Mr. JOHNSON. The old laws were the laws of Virginia, but they would not come in force because they are all repealed, unless we shall pass a law reviving them. All their conveyances, all their contracts that required recording, all their marriages, everything that was regulated by law before, since the retrocession of the District have been regulated by the laws of Virginia; and, if we shall determine that the act of 1846 was not constitutional, all those marriage and other contracts which have not been perfected in the manner pointed out by the laws in force at the time of the retrocession, but have been regulated by the laws of Virginia, will be void. Another objection was taken and urged yesterday with some force, that the act of 1846 was unconstitutional because it was made to depend upon the vote of the people of Alexandria as well as upon the consent of the Legislature of Virginia. I have but a word to add on that subject. This is not an act of legislation at all in that sense. The U.S. became the owners of this property as one contracting party. The land originally belonged to Vir min. The U.S. had no authority to become the owner of it without the consent of Virginia. It was therefore a contract as between the U.S. upon the one hand, and the State of Virginia upon the other, by which the U.S. became the owner of this pr party. The U.S. had no authority become theowner of it by force of legislation., The form oflegislation was adopted because the Congress of the U.S. cannot contmot in any other form; but although the forum that of a legislative act, yet, what was done. by virtue of that act, and by virtue of the subsequent assent on the part of Virginia, was neither more nor less than a contract, which either party, with the consent of the other, had a right to modify at any time. I suppose that to be very clear. it The honorable member from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] supposes that a case referred to in one of Selden s Reports, I forget the volume, bears upon this nestion. I have not. looked at that case; I have had no opportunity of doing it. I prefer to stand upon the anthrity ot the SCOTUS. They have decided cases of this description, and nobody in that courtever dreamed of denying the validity of a contract which was entered into under the circumstances which I am about to state. In the constructiorr of the many rail ways that are now passing through the West the charters granted by the State to those rail ways gave authority to the cities and the towns and tie boroughs through which a road was to pass to subscribe for stock in the road, provided a majority of the people of such towns or cities or boroughs v0.0 in favor of the subscription. That was done in a variety of cases. The 1st case that came before the SCOTUS, or the 1st that I recollect the subsequent cases I argued was the case of Aspinwallcs. The Commissioners of the County of Davis, a county in Indiana, I think. The language of the charter of that case was: “Provided That if a majority of the votes given shall be in favor of subscrition the county board of said county shall subscribe, and not otherwise." So that the operation of that charter in that particular was made to depend upon the approval or disa roval of the people who were to be affectedpliy it; and nobody dreamed 0‘ denying that if the majority of the people. decided against a subscription there would be no authority in the county to subscribe, or if they decided in favor of a subscrition, that it was not within the authority of the county to subscribe, and that the subscription would not be valid. That was done in this instance. A majority did decide in favor of'subscribin, and a subscription was made and they issue their bonds. 1‘ hey afterward determined that they would not pay, 1st, because some formality had not been observed, and 2ndly, because they had been cheated. The Supreme Court decided thatthe issuing of the bonds with the knowledge of the county, coupled with the fact that the subscription had been made for the payment of which the bonds were issued, was conclusive evidence of the validity of the subscription, because it was conclusive evidence that a majority of the people had decided that there should be Iuch a subscription. There are 20 cases since going to the same elfect. There are other difficulties in this case, and I want my friends from WestVirginia to consider them, if their minds are not made up. What is the present Legislature of Virginia? How was it elected? hlected in part by the people of this very territory. Where did the convention meet that determined there should be elections? Within the limits of this very territory. How was the assent to the creation of WestVirginia granted?