strictive. Certain powers were given, certain acts required, and 

 Congress, in the execution of this commission, was confined within 

 fixed limits, was to accept a specified amount of territory, and by 

 the acceptance, and the act establishing a permanent seat of Gov- 

 ernment, in accordance with the requisitions of the Constitution, 

 bound itself to that instrument, to Maryland and Virginia, the own- 

 ers, purchasers, and inhabitants of the District in question, and the 

 people at large, by a positive engagement, to make the metropolis 

 of the Union durable and unchangeable. Besides these evident 

 facts, that Congress was, is, and must be restricted by the article 

 under and by virtue whereof the powers, capacity, and acts neces- 

 sary in the premises are vested and exercised, that so far as the 

 selection of a seat of Government was concerned, its power ceased 

 with the execution of the agency, and cannot be revived other 

 than by the original creator, the Constitution ; and that the obliga- 

 tions incurred with the two grantors aforesaid, and the original 

 proprietors, purchasers, and inhabitants, are sacred and binding, 

 the following reflection is worthy of consideration. The introduc- 

 tion of the word "permanent" in the act of 16th July, 1790, in 

 contradistinction to " temporary" in the caption of said act, is, in 

 my opinion, to be considered and rendered as conclusive against 

 any further action for removing the present seat of Government on 

 the part of that body. We learn from lexicographers that the word 

 "permanent" means durable; not decaying unchanged; li per- 

 manency," " continuance in the same state;" " temporary," on the 

 other hand, is rendered as u lasting only for a limited time." Now, 

 Congress, by the aforesaid act, made Philadelphia an intermediate 

 stage for a limited sojourn of ten years, until the ultimate, durable, 

 and unchanging residence contemplated for the Government should 

 be prepared and ready to receive it. The distinction made between 

 Philadelphia and the District of Columbia, shows us at once the 

 "animus" of those who legislated at New York those who were 

 concerned in passing the act of 1790, knew the English language 

 as well, at least, as legislators of the present day. Their intentions 

 are to be inferred from the language they used, and that language 

 admits of no misconception or misrepresentation; they meant what 

 they said ; and not having vested in Congress the right to remove 

 the Government at will, by any word or hint to be found in the 

 article in question, of course it was never intended that they should 



