Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, when this bill was before as yesterday I took occasion to state to the Senate very briefly my reasons for holding that the act of 1846 was unconstitutional, and that it was incompetent for congress to retrocede any portion of the DistCol either to ’irginin or Maryland. I have listened, as I always do', with great interest to the arguments of the learned Senfrom Maryland, taking a contrary view and coming to an opposite conclusion. I propose to say a word in reply to what I regar as the main point of his argument. He says that by the 1st clause of the provision of the Constitution authorizing Congress to exercise exclusive legislation, dim, over the DistCol, Congress mere] acquired the right of exclusive legislation, an that that was the great object of the clause; but that the latter clause of the same provision, giving the U.S. a right to acquire lands in States for the purpose of dock yards, arsenals, &c. plainly, in his judgment, recognizes the right of Congress to transfer those places or to retro cede them to the States in which they may ha pen to lie, and that if Congress may retrocede a.dock yard or an arsenal ergoit may retrocede a art or the whole of the DistCol. ith great respect to the logical powers of the Senfrom Maryland I regard this as a non-sequitur. It may be that Congress has power to retrocede deck yards, arsenals, &c., or even to sell them to individuals, and still be divested of the power to retrocede the DistCol; and I insist that such is the fair construction of the provision. How does the DistCol become the seat of Goverument of the U.S., and how do dock yards, &c., become the property of the U.S.? The clause is very carefully drawn. It says: “The Congress shall have powerto exerciseexclusive legislation in all cases whatsoeverover such district (not exceed 19 miles s uarc) as may. by cession of particular States and the acceptanceof Congress, becomethe seat of the Government of the U.S." Now, sir look at this By what means language is if that the District becomes the seat of Government of the U.S.? Not by purchase, for the language does not contemplate a purchase; but by a voluntary cession of the States concerned, and by an acceptance of the cession by Congress. When these 2 events concur the'cession by the States and the acceptance by Congress then, in the language oi the Constitution, the tract so ceded and accepted “ becomes the seat of the government of the U.S.;” and the language itself implies that this seat of Government shall continue to be the ermanent seat of the Government. Certain y the learned Senator will not contend that although congress has accepted a cession from Virginia and Iaryland of the DistCol fit may proceed and establish another and a 2nd seat of Government. And why not? Because the language of the Constitution declares that this District. has become, by those 2 concurrent acts, the seat of Government of the U.S., and excludes the idea that any other portion of the U.S. can assume the same character and quality. It follows very clearly from this language of the 1st clause that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution, and of the people who ratified it, that the seat of Government should be permanentl fixed in the district which might be so cede and accepted; and such has ever been the light in which it has been viewed. The earliest statute of the U.S. on this subject, passed as early as 1701, speaks of the acquisition as being the permanent seat of Government; and General Washington in is proclamation uses the same language; and in deed the clause is capable of no other construction or interpretation but that this District thus acquired is to be forever the seat of Government. It is, in short, as permanent, as enduring as the Constitution itself which has created it the seat of Government.