l6S WRIGHT 



gust of Members at the uncomfortable conditions they found 

 here, the disappointment of visitors when they found that the 

 city of Washington was a paper city, that there were no streets, 

 sidewalks, nor conveyances, did much to retard the growth 

 of the town. 



In the last decade of the eighteenth century a French writer, 

 M. De Maistre, in an essay on ' The Generative Principle of 

 Modern Constitutions,' remarked that all great institutions are 

 the result of development, and, speaking of Washington, said 

 " that the Americans propose to build a town and call it Wash- 

 ington, where Congress is to sit " ; and he then made the follow- 

 ing challenge: " There is too much of the human element in 

 this affair. You may wager a thousand to one that the town 

 will not be built, or will not be called Washington, or that Con- 

 gress will not sit there." This statement represents fairly well 

 the general feeling in Europe, which feeling, coupled with the 

 facts already stated, accounts for the discouragement in the 

 building of the city of Washington ; but there were other and 

 more important reasons for the slow development of the District. 



There was no local government on which responsibility could 

 be fixed, and there was great dissension as to the form of gov- 

 ernment which should be provided for the city, but Congress 

 decided by act of March 3, 1802, to delegate the active admin- 

 istration of local affairs to a city government, not abandoning 

 of course its own supreme authority over the city and the Dis- 

 trict. It granted reasonable scope and freedom to residents in 

 managing their own immediate affairs, but of course, and 

 properly, reserved the right to modify, change, or repeal the 

 provisions of the city government. The first municipal election 

 was held June 17, 1802, the Mayor being appointed by the 

 President, and he in turn named his subordinates. 



In examining the more immediate facts and conditions bear- 

 ing upon the economic development of the District of Columbia, 

 one turns naturally to the status of the population as the funda- 

 mental element of any economic development. As stated, in 

 1800, when the government removed its buildings to the District 

 the population was 14,093. In 1810 it had very nearly doubled, 

 being 24,023, an increase of more than 70 percent. The in- 



