Evening star., 1896-12-19

l
unite the retroceded territory to the Dis
trict of Columbia. A bill was prepared by
Mr.. R. s. Lacey who filed 1t in Congress.
together with a petition signed by many
| citizens of Alexandria city and county.
| The text of the bill then prepared is as
follows:
! That the act entitled an act to retrocede
the county of Alexandria, in the District
| OF Columbia. to the state Of Virginia, and
approved July .. 1S46, be, and the same is
| hereby. repealed: Provided. however. That
| all rights and privileges. duties and obli-
| cations heretofore received and incurred
| under zaid act of retrocession shall be fully
preserved, and shall in no wise be affected
hereby
| Mr.. Lacey, as the representative of those
| VINO were agitating for the return of the
retroceded territory to the United States.
prepared an argument in favor of the bill,
which Is quoted above. and which was
| used In support of the bill. but the matter
was at that time soon dropped. Mr.. La
ceyS argument is interesting at this time
as 1t reviews the laws and decisions bear
| Ing upon the question of retrocession, and
| especially upon the alleged unconstitution-
| auty OF any act to divest Congress of it's
exclusive jurisdiction over the whole or
any part of the District of Columbia After
| quoting the section of the Constitution en-
poWering congress to exercise exclusive
| legislation over the District to be ceded by
| the states to become the seat of govern
| ment of the United States the MARYLAND
ana virginia acts OF cession, and the act of
| Congress, July Is, 1890. accepting the terri
| tory ceded, Mr.. Lacey's argument goes on
to say
On the Sd of March, 1891, and before the
| survey provided for by the preceding act
| was completed. an act of Congress was
| passed providing that so much of the pre-
| ceding act as required that the whole of
| the territory, ten miles square, be located
T ABOVE the mouth of the East branch be
| repealed. and that II shall be lawful for
the President to make any part of the ter
| r1tory below the said limit and above the
NOUN OF hunting creek. a part of said Dis
| tr1ct, and the territory SO to be
| included shall form part of the District
| not exceeding ten miles square for the per-
States " ''e '''''e"
On the sOth of March, 179l, George Wash
lnston, President. by his proclama ton de-
| ciared that the whole of said territory
should be included between four lines, as
| Iol!ows: describing them including Alex
andria county, Val
| he also declared and proclaimed that
.he SAID territory, when surveyed, should
oe oet 'ne ne wnole territory accepted by the said
! act OF Congress as the District for the per-
! States.'' N " oi''eu
BY By an act of Congress passed July 10
!Sto' IL Is provided that with the assent of
| the people of Alexandria and Alexandra
| county, all that portion OF the District of
Coiunbia ceded to the United States by the
| state OF Virginia be, and the same are here
| by. ceded and forever reIinouished to tho
state of Virginia, in full and absolute right
ana jurisdiction, as well of soil as of per
sons residing or to reside thereon"
| IhlS grant of exclusive power of lao,s
| iatoh over the district thus selected
chosen and dedicated, when once exercised
| became forever thereafter obligatory ami
as niuch duty as the discharge of anv
| other obligation imposed upon Congress
by said article. among which are the
| power to regulate commerce with foreign
Ed'iohs, u, ar among states. and no part of
@ Mnacn can be exercised by state: the
power to establish post offices; the power
10 establish judicial tribunals inferior to
| the Supreme Court, which power the S,1-
preme Court has held cannot be con-
! ferred by Congre IS except upon courts
| created by Congress
| Inc power to define and punish piracies
ana felonies committed on the high seas
| 10 declare war, grant letters of maraue
| 10 filSe and support armies, to provide and
| MAINTAIN navy and to provide for call
| ing forth the militia are powers which are
| conferred in the same section and by the
| SAM words, as the power to exercise ex-
| ciuslFe jurisdiction over the District of
| Columbia
| The Supreme Court has frequently de-
| cided that whenever the terms in which
| a power is granted to Congress requires
| that 1t should be exercised exclusively by
| Congress the subject is as completely
| taken from the state legislatures as if
| they had been expressly forbidden to act
| upon it,
| The act of retrocession July 10. lS4D
| undertook to relinQuish or retrocede to
virginia only about one-.hird of the whole
| territory of the District but the extent
| OF the territory undertaken to be diyested
| can make no difference The power to
retrocede or relinquish jurisdiction over a
part, carries with it the power to retro
cede or relinquish the whole and it is no
| more unconstitutional to retrocede the
| whoe than part. Ard If it was lawful
| to relinquish Alexandria county to Vir-
ginia in 1916. it is lawful to cede Wash
| ington county to Maryland in 1890. But
neither was lawful then, or is lawful now
Congress. having accepted the cession
| cannot divest itself of exclusive jurisdic-
| ton and its seat of government. By ac-
cept1ng the grant, and exercising exclusive
| jurisdiction contract was entered into
| between the gov ernment. the ceding states
and the eople of the whole District, which
could not be dissolved without the con-
| sent of all the parties.
| 1t is believed that no sound. conserva-
| tive or satisfactory argument has ever
| been made establishing or sustaining the
| constitutionality of the cession, relinquish-
| ment surrender of the whole or any
! part of the territory of the District of
| Columbia, or the REIMBURSEMENT or trans
! fer Of the whole or any part of the exclu-
| Sive legislative jurisdicti ton of Congress
| over the same.
| There is but one ground upon which the
| pretensiOn Of the legality of the attempt
| ed retrocession Of Alexandria county can
| be rested. to wit: Long acquiescence in the
| jurisdiction which the state of Virginia
| has, in fact, exercised over the territory
| in question-though that is confessedly an
| unsatisfactory foundation to stand on but
| it is the best there is, and it must be con-
sidered.
If Congress had no power and was
| therefore forbidden to divest itself of ex-
| elusive jurisdiction over any part of the
! District of Columbia, could it, by an un-
constitutional act, transfer the territory
| and jurisdiction to the state of Virginia,
| so that the state. by accepting the Grant
| and exercising the jurisdiction. could rem
| der the unlawful act constitutional and
| lawful? Manifestly not.
The state never could and never has
! claimed title jurisdiction by acquies-
| cence, lapse of time or long occupa ton,
I but has always claimed under the act of
| 1916, end as grantee Hereunder.
In the case of Phillips VS.. Payne, 81
| United States, 13O, it was attempted to
| bring the constitutionality of the retro
| cession of Alexandria county to a final de-
cision, but the attempt prac tically failed
| for the reason that the plaintiff was, as
| the court said. ''estopped from raising the
| point which he seeks to have decided"
! But the court does say, ''The state of vir-
ginia is in de facto possession. She
| CVirginia) does not complain of the re-
PROCESSION. The United States have
| not Ohiected Roth nartias to tho