Evening star., 1924-07-20
SURVEY OFD. C.. BOUNDARY
MAY RENEW OLD DISPUTE
Right of Congress to Retrocede Land
Granted by Virginia Has Long Been
Matter of Controversy.

true now of many thousands of men
of voting age in Washington city, a
number constantly increasing with
the growth of the Capital. Further
more. that condition was fully un-
derstood when this territory was
selected and set apart 10 become
the seat of government. 1t is a con-
dition incident to the district set
apart under the Constitution to be
under exclusive legislation of Con-
gress"
Maryland Sought Land.
It was the influence of George
Washington that had most to do with
| the locating of the limits of the Dis
| trict of Columbia in the center of
Alexandria County and through Alex
andria, according to historians. By
proclamation in 1871 Washington
established the first corner of the
square which was to mark the bound
aries of the seat of government by
designating a point just below Alex
andria ito fix the beginning of said
four lines of experiment." Students
of the subject have claimed that this
| proclamation of the Father of His
Country fixed a starting point not in
! harmony with the intentions of Con-
gress, and that the inclusion of Alex
andria in the District was contrary
to the original purpose of the act
setting aside site for the seat of
| government.
Dissatisfaction of the residents of
the ceded portion of Maryland and of
int hot oh
tions became apparent as early as
| 1903, when property owners in old
| Georgetown succeeded in having a
| bill introduced in Congress providing
| for retrocession of the Maryland con-
| tribution. 1t was Overwhelmingly
| defeated. Maryland renewed its ef-
| fcrts to regain her original territory
the following year and also in 1918
and 1884.
County Residents Protest.
| 1t was the citizenry of the town
| of Alexandria which started the
movement toward retrocession in Vir-
ginia- Two principal reasons were
put forward in support of the move
ment: First, that the Federal gov
| eminent had established itself firmly
on the Maryland side of the river
and was not making use of Virginia's
offering. and, second, that residents
| of Alexandria were deriving no bene-
| fits from the change, but were. on the
| contrary, suffering the great handi-
cap of losing the rights of citizenship
they had previously enjoyed in the
presidential elections.
The various petitions, memorials
and meetings of protest eventually
led to the passage in 1876 of the act
retroceding the Virginia portion of
the District
The act, apparently, was pushed
through Congress at the insistence
mainly of the Alexandrians. Resi-
dents of the county at large appear
ed to oppose retrocession and they
even went so far as to draw up
petition to the Virginia Legislature
"solemnly and respectfully" protest
ing against the act. The reasons for
protest included charge that the
agreement to retrocede was reached
in secret meeting, without consent
of the residents of the county at
large; that the Legislature was mis-
lU1OIIHeu dS III lilc dCNudl W VI
the people of the county, and that
the act was hostile to the spirit and
provisions of the Constitution.
| Question ConstitutionaIity.
The question of the constitution
ality of the act of 1916 has been dis
cussed by legal authorities in the
past, with supporters of both sides
presenting strong arguments. In 1873
an effort was made to get a decision
! on the question from the United
| States Supreme Court in connection
with a tax suit brought forth as
test case. The court, however, did
not take a stand on the constitution
ality of the act.
Again, in 1896 the constitutionality
question popped up once more. this
time before the Senate District COM
mittee, of which Senator Mcmillan at
that time was chairman. At the in
stance of Senator Mcmillan the Sem
ate adopted a resolution asking the
Attorney General for an opinion.
Attorney General Harmon in
lengthy reply reviewed the incidents
leading up to the contribution and
subsequent restoration of the Vir
ginia portion, but carefully refrained
from complying with the literal
| wording of the resolution of the
Senate with regard to giving a def
mite opinion about constitutionality.
In 1902 a joint resolution directing
the Attorney General to take the
necessary steps to determine whether
the act of retrocession was constitu-
tional or not was introduced in both
| houses of Congress and referred to
committees. The judiciary commit
tee of the Senate reported adversely
on the proposition on the ground that
it would be inexpedient, even if pos
sible. to open up the controversy
again without the consent of Vir-
ginia-
offered Plan in 1908.
Mr. Casselman, in 1908, put forward
plan for the District to regain part
| of the Virginia site without stirring
| up trouble among the Alexandrians.
He proposed that the property al
ready taken over by the federal gov
ernment be taken as nucleus for a
section formed on the Virginia shore
by drawing a straight line from the
mouth of Four Mile Run to its ir.er-
section, with the old line near the
theological seminary. This line would
restore the shape of the District 20
a parallelogram and would give the
District all of Arlington County ex-
cept the small corner extending from
Alexandria to Four Mile Run.