The Washington herald., 1913-01-19

Summary OF the opinion OF Mr.. Hannis
Taylor as to the constitutionality Of the
act of retrocession of 1876, as published
by order of the Senate, January II. 1910:
The contemporaneous evidence puts the
fact beyond all question that the final
definition of a district ten miles square
as the seat OF our Federal government
was In a special sense the personal work
Of President Washington, whose task in
volved the acquisition of the title to the
tract from three sources-the State OF
Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the
nineteen local proprietors who owned
that part of the heart of the present city
which underlies the Capitol. the White
House. and the Treasury. washington's
task was TO induce the three parties VINO
held the title to cede TO the Federal gov
ernment without any direct pecuniary
consideration, the entire area under a
quadrilateral contract in which that gov
ernment was the grantee and benefi-
ciary, and Virginia. Maryland. and the
nineteen local proprietors the grantors.
The real consideration moving to such
grantOrs was the incidental benefits 10
accrue to them from their joint cession
which. in the language OF the act OF July
Is, 17so lis hereby accepted for the per-
manent seat Of the government of the
United States" That covenant repre-
sented the only considerations moving
directly from the Federal government.
while the three grantors were bound to
each other by the mutual considerations
moving from the one TO the other under
interdependent grants. Maryland, the
last to grant. expressed the idea Of the
mutual benefits TO be derived from a
common enterprise when her Legislature
declared that lit appears to this General
Assembly highly just and expedlent that
all the lands within the said city should
contribute. in due proportion. in the
means which have already greatly en-
HANGED the value Of the whole" Two
distinct parts OF the Constitution are in
volved: First. that part Of section s.
Article I. which provides that Congress
shall have power ITO exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatever over
such District mot exceeding ten miles
square) as may, by cession Of particular
States, and the acceptance OF Congress,
become the seat of government Of the
United States:' second, that part of sec
tion 10. Article /. which provides that
No State shall pass any bill OF attainder,
ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation Of contracts"
When the bill passed the Senate the
chairman OF the Committee on the Dis
trict OF Columbia. Senator Haywood of
North Carolina, earnestly opposed il. In
the proceedings of June II, 1876, the fol-
lowing appears:
Retrocession of Alexandria.
Mr.. Haywood. from the Committee on
the District OF Columbia. reported the
bill for the retrocession OF the city and
county OF Alexandria with a recon-
mendation that II be rejected" Gong
Globe. vol. Is. No. 3. pp. sS5-gSs)
In the debate which took place on June
90, Mr.. Haywood said, in part: IF there
aVYys vFar ~ T1nr- ay-fI 20 - L
by diminishing the extent OF the ten
miles square. the committee had not
been apprised of IL; II any particular
good was TO be attained, they were not
apprised. When the retrocess!on was
first suggested to the consideration of
the Senate. doubts Were entertained by
many how far II was competent for Con-
gress to recede what the Constitution
had for a particular purpose authorized
them 10 accept. The States Of Maryland
and Virginia had ceded this territory to
Congress, TO be taken under its exclusive
jurisdiction for the seat of government"
In the final debate, which took place
on July ?, Mr.. Haywood opposed the
bill, and in an eloquent manner con-
tended for the sacred immunity Of the
Constitution ana the wise ARRANGEMENTS
of the sages OF the Revolution. He also
argued the constitutional question at con-
siderable length and with characteristic
ability" Thirteen Senators Joined MIR
Haywood in opposition 20 the bill, which
passed by vote OF thIrty-two to four
teen. (Cong. Globe. vol. 10, No J n
1c46) Congress Do not orfer to the ced-
ing States any money consideration
whatever for their cessions Tne means,
and the only means. Congress saw nj to
employ TO accomplish a vitality impor-
tant end was the promise, made IN the
act OF July il. l7yn, that the seat OF gov
ernment TO be located on the cessions
should be permanent. The act ex-
pressly declared that the district so
defined. limited, and located snail ne
deemed the district accepted by this act
for the permanent seat OF government
of the United States When Mr.. Madi-
son moved, in the House OF representa-
tives. to strike out the word permanent
from this act, he was voted down; ana
thus we have a legislative Interpretation,
practically contemporaneous, TO the er-
feet that the Constitution intended TO
confer upon Congress the power to make
the seat OF government permanent. Con-
temporary Interpretation or the Consti-
tuition, practiced and acquiesoed IN Tor
years, concIusiveIy fixes Its constrIc-
ton. The power IN question was ex-
hausted by its exercise under the act OF
July 16. 1870. and the entire territory
ceded and accepted by Congress under
that at was forever dedicated as .-tnel
seat OF the Government OF the United |
States" Such was the view or the four
teen Senators who opposed the passage
or the act OF retrocession on July =, !
1876. /
Act of 1S46 Unconstitutional.
Conclusive as were the objections
made in Congress to the constitutional
ity OF the act In question. under section |
), article I, OF the Constitution, an OBJ |
lection more conclusive still, depending
upon an entirely different section, escaped |
through the failure of busy |
to examine the terms of the |
original cessions through which the ter |
ritory in question was derived. I'ne record |
shows that no examination whatever was |
made In that direction. when the three
cessions through which the territory or |
the District was derived are examined, |
II appears that there were three grantors |
the State OF Virginia, the state or Mary |
land, and a group composed or nineteen |
local proprietors. The grantee was the
Congress and Government of the United |
States" Thus It was that four parties |
entered into a quadrilateral contract !
which passed, upon it's execution, under |
the protection of section ~ of Article L
Of the Constitution. which provides that |
no state shall pass any bill OF attainder,
ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation Of contracts" That phase o. /
the matter was in nowfse considered dur
ing the debates OF 1876.
VIRGINIA Grnut of December, 17SO.