The Washington herald., 1913-01-19

states, through the acl OF ConSEess W
July 10, 1850. spassed under the constitu-
tional mandate, agreed that the DIS
trict SO defined. limited. and located.
shall be deemed the District accepted by
this act. for the permanent seat OF the
government of the United States Each
OF the three grantors, In consideration
Of that stipulation made for the benefit
of each. through which alone the title
to the whole could be made perfect, en-
tered into. the quadrilateral contract In
question. II Is Elementary in the-laN OF
contracts that when two or more in
struments are executed at the same time.
or at different times. which relate to
the same subject matter, and one refers
to the other, either tacitly or expressly.
they viii be taken together and construed
as one instrument.
In this case there can be no question
that the quadrilaterai contract was exs-r
cuted between the States of Virginia.
Maryland and the nineteen proprietors.
and the United States, and that such
quadriiateral contract passed under the
protection Of the contract clause OF the
Constitution. before the District of Co
lumbia came into existence, for the SIM
pie and conclusive reason that the very
existence OF such District was the result
Of the complete execution OF such con-
tract Therefore. as the quadrilateral
United states and the States IN question.
prior to the existence of the District.
section 10 Of Article !. providing that
mo state shall pass any bill OF
attainder. ex post facto law, or law I'M
pairing the Obligation of contracts, op-
Grated upon II from the moment OF Its
execution. That Is no less true because
such contract was executed between
States In Wolf Va. New Orleans, 1n5
- N.aI1 angIx- Nkof
THE prohibition of the Constitution
against the passage OF laws impairing
the obligation Of contracts, applies to
the contracts Of the State, and to those
of its agents acting under its authority.
as well as to contracts between individ-
uals. And that obligation so impaired.
i'm the sense OF the Constitution when
the means by which contract at the
time Of its execution could be enforced:
that is by which the parties could be
obliged to pe-form it, are rendered less
efficacious by legislation operating direct
ly upon those means. In speaking of
it's duty i'm that regard Murray vs..
Charleston (9S L. s. itl. the Supreme
Court said that 1t is one Of the highest
duties of this court to take care that
the prohibition shall neither be evaded
nor frittered away. Complete effect must
be given to 1t in all its spirit" The at
and void because in conflict with sections
and 10 of Article I Of the Constitution:
the legislation OF Virginia under which
her sovereignty Is now asserted Is null
and vol because in conflict with section
10 of Article Of the Constitution. The
practical dilemma is this:
In 1876 two parties to a quadrilateral
contract. protected by the contract clause
OF the Constitution-to wit. the United
cd tn
II without the assent of the other two
parties. by Withdrawing a large section
Of the consideration upon which the con-
tract was made. II that attempted re-
cession upon the part OF the United
States and Virginia is valid. then the
contract as a whole fails. Neither party
Is bound unless all are bound. II the
United States and Virginia. as a matter
Of law. actually annuled the quadrilateral
contract. then Maryland and the repre-
sentatives Of the nineteen proprietors can
Justly and legally claim every foot Of
land embraced in the limits Of the Dis
trict as now defined. II the retrocession
to Virginia is to stand. then the land
underlying the Capitol. the White House.
and the Treasury belongs either to Mary
land or the local proprietors by whom
II was granted. The nation can only be
protected against that result by Judg-
ment of the Supreme Court OF the United
States declaring the act OF retrocessiOn
Of 1s4s to be null and void.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Fortunately there is no real danger in
the foregoing Teductio ad horrible. The
title OF the United States to all the terri
tory within the District as originally de-
fined Is perfect by reason of the fact
that the act OF recession OF 1916 Is clearly
unconstitutional and void: OD because OF
the reasons set forth in the debates in
Congress at the time OF its passage: CgD
because of the reasons herein set forth
for the first time. What then. is the
remedy? A complete answer Is to be
found in the opinion or the supreme
Court in the case of the United States
VS.. Texas Q43 L. s, 62l-6fN. IN which II
was held: 0 That the Supreme Court
can. under the Constitution. take cognI-
nance OF an original suit brought by the
United States against a state 10 de-
termine the boundary between one or
the territories and such State: ~ that
the supreme Court has Jurisdiction TO
determine a disputed question OF boun-
dary between the United States and a
State; t3) that suit in equity begun
in the Supreme Court Is appropriate for
determining boundary between the
United States and one of the states.
The constitutional mandate that re-
quires the President to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed compels
him to ascertain and determine the limits
Of the territory over which they are TO
be enforced In his argument in United
States vs.. Texas the Attorney General or
the United States stated the matter IN
this form: The President in enforcing
the laws must determine over what terri
tory they are to be enforced" Carr vs.
United States. IS l.. :. SO; Foster vs..
Nielsen. Pet. J5: Cherokee Nation vs.
Southern Kansas r. Co. 10 Z. s.. 6S5D
Upon a kindred principle Of interna-
tional law all conflicts as to boundaries
with foreign States pertain in the
tinted States. TO the executive depart
ment OF the goveTnemnt whose solutions
of them will be accepted as final by the
Judiciary. tGarcia vs. Lee. l. Pet, Il5:
Williams VS.. Suffolk Ins. Co. Is Pet.
4lS; L. s vs.. Keynes. How. IT: In
re Cooper. IB L. =. iI2J In determin-
ing all questions OF boundary, whether
foreign or domestic. the initiative in tnis
country is vested IN the Executive act
ing alone. While he may advise with
Congress as/to the steps he may take
in asCertainsng boundaries. while execut-
ing the laws within the same, the Presi-
dent cannot surrender his exclusive
power to ascertain what they are As
a practical Illustration. ~ IN this matter
the President believes that Virginia Is in
unlawful possession of that portion OF
the District described In the act OF 1876.
IL Is his constitutional duty TO take care
that the laws be faithfulIy executed IN
that area. regardless of any Contrary
opinion the legislative department of the