Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-01-18
| ". | N. m. en-. Tyr.
Space.
alexandria County,

GEeXa1urfa county.
a large Iunbsr, probably large msj,riy,
OF the Inhabitants CT Alsxsndris county proper
are aud have beao foT lorg time dissatisfied
with their political condition. Severed IS they
are from tie city Of A;xsn!Eia. With 60 sonei-
81 feature Of their polly in conncp, Nth sepk-
ate organizations. and Judiciary. with none CT
their pubic bulldogs within their own iuri;-
d:cIi9r; strictly sDeskiag, Eish a V,fy limited
area and populltion. tho entire county beiig
much smaller in srsa, p7paIs;ior, or voters
than many msgsteral dislio,s 10 lsrger oout-
lies the burdens Of taxation have added to the
general disco0tcn:. aad many disc1ssions have
been held, With view cf deasiag soae means
OF relief Just whas shspe tbs. relief will ss-
sure is net yet clear. bat il appears very likely
to assume tangihili!y shortly.
Tho county Of Alexandria was, up to D Gem
her g. 1882 tho date of the sc. Of lhs Gsneral
Assembly ct Firgiai. csdag that portion of
her territory to ths U. s. as a po,ticn of tho
nropased pernansnt seat CT government OF the
U. s., pcriioD ct Fatfsx couo.Y, Va. When
absorbed in tho District OF Columbia it became
alexandria county 10 the Diat1ic: Of Columbis;
when retroceded under the CO. CT Congress OF
July 9. 1916, it did not 80 back 10 the iurisdic-
tlon from Whlca It vas Originally s.vered-tbat
ls. Fairfax oouoiy-au. bsoams separate po-
lltlo, organization. ss A!,Xsa6ria c:uaty, in
the State OF Vireiais.
lne oo'y quesIOa 10 EaiGa sttcnuon should
b, now direo,cd would appear to b.. not where
Altxiudi, county can go. but where docs she
belong. That the o!iGilal c:ssicu cf Al:X4c-
n n ko kta
ttict Of Columbia WAS legal. r'g1lsr ard valid,
hes never b.eu questioned Tnst her present
oonCi!ion is doubtful has bsen corcaded By
soGo OF tha btss legal uiuds 10 tho district
to whose attention the question has been
brought, WEen Virginia oedad to tho Uoied
States the territory. nov formi32 Alexandria
County, it cana st oncs uoder that cisu5e Of
tho ConStitutloa of tho Uotcd States, prcviG
ing that Concrsss should cyeici;s exclusive
Jurisdiction ever tho Dis rct OF Columbia ss
formed. Tho D5t,ics Of Columbia became q
separate oEganlaitIon from 'he several states,
exclusively under the Jurisdiction of the Cos
gress OF the Uoi;o1 StatcF, and il is sq1estioL-
! able how far the action OF ConSresa in uivesipg
itself Of Alexandria County ss il did By the set
OF July 9.b, lS4G. aud creating 10 tho limits Of
tho District OF Columbia another delegated
jurisdiction over portion Of the territory which
| the Constitution OF the Ucited Stated declared
| should bs uod;r the exclusive Jurisdiction Of
Congress was legal and consli:utionsl. II is o
general prirciolo Of law that delegated power
| cannot be re-delegsted withcu. express powers
| CT substitution, and this Congress did not hnVo
| in this case-eVen should it ba asserted that
the provisions regarding tho formation cf new
states was applicable, the forns!i;ics required
| in such cases Wero no. c,mpliod with. for the
Legislature Of the State of Virginia was not
consulted, the change bairg based entirely upon
the votes Of the persons residing in the dis!ric.
to be affected by the charg,. ltthen Congress
had no suihoti'y TO delegate is powers and
jurisdiction ovar Alexandria C,u1ty, il must
follow that such ao!ion beiag unconstitutional.
mus: be void. and in fact Altx.odria County is
tc-iay as much plrt Of tho District OF
Columbia al ever. Thss the Supreme
Usu:t Of the UOi:cd States had the case
btfJre it in tie suit OF Phillips vs. Payne
does not sl.o! the question. The court did
net c,osider cr decide that question: o. the
other hand, il expressly lodged the question
aud avoided apy decision Of tho question q
Jurisdiction. Eleraly asserting that 10 that case
Virginia, having Getac:o Jurisdiction, was
entitled 10 cnfoIc, the c;lltc.ion OF is taxes
and that the question of the validity of The re-
PROCESSION Of July 9, 1864, coud not b. brought
up in that coiiaters modo. l! did DO. alton q.
10 in0icats waat lis decision would be over the
q1stion fairly prs med, por did it intimate ir
what way that 1es,i0n could be raised. The
decision OF the Supreme Court in PDiItips vs.
Payae merely eV1ted the q1=s.ioo, srd left i
open as il thai cs) had never baen brought
before il. Whatever may be the ultimate ou:.
como. nave lo,g thought that if The question
is ever faitly aud squsreIy presented 10 ,ht
Supreme Ccu;t OF the United States iis dIc
zion will be against the validity t f retrocessio,
AID result 10 rtl2gstng A!ex.EGlia c5ualy tt
lis p1s;li0a as portcn Of .he Dsuic; O
Columbia whtrs it prop;Iy belongs.
But if The re!rtce;si0u OF Alexandra couass
is cooc,oed by eEscion.or otherwise to be legal
by VIA. Eu;boll:y was l. eVir created an in
dependent county? Wien i; vas severed frcu
i. Virainis and bec.ms portion of tho DIsrlc
of Cou nbia it was 40 iate9ra portion Ct Faii
fax oouoy. Whsn i: was returned to- to-
State why was it no! returned 70 the local uris
dic.ion from which i: vas severed? fit doc
. not b,!ong to the Distrio! Of Columbia then
should hsvs bec,mo q portion of FsirfaI
c,unty. and the peep'o arc justified in an cfor
to get back to The parent organization. Bu
Z dou5tfnlly territory. which msy embroI Us a
| 59uo iuluio ''uiS III ittiSaiiou' We Houio w
OF ieo! to having Alexandra o0u5ty restored 1
i;s foraer position a. portion OF Faitfs,
2 county If it onn ts doEe lcgi.inasaly, but viii
the question OF the validity Of the retrocessio
Of July Q. 1916. hanging over it. i! would b
preferable tha. that question should be frs
disposed of. before atty further effJrt ia mad
TO oba.gs The present status OF that ooun'y.
j. U. DEPUTRoN.
f Jsnu,ty 16, 1882.
RRaNT,S SHLuZXR APkKIkN1