Mr. SAULSBURY. If the Senator under stood me to say that the physical power of the South could not be overcome, an ifI did say that, I was mistaken. It has been overcome. I have no doubtI have formed many erroneous opinions in my life, which subsequent events have proved to be erroneous; and, if I expressed any such opinion as that, it was erro neous. I say the physical power of the South has been overcome, although at one time I did not believe it ever wonl be, because I be lieved the people there were united and ear nest; but they had the good sense, when they got whipped, to say so, and give their word of honor that they would observe the law and the Constitution of the U.S. in future, and I believe they will do it. I want no test oaths. Mr. President, I shall now proceed to the only 2 points involved in this case. One is, is there any necessity for the passage of this act, whether the act retroceding that portion of Virginia called Alexandria to the State of Virginia was constitutional or not? I have heard but one reason assi ned, and that was by the honorable Senfrom Ohio, to whom I always listen with great pleasure, because I think he is one of those Senaars who always says what he means, and mea. what he says. He says it boldly and frankly, and there is no dodging arouud questious with him. He assigus this reason, that itma be necessary for the defense of the capital, an hesays that the Government exerienced great difficulty in the early art of t in late war because that portion of the istric thad been retroeeded lo Virginia. Letus look at the reason for a moment. how is it possible that the retrocession of that part of this, District to Virginia could in any way affect the military operations of this Government? Why, sir, the armed forces of the confederacy were not within 100s of miles of the Potomac bank until they removed their capital to Richmond; the couutr was all open. When the confederates fire upon the flag at Sumter, and the POTUS called for vol unteers, did he bring his volunteers here md station them in Washington, and keep them here and refuse to let them go over on the heights of Arlington‘Z Did he wait until the confederates came up near the heights of Ar lington before he sent his soldiers over there, and took possession of those heights? Not at all. They may have remained in Washington a few days; but it was but a very short time before they were in possession of Arlington heights an all that country, not only that portion which had been in the DistCol, I believe, but other portions of Virginia, and fortifications were erected. The forces of Virginia did not attempt to drive the Federal soldiery off; they could not have done it. Supp‘ose now that war should spring up between ’ir inia and the U.S., do you suppose the U.S. would stop to ask the State of Virginia whether they should go on Arlinwton heights or not and fortify them again? I do, sir. It could have had no possible effect, as to whom the eminent domain was in, Virginia or the U.S.; it did not make a particle of difference when there were armies to be marched; and for all purposes of defense you were just as secure with that portion of what was formerly the DistCol in the State of Virginians you would have been if it were in the Federal Government, because though it be in the limits of the State of Virginia you hold the doctrine that you have got she right to send your armies into any State of the Union. You will not stop to ask the consent of the State. But old Virginia, it is said, my plant her cannon on the opposite banks and batter down your capital. Why, sir, Virginia is not allowed to keep astnnding army. How can she go to erecting fortifications? Is there no power in this Government, if Virginia were to under take to rear fortifications with uns bearing on the capital, to prevent it? Vhere is your Army to tear them down? She is not allowed to keep an army or a navy, under the Constitution of the U.S.' This is the only reason assigned as‘I understand wh it is necessary to annul the act of 1846, an that is no reason at all. Then, Mr. President, it is a question of law. It is said that the act retrocedmg Alexandria to the State of Virginia was unconstitutional and void; and it is said to be unconstitutional and void upon 2 grounds: 1st, that congress having accepted ten miles square, had no power to (part with any portion of the land thus accepte. The honorable Senfrom Maryland has argued that question so fully and satisfactorily that it is unnecessary for me to say a word on the subject. I agree with him in opinion entirely. But, sir, it is said this is a legislative power; and a legislative power cannot be delegated. I admit the principle. Legislative power cannot be delegatedh But the question arises here, is this a delegation of legislative power? If it is a delegation of legislative power, then I admit that the act retroceding this portion of the District to the State of Virginia is utterly null and void; but if it be not a delegation of legislative power, then the act is constitutional, and is not null and void. What is the authority cited? In 20 years’ practice at the bar I have frequently seen cases brought into court and cited which had very little to do with the subject; and I think that the case cited here has but very little to do with it. What was the act rel receding this portion of the District to Virginia? It was a solemn act of Congress. Congress enacted it, declared that Alexandria county should be retroceded to the State of Virginia, with the consent of the people of Alexandria, and afterward it provided that in case that consent was not given the law should be null and void. Does that make a delegation of legislative power? All the forms of legislative enactment were observed; but the going into operation of the act, so to speak, was to depend upon a contingency. There is nothing more common in legislation than that the legislative body enacts a law, but provides that in the happening of a certain contingency the law shall not be 0)91'8ti'9. It is so in all your school district laws in almost every State in this Union; and in many other respects. The law was perfect. It is just the same thing in principle as if Virginia had been claimin $100,000 from the Government of the U.S., and the Congress of the U.S. had passed an act declaring that $100,000 should be paid out of any money in the Treasury to the State of Virginia, provided that if A B, who is hereby appointed arbitrator in the case, shall report that nothing is due to the State of Virvinia, then this act shall be null and void. t amounts to that, and nothing more. But the case cited was this: property was levied upon in the State of NewYork for the payment of a school tax; that tax was levied under a particular act of the Legislature of NewYork; suit was brought by the person whose property was taken to recover the value of the property so taken, and judgment given in favor of the plaintiff; the defendant took an appeal, and the judgment was affirmed. But why was it affirmed? Were the provisions of the act of NewYork the same as the provisions of the act of Congress in reference to the retrocession of that portion of the DistCol called Alexandria to Virginia? No, sir; but NewYork passed no law at all. The 10th section of her act declared; " The electors shall determineby ballot at the an, anal election.to beheld in Novembernext. whether this act shall or shall not becomea law.” It did not pass any law; it left it to the people to pass a w. The Congress of the U.S. did not leave it to the people of Alexandria to say whether the act of retrocession should become a law or not; but they said it was the law, and they provided that if the people of Alexandria did not wish to go under the jurisdiction of the State of Virginia, but wished to continue under the jurisdiction of Congress, in that contingency the law should not operate. It was a covenant. The act of Congress and the acceptance by the State of Virginia be' came a compact between Congress and the State of Virginia; the one to give and the other to accept a grant of land; and they agreed that that grant should be operative in case the people of Alexandria assented to it. The people of Alexandria did assent to it. The terms of the compact and the agreement between the Government of the U.S and the State of Virginia we; complete and perfect when that assent was made. And now, after 20 years’ enjoyment of the benefits of that contract by both parties, one of the parties comes into this high court, if I may so speak, and attempts to avoid the performance of its part of the covenant and contract, and of its own motion, without consulting the other party, attempts to annul its agreement upon the ground that the high contracting party now attempting to nnnul it had no right or authority to enter into the compact. Sir, ifthe Congress of the U.S. had no authority to enter into this compact or agreement, there is a tribunal known to the law that can. test the matter. Why should one party step in and say, “We absolve ourselves from all the obligations of this contract and will not consult you about it” when there is an im ar tial tribunal open alike to each party? l by should this Government undertahe to tear its seal from the bond without consulting the other party to the bond? It is seen now, even in the Senate of the U.S., that Senators differ on the subject. Men, whose profession it has been to study the law, whose business it has been for years to try to master the principles of the law, differ in reference to the principles of law involved in this case. You have the distinguished Senfrom Maryland, than whom no man stands higher in the legal profession in this country, expressing no doubt at all in reference to the constitutionality of that act; and you find the distinguished Senfrom NewYork and others who have adorned the bench differing with him in 0 inion. There being this difference of opinion, then , whatdoes propriety, what does justice say ought to be done? One party should not step in and undertake to determine it for itself, but it should appeal to a tribunal which stands impartial as between the artics. The case should go to the courts as it now stands, without either party attemptin to alter the status of the case. Do that and I have no doubt the people of Alexandria will be satisfied. We have been told that the masf of the people of Alexandria are in favor of this bill. I lave but very little acquaintance in the city of Alexandria, and was never there but once in my life; but I have met with gentlemen from there since this bill has been before Congress, and they tell me very differently indeed. Of the persons born on the soil, the real inhabitants of the place, I am told that 9 10th s, if not more, are opposed to the passage of this bill. We all.know that since the war people have gone from other sections and squatted about temporarily wherever they thought there was a chance to make money. They are birds of passage, here today and gone tomorrowmen flowing all over with patriotism, and wanting to change the condition of the people among whom they go. such persons may want to enjoy the benefits of a congressional government; but I am told that the substantial men, the native inhabitants of the place, are utterly opposed to this measure. If you pass this act, do not pass it with a view of punishing those people. Heaven knows they have suffered enough. Allow your citizens, and the other citizens who are there temporarily, or who are there permanently, to go to an adjoining room in this Capitol, and there ask the judges of the SCOTUS what is the law in this matter, and I have no doubt both parties will be satisfied. Mr. President, I have engaged the attention of the Senate much longer t ian I had intended. I had no idea when I rose of entering into questions of a political character, but somehow or other those questions are dragged into every subject which comes before the Senate, and I have been guilty of the impropriety of imi; tating an example which my judgment does not approve.