Wednesday, February 9.
District of Columbia.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolutions of Mr. Bacon to recede to the States of Maryland and Virginia the District of Columbia.
Mr. Bayard hoped the committee would not agree to the resolutions. He did not believe that a constitutional power existed enabling the Government of the United States to recede the Territory. The Territory had been acquired by the direction and under the permission of the constitution. The constitution also allows the cession by particular States. When, therefore, gentlemen say Congress has the power to recede, he was at liberty to call upon them to exhibit that part of the constitution that conferred the power. He had looked over the constitution with a vigilant eye, and he could see nothing to this effect. Can it be done without power? Do gentlemen recollect that the Government of the United States is federative, and of course possessed of limited powers; and what is not delegated does not exist; and that there is an express provision that powers not expressly given shall not be assumed by implication? It was difficult to point out a non-entity. If gentlemen contend for an entity, they should distinguish it. If Congress have the power to recede this Territory, they have also the power to recede the others, the Indiana and Mississippi Territories. It is an extremely different thing to receive a cession and to recede it after it is received. Congress has the power to do the one, but not the other. How can the retrocession be made? Gentlemen say, by law. That law may be repealed. If receded, what would be the situation of the Territory? It could be no affair of contract. For a contract cannot exist without a consideration. Though, on the cession, there was a consideration, in receding there would be none. Would there be a power in Virginia and Maryland, if receded, to prevent a resumption? Such a measure showed but little respect for the people of the Territory. As far as he knew the sentiments of the people, it was not their wish to be receded. They were willing to live under the protection of Congress. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has called them slaves. They may not thank him for the appellation. If they were slaves, there must be some corollary; and if so, we must be their tyrants. But they are not slaves; they are children, over whom it is not our wish to tyrannize, but whom we would foster and nurture. Are we, in the character of Representatives of the United States, to be considered as their tyrants, because they are not immediately represented here? We ought not to decide this question until the people express their desire to return to the States.
But there is a more serious consideration relative to the people of the Territory. It is proposed to recede the District to Maryland and Virginia. Once take that step, and what obligation was there in Congress to remain here? He felt there was none. The obligation to remain arises, in a great measure, from the cession, and by destroying that, you extinguish the sense of the obligation to stay. This may be the object of gentlemen. A number of the measures lately proposed appeared to have that tendency. One motion had been made to concentrate the public buildings. Violate one stipulation of the Government, or disappoint a reasonable expectation that had been excited by the measures of the Government, and the ruin of hundreds follows. Now, a motion is made to recede. Combine these two operations. Unfix the Capitol, and recede the District, and, believe me, Congress will soon take wings and fly to some other place. It had been truly remarked, on a similar occasion, by those interested, though these things may be sport to you, they are death to us. Not a motion of this kind had been made, or could be made, that did not depreciate the interests of the place, and frustrate the object professed. By such means, our accommodations will be impaired, all enterprise be subdued, and industry languish. He hoped, therefore, that the House, by a decided vote, would reject these resolutions, and put all similar ones to sleep.
Mr. Gregg said he had expected that this question would have been decided by a silent vote. He, for his part, had no intention of having troubled the committee with any observations of his on the subject, but as other gentlemen had seen proper to enter into a discussion of it, he would beg the indulgence of the committee while he assigned, as concisely as possible, the reasons that would influence his vote. Having been a member of the Legislature at the time the act was passed for assuming the jurisdiction of the Territory, he foresaw pretty clearly most of the difficulties in which we are now involved by that act, and therefore had given it his opposition in every stage of its passage. A majority of the Legislature, however, at that time, entertained a different opinion, and made the assumption. From that moment he had considered a contract to be fully complete and ratified between the States of Maryland, Virginia, the people of the Territory of Columbia, and the Government of the United States. That contract he considered as of permanent obligation, not to be done away, but by the unanimous consent of all the parties.
Mr. Smilie could not agree either with the gentleman from Delaware or with his colleague (Mr. Gregg) on the constitutional question. We had a power to accept the cession, or not to accept it; from which necessarily resulted the power of recession. Instead of arguing as the gentleman from Delaware, he would call on him to point out in the constitution the prohibition. His colleague talked of a moral obligation to keep the Territory. This might exist, if it were proposed to force this Territory on the States without their consent. The gentleman seems to have taken offence at the expression which had fallen from him of slaves. For his part, he had never been accustomed to courtly language, but to the expression of his ideas plainly and openly as he conceived them. He certainly had not used the expression with any intention to treat the people of this Territory with disrespect; but to express his regret at the degraded situation of those who were formerly in possession of the full rights of citizenship. The gentleman seems also offended at the epithet of tyrants applied to us.
Mr. S. would ask the gentleman from Delaware, if ever he knew a government possessed of unlimited power, who had not abused it. This was the condition of this Government, which he hoped, however, if continued, would be moderate. He had expected that gentlemen opposed to the retrocession would have shown the benefit to be derived to the United States from retaining the jurisdiction. If there were none, it was useless and dangerous, inasmuch as it could only be done at the expense of the rights of the people. He was surprised yesterday at the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Dennis,) that this measure would deprive twenty thousand people of their rights. How could this be, when they had no right to be deprived of? You may give them a charter. But of what avail will this be, when Congress may take it away at any moment? They would continue for ever to be ultimately governed by a body over whom they had no control. Mr. S. concluded by again observing that he had always thought the assumption wrong; but that he had no idea of connecting that consideration with the removal of the Government. It could have no influence on his mind. He would go farther, and say that he had no idea of removing; nor did he believe they could remove.
Mr. Randolph said that, whatever reasons might be advanced on the ground of expediency against the adoption of the resolution, he wished to say a few words on the constitutional objections which had been offered to them. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) told us, on a very late occasion, that the power to create involved the power to destroy; and although I may not be willing to adopt this maxim in all the latitude in which it was urged by that gentleman, I have no hesitation in averring my belief that Congress possess the right, with the assent of these States, respectively, to cede the several portions of this territory to Maryland and Virginia. Nor, in my opinion, does this doctrine militate against that construction of the constitution, which regards that instrument in the light of a limited grant of power. In this construction I heartily concur with the gentleman from Delaware, or rather, if he will permit me to say so, I am glad to find he agrees with me, as I have retained my opinion, whilst he seems to have changed his. I readily admit that Congress possesses no power but that which is devolved on them by the constitution, explicitly, or which is evidently included in, or deducible from its plain provisions. The constitution nowhere gives Congress the express power of repealing laws; but the repeal of laws is essentially connected with the power of passing them, as, in this case, the right to recede is involved in the right to accept the cession. The parties to this compact are the United States, of the one part, and the States of Maryland and Virginia, of the other. We speak the voice of the United States, and, among others, of Maryland and Virginia, in their confederate capacity. The Legislatures of those States answer for them in their individual capacity. If all these parties are agreed to revoke their act, I wish to know who is to dissent to it, or what obstacle can prevent its being rescinded?
Mr. R. said, that he was of the number of those who voted against assuming the jurisdiction of this territory. He did it from a predilection for those principles in which the American Revolution originated; from the firm belief that men ought not to be bound by laws in whose formation they had no influence. It was the violation of that principle, and not the extent to which it was carried, which laid the foundation of our independence. For, let it be remembered that the demand of Great Britain went only to a peppercorn; but that we disdained the admission of so odious a doctrine, and commenced a determined and successful resistance. But it is denied that this territory is in a state of slavery, because, says the gentleman, it implies that we are tyrants. The term slavery, sir, excites in the mind of man an odious idea. There are, however, various species of this wretched condition. Domestic slavery, of all others the most oppressive; and political slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any community is divested of the power of self-government, and regulated by laws to which its assent is not required, and may not be given. Nor have I ever before understood that slavery, particularly of the last description, necessarily implied tyranny, although it too frequently is productive of it. But, so far from being slaves, the people within this territory are, it seems, our children, who are to experience every indulgence at our hands. Sir, the form of government, such as has been described, however mild and beneficent it may be in its administration, places those subjected to it in a state of political slavery, and they are as completely divested of self-control as the infant who is dandled on the knee of its parent. As to the existence, then, of this species of slavery, it mattered not whether the people within the limits of this District were regarded as the favorite son, and feasted on the fatted calf, or were exposed to the cruel rigor of a step-mother.
An idea had been held out from a very respectable quarter that this District might, in time, become a State. As to Congress, what difference will they find between being under the jurisdiction of the State of Columbia, or the State of Maryland. But, if this objection were removed, it is impossible that this territory can become a State. The other States can never be brought to consent that two Senators and, at least, three electors of President, shall be chosen out of this small spot, and by a handful of men.
The constitution seems to have intended, by its provision on this subject, to guard the General Government against the undue influence of any particular States wherein it might sit. An insurrection in Philadelphia is mentioned by some gentleman as having given rise to this clause in the constitution. The constitution, no doubt, had a wise end in view, but it has failed in the means of attaining it. No man has a higher respect than myself for the talents of the framers of that instrument. But let it be remembered, that they were making a great experiment, and to have failed in but a single object, is the highest proof of their wisdom. The physical force of this small District would prove but a poor defence against the aggression of large and powerful States. Happily, our security is more amply provided for; it results from the command which has been given us over the sword and the purse of the Union. Our protection is not in a mathematical line—which would oppose but a feeble resistance to an invading foe. But let gentlemen ask themselves, why the inhabitants of this District should be less formidable if disposed to insurrection because under our own jurisdiction? Look at Paris! was the insurrection of the fourteenth of July, which humbled into the dust the ancient monarchy of France, the effect of a want of jurisdiction; of a want of power in the Government over the lives and fortunes of the people? Did the city afford the Government a defence? No, it was in insurrection. Did the military send its aid? On the contrary, it joined the insurgents. What was the fact at Philadelphia? That Congress was insulted by its own troops. Would the civil jurisdiction of the town have repelled the bayonet? No, it was not in parchment to afford this defence. It has left us an awful lesson against standing armies; and if we shall ever be so infatuated as to multiply armies about us, we may rely in vain on the lines of circumvallation which the limits of our exclusive jurisdiction form. The constitution, therefore, has failed in its endeavor to give to Congress any other security than that which public opinion and the command of the national resources afford.
But, whilst I have no doubt on the subject of our constitutional right, I am opposed to the resolution on the ground of expediency. It appears to have disseminated a great alarm among the people of our immediate neighborhood. At a proper time, when great unanimity can be obtained, it may be carried into effect. If now passed, it is irrevocable; and I have no indisposition to give the question the most mature deliberation, and to give it a fair operation on the public mind. I could wish, indeed, to see the people within this District restored to their rights. Men in such a situation are, as it had been wisely and eloquently said, fit instruments to enslave their fellow-men. This species of Government is an experiment how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights; an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But, inasmuch as it has been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and as, at some future time, its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am disposed to vote against the resolutions. I view them as a fatal present to this House, although I respect the motives in which I believe them to have originated; as tending to disunite those who ought ever to act in concert; and I have no hesitation on a question of expediency to declare my disposition to concede something to the wishes and fears of those around me. In their present shape, at least, I shall therefore vote against the resolutions.
Mr. Eustis was opposed to the resolutions, for the reasons which had been stated, and for other reasons not mentioned, though they might have occurred to the minds of gentlemen. He thought it right to express a difference of opinion with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) on an important question, the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to the ten miles square. He was not prepared to pronounce the provision of the constitution on this subject deficient or unwise. It rather appeared to him to be founded in the nature of the Government. A Government on parchment, and without force, was no Government at all. It had been stated this provision grew out of a transaction at Philadelphia, and asked what dependence was to be placed on a military force when that force was itself the aggressor? But that transaction suggested a different result. Had the militia been well equipped and ready for service, and under the immediate control of Congress, would the military force have been suffered to overawe them? This very case furnished an argument for investing Congress with the complete command of the militia force of the territory, to screen them from insult, and to protect them from the application of force that might destroy deliberation. They had already taken a course calculated to prove the soundness of this mode of protection. Their laws had recognized the militia of the territory; and some measures had been taken to organize them. The militia was the physical force Congress must rely on. Suppose that militia were under the command of Maryland, and Congress was about to pass a law obnoxious to that State. Suppose the militia of Maryland to be mutinous, and to surround these walls. Must you resort to Maryland for protection, and wait on her measures? No; the situation of the territory and your immediate power over the militia must furnish you with the means of protection. He therefore thought it one of the best provisions of the constitution, to submit the physical force near the Government to its direction.
Mr. Southard rose only to make one observation, which had been touched on but lightly in the course of the debate. It appeared to him that when Congress assumed the exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square, they had, in the first instance, entered into a contract with the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. He had no doubt that, if the contract had ended here, they might, with their consent, make a retrocession. The second step, however, taken, was a contract between the agents of Government and the proprietors, in order to obtain the soil. This contract appeared to him to be solemn and binding. In entering into the contract, the proprietors gave the General Government sites for the public buildings, and half the residue of the land within the city plot. He conceived that this was a contract founded on express stipulations that Congress should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The proprietors had no idea, at the time they made the contract, that their property would be retroceded and the Government had since received more than one million's worth of real property which they now enjoyed. He would ask, whether a retrocession, under such circumstances, would not have a retrospective effect, and impair those obligations which the United States were bound to observe? For this reason, he thought a retrocession improper, as it would be a violation of contract with the people of the territory. It appeared to him that, while they were satisfied, the General Government ought to be satisfied.
Mr. Varnum doubted the reality of the observation of the gentleman from New Jersey. He suspected there was no such contract in existence. It was not the interest of the Government of the United States to do any thing that would injure this District. He therefore supposed that every gentleman who voted on this occasion, would act for the interest of his country. If he thought it possible for Congress to legislate for the territory, he should have no objection to retaining the jurisdiction. But, when he considered that Congress were appointed to legislate on great objects, and not on minute local concerns, he did not think them competent to legislate for the persons situated in the Territory of Columbia. He did not know whether, if the jurisdiction was retained, it would not be proper to indulge the citizens with a territorial legislature. But to this the people themselves object. Virginia objects to a union with Maryland. There were, manifestly, hostile interests which could not easily be united. And if there shall be a territorial legislature, still Congress has a right over their acts. Whether this was the fit time to retrocede the territory he did not know; but he believed the time would come when the citizens of the territory will be in favor of it.
Mr. Smilie stated the circumstances of the case at Philadelphia, which had been so often alluded to by gentlemen. At the close of the late war there had been a mutiny among the troops, who had surrounded Congress. Not a drop of blood had, however, been spilt. This was the mighty incident of which so liberal a use had been made. He would ask whether, in countries over which the Government had complete jurisdiction, worse things had not happened? He would ask, whether this menace of Congress were to be compared with the mob of Lord George Gordon in a country over which the Government had an entire jurisdiction.
The question was then taken on the first resolution, for receding to Virginia the territory originally attached to that State, and lost—ayes 22.
When the question was taken on the second resolution, and lost, without a division.
The committee rose, and reported their disagreement to the resolutions.
The House immediately took up their report.
Mr. Nicholson called for the yeas and nays.
Mr. Randolph said, as he believed the House incompetent to legislate for the people of Columbia; as he believed the interests of the several parts of the territory were as hostile as any in the Union, as it was manifest there was an Alexandria, a Georgetown, and a city interest; and even, within the city, a Capitol-hill interest, and a President's-house interest—which were irreconcilable; he should vote for the amendment of his colleague, (Mr. Dawson.) To attempt to legislate for the District was, in effect, to constitute the chairman of the committee, or, at any rate, the committee itself on the affairs of the territory, the Solon or Lycurgus of the place. It was well known that the indolence of the other members, or their indifference, inseparable from the situation in which they were placed, would prevent Congress from legislating with a full understanding of the objects before them. He, therefore, thought it expedient to retrocede all the territory, excepting the City of Washington. This disposition of the territory would leave entirely untouched the question which arose from the interest of individuals who had made purchases of property under the faith of Congress retaining the jurisdiction. It was probable that, in such event, a corporation might be established in the city that would answer the ends of Government, without two-thirds of the time of the National Legislature being consumed.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on concurring with the Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first resolution, and carried—yeas 66, nays 26, as follows:
Yeas.—Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, John Campbell, John Clopton, John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, Peter Early, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, William Jones, Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, Israel Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.
Nays.—Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William Hoge, James Holland, Michael Leib, James Mott, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford, David Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.
The second and last resolution to which the Committee of the Whole reported their disagreement, being twice read, in the words following, to wit:
Resolved, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of the Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United States by the said State of Maryland, by an act passed the nineteenth day of December, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, entitled "An act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington;" provided the said State of Maryland shall consent and agree thereto:
The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the affirmative.[77]