davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
Congress Not Local
Legislature For the District.

In Cohens vs. Virginia. Wheaton
26O. It was urged upon the Supreme
Court OF the United States that IN
legislating for the District of Columbia
Congress acts not as the Legislature
of the Union, but as IA local legislature
of the District itself. But Chief Justice
Marshall, expressing the unanimous
opinion OF the court. held that there
was no merit in this Contention-thnt
Congress in lcgIslating for the District
of Columbia under the power OF eX-
elusive legislation given it by the Com
stitution "cX"rCisrS this particular
power like all ITS other puwcrs,' as
Inc legislature Of the nation
These decisions only comm M wha, the
Constitution implicA--that the p"op" Of
this District not only have NO power
to make their own laws. but that CON
gress cannot confer that power upon
them; ana that when Congress makes
our laws It does not do SO as the
representative of the District or its in
habtants, but as body acting for
all the people of the United States.
In Loughborough vs.. Blake. in 5th
Wheaton, 3l7. there was involved the
question whether. under the Sth section
of article ] of the Constitution, which
gives to Congress the power to lay
and collect taxes, duties, impOsts, and
eNCises," Congress could impose n direct
tax on the inhabitants Of the District
of Columbia 1t was urged on behalf
of the people of the District that the
power thus given TO Congress must
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
National Reserve for
Workshop of Nation.

Even taken by themselves these
expressions obviously Indicate that IL
was the clear contemplation Of those
engaged in establishing the Federal
Government that 1t should have as its
own stationary residence" to be
the seat of national business" I'm
oIher words. that there should be a.
national reserve fOI the work shop
or the nation. as the late senator In
gals happily characterized IL. And
the reasons advanced in the course
OF the discussion on the subject ara
strongly confrmatory Of this: for in
stance, that the seat of the General
Government should not be at nnv
city or place which was the seat OF
any Stalc government; that it should
not be any large CommerciuI civ:
that II should be "A fixed and exCll-
sive seat for the transaction OF iii,
national business. The outcome ~
The delbcrnrt"nS and action of the
constitutional convention produced
Just this result in the establishment
| of the District of Culumbia. tho nc.
cupatlOn of the trrritCrV OF ybirh
by comparatively few Citizons az
he United states Is. and ALWAYS has
been, mere incident to the location
| and operation of the governmental
| machinery upon this particular min
OF ground. But for the presence hare
OF that machinery the city of Wash
ineton never would have been. and
any settlement that would have oc.
cupi'd the ground w"uhl have at
best beN, MARYLAND town IT. in.
d"cd, there would have been onv
town "r settlement, soe!nm that
f"HrE"tGwn was already an "s-
taNlishcd settlement before the c,n-
atitu'ion was adopted or even con-
Ccivod
The State of Maryland having cedod
part OF tho required ten miles square
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
C0npeyances We're
For Special Trusts

Pursuant to this agreement. the pro
prietors did convey their several tracts
to Thomas Beall and John Mackal
CAN'T by deeds which recited that the
conveyances were to be for certain spe
THAT all the said lands hereby
bargained and sold, or such parts
thereof as may be thought necessary
or proper to be laid out. together
with other lands within the said
limits, for a Federal city. with such
streets, squares. parcels. and lots as
the President of the united states
tor the time being shall approve.
and that the said Thomas Beall and
John Mackall CAN'T, or the survivor
of them, or the heirs OF such sur
yivor, shall convey to the Commits
soners for the time being appointed
by virtue OF an act OF congress, en-
titled An act tor establishing the
temporary and permanent seat or
the Government OF the nited
States and their successors, for the
use of the United States forever all
the sa id streets and such or the SAID
squares. parcels. and lots, ns the
President shall deem proper Tor the
use OF the United States and that as
TO the residue Of the lots into which
the said lands hereby bargainei and
sold shall have been laid off and
divided that "A fair and equal division
OF them shall be made
Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant was
ttrst employed by Washington to pre-
mare the plan for the proposed city. IN
n letter from l.. Enfant lwho had an
impcrfect acquaintance with the Eng
iish languagcl. dated September II. l'$9
he said:
NO nation. perhaps, had ever be-
fore the opportunity offered them of
deliberately deciding on the spot
where their capital city should be
hxed or Of combining every neces-
sarv consideration In the choice or
situation, and. although the means
now within the power OF the country
are not such as to pursue the design
To any great extent, 1t will be OBJ
yious that the plan should be drawn
on such establishment which the in
crease of the wealth Of the nation
VIII permit 1t to pursue at any pc
rioj however remote
I.Enfant prepared plan. which was
modified hy his successors. Ma 'or An
drew t.llicott and James r. Dermott
4 COPY Of the E'licott man will be
found on page go Of volume IA ot
the reports Of the Supreme Court Of
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
Fee Simple of Streets
In Government Alone

''They uhe fathers) went even fur
ther. They went so far as to ar
range that the fee simple of the
streets OF the Federal city should
be exclusively and only in the Gov
ernment. And so far MS | know. II
owns the fee simple to every foot
OF the streets In 1t. We
could build block Of buildings all
the way from the western front of
our Capitol to the Treasury. filling
PENNSYLVANIA avenue from side To
side. II we chose to do so. because
We own every foot OF the ground
In 1871 the legislative assembly of the
District OF Columbia passed an aC,
declaring judgments obtained in the
courts OF this District liens on equitable
interests of the judgment debtor in real
estate in the District. Under the laws
of Maryland. which at that time eo>
erned the subject in this District, a
judgment bound the lands of the judg
6nt debtor only when he held an un.
incumbered interest therein.
In the case OF Roach VS.. Van Ris-
wick Macarthur and Mackey's Report
page I'D the Supreme Court Of the Dis
trict OF Columbia. sitting in genera
term. held that Congress under the
Constitution OF the United States has
no power to delegate general lcgiSlatiH
authority TO any local government OF
inc blStTlCt OF 'OluiuDEl, anu tldt 'Iie
act Of the legisrrlive assembly In qucs'
ton was therefore void.
And in Stoutenburgh vs.. lienntck t&
L. s.. 2iO. the Supreme Court OF the
United States In 1889 held that while
under the authority conferred upon
Congress- by the Constitution TO make
all laws which shall be necessary OF
proper to carry into execution" Its OK
elusive legislation In the District of Co
lumbia. Congress may constitute the
District "a body corporate for munici'
pal purposes" II can authorize su"h
body corporate to exercise only mu'
nicipal powers. The supreme Court II
the Stoutenburgh case acc )rdingly held
that an act Of the legislative asscmhl!
Of the District. requiring commercial
agents doing business in the District lc
take out and pay for license. was d
regulation OF interstate commerce. SO
far as it applied to persons soliciu le
the sale OF goods on behalf of indi'
viduals or FIR MS doing business outside
.r the District, and that 1t w's nr'
within the constitutional power OF Con
gI,ss to delegate to the local Legislature
authority TO make such q law.
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
Capital Intended As
Center of the Nations Life.

hhort the same time Mr. Borland
said in the House:
1T is entirely unlikely that
Congress would tolerate manufaC-
turing districts here with the
n.atsinE Of industrial population.
the uanrer OF strikes bOycotts,
loCllouts. etc. No one hut few
real estate agents could possibly
profit by the establishment OF
manufacturing industries here. In
all ether respects il would he
distinct and irrcpHrnble iisad-
vantage. WASHINGTON will be-
com" the center Of the nations
artistic, literary. and scientific
lire."
tn" stringent provisions Of the anti
smoke act of February y. ls!9 80 Stat.
50, would Of themselves keen away
most great mnmUf"' turing industries.
More significant stll are the statutes
OF May |, 1899, and June |. 1910. which
restrict the height Of buildings in pri-
vat" ownership not only within the
limits of the original city OF Washing
ton, but throughout Its present limits
embracing the entire District of Co.
lumba 40 Stat. 922; SO Stat, i52)
These acts expressly except buildings
Owned by the United States or by tho
municipal corporation Of the District.
:" rnr h"s this policy gone that by
section Of the act Of June |. 1910, owns
= - land uhu,iiUg on the Capitol
r'a2a In front ~ tho Union station NAV
not erect buildings thereon exceeding
eighty tee IN hcicht
Another striking illustration Of the
fact that Congress deals with the Dis-
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
Full Text of Brief
Filed By Citizens

The brief OF the Joint Citizens Com
mittee is in full as follows:
The last District appropriation act
contained the following provision:
That joint select committee
shall be appointed. consisting OF
three Senators. to be named by the
presiding officer of the Senate. and
three members of the House. to be
named by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives. whose duty 1t
shall be to prepare and submit to
proportion of the expenses OF the
Government of the District OF CO.
lumbia. or any branch thereof, in
cluding interest on the funded debt.
which shall be borne by said District
and the United states. respectively.
together with the reasons Upon
which their conclusions may be
based"
While this provision Of the act seems
to assume that the General Government
should contribute to lhe expenses ui
the District of Columbia and should
make that contribution a fixed proper
tion of those eXpenses-leaving 1t to
the joint committee to determine only
what that proportion shall. be-we have
thought 1t LSoper to present the grounds
upon which we contend:
First. That the United States should
contribute largely to the expenses OF
This District.
Second. That this contribution should
be fixed and definite proportion, and
Third. That that proportion should be
at least one-half.
These three propositions We will dis
cuss in their order.
The Government of the United
states should coatrissts largely -
The Washington times., 1915-10-20

cepted. the Terrific which forms the
present District Of Columbia. As the
territory which Virginia ceded for the
same purpose was retroccdcd In ls46. no
further reference will be madS In this
brief to that part Of the original Dis
trict.
1t is well known that the convention
OF lIs1 which framed the Constitution.
was led to provide for Federal ilis-
trict." from which the States should be
excluded and in which the authority OF
Congress should be single and supreme.
by tho fact that the Continental Con-
gress In lIS3 had been forced to leave
Philadelphia by the action OF n body OF
dissatisfied soldiers of tho Revolution.
who had marched to Philadelphia and
with threats Of violence demanded of
the Congress settlement Of claims which
We're due them. An appeal to tho au-
thoritics of the State Of Pennsvlvapa
brought the reply that the militia OF
that State could not be depended upon
to protect the Congress from such af-
fronts.
The proceedings OF the convention Of
1857 which led to the adoption of this
provision as 1t respects the District are
interesting In the extreme and equally
indicative OF the clear purpose Of the
convention In the premises The expert
cnCes Of the national authorities when
domiciled in Philadelphia. before the
adoption of the Constitution. having
convinced the entire convention. indi-
vidually and as body. of the necessity
of establishing a Federal district. dis
tinct in itself. and free from State con-
troll or obligation. to be devoted cxclu
slvely to the purposes Of the National
Government In process of creation. the
matter had the conventions serious con-
sideration.
Ihe discussions on the subject. which
Will be found scattered throughout
the proceedings. are substantially
epitomized in those OF July &c, which
may not inaptly be termed District
Day OF the convention. In the course
Of these discussions the protected
Federal District was thus variously
des iGnatcd: The seat OF the Cen
erai Government" the seat OF the
National Government" the National
seat. the seat Of national busi-
ness" and the central residence OF
the Government" In Pinckney's
draft of the proposed constitution n
was designated as the seat of Gov
eminent for the United states" and
in Hamilton's delineation OF the Con.
stitution II was described by him as
the seat of Government" In No. ~
OF the Fcderalist., Madison. who had
previously used the expression seat
OF national business described the
projected district as the stationary
residence of the Government" And
as is above seen. the Constitution as
adopted uses the designation seat
OF the Government OF the United
States"
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
How u. S. Holds Title to
Land In District,

Motley Young Uhe original pro-
prietor) and the successor TO his title
mad no property in the street, not
even the right TO insist that It
should be maintained as such"
The United States held It's title TO
the land over which II was laid out
for Its own use, and not In trust FOR
any person or for any purposes.'
In 1889. in the case Of Morris w.
United States. commonly called The
Potomac Flats Case" IA l.. S.. 1916.
this question of the ownership Of the
riparian rights. including the title to ac-
cretions along the Potomac river front
OF the city of Washington. was again
passed upon by the supreme Court.
Extensive hats. exposed when the tide
was out. had formed along the river
front. and among Vher questions in
NOlved In the case was whether these
flats and the wharfing privileges along
the river belonged to the owners OF land
along the river front. or to the United
states. After very thorough examina-
ton of the records and maps pertain
ing to the acquisition of the District OF
Columbia and the laying out of the city
Of " ashlngton, the court held that botn
tho fats and the riparian rights in
volved belonged to the General Govern
ment The court In its opinion again
referred 10 and approved the an Ness
cas-.
The fats which wern the subject Of
controversy in that case now form a
part OF Potomac Park
Thus the ownership OF highways in
that part of the present city of Wash
ingtOn which was included in the orig
inal plans is altogether different from
that interest which the public in other
cities acquires by the ordinary process
OF condemnation or dedication to the
public Use. In tho language of a dis
tinGuishcd member OF the House (Mr.
Garfield. on 18th OF June 1850:
The Washington times., 1915-10-20

the expenses Of the District Of
Columbia.
To the proper consideration OF this
subject. 1t Is necessary to review briefly
the events leading up to the creation OF
the District OF Columbia and the man.
ner in which the expenses OF the Ma
tional Capital have been borne since
the Government OF the United States
took formal possession of the District
In 1900.
Clause II of section 8 OF the Consti-
tuition of the United States provides
that Congress shall have power:
'To exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever, over such Dis
trict mot exceeding ten miles square)
as may, by Ccssion of particular ,
States. and the acceptance Of Con-
gress. become the seat OF the Gov
ernment of the United States. and
to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by the consent of
the Legislature Of the state In which
the same shall be. for the erection
Of forts. magazines. arsonals. dock
yards, and other needful buildings"
The Washington times., 1915-10-20

, the United States. The subsequent
changes which were made in the plan
OF the city before its final adoption have
no bearing upon any matter involved in
this discussion.
The act OF July .. 1890. directed that
on the first Monday In December. 1890.
the seat of Government of the United
Federal District.
The amondatory act OF April "a 1900
& Stat. 80. authorized the President
TO anticipate the removal Of the eXecu-
1--WE offices TO the District. and in May
Congress resolved to meet In Washing
ton on the third Monday OF November
following.
?, Accordingly. In Nav and June, 1900,
PRESIDENT Adams. with the department
olhcials came to the District and Con-
sress followed in November.
The city of Washington. according to
me hna established plans. comprised
some Gil acres. The United States took
4'i4' acres for the streets. avenues. and
reservations The remaining 1854 acres.
IN the form of lots in the several
SQUARES on the city plat. were equally
divided between the original proprictors
ana the United States. The proprietors
therefore. got back between one-sixth
and one-seventh of the lands which ihev
had surrendered. >''
me CSltemporaneous records leave
no doubt that all concerned in thpse
Transactions expected that from tho
bl ocEeds of the sales OF its share of
the lots, the Government would make
real highways OF the stIcvts and ave
hueS' which thus far existed on paper
only. '"'''
II Is not necessary at this point TO
snow now greatly tn" rropr rtors were
disappointed in this eXpcc,Ht on That
VIII suffcienfly appear in the official
reports Of cOngTe committees
Nhi'h are referred to below All the
records of those days point to the truth
or what was snid by Daniel Carroll,
one or the propr etorS (who owned the
lahd where the VIII te House and Mon
ument grounds now are) in his letter
Hated July "a. 1887. to the Mayor OF
The Washington times., 1915-10-20

and the cession having been accepted
President Washington. without any ex-
press provision Of law on the subject
proc ecd"d to lay out within the ceded
territory n Capital City. To that end
the proprietors Of the lands lying with
IN the boundaries OF Washington as
that city was afterwards first consti-
tuted were induced to enter into an
agreement with President Washington
which wns In part AZ follows:
We. the subscribers. In considera-
ton OF the great benefit we expect
to derive from having the Federal
city lGid off upon our lands. do
hereby agree and bind ourselves,
our heirs, executors. and admins
traitors. to convey in trust. to the
President of the United States or
commissioners, or such person or
persons as he shall appoint. by good
and sufficient deed In fee simple.
the whole of our respective lands
which he may think proper to in
clude within The lines of the Fed
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
District Free From State
Control or Obligation.

BY an act of Congress approved July
49, 1870 DIST Stat. 1907. as amended by
the act of March 3. 1891 Nst Stat. 2lD,
President Washington was authorized to
accept a district of territory not ex-
ceeding ten miles square. to he located
on the Potomac river. for the perma
nent seat OF the Government of the
United States"
Pursuant to the authority so given
the State OF Maryland Ceded to the
United states. and the President ac-
The Washington times., 1915-10-20
Unoccupied Lots Sold
BY Federal Government.

I'm answer to yours, ] fear tho
deeds will fully express the relin-
quishments OF right in the streets
to the Government. nevertheless
perfectly remember that the general
opinion was that SO great was the
The Washington times., 1915-10-20

cral CITY. for the purposes and on
the conditions following:
THE President shall have the sole
power of directing the Federal city
to b. laid of In what manner he
plcascs. lie may retain any num-
Der OF squares he may think proper
for public improvements. or other
public uses, and the lots only which
shall be laid of shall be a joint
property between the trustees on be-
half OF the public and each present
proprietor. and the same shall be
fairl, and equally divided between
the public and the individuals. as
soon as may bc, after the city shall
be laid ont.
For the streets the proprietors
shall receive no compensation, but
for the squares or lands In any form
which shall he taken for public
buildings or any kind Of public i'm
proVencnts or uses. the proprietors
whose lands shall bc 80 taken. shall
receive M the rate of twenty-five
rounds per acre, to he paid by the
public. The whole wood on the land
shall Dc the property of the pro-
prictors, but should any be desired
ty the President to he reserved or
left standing. the same shall he paid
fer by the public at just and rea-
sonalle valuation exclusive OF the
twenty-five pounds per acre, to be
paid for the land on which the same
shall remain"
The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1915-11-19
DEMOCRATIC REVENUE
LAW A FAILURE

Washington, Nov. IA, Especial cor
respondence) 1.-The Underwood tar
if law has never been an adequate
revenue producer, assertions of Demo-
cratic leaders and Democratic news
papers to- the contrary notwithstand-
ing. A study of the law from the rev,
enue standpoint, develops the follow
ing facts:
The Underwood tariff went into eff
feet Oct. a, 1913, so that the period
July to Oct. 3, fiscal year 1914, was
under Republican law, during which
time, despite unsettled business con-
ditions incident to the pending free
trade measure, a revenue of $88,6l7,-
Oo6 was realized, which Secretary Nc
Adoo boldly credited to the Under
wood law. Had the latter measure
been in effect during this period, with
its low average duty rates, it would
have yielded not more than So, OOO,-
600 of revenue, so it is entirely fair to
say that the Democratic law was ben
fitted by its predecessor In the sum OF
over $3l, 100000.
The income tax feature of the I'm
derwood law being an experiment,
the Democrats retained the Repub-
lican rates on wool up to December
|, 1913, on wooden goods to January
|. and on sugar to March |, 1914
These three products helped the I'm
derwood law out in the sum of $2D,-
287, 1854, or a total benefit from the
Republican law in round numbers, OF
$5l,750,00O. Republican efficiency In
the Post Office Department gave us
a surplus of $3,80000O, the first time
in the history of the Department that
surplus has been recorded. The
existence of this surplus was prompt,
" denied by the incoming Postmaster
General Mr.. Burleson, who in 1914
struggled it into the Treasury under
miscellaneous receipts. (See dali
Treasury statement June %, 1910.
Thus the total aid to the revenues
from Republican rates and law was
$s5,5sO,OOO.
The total ordinary receipts for the
fiscal year 1914 reported by Mr.. Nc
Adoo, were $734.343,700. Hobbling
alone, Democratic laws would have
produced $678,7o3,7 700. The total dis
bursements reported were $735, 49,
$40 Panama Canal disbursements $34,-
100000 included. To this should be
added the general deficiency bill,
which hlibustered over until the first
of July--$S, 900, 0O0-making total dis
bursements for the fiscal year 1914 OF
$74l ,3oS,3l6. 1t is quite clear, there
fore, that the Underwood tariff rates
in the first nine months of their opera
ton would have caused a deficit in
the Treasury of over $o2, 100000, or,
excluding Panama Canal disburse-
ments, $27,800,O00 except that it was
carried out on the crutches furnished
by the law which it superseded.
Month by month it was becoming
evident that larger and larger per-
centage of goods was taking advan-
tage of the free trade conditions oil
the Underwood law. Immediately
upon the declaration of war in Eu-
rope the Democrats introduced and
enacted the war revenue measure tc