Evening star., 1921-11-07
THE ABOLITION j:
| OF WASHINGTON
n. E. Davis Points Out the
Meaning of the Statutes
Affecting Capital.
To the Editor Of The Star:


Affecting Capital.
To the Editor Of The Star:
have read with much interest the
statement Of Representative Ben
Johnson respecting the cities of
Washington and Georgetown. publish
ed in your issue of Friday, Novem-
Der (.
Referring to the act of February
81, 1871, creating the entire District
of Columbia into q government by
that name, Mr.. Johnson's statement
concludes as follows:
Nothing can be clearer than that,
the two city charters were repealed
and all Offices abolished. 1t would
be a strange city, indeed. without d
charter and without Offices.
The language of the act is so clear
that the purposes for which the names
and even the charters of the two
cities were to be continued were only
until the affairs of said cities. re-
spectively. and of said Levy Court
shall have been fully closed that
comment to n AXE their meaning more
clear is useless"
or forsets the difference between
city and its charter. A city in one
sense of the word, is a territory,
defined space of ground occupied by
inhabitants. or. as it is otherwise
defined, a large number of houses and
Inhabitants established in one place;
and in another sense. 1t is a political
subdivision of the state made for the
convenient administration of govern
ment. The charter of city is the
instrument investing the people
thereof with its local government 1t
to- al g. >sk o. &c
as territorial entity. but without
charter authorizing it's inhabitants to
govern themselves, az was once the
well known case with the city Of
Memphis, whose charter was Tor a
time taken from it. thereby tempor-
second sort, but it was still left
territorial entity. that Is to say,
city Of the first sort.
Territorial Entity Not Abolished.
This is just what happened to the
city of Washington through the ef-
feet of the act of June 21, 1871. ere
ating the government by the name of
the District of Columbia: the city of
Washington as a territorial entity
was not abolished, but as political
subdivision of the state. with its gov
ernment vested in its own inhabi-
tants, it did cease to exist
1t is difficult to see how any one
can fail to understand this in view
of the specific language of the act
referred to, which is, as quoted by
Mr.. Johnson, that the charters of
the cities of Washington and George
town shall be repealed on and after
the first day of June, A D., eighteen
hundred and seventy-one, and all ofh-
ces of said corporations abolished at
that date; the Levy Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia and all offices con-
\ L - us<1z
and after said first day of June, eigh-
teen hundred and seventy-one: but all
laws and ordinances Of said cities,
respectively, and of said Levy Court,
not inconsistent with this act, shall
remain in full force until modified
or repealed by Congress or the leg
islative assembly of said District:
| that portion of said District included
within the present limits of the city
of Washington shall continue to be
known as the city of Washington;
and that portion of said District in
cluded within the limits of the city
of Georgetown shall continue to be
known as the city of Georgetown"
etc.
A Failure to Distinguish.
And Mr.. Johnson's assumption that
the cities were so continued only for
specific purposes is due to his same
failure to distinguish between a city
as a place and a city as a political
subdivision above indicated, to which
latter, but not to the former, a char
| ter is essential: what has led Mr..
Johnson astray is the proviso in the
| act continuing 1.-The charters of said
cities severally and the powers of
said Levy Court" which charters and
powers are continued by the act, as
Mr.. Johnson says, until the affairs
of said cities, respectively, and OF
4 % n
| fully closed" meaning. as the act
distinctly shows. for the collection OF
debts due, the enforcement of exist
i ing contracts, the collection of taxes
accrued and remaining unpaid. the
collection of all claims against the
; forcement of all legal contracts
against the same, with the distinct
addition that no suit in favor of or
against said corporations, or either
of them, shall abate by reason of the
passage of this. act. but the same
| shall be prosecuted to final judgment
as if this act had not been passed"
| This is in exact analogy to the
i process of winding up a corporation
and appointing a receiver. to collect
dues to and to pay debts due by the
| corporation, as though it still exist
ed. until all such debts should be
settled.
| Georretoyyn a Part Of Washington.
| That this has no bearing whatever
upon the question of the continuance
| of the territorial entity Is surely too
obvious to require more than men
ton. and Mr.. Johnson is discreetly
| silent about the act of February !,
1895 (2S Stats. L.. 650). quoted by me,
which in the plainest terms declares
! that instead of being known by Its
| former name and title in law, the
city of Georgetown, as embraced
within the bounds referred to in the
act of February 81. 1871, creating the
territorial form Of government, and
the subsequent act Of June 20, 1874.
,abolishing that form of government
and substituting therefor the govern
ment by commission, shall no longer
be known by the name and title in
iIaw of the city Of Georgetown, but
the same shall be known as and shall
constitute a part of the city of Wash
ineton, the federal capital" How
ANYTHING can be made a part OF some
thing that does not exist is a meta
physical as we'll as a material Ques-
ton, which, perhaps, Mr.. johnson can
answer; certainly l cannot
| HENRY E. DAVIS.