Mr. ROGERS. We do not disagree at all upon that part of the case about the chunties. I am coming to that directly, but that is notthe point now. As to the point the gentleman raises, that because WestVirginia had not then been esablished as a State, no contract could have been made between the States of WestVirginia and old Virginia. Now, that is not so, because, under the constitution of the U.S., no State has a right to give up one inch of its territory to any political community, organized body, State, or Territory, or to any citizen, without the consent of congress and why? Because the citizens of the U.S., according to the decision of the SCOTUS, are interested in the dismcmberment and disinte ration of the territory of the U.S. o State can give up one foot of its territory to any other State corporation, political body, orlivingindividua without the consent of Congress as a party to the contract. In sugport of this position I read from a case reporte in 18 Howard, page 494, decided in the U.S. Supreme Coal: “By the 10thsection of the 1st article of the constitution. no State can enter into any agreementor compactwith another State without the consent of Congress. Now. Aquestionof boundary betweenStates is in its nature a political question. to be settled by compact made by the political Depts of the Government.” “And if Florida and Georgia had, by negotiation and agreement. proceeded to adjust this boundary. any compact between them would have been null and void without the assent of Congress.” I say that any agreement between the States of old Virginia and WestVirginia with regard to the transfer of Berkeley an Jefferson counties was null and void. Every act, therefore, of the State of WestVirginia exercising jurisdiction over these 2 counties was in violation of law and a usurpation. WestVirginia has no more right to exercise the functions of a State over ese counties than she would have over the State of NewJersey or any other State in the Union. I read further: “This provision is obviously intended toguard the rights and interests of the other States and to prevent any compact or agreement between any 2 States which might nffectinjurionsly the interests of the others and the right and duty to protect those interests is vestedin the General Government.” The constitution of the U.S., section 3, article 4,says no new State shall be formed orderected within the jurisdiction of any other State without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of Congress. Now, WestVirginia could be established in old Virginia by an act of the Legislatures and the consent of Congress. provided the organic law of the State authorized the Legislature so to do. Now, I have another case here, a case which the committee have referred to in their report, and by which they attempt to sustain the positionthey take upon this point, and which shows point blank to the contrary, that that position is not tenable. No gentleman on the other side of the House, however prejudiced, scan doubt that the position I take is tenable and cannot be contradicted or overthrown by anyone. The 10th section of the 1st article of the constitution of the U.S. provides that no State shall, withoutthe consent of congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State. Now, I hold thata Legislature of a State cannot transfer the territory of 1866. 6a the State unless the State constitution prol vides for the act; and old Virginia having 1 no such provision in her constitution, her conliscut to the transfer of these counties was voi. The committee refer to the case of Kentucky and Virginia, decided in the SCOTUS and I am going to read that part of the case to which they refer. They. refer to the case for the purpose of showing that because there was a provision in the constitution of WestVirginia, that other territory might be added to thu State with the consent of her Legislature. therefore, when Congress admitted WestVirginia into the Union as a State, it admitted her with the right to add territory to the State as she please without any further action by Congress at all. The committee proceed upon the assumption, in their report, that because there is a provision in the organic law of WestVirginia that new territory may be added to it afterward by act of its Legislature, that gives WestVirginia the right, an the unlimitedrightbecause if you admit the principle at all, you must admit it as an unlimited rightto add all the territo she may see fit to add and she may take in the whole of old Virginia; she may take in all the State of Marylanzgl; she may take in all of Ohio and Pennsyltania and so on until she has ab sorbed the whole Union in one conglomerated mass of sovereign power and jurisdiction without the consent of Congress, annexing it to the State of WestVirginia.ity the theory and construction of the organic law of WestVirginia is correct as given by the committee, if you admit the doctrine that because the constitution of WestVirginia contains a clause giving the right to add new territor, she may annex these 2 counties without the consent of Congress, then you must of the whole length of allowing her to add all the territory of the U.S. if she sees fit, without the consent of Congress; and thereby destroy the whole unity of the States of this Government, and consolidate them under the name of the State of WestVirginia. No lawyer will pretend that is so. It does not require a lawyer to see the absolute absurdity of any such theory as that upon which the hypothesis set forth in this report of the committee is based. That clause in the organic law of WestVirginia simply authorized the Legislature to do what it could not do without it. Allow me to read from Wheatons Reperts, volume 8th, in regard to the separation of Kentucky from Virginia, from the decision of the SCOTUS; "The 1st objection is founded upon the allegation that. the compact was made without the consent of Congress. contrary to the 10th section of the 1st or ticle, which declares that noState shall, without the consent of Coneress. enter into any agreementorcompact with anotherSlate, or with a foreign Power. ct itvbe observed. in the 1st place, that the Constitution makes no provision respecting the mode or form in which the consent of Congress is to be submitted, very properly leaving that matter to, the wisdom of that ody. to be decided ii menaccordin to the ordinaryrules oflaw and of rightreason. Tic only onestion in cases wtheh involve that point is hasCongress, by some positive act, in relation to such agreement. signitied the consent of tbat bod toits validity? Now, how stands the presentcase? She compact was entered into betweenVirginia and the peopleof Kentucky upon the exress condition that the General Government should prior to a certain day . assentto the erection of the district of Kentucky into an indepeudent State, and rec that the proposed State should immediately after a certain uy, or at some convenient timc future thereto be admitted into the Federal Unio n. On the28thofduly. 1790. the convention of that district. assembled under the provisions of the law of Virgiiiia and declared its dissent to the terms and conditions prescribed by the proposed compact; and that the samewas accepted as a solemn compact and that the said district should become a separate State on the 1st of Junc, 1792. These resolutions, accompanied by amemorial from the convention, being communicated by the POTUS to Congress, a report was made by a committee to whom the subjectivas referred, selting forth the agreoment uf Virginia than Kentucky should beerectedinto a State. upon certain terms and conditions and the acceptanceby Kentucky upon the terms and conditions so prescribed: and on tholth of February JTUl, Congresspassedan act which, after referring to the compact and the new:lilllltl. of it by Kentucky, de cl:iics the copsentoft int bodyto the creatingof thei laid district iuto a separate and independent State, upon a certain day and receivingherinto the Union.” Hero is what the court say: “Now, it is perfectly clearthat, although Congress might hiivor usedtheir consentto thoproposedsep aration " Now, mark the theory of the honorable Gentfrom Vermont, [Mr. Woonaaine a] He asks me whether this contract was not complete between these 2 States without the rat ification of Congress, and whether the grant has not been carried into effect, so that it cannot be recalled by the party that gave the grant. Now, I affirm that it can be recalled; it is not complete, because Congress may refuse. its as sent to the admission of any State; and if congross can refuse its assent, can a compact, an agreement or a grant between arties, depending upon that assent, be comp ctcly and definitel fulfilled until that assent is given by the thi party, who is to enter into the agreement as one of the arties?