The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-05-21
An Ancient Claim.

The matter OF the location OF the seat OF this
government was from 1888 to 1890 subject OF
much controversy. Various localities con-
tended for the honor, and for the benefits
which the establ ishment OF the national capital
in or near their boundaries would confer. After
the passage Of an act by the legislatures Of Vir-
ginia and Maryland offering to " advance to
the United States the former $4,000, the lat
ter $4,000, I" in case congress shall deem 1t
expedent to establish the permanent seat OF
government of the United States on the banks
OF the Potomac" congress passed the act,
fixing the seat OF government on the banks Of
that river, and Washington subsequently Sc
lected the site where the national capital, and
the city that has grown up around it, now
stand. Congress authorized the president to
receive "grants of money" for the construc-
ton Of tie public buildings, and under these
various acts OF the legislatures Of Virginia,
Maryland and of congress, the money was paid
over to the president and expended for the
purpose for which 1t was advanced In
1S42, Maryland, and in 1850, Virginia, set up
claim that the advances" which they had
made in 1890 were loans, and took steps to
collect them. Applications for the refunding
Of the money, with interest, have been favora-
bly, considered by committees Of the house, and
bills of relief have twice passed the senate, but
failed to reach the house. Senators Seward
and Fish Of New York, and Wade of Ohio have
favored the payment Of these claims, without
regard to the question whether the money was
given TO the government or loaned. This mat
ter Is now before the house of representatives.
majority Of a subcommittee of the judiciary
committee has reported in favor Of paying the
claims, treating them as loans to the govern
ment. Judge Poland makes a minority report,
which is characterized by his usual force, clear
ness and common-sense. He argues from the
history OF the proceedings at the time the es-
tabishment Of national capital was under
consideration that Virginia and Maryland had
a natural anxiety to have the seat of govern
mi fxpd nm the banka If tho no vioa hla riuar
that flowed between them, for the obvious ad-
vantages they would derive; that they were
willing to offer large pecuniary inducement
to secure the capital and that the government,
In its impoverished condition at that time, was
greatly influenced by the pecuniary argument.
Virginia had made her advance conditional
upon a similar advance by Maryland,
which was entirely consistent with the the
DRY that gift, and not loan, was con-
tempated by the claimant states, gift con-
ditioned upon certain location. Judge Poland
denied that the word used in the resolutions of
the two states, ddudnce, imports loan, as the
majority assumes. That was not its ordinary
or legal meaning. Congress authorized the
president to accept grants Of money" He
was not authorized to borrow money, or accept
lie officers speak of " the donations of Virginia
and Maryland" Nothing appears in all the
| early history of the matter that anybody then
thought of the repayment Of this money or that
| III WAS nytnlnR Out u DONATION OF gilt. In
concluding his report Judge Poland says: 1t
was fifty years before Maryland set up any
claim to have this money repaid, and nearly
sixty years before Virginia walked up to her
rights in this respect. 1t is said that during
this time the national government was poor
and these states acted the ordinary part of a
rich and lepient creditor to poor debtor. But
years before either state made any claim to
have this money repaid, the treasury Of the
United States had become so plethoric that
they had to resort to the doubtful relief of
distributing its surplus to the states. If the
government borrowed this money and has not
paid it, it ought to do so; but If the money was
given by these states to the United States, and
especially if it was given in view of securing
greater benefits to themselves thereby, as |
think it WAS then there is no obligation on tn g
part of the United States to return the money,
and there is no more justice in returning it, or
constitutional power to return it, than to make
gift to any other state or person"