Mr. WADE. I am perfectly aware that this like every other law is subject to the opinion and action of the courts when it shall be brought before them. I have no doubt, and I presume there is no lawyer in the Senate who has any doubt, that the act of retrocession was an unconstitutional act, and therefore void; but those acts that lawyers and judges believe to be void are exceedingly embarrassing to the people, for their rights will be, for the time being, displaced by laws that are really unconstitutional, and men are frequently subjected to great hardship and great wrong by laws that are really unwarranted and unconstitutional and will finally be declared void. such, of course, I regard this law to be. You may bring it before the courts and annul it in that way; but the reason why I suppose Congress ought to act. upon the subject is that it makes a great. did‘erenceto the people there whose rights have been displaced and outraged by this unconstitutional legislation, and they have a right. to have Congress clear this unconstitutional lnw out of their way and put thorn in statu quo (mic bellum. If we are clear that the law was unwarranted by the Constitution, that it was get up in troublous times, when men did not. corr sider the full purport of what they were doing, or that it was for the nefarious purpose of obtaining a particular advantage in contemlation of what was subsequently done, in my judgment it is the right of t int people, who never consented to the act, to have it wiped out of their way; and then if the other part contend that it was constitutional and that Cybngress bad a right to pass it and no right to repeal it, let them contest it. We are told that if it shall be determined that the act of retroccssion is constitutional, we shall be in a very bad redicarhent by passing a bill to repeal it. ir, is it possible that any laWyer will argue here that one Congress may pass a law that another cannot repeal? Tire act of retrocession, I think, was unconstitutional. Every gentleman that I have heard speak upon the subject believes it to bsxlearly unconstitutional. It is an incumbrauce, however. It is a cloud thrown over the title of every man in that portion of the District who holds his property under the original titles, and who lrasa right to have them confirmed; and every man who has a right to live under the jurisdiction of the Government of the U.S. in that portion of the District has had a wrongful doubt or cloud throwu over his possession, and thrown over it, too, by Congress; and Congress ought to wipe it away if they no regard it. We ought not. to suffer an unconsttutionel law to rest. on our statute books a ms.ment after we come to the conclusion that it is unwarrantable and wrong. It makes a great. difference to the people of that portion of the District whether you repeal this law, wipe it out, and leave them as they were before, or whether you hold them to test the validity of a law that everybody supposes to he unconstitutional. I think it is the right of the Union peopleof Alexandria county to have this law that is supposed to be unconstitutional n. Pflfled us. it is not unconstitutional it ought to be repealed. Undoubtedly if it is a constitutional law it is in our power to repeal it, and there are paramount reasons that should induce us to do so. The great reasons which induced Our forefathers to make this District as large as it was originally, and to which I alluded before, are paramount reasons why we should preserve it in that position. Yea, sir, infinitely stronger reasons should move us now than did then. Their foresight wusu prudent one. We suffered great inconvenience during the recent war because this jurisdiction was so)posed, by this low, to be in old Virginie, which 1 was hostile to and at war with us. I think I know that it' it had not been for this unconstitutional legislation the southern States would have been invaded much sooner than they were, and with much greater eliiciency. We were put back pondering over the question whether we would invade a.sovereign State, and with 200,000 men on this side of the Potomac we stood hesitating u long time whether we wOnld march them into a sovereign State. The enemy ‘had possession there in t'hnt jurisdiction which belonged to us, and which this unconstitutional law had deprived us of. We gave them the advuntage of quartering their troops in Alexandria and other strongholds in the District. where they could assuil us. I say, then, if the law was constitutional it ought to be revealed and the territory roan nexed, for public purposes, for purposes of defense. For that mutter, I do not care whether you say the act was constitutional or unconstitutional. If it was a constitutional law. the some reasons that induced those who laid out this District. to lay it out of its original size, that they might defend themselves against aggression, should he insisted on now by us. It' It was not on unconstitutional act, it was an exceedingly improvident act.