.
Several Aexandrlans among them the Com
nonwealth's Attorney, Edmund Burke, OF
Alexandria county, were present.
Judge Wilou hby opened the argument,
and urged substantially the grounds that have
been noed 10 the Goz lite heretofore.
MIR. Daniel urged, In reply, that 1t would
be unreasonable to suppose that single lodi
vdual could, by private suit, destroy gov
ernment which both the United States and the
State of Virginia had uulted IN creating, and
make chaos III respect 10 legal rights III that
portion of Virginia which would be affected.
He urged that if there had been any mistake
u the forns of transfer the deed had been
done in good faith, and it would only remain
NAL munimeuts as might be needed. CougrcSs
did net delegate legislative powers TO aoyhody
1t merely made grant, with condition pre-
cedebt that the voters of Alexandria should
accept it.. Beside this, 10 the case of Nc
Lsughn vs.. the Bank Of Potomac the Courl
of Appeals had sustained relroceisioo, and the
Supreme Court OF the Uuitcd States had i'm
pIicitly coDcurr4d.
MIR. Shellabarger will reply should he ar
rive this afternoon; if not, the case will be
further adjourned.
Second Dispatch.
liz The Supreme Court Of the Uniled States
Hon. R. I. Daniel, Attorney General Of Vir
giuia, presented and enforced, with his accus-
toned ability and eloquence, the following
propositions
l. The form of action, being az action against
the tax collector flor money had aud received,
is an Incompetent Que to Try aud detcrmlne the
issues sought to be decided by the appellant.
These issues are as to the proper boundaries OF
the State Of Virginia, and the righttul govern
meut over the county and city ct Alexandria,
Now 10 determine such Issues more dIgnihed
imposing aud honorable legal procedure nut
be Instituted than controversy between re-
luctaut tax payer aud q collector. The parties
to a cause to try such imposing and lar reach
lug issues must be the United States % the
one side and the State OF Virginia on the
other.
2. The State of Virginia has for thirty years
maintained unqueslloned sovereignty over this
territory. The collector Of taxes wa. an officer
appointed By this government, whose jurlsdlc
ton was disputed by 10 political power 90
earth. There could therefore be 10 lawful
dispute made by any resident of this territory
as tn the competency oil this collector to cxecu e
the tax law Of Virginia. Ii toe Courts should
uphold such dispute they would lend them
selves to course which would suJvert the law,
order and peace of the territory, and deliver it
over to anarchy. This Court has repeatedly
rcbuked such doctrine and procedure as this
case presents.
3. The appellant asks the court to question
aud annul an act OF Congress performed III
the clear exercise Of its political authority IN
the premises. TO do So would be to invade
the distinct division OF power established by
the constitution.
4. The appellant 10 order to maintain the
case must provo that the power given congress
to acquire mot over ten miles square" rcqulr-
es Congress to acquire the whole of ten miles;
AID that when once acq Jred no part proving
useless can be disposeu Of The same argu-
mcnt would restrict Congress as to its power
over territory acquired for forts, navy yards, IT,.
5. The form pursued by the law of retroces,
siou in this case was the usual form OF leglS-
lative grant, upon condition, viz: That the
people of the territory voted for the law.
6. The appellant coniouDds and misconceves
the law as to the application Of the doctrine OF
the ''de facto'' ami de jure" aur hority Of a
public officer 10 this case the collector held
his power by both titles. If he was not the
true officer then there was none, for both the
United States and Virginia ackuowed ge his
authority. This being so, to allow t'zen 10
dispute it, would be to deliver the community
over 70 anarchy.
7. The idea of the appellant that the constl-
tuition intends that Congress can never change
the seat of government, is to Impress 40 W.
reasonable and procI uStcan sense upon that ~
strument.
CONGRESS.