Evening star., 1937-09-21
ATTACK PROPOSED
ON OLD LAND ACT.
Seal Doubts Legality of Ac-
tion Receding Territory.
to Virginia.

declared today that If the administra-
tion desires to have Alexandria and
Arlington County restored to the Dis
trict to make possible unified metro
politan area, the Government could
attack the constitutionality of the act
by which the territory was receded
to Virginia in 1846.
While questioning the practicability
OF the plan advanced in the report of
the National Resources Committee,
made public yesterday. Seal said he
believed the constitutionahty Of the
retrocession might be attacked sue
cessfully in the Supreme Court. The
late Chief Justice William Howard
Taft. it was said. doubted the validity
of the act Of September 7, lS46, al
though the Supreme Court itself has
never directly passed on the issue.
Position of President Taft.
1t was President Taft, in 1910, who
recommended to Congress that the
strip in Virginia from the Highway
Bridge to the Palisades of the Potomac
be brought into Federal control. Seal
said that the Taft plan then involved
acquisition of the land for park pur-
poses and distinctly omitted Alexan-
dria as having no particular advantage.
Taft had gone to far, he said, as to
confer with the Virginia delegation
in Congress who thought the Virginia
legislature might agree to enlarging
the Federal jurisdiction.
Seal believed the proposal made by
the National Resources Committee
would have to involve fixing of boun-
dairy lines by both Virginia and Mary
land and for that reason he brought
up the question Of constitutionality
bearing on the Virginia retrocession.
LAS matter of fact in 1875" Seal
said, "the constitutionality of the retro
cession was attacked. 1t was claimed
that taxes we're collected illegally in
the area retroceded to Virginia.
THE Supreme Court said: The State
| of Virginia is de facto in possession
of the territory in question. She has
| been in possession and her title to
possession have been undisputed. More
| than quarter century has since
| elapsed. She does not COM
| plain of the retrocession. The
| United States does not complain of
| the retrocession. The United
States has not objected. Both par
| ties to the transaction have been and
| still are entirely satisfied"
Question Declared Sidestepped.
Seal said the Supreme Court side
stepped the question of constitution
ality The plaintiff was estopped from
| raising the point of validity. He could
not, under the circumstances. the Su-
preme Court held, vicariously raise a
question, nor force upon the parties to
the compact an issue which neither of
| them desired TO make.
However, lawyers have gone into the
question of the validity of the act of
retrocession, and Seal ventured the
opinion that the way was open TO the
Federal Government to attack it if
the United States. as one party to the
compact, desires to end it,
In 1910, he said, the late Hannis
Taylor, one of the leading members
of the District and American bar,
submitted an opinion upon the ques-
ton. at the request of Senator Thomas
H. Carter of Montana, in which brief
he attempted to show that the retro
cession was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court did not pass
upon the constitutional question di-
rectly," Seal said "All the Supreme
Court did was TO say that the plaintiff
could not force upon the parties to the
compact an issue which none of them
desired to make"
Opinion in Taylor Brief.
The Taylor brief pointed out that
four parties entered into a quadrilat-
eral contract which passed, upon its
execution. under the protection of
section 10 Of Article 1 of the Consti-
tuition. which provides that no State
shall pass any bill of attainder, ex
post facto law. or law impairing the
! obligations of contracts"
In this case there can be no ques-
tion that the quadrilaterial contract
was executed between the States of
Virginia, Maryland, the 10 proprietors
and the United States. Taylor claimed
and that such contract passed under
the protection clause of the Constitu-
ton, before the District of Columbia
came into existence, for the simple and
conclusive reason that the very exist
ence of such District was the result of
the complete execution of sub con-
tract
Therefore, the brief held, the legis-
lation of Virginia under which her
sovereignty is now asserted is null and
L Ao,1 as<A.u