Evening star., 1941-08-17
The Lost Territory

fors the Capital that portion of the
District which was retroceded to Vir-
ginia in 1846 has more substance
from legal standpoint at least
than commonly might be supposed.
Virginia's senior Senator, Carter
Glass, has dismissed the plan as
foolish notion" and from a purely
political point of view there may be
much in what he says. But if the
question be approached from the
standpoint Of law rather than poll
tics, Senator McCarran is not pur-
suing will-o'-the-wisp.
1t will come as no surprise to pres
ent-day Washingtonians to learn
that early agitation for retrocession
of the Virginia portion of the Dis
trict resulted from popular indigna-
tion at the manner in which Con-
gresS was neglecting municipal af-
fairs.
AS early as 1910, the editor of the
Alexandria Daily Gazette wrote that
the people of his community felt that
Congress could not or would not at
tend to their needs, and urged the
setting up of a territorial form of
government providing a legislature
that would be more sensitive to the
wants of the people. This plan fell
through, but the seeds of discomfort
spread until, in 1846, Congress, at the
solicitation of the people of Alexan-
dria, passed the Retrocession Act.
Pleading for passage of the act, Rep
resentative Hunter of Virginia "de-
picted in glowing colors" the blight"
that had fallen on Alexandria by
reason of her dependence on the
general government, and charged
Congress with responsibility for 'her
declining commerce, her premature
decay and the deSolation which had
come upon her" In view of the
present population of this lost terri
tory of the District, it Is interesting
to note that Congress made the
Retrocession Act contingent upon
approval by a majority of the people
of Alexandria County, including the
city, and that it was approved by a
vote of 1853 to 222.
The constitutionality of the retro
ceSsion was challenged in 1875 by a
citizen of Alexandria who questioned
the authority of Virginia to collect
taxes from him. The case went to
the Supreme Court, but that tribunal
avoided the constitutional question,
holding that since neither Virginia
nor the United States was challeng-
ing the act of Congress, the indiVid
ual complainant was eStopped from
raising the point. In this litigation"
the court said, I'VE are constrained to
regard the de facto condition of
things which exists with reference to
the County of Alexandria as conclu-
sive of the rights of the parties be-
fore u.s." That might seem to imply
that the court would have felt differ
emily had the United States been the
complaining party.
The matter was revived again in
1910, when Senator Thomas H.
Carter had prepared an opinion on
the constitutional issue. This opin-
ion, holding the act of retrocession
to have been unconstitutional,
rested on two grounds. First, that
Congress, having accepted the ceded
territory as a seat of government,
lacked any further constitutional
power to retransfer any portion of
the District. And, second, that since
the original cession of territory
amounted to a quadrilateral contract
among Virginia, Maryland, nineteen
local proprietors and the United
States, the State of Virginia could
not lawfully assert jurisdiction over
the retroceded area which would
amount to an impairment of the
original contract.
Whatever the merits of this opin-
ion, it is significant that in his an
nual message that same year Presi-
dent Taft urged upon Congress the
Importance of acquiring for the
District at least part of the retro
ceded territory, preferably that
"sparsely settled" portion now known
as Arlington County. President Taft
did not attempt to pass judgment on
the constitutional question, but he
indicated his belief that, while Vir-
ginia would not agree to return
Alexandria, ali arrangement might
be worked out for restoring to the
District the sparsely populated areas
near the Potomac River.
There is no reason to suppose now
| that Virginia would consent to the
restoration of populous Arlington
County, but there is, nevertheless,
one way in which the issue could be
settled. That is through an original
| suit by the. United States in the
| Supreme Court to determine the
proper boundary between the District
and Virginia Except for the political
obstacles, there is no reason why
Senator McCarran's plan should not
be pointed in this direction and car
ried forward until the question Is
settled once and for all.