The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-01-21
TAFT INTERESTED
In RETROCESSTON
Opinion of Hon. HanniS Tay-
lOr Attracts Attention.
MR.. GALLINGER IS RETICENT
Has Not Indicated What View SEN
ate Committee on District Affairs
VIII Act Only ON Recommendation
or Expression from Congress.

Whether the President will take the in
itiative toward bringing before the United
States Supreme Court the question of the
constitutionaiity Of the retrocession of
the County of Alexandria to Virginia in
1916, viii depend it is understood, upon
the report made by the Senate Committee
on Affairs Of the District to which the
exhaustive opinion by Hon. Hannis Tay-
Tor, holding the retrOcession UncOnstitu-
tional and void, was referred on Monday
last
Chairman Gallinger has not indicated
what view he takes of the question. nor
have his colleagues as Yet expressed a
desire for action.
The opinion, however. has attracted
general attention al the Capitol, and
many statesmen, regardless of their views
on the matter, believe the question should
be settled by the highest tribunal in order
10 prevent the possibility Of vexatious
and perhaps expensive complications in
generations TO come.
Whole County Not Needed.
That the whole Of Alexandria County IS
not needed by the District is generally
admitted. but many Senators are con-
WINGED that the acquisition of the river
front on the Virginia side and certain
other lands adjacent 70 Arlington Ma
tional Cemetery would be most advan-
tageous in the further development of the
Capital City.
The President is known TO be deeply in
terested In the question. but may be re-
IN I'm b.. al. Of.
ommendatlon or expression from Con-
gress
Citizens Of Alexandria City are almost
q unit in opposing any movement to bring
Alexandria County back into the Dist -iC-
Fully 80 per cent Of them, it is said. arr
earnestly antagonistic TO the proposition
outside the city. however, many property
owners. perhaps the majority, think tfetr
Interests would be conserved if the act
of 1876 should be held unconstitutional,
and the tract revert 20 the government
Hannis Taylor Replies.
Mr Hannis Taylor yesterday made
reuiy 10 those who contend that the
Federal government has lost by 8cQuies-
ccnce, or lapse of time. the right to estao-
fish the boundaries of the District of
Columbia as President Washingtol .lc-
fued them.
There is absolutely nothing in such a
contention" he said. for three reasons.
In the first place, il is settled that an
unconstitutional act is not a law; il con-
fzrs no rights; ii imposes no duties; IL
a6c'ds no protection; II creates no onlcr.
il Is ia legal contemplation as imperative
as though it had never been passed
(Norton VS.. Shelby County. lis. Z. ). 40
Il is likewise settled that Congress can
Tot, by authorization or ratification. give
the slightest effect 10 a State law. or
constitution in conflict with the Ccns,i-
tuition Of the United States u5 Wall,
6l0)
mo matter how long the de facto pos
session of Virginia may continue und2r
hAr invalid statutes, the rights of tie
nation remain unimpaired.
In the second place, it Is a fact all
Will admit, that the statutes of limitation
do not exist. and have never existed. for
the settlement Of boundaries between
States.
Cannot BE Applied.
In the third place, it is settled that
the fact Of acquiescence during a long
period of time can never be applied 10
the settlement Of boundaries between
states. except in cases where the fact
as to the local of the original boundary
is matter Of dispute. In this case the
original boundaries were marked by
massive stone monuments. fixed scien-
tihcally which stand to-day 70 expel
every possible doubt The doctrine of
acquiescence, even if unconstitutional
laws were not involved, is therefore en-
tirely inapplicabIe 10 this ease.
Reference has been made 10 the re-
port Of Senator HOar. presented in 1902.
In which it was said: As TO the sugges-
ton that the retrocession was unconsti-
tudonal, 1t seems TO US that the answer
Is that, from the nature Of the case.
1t Is a political and not a judicial cues
ton That strange idea was wiped out
by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in United States VS. Texas Gag 7. &
CID, in which it was held expressly that
IN view Of these cases II cannot with
propriety be said that a question of
boundary between a Territory of the