The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1913-01-17
WOULD RETURN
TO THE DISTRICT
Committee Of Alexandra
County Citizens Asks Presi-
dent to Institute Action.
RETROCESSION INVALID
Hannis Taylor Speaks for Property
Holders of Former National Terri
tory-Taft Promises Consideration.

Suit to test the validity of the act OF
Congress of 1876, by which about one
half of the original territory of the Dis
trICt was retroceded to Virginia, may
soon be filed by Attorney General Wick
ersham for the United States against
the State of Virginia to set aside the
as unconstitutional and regain for the
District the lost land: as result of a
petition presented to President Taft yes
terday by a committee of influential citi-
Zens. The committee requested the At
torney General to bring such suit in the
United States Supreme Court for the re-
COvery of that part of the original Dis
trict of Columbia lying across the Po-
tomac River and now part of Alexandria
County. Va. The President promised the
committee to carefully consider its pc
tition.
President Taft gave close attention to
the presentation of the case and mem
;ers of the delegation carried away the
impression that the President had fol-
lowed with deep interest the argument
IN which Hannis Taylor, former Minister
10 Spain. representing the 1,lOO property
holders living in that section, outlined
the legal rights of their claim.
Represents Large Holdings.
The signers OF the petition represent
more than IS per cent of the property
holders OF the affected section.
Mr.. Taylor was accompanied to the
Johnson, John Joy Edison, DIR. p. NJ.
Rixey. Judge a. B. Cromwell, and J.
Benjamin Mattingly. In his presentation
Of the case, Mr. Taylor said in part:
This committee has been directed to
present to you this petition signed by
more than eleven hundred residents and
property owners within the limits Of the
so-called county of Alexandria, outside
the city of Alexandria. These petitioners
believe that the act of retrocession of
1886 which has deprived them, against
their wills, of the special benefits bestow-
ed by the government of the District of
Columbia, is unconstitutional and void.
And yet the Supreme Court of the United
States has held that. as national citi-
zens. they have no right whatever even
as taxpayers, to present to the courts
the unconstitutionality Il that law. That
court has held that the validity of the
act in question can only be tested in an
original suit brought by the United
States against the State of Virginia. The
bringing of that suit can only he ordered
by the President of the United States,
whose duty it is to see that the laws OF
the United States are faithfully executed
throughout the entire District as the
Constitution and the laws have defined IT.
Nearly one-half of the original area
of the District of Columbia was thrust
back within the jurisdiction of Virginia,
which. without the payment of any con-
sideration, has since governed It under a |
de factO regime. These petitioners have |
me TO study the matter and |
advise them as TO the constitutionality |
Of the act in question. After mature |
l have advised them that, |
in my humble judgment. it is null and |
void.
In arriving at this conclusion. I was |
comforted and sustained by the fact that |
tEo very eminent jurists had travelled |
already over the same path. and had |
reached the same result.
The two jurists mentioned by Mr.. Tay- |
Tor Were former Senator Haywood of
North Carolina and President Taft him