so exercise it. The absence of such permission necessarily excludes 

 the power to change. The injunction by law to do anything, as a 

 matter of course implies that the contrary is forbidden. If Congress 

 have the privilege of originating any measure having in view a 

 change in the seat of Government, that power either comes from 

 the Constitution or from themselves; but, if from the Constitution, 

 it would appear in that instrument, which is not the case; therefore 

 the power is not derived from the Constitution. If Congress get 

 the power from themselves, then they are superior to the Constitu- 

 tion and paramount in the land. But the Constitution is received 

 as the law of the land, and in certain limits is undeniably para- 

 mount, as in the present case ; therefore Congress do not receive 

 the power from themselves. If, then, it be the fact, as it undenia- 

 bly is, that the Constitution created the power exhausted by the 

 selection of the proper site, &c., (that of legislation still existing 

 and exercised,) and that the great Council of the nation is restricted 

 in its operations in the premises, it follows that there is no possible 

 mode of changing the section in question than by the constitutional 

 means prescribed by that instrument itself. 



It was their reliance and confidence in the solemn engagements 

 of Congress, as set forth in the act of 1790, and in the protecting 

 aegis of the Constitution, that induced the States of Maryland and 

 Virginia to make the liberal cession and donations whereby this 

 District was to some extent created. It was from the same motives 

 and inducements that the original proprietors stripped themselves 

 of their land, and proved themselves men of high public spirit and 

 generosity. It was this confidence that persuaded people to come 

 hither, and invest their labor and money, to stand or fall with the 

 progress or misfortunes of their new homes. Had the States, pro- 

 prietors, and purchasers been aware that the important subject of a 

 change of the seat of Government would be considered a question 

 "sub judice," an open question for the experiments of selfish and 

 ill-judging politicians, I feel assured that no such alacrity and lib- 

 erality would have been evinced, but that instead of willing par- 

 ties, Congress would have found them reluctant and difficult of 

 persuasion. If the growth of this metropolis and the interests of 

 this District have been retarded, the cause, it seems to me, is, to a 

 considerable extent, to be discovered in the attempts made at 

 several times to remove the seat of Government, and to a certain 



