The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-01-20

Alexandria lawyers interviewed yegteT-
day on the opinion handed down by Ffannis
Taylor as TO the consutuuonaIty Of re-
ceding Alexandra County 10 Virginia re-
gard the act that gave the county back
10 Virginia as permanent. The opinion
prevailed that the lapse Of more than
sixty years since the time the county was
ceded would make the agreement even
more legal than it was the day Il was
signed. That the recession would play
havoc in some respects was evidenced
from their expressions. Several intimated
that should such a thing come 70 pass
they would eventually be compelled 10
move into Fairfax County IN order 10 be
in Virginia and transact Virginia Dusi-
ness. >4any Alexandra lawyers represent
large corporations. and II Alexandra was
placed beyond the pale OF Virginia iuris-
diction il would mean the loss Of such
10 them unless they removed TO the ad-
joining cOunty-Fairfsx
Others pointed out that # would be Ike
/
were placed back in the District. in view
Of the fact that the laws OF the District
are vastly different from Virginia laws.
The Disadvantages OF going back into
the District, and complications that would
arise, would I'll volumes If written by the
Alexandria lawyers. That they do not
greet the proposition favorabIy Is eyI-
denced by the following views OF few
Of them;
Col. Smith Objects.
Col. Francis l. Smith. dean oS the
Alexandria bar, said; 7 an unalterabIy
opposed to the idea OF Alexandria being
severed from the Commonwealth Of vir-
giuia. The Old Dominion has been very
liberal 20 the Federal government She
gave II the Northwest Territory. out 0t
which Ohio. Indiana. Illinois. Michigan
Wisconsin. and a part OF Minnesota have
been erected
The state OF Kentucky was once a
Virginia county. Virginia freely relin-
quished her Jurisdiction over that splen-
did state, so I am opposed TO any further
dismemberment OF. her territory. 7 an
satisfied that the State Of Virginia Will
never voluntarily surrender her owner
ship and sovereignty over Alexandra city
and county. I do not believe this terri
Tory can be taken from her against her
Will for two reasons First, because the
act Of retr0cession is valid; second, be
cause the Federal government has for
more than half a century acquiesced IN
the condition resulting from that legisla-
ton. it being g principle OF International
law that sovereign States are bound by
laches and acquescence-"
Snys Act Is Legal.
Judge I. c. Barley. Of the Corporation
Court: "I have not read Mr.. Taylor's
opinion sufficiently close TO give an opin-
ION upon his statement OF the law, but
have very decided views OF my own on
this subject. which are, first that the
act in question Is constitutional second.
that even though the act should be held
not TO be constitutional the Supreme
Court of the United States would not,
after a lapse OF siXty-odd years, when
new political conditions had arisen, com
pei the Virginia part Of the original ten
miles square to 90 back into the District
over the protest OF Virginia, no more
than they would compel the State OF
West Virginia 10 come back into the
State of Virginia after the lapse OF fifty
years, when new political conditions have
arisen there. The laches IN both cases
would preclude any such finding"
Thinks Mr.. Taylor Wrong.
Judge Charles z. NIcoI: Mr.. Taylor
is q man Of eminent standing as a law
yer, and especially as an International
lawyer Any opinion which he expresses
is entitled TO great weight AMI considera-
ton. but the basis Of his opinion seems
to be that there was a contract between
the general government the State OF
Virginia. and the State Of Maryland, and
that Virginia could not withdraw any
part Of her territory from the contract
unless Maryland was also thereby re
leased as to the territory which she con-
tributed as a site for the general govern
ment and If Virginia was released valid
ly, then the ground on which the White
House and Capitol stands is the terri
tory Of Maryland.
by actual consent Of the general gov
eminent as expressed by Congress. IN
what Is known as the retrocession act
in the action of Virginia In accepting
back that portion Of her territory which
she had ceded TO the general government
as a portion OF the site for the seat OF
the general government. two OF the con-
tracing parties have actually dissolved
the contract, and that is an accom-
plished fact. and after the lapse OF over
sixty years 1t IS now too late 10 reform
and restate the contract.
As 20 Maryland, Congress has never
receded the portion Of territory which
she set apart as a site for the general
government, and never viii: SO the anal
ogy between Maryland and Virginia as
to the territory donated as seat for
the general government utterly breaks
down"
Judge MOrtOn's Version.
Judge J. NJ Norton; THE point Mr..
Hannis Taylor makes on the constitu-
tional question will have little or no bear
ing on the case. A status accepted by
the United States and the State OF Vir-
sinia for sixty years has become a po-
litical and not a constitutional question.
I've would as well at this late day
inquire as TO whether West Virginia,
Continued on Page 2, CeIBmnr Q.