October, 1814.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. The House resumed the consideration of the resolution declaring it expedient at this time to remove from the City of Washington.

H. OF R.

in the exercise of its duty, might bring on the 'National Councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy."

' by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted, and its proceedings be interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the Mr. PEARSON addressed the House as follows- 'General Government on the State comprehendMr. Speaker: I very much fear the House willing the Seat of the Government for protection be ill requited for their indulgence in acceding to an adjournment yesterday at my instance. This apprehension is heightened by the circumstance, that it has fallen to my lot to enter the lists with an adversary so powerful, so justly dis-' tinguished, as the honorable gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. STOCKTON.) The odds are, indeed, awful. My reliance is in the justice of my cause, and the candid and liberal judgments of those who hear me. I must, however, be permitted to say, that the argument of the honorable gentleman from New Jersey, (whom I have so often heard with conviction and delight when engaged in a better cause,) has tended to confirm rather than disturb the opinions I entertain on the question submitted for our decision.

The insulated proposition before us is, whether it be expedient or inexpedient for Congress to remove the Seat of the General Government from its present abode to some other place for a limited time. The specious garb which envelopes this proposition hides from the superficial eye much of its real deformity. It is our right and our duty to strip it and analyze it with that accuracy due to its importance-with that care which is demanded by a sacred regard for the national faith, the national interest, and above all the preservation of the union of these States.

Perhaps few articles in our Constitution have marked more fully the wisdom and foresight of those illustrious men who framed that charter of liberty, than the provision in the 8th section of the 1st article, which says, "Congress shall exer'cise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatso' ever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles 'square) as may, by cession of particular States ' and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States," &c. The policy of this power in Congress is as manifest as the freedom and independence of its sessions, its members and deliberations are essential. That this sentiment may not rest on my authority alone, I beg leave to enforce it by an authority which will not be disregarded by gentlemen on this side of the House, with whom in general I have the satisfaction to think and to act, but many of whom I regret to find on this occasion embodied against me. The authority alluded to, is that excellent exposition of the Constitution entitled The Federalist. This authority will not be objected to by the other side of the House, when they are informed that the extract I am about to read is the production of the present Chief Magistrate.

In considering the section of the Constitution to which I have referred, this author says: "The 'indispensable necessity of complete authority at 'the Seat of Government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legis'lature in the Union, I might say of the world,

For those reasons, and many other considerations which will suggest themselves to every reflecting man, Congress were vested with the power, and it became their duty, to establish the Seat of the General Government in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. This power has been exercised, this duty has been performed. The subject demanded and received the attention due to its importance by the first Congress which assembled after the adoption of the Constitution. Many of the members of the first Congress had also been members of the Convention, and may well be presumed to have best understood the powers given and duties enjoined by that sacred instrument which they had contributed to form. It would be little less than impious to accuse them of violating their own act; it would be the extreme of presumption to charge them with ignorance as to the limitation of powers which they themselves had prescribed.

By reference to the Congressional Register of 1789, it will be found that the first Congress had scarcely assembled before their attention was peculiarly directed to the important subject of Iccating the permanent Seat of the General Government in the mode pointed out by the Constitution. Those friends of union well knew the necessity of this power, and its inevitable tendency to bind faster and faster the members of this political association, some of whom were but feebly knit together, and the cement of the whole yet soft and infirm. Every effort was therefore essential to give a heart to this body, from which its several members would derive support, strength, and confidence. This great object was to be effected by embracing the earliest opportunity to establish the permanent Seat of the General Government on principles of justice and equality; having a due regard to the extent, population, and convenience of all the States; regarding, at the same time, the progressive increase of our Western settlements, the Atlantic navigation, and a convenient intercourse with the Western country. Upon these principles, it was resolved by the first Congress to fix the permanent residence of the Government.

It will be recollected by the House that, in the course of my remarks the other day, I referred to the speeches of almost every distinguished member of the first Congress in relation to this subject, from which it appeared that not one individual member questioned the Constitutional right of Congress to establish permanently the Seat of the Government. On the contrary, every member knew and admitted they were then legislating on

H. OF R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

a question not so important to themselves at that moment, but which was deemed vitally important to the perpetuity of the Union, as it would be binding for ages yet to come. With this understanding, and for this object, we find the word permanent emphatically used in every resolution, in every act, in every speech, syllable, or letter on this subject. It is true, in the discussion on this subject, local jealousies, local feelings and influence were not totally discarded. They were manifested as to the place which should become the centre of the Union, but entered not into the question of the perpetuity of the act about to be performed. The essence of the act was its perpetuity, its binding force on future legislatures, to put forever at rest a question, the agitation of which might in after times awaken and give new vigor to passions and jealousies, which the adoption of the Constitution had hushed, and which it was the first duty of wise legislators to keep in profound sleep; because, if again aroused, they might shake the Union to its centre.

OCTOBER, 1814.

payment, of the very property which had been surrendered by individuals to the United States.

The donations from the States of Maryland and Virginia, together with the sale of lots, which cost the Government nothing, amount to more than eight hundred thousand dollars. The public ground remaining unsold, is estimated at nearly one million of dollars. It may be worthy of remark, that soon after the establishment of this District as the permanent seat of the Government, foreigners were authorized to purchase and hold lands within its limits. The then President of the United States, General Washington, availed himself of this circumstance, not only to raise funds, but also to interest respectable foreigners and skilful artisans of all countries in aid of this new but extensive establishment. With this view agents were sent to Europe with official certified copies of all the laws and proceedings in relation to this subject, on the authority of which artists were induced to come from various parts of Europe and settle here. Large sales of city lots were made in different countries of Europe, particularly Holland and England, which property to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars is still held by those purchasers or those claiming under them,

The principles on which the permanent Seat of the General Government should be established being recognised and admitted by all, the contest solely rested between the rival pretensions of the banks of the Susquehanna and those of the Potomac. The superior claims of the Potomac ulti- Two other material parties to the compact for mately prevailed, and Congress did, on the 15th fixing the permanent Seat of the Government of July, 1790, and by an amendatory act of March yet remain to be heard. These are the States of 3d, 1791, designate and accept the present District Virginia and Maryland. We need barely refer of Columbia for "the permanent Seat of the Gov- to the laws of those States to learn the motives and considerations which induced them to surernment of the United States." By the same and subsequent acts, the President was authorized render their jurisdiction not only of soil but perto enter into engagements for the acceptance of sons, to the extent of ten miles square in the such quantity of land on the east side of the Po- most important section of their States. I will tomac, within the said District, as he might deem call the attention of the House for a moment to proper for the use of the United States. He was a few of the provisions of an act of Maryland, authorized to erect public buildings, and, through passed 19th December, 1791, entitled "An act the agency of commissioners, to lay off and desig- concerning the Territory of Columbia and City nate the plan of this city, which bears its name. of Washington." The preamble commences in For this purpose, he was vested with power to these emphatic terms: "Whereas the President enter into contracts and stipulations with the pro' of the United States, by virtue of several acts prietors of lands within the limits of the city for ' of Congress, and acts of the Assemblies of Viran absolute transfer of their lands in fee simple,ginia and Maryland, by his proclamation, dated for the objects contemplated, and in consideration of the act of Congress establishing the permanent Seat of the Government of the United States. By virtue of the powers vested in the President, and in consideration of the objects specified in the several acts of Congress alluded to, the proprietors did cede to the United States at least three-fourths of all the lands within the limits of this city, and for which no compensation was received, except for a few acres on which public buildings were erected, and some squares exclusively designed for public purposes. In further-whereby they have subjected their lands to be ance of these objects, a great variety of other powers were granted to the President, the execution of which necessarily involved the interests of numerous individuals, and for the successful completion of which public faith could and did alone constitute the guarantee.

6

at Georgetown, on the 30th day of March, 1791, did declare and make known, that the whole of the territory of ten miles square, for the per'manent Seat of Government of the United States, shall be located," &c. "And, whereas Notley Young, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, ' and many others, proprietors of the greater part of the land hereinafter mentioned, have been 'laid out in a city, came into an agreement, and 'have conveyed their lands in trust to Thomas Beall, son of George, and John Mackall Gantt,

laid out as a city, given up part to the United States, and subjected other parts to be sold to 'raise money as a donation to be employed according to the act of Congress for establishing 'the temporary and permanent Seat of the GovUnder theseernment of the United States, under and upon 'the terms and conditions contained in each of 'said deeds," &c.

powers, and for the objects contemplated, large donations were received, lots were sold, loans were obtained, and pledges given, for their re

By the second section of said law, it is enacted,

OCTOBER, 1814.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

"That all that part of the said Territory called 'Columbia, which lies within the limits of this State, shall be, and the same is hereby acknowledged to be, forever ceded and relinquished to 'the Congress and Government of the United 'States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons resi'ding or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor ' and effect of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States," &c. This law then proceeds to subject other lands within the limits of the city to the same terms and conditions as those which had been transferred as before recited, and concludes by making a donation of $72,000, to be applied to the erection of public buildings or other improvements in the City of Washington for the use of the United States. As this subject was until very lately little understood by myself, and possibly less so by many members of the House, I have deemed it necessary to a correct decision, and a proper application of facts to principles, to give a general history of the establishment of the Seat of Government at this place, that we and the nation should know and reflect on the numerous obligations by which the Seat of Government is bound to its present spot-obligations resting not on fluctuating notions of policy, but flowing from the Constitution, sanctioned by repeated laws, rivetted by compacts with States and individuals, and rendered sacred by the plighted faith of the nation.

H. OF R

circumstances which, in his opinion, would be hazardous to the lives or health of the members. This act was proper because it was necessary to the existence of Congress itself; it grew out of the circumstance of the yellow fever, which prevailed in Philadelphia about that time, and cannot be considered as an ordinary exercise of power in Congress to change the seat of Government ad libitum. To argue from the case which the gentleman has put, that the Seat of Government may be changed whenever Congress may think proper, is, in my judgment, as absurd as it would be for me to contend that the Seat of Government must continue here, although the whole District were swallowed up by an earthquake. As to a temporary removal, my argument is simply this, that Congress has not the right to remove the Seat of Government for a limited time, unless for imperious causes, which, if they continue to exist, would justify and render inevitable a permanent removal. Such cases do not exist; they are not pretended to exist. The gentleman, as if indeed hard pressed for argument, has resorted to the fifth section of the Constitution to prove what never was disputed-what may be termed an every day practice-That the two Houses of Congress may by joint resolution adjourn for more than three days-may adjourn their sessions without the concurrence of the Executive, and that neither House shall without the consent of the other change the place of its sitting. The only power given to Congress by I will now endeavor, Mr. Speaker, to pursue this section is, that of regulating its own admore directly the arguments of the gentleman journment independent of the Executive branch from New Jersey through all their divisions and of the Government; the other part of the secsubdivisions, and also notice some remarks which tion is a necessary restriction on each House have fallen from the gentlemen from New York, separately, to produce harmony in their proceed(Messrs. GROSVENOR and FISK.) The gentle- ings, despatch of business, and to prevent unreaman from New Jersey contends: 1st. That Con- sonable adjournments and inconvenient separagress have the right to remove the Seat of Gov- tions, or in other words, to prevent the two ernment for a limited time, on good and sufficient Houses from being too far apart for the necesreasons. This is a position so broad and indefi- sary concurrence of legislation and despatch of nite as not to admit of a distinct reply. That public business. I appeal with confidence to the circumstances and exigencies may happen which candor of the gentleman himself. I appeal to would render the exercise of such a power not the common sense of every member of the House, only proper but necessary, never was and never whether it can for a moment be believed, that can be questioned. The very terms of the gen- this section of the Constitution gives to Contleman's position, "on good and sufficient rea-gress the power, (without even the form of a sons," do impliedly, if not expressly, admit, that this right does not exist and cannot be exercised as an ordinary discretionary legislative power. The cases put by the honorable gentleman of pestilence, famine, and invasion, are cases of necessity, where nothing is left to legislative will, where no human laws can control; the argument, then, like all arguments drawn from necessity, proves too much, and therefore proves nothing at all.

The act of 1794, which the gentleman has brought to his aid, and on which he placed great reliance, is precisely of the character of the other instances adduced, and must fall into the same result. By that act the President was authorized to convene Congress at a different place from that to which it was adjourned, in the event of the prevalence of contagious sickness or other

law,) to remove the Seat of the Government of the United States? Will it be contended (admitting for a moment that we have the right ourselves to remove) that we can, without a law, compel the President and all the Departments to march off to Philadelphia or to the Alleghany mountains at the word of command, or that they would, without the authority of law, exercise at their new locations one single function of their departments? But, says the gentlemen, if we go, the President and Departments will follow, and thus we remove the Government. Thus by a sort of legislative legerdemain we put the Government on wheels and push off at full gallop. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at such an argument from such a source. I had believed that the fair and lofty mind of the honorable gentleman from New Jersey could not have de

H. of R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

scended so low. I had been taught to believe that the pure principles of Federalism disdained to do an act indirectly which could not be done directly without a violation of the Constitution. "If you cannot take the man from the office, so neither can you take the office from the man." This I have always understood to be the creed of Federalism. If the gentleman has abjured the faith in this instance, I am disposed to consider it as one of those great errors to which great men are said to be liable; and that his most sanguine friends and believers on this question will admit the possibility of his being equally incorrect in the general tenor of his argument.

OCTOBER, 1814.

did not hesitate to vest Congress with this power, and for the best reasons-to harmonize, to cement and perpetuate the union of these States. Who were to be trusted with this power? The First Congress, men chosen by the people for their firm virtue and distinguished worth, most of them members of the Convention, men to whom the people had trusted, but a little time before, their political existence. Besides, sir, if this was a dangerous power-if it has been abused-the remedy is with the people, as in all other cases of constitutional error or legislative abuse; experience has proved that neither the one or the other exists on the present subject.

The next position of the honorable gentleman The objection as to power would equally apis, the right of Congress to remove permanently ply to all acts of Congress which are binding the present Seat of Government. On this ques-and irrevocable. It would apply to all cases of tion I have already, to a considerable extent, anticipated my argument in the exposition I have given of the Constitution, the laws, and contracts in relation to this subject. The remarks of the gentleman, however, demand a reply. I can justly retort the charge of having assumed premises totally incorrect, and therefore protest against the conclusions drawn from them.

The gentleman, I know, is incapable of intentional misrepresentation; but he has most strangely and most erroneously attributed to me an argument or rather an assertion which I never did or could have used. I did not say that the Constitution fixed the Seat of Government, or in express terms required Congress to establish the permanent seat.

It is, however, on this supposition that the gentleman has triumphantly turned over the pages of the Constitution, and sought in vain for any such terms or express injunctions on Congress. On this basis his argument is built, and he does, indeed, most conclusively prove what was never disputed.

compact, of bargain and sale, of grants, and of vested rights of every description. As well might it be contended that Congress has not the right of disposing of all the unappropriated lands of the United States, because by possibility they may give it away or make bad or corrupt bargains. As well might it be said that this Congress may take away the premium given for the late loans; reduce the interest on the public stock, or spunge the debt itself. This legislative omnipotence, which is established by the doctrine that one Legislature can in no case bind a subsequent one, is abhorrent to the first and best principles of the Constitution, destructive of the national faith, and pregnant with evils not to be described.

This doctrine, I had thought, was long ago exposed and exploded by those whom I have considered the firmest champions of the Constitution; but, alas, all those ramparts so strongly erected by those of our political predecessors, whom we have most delighted to honor, and around which we have so often and proudly rallied, seem to me now to be prostrate; the sentinels have fled their posts; the Constitution is the plaything of every idle wind; the sport of every angry passion.

Sir, my argument is that the Constitution contemplated and authorized the establishment of the Seat of the Government of the United States, at a place to be ceded by particular States and In my remarks the other day, I attempted to accepted by Congress, and over which Congress point out the analogy between the removal of the were to exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The time Seat of Government and the repeal of the Judiand manner of executing these powers and per- ciary, and consequently the analogy between the forming these duties, were left exclusively to erection of the two establishments and the prinCongress, without any other limitation than as to ciples upon which their permanency depends. the extent of territory thus to be acquired, and The gentleman from New Jersey must excuse the objects for which it was so to be acquired. me for saying, that his reply to this part of my This being an express grant of power for a defi- argument was peculiarly inconclusive. He says nite object, necessarily requiring the consent of that the Seat of Government is not fixed by the other parties, and deeply involving the rights and Constitution. This is true; but it is equally true, interests of States and individuals, whenever it that neither the Supreme or inferior courts are was exercised, the objects obtained, and the acts established by the Constitution. The Seat of consummated by Congress, the Government were Government was established by law, resulting bound to fulfil the engagements of Congress, who from an express grant of power, if not an express were quo ad hoc the legitimate agents of the requisition of the Constitution. The courts were Constitution. The first Congress after the adop- established precisely in the same way. The imtion of the Constitution did thus bind the Gov-mutability of the Supreme Court is admitted by ernment by establishing its permanent Seat; and in so doing did not transcend their powers. The gentleman says it is monstrous, it is absurd, to suppose that the people would have consented to vest Congress with such power. Sir, the people

all; the power to destroy the inferior courts is denied by the gentleman from New Jersey, and I presume all his political friends, on the ground of the necessary independence of the judges, and the contract, either express or implied, that they

OCTOBER, 1814.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

H. OF R.

should not be deprived of their offices, either di- ther person. It is admitted, that no power derived from rectly or indirectly, during good behaviour. The the Constitution can deprive him of the office, and yet Constitution does not say, "that Congress shall it is contended that, by repeal of the law, that office 'have power to establish permanent courts, which may be destroyed. Is not this absurd? It had been 'shall not be changed, nor the law fixing the same said, that whatever one Legislature can do, another 'shall not be altered or liable to be repealed by can undo, because no Legislature can bind its succes any future Congress;" which words the gentle-sor; and, therefore, whatever we make we can deman from New Jersey alleges would have been stroy. This I deny on the ground of reason, and on used had the Constitution intended to give the that of the Constitution. What! can a man destroy his own children? Can you annul your own compower to Congress to establish the permanent Seat of the Government. No, sir, the construc- Pacts? Can you annihilate the national debt? When tion in both cases results from the nature of the you have by law created a political existence, can powers granted, and the objects to be effected. you, by repealing the law, dissolve the corporation you had made? When by your laws you give to The Constitution authorized but one Supreme an individual any right whatever, can you by a subCourt to be established by Congress-when it sequent law, rightfully take it away? No; when you was so established the power was executed, the make a compact you are bound by it; when you injunction of the Constitution fulfilled-the law make a promise you must perform it. Establish the could not be repealed. The Constitution author- contrary doctrine, and what follows? The whim of ized but one district of territory, and that not to the moment becomes the law of the land; your counexceed ten miles square, to be accepted for the try will be looked upon as a den of robbers; every honSeat of the Government, and that Congress est man will fly your shores. Who will trust you, should, like the judges in their respective spheres, when you are the first to violate your own contracts? be independent; they were to exercise exclusive The position, therefore, that the Legislature may rightjurisdiction over the territory where the Govern- fully repeal every law made by a preceding Legislament was located. The idea, therefore, that Con- ture, when tested by reason is untrue; and it is equalgress may abandon this place at pleasure, is, in ly untrue, when compared with the precepts of the my judgment, as incorrect as the destruction of Constitution-for what does the Constitution say? the circuit courts of the United States; and to You shall make no ex post facto law! Is not this an say that we may surrender the jurisdiction of this ex post facto law?" District, and acquire another territory where we shall possess the same jurisdiction, or that by the Constitution we possess exclusive jurisdiction over two or more districts of territory, not exceeding each ten miles square-is as absurd as to say that we may destroy the Supreme Court and create another, or to say that we may establish two or more Supreme Courts, with a double set of judges to each.

That I may be the more distinctly understood, and the principles involved in this question more clearly and authoritatively elucidated, I beg leave to read an extract from a celebrated speech of one of the ablest champions of the Constitution on the question of the repeal of the Judiciary, (GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.) I have selected this speech, not because it contains opinions peculiar to its author, but because it imbodies the sentiments of the whole party to which he was attached, and may be considered as the base, the pillar, and cap of the argument on that all-important question.

I now beg gentlemen, particularly those on this side of the House, to pause, to reflect, and compare the sentiments contained in this eloquent and correct extract, with the facts, principles, and obligations connected with the question now before us. I demand of gentlemen to be informed, what will be the political condition of the thirty thousand people who inhabit this District, should the Seat of Government be removed and the jurisdiction of Congress, thus as it unquestionably would be, withdrawn from them? I ask gentlemen if contracts are not in their nature reciprocal, and whether the States of Maryland and Virginia, who surrendered this territory to the United States upon certain terms and conditions, and for certain specific objects, might not with equal propriety and right demand a recession of it from the United States, if their convenience, or interest, or caprice so required as that Congress should, without their consent, throw back the territory on their hands whenever they thought proper? Are a free people, entitled to just rights and equal laws, and who are peculiarly under your guardianship and protection, thus to be sported with, thus to be bought and sold like the slaves of Jamaica? Forbid it justice, forbid it Heaven.

"But (says Mr. Morris in reply) another criticism, but for its effects I would call pleasant, has been made, the amount of which is, you shall not take the man from the office, but you may take the office from the man-you shall not drown him, but you may sink his boat under him; you shall not put him to death, but given to the people of this District a "political exYou, by the Constitution and the law, have you may take away his life. The Constitution preserves to a judge his office-says he shall hold it-that istence." Can you rightfully destroy it? You is, it shall not be taken from him during good be- have established here district courts, upon the haviour; the Legislature shall not diminish, though same principles with the other circuit courts of their bounty may increase, his salary. The Constitu- the United States; the judges and other officers tion provides perfectly for the inviolability of his ten- hold their appointments by the same tenure; can ure, but yet we may destroy the office which we can- you abolish those courts, and drive the judges not take away, as if the destruction of the office would from their seats? Surely you cannot, consistnot as effectually deprive him of it as the grant to ano-ently with those principles I have always con