The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-03-27
from The Alexandria Gazette, 2alh.J
Retr3cassion Before the supreme

From the Alexapdria Gazette, 24lh.I
/ Retr1caSsion Before the Supreme
/ CeuRt.
WASHINGTON, March "a The long.talknd
OF resroces ZION case OF Philips us. Payne cams
up before the Supreme Court OF the United
States to-day.
This case, as Is well known, arises out Of |
oo, 'ec.ion Of State taxes 10 Alexandria
pb;l,,,> a having come two years ago paid Col
Iector f,ayne his taxes nnder protest, an6
sued to recc yer tbeN. :.
Judge Winoughbsr appeared for Mr.,
Philips, and the Attoi .uey.Generai Of Wiz.
ginia tMr. Daniel) for Mr.. wayne.
Judge Willoughby opened Tue argumeot,
and urged substantially the s"fonnos tnat
have been noted heretofore.
Mr.. Daniel urged, in reply, thai IL wouid
be unreasonable to suppose that 8. 'osle lh'
dividual could by a private suit DIES Xrey
Government which both the United s'tates
and the State OF Virginia bad united 10 ere.
atng, aud make chaos in resptct to legN
rights in that portion Of Virginia which
would be affected. He urged that If there
had been any mistake in the forms Of trans
fer the deed bad been done in good faith,
and il would only remain that Congress
should give such additional formal NUM-.
ments as might be needed. Congress did
not delegate legislative powers TO anybody.
1t merely made grant, with a condition
precedent that the voters OF Alexandria
should accept it. Beside this, in the case Of
Mclaughlin uS. The Bank of Potomac, the
Court Of Appeals had sustained retrocession,
and the Supreme Court Of the United States
had implicitly coucurred.
Mr. Sheils oarger will reply should he ar
rive this afternoon. II not, the case will be
further adj ourned.
I.Secoad Dispatch
In the Supreme Court Of the United States
Hon. X. T. Daniel, Attorney-Geoer of Vir.
giuia. presented aud enforced with his accus-
toned ability and eloqnence the following
propositions:
/. The form Of action, being an action
against the t,x.collector for money had
and received" is % incompetent one to try
and determine the issues sought to be de
cided by the appellant. These issues are as
TO the proper boundaries of the State Of Vir-
GINA, and the rightful government over the
county and city OF Alexandria. Now, to
determine such issues more dignihed, i'm
posing, and honorable legal procedure must
be instituted than controversy between
reluctant taxpayer and collector. The
parties 10 a cause TO try such imposing and
ar.reachipg issues must be the united STATES
on the ose side and the State Of Virginia on
the other.
9. The State of Virginia has for thirty
wears maintained uuquestioned sovereignty
over this territory. The collector of taxes
was an officer appointed by this Govern
ment. whose jurisdiction was disputed by no
poltical power Oh earth. There could,
therefore, be no lawful dispute made by any
resident of this territory as to the conape'
tency Of this collector to execute the tax law
Of Virginia. Ii the courts should uphold
such dispute they would lend themselves
10 3 course which would suOyert the law,
order, and peace of the territory, and deliver
it over TO anarchy. This court has repeat
edly rebuked such doctrine and procedure
as this case presents.
5. The appellant asks the court 10 question
and annul an act OF Congress performed IN
the clear exercise of its political authority In
the premises. To do so would be to invade
the distinct division of power esta blished by
the Cons,i tuition.
4. The appellant, in order to maintain the
case. must prove tina, the power given Con-
gre.s to acquire not over Ten miles square"
REQUIRES Congress to acquire the Uhole OF
| ten miles, and that when once acquired no
| psrt proving useless can be disposed or.
| The same argument would restrict Congress
as to its power over territory acquired for
| forts, nayy-yards, &c.
5. The form pursued by the law of retro
cession in this case was the usual form OF
legislative grant "upon condition W.,
| t lat the people Of the territory voted for the
law.
G. The appellant confounds and miscon-
ceives the law as to the application OF tbe
doctrine of the ode tacto" and " de Jure"
authority of public officer. ln this case tne
collestor held bis power by both titles. Ii
he was not the true officer, then there was
none, for both the Uoited States and Viz.
giuia acknowledge his authority. This be-
Ing so, to allow q citizen to dispute it would
be to deliver the community over TO anarchy
7. The idea of the appellant that the Con
stitution intends that Congress can never
change the seat of government is to impress
an unreasonable and procus!eln sense upoE
that instrument.