74 



meaning 1 and established acceptation of the word (( permanent," 

 used by the act of Congress referred to, and the understanding with 

 the original proprietors, in the first place, and the subsequent and 

 still existing obligations of the Government with the citizens of the 

 District, in the second, all serve, in the most positive and clear 

 manner, to show that the foundations of this metropolis must be 

 durable and unchanging. If I have been so fortunate as to sustain 

 my propositions, it follows that it is idle, inexpedient, impolitic, 

 and unconstitutional, even to broach the subject in Congress, the 

 matter not being within the jurisdiction of that body. All the at- 

 tempts, therefore, that have been made to effect a removal, were 

 in opposition to the words and meaning of the Constitution, and 

 the unwarrantable interference of persons having no concern or 

 power in the premises. If, then, it be the fact that such was the 

 character of attempts of the kind in past times, it follows, of 

 course, that the same objections must attach to any move of that 

 description for the future. 



If the subject of removal be fenced round and protected, even 

 from discussion in Congress, by the Constitution, and the other 

 reasons I have hurriedly proposed, it is equally clear that any at- 

 tempt at retrocession is open to the same objections. It being esta- 

 blished that no other power than the Constitution can effect a 

 removal, it must strike every reflecting mind that Congress should 

 not, and cannot, alienate any portion of the District; for the Con- 

 stitution protects the whole, and forbids any action whatever in the 

 matter, except by its direction, or by a change made constitutionally 

 in the- article calling this District into being. But no such direction 

 having been given, nor such change made, it follows that neither 

 Congress, nor any other power than that of the Constitution, can 

 effect such retrocession, in part or in whole. Those who have de- 

 sired, or who may desire, a removal of the seat of Government or a 

 retrocession, do not, and cannot, go to the Constitution for their 

 power. They think that a mere act of Congress is sufficient for the 

 purpose, without appealing to the means provided for by that glo- 

 rious charter of our freedom, when it is attempted to change any 

 of its articles or stipulations. And I ask, in all fairness, whether 

 such a course is respectful to the Constitution, justice to the people, 

 or a good precedent to set in a matter of so much public interest 

 and importance, as the unealled for intermeddling with constitu 



