Class V)^ 
 Book _ _j ~ D 2-^ 
 
61st Congress, j SENATE. j Document 
 
 1st Session. \ { No. 110. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 Mr. (iallinger presented the following 
 
 PAPER FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY 
 OF SCIENCES, BY HENRY E. DAVIS, ENTITLED "THE POLITICAL 
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 
 
 June 21, 1909. — Ordered to be printed. 
 
 THE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF 
 
 COLUMBIA. 
 
 [By Henry E. Davis.] 
 
 The District of Columbia is unique among the social communities 
 of the world. The political center of a people which threw into the 
 sea the tea which must bear a tax in the levying of which that people 
 had no voice; the capital of a nation born of the declaration that taxa- 
 tion without representation sounds a note having no place in the har- 
 mony of freedom; the very ultimate product of the spirit which pro- 
 duced among the powers of the earth the one which proclaimed as its 
 reason to be that all governments derive their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed, it yet is bearing without murmur taxes the 
 levying of which it can not affect in the slightest degree, and has no 
 effective voice in the making of the laws by which it is governed. 
 Nevertheless, the District of Columbia is the best governed commu- 
 nity of its day and generation. 
 
 The reason of this presents the most interesting question possible 
 to the student of sociology, and makes that question the most diffi- 
 cult possible of apprehension by the superficial observer; a question 
 not softened in its difficulties by the fact that the District has come 
 to be what it is in the face of executive and judicial notice of its anom- 
 aly in the early dajas of its history. In his second annual message to 
 Congress in 1818, President Monroe spoke as follows: 
 
 The situation of this District, it is thought, requires the attention of Congress. By 
 the Constitution the power of legislation is exclusively vested in the Congress of the 
 United States. In the exercise of this power, in which the people have no partici- 
 pation, Congress legislates in all cases directly on the local concerns of the District. 
 As this is a departure, for a special purpose, from the general principles of our system, 
 it may merit consideration whether an arrangement better adapted to the principles 
 of our Government and to the particular interests of the people may not be devised 
 which will neither infringe the Constitution nor affect the object which the provision 
 in question was intended to secure. 
 
 " Read before the Washington Academy of Sciences, April 29, 1899. 
 
 <7 , n 
 
2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 And in 1820, in the case of Loughborough v. Blake (5 Wheat., 317, 
 323-325), the Supreme Court of the United States, which had been 
 appealed to to declare, in effect, that the government of the District 
 of Columbia, in that it involved taxation without representation, was 
 contrary to the spirit of our institutions, disposed of the matter in 
 these words: 
 
 If, then, the language of th< j Constitution be construed to comprehend the Territories 
 and District of Columbia us well as the States, that language confers on Congress the 
 power of taxing the District and Territories as well as the States. If the general lan- 
 guage of the Constitution should be confined to the Slates, still the sixteenth paragraph 
 of the eighth section [of Article I| gives to Congress the power of exercising 'exclusive 
 legislation in all cases whatsoever within this District." 
 
 On the extent of these terms, according to the common understand- 
 ing of mankind, there can be no difference of opinion; but it is con- 
 tended that thev must be limited by that great principle which was 
 asserted in our Revolution, that representation is inseparable from 
 taxation. 
 
 The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense population, to 
 submit to be taxed by a Government having no common interest with it, separated 
 from it by a vast ocean, restrained by no principle of appointment and associated with 
 it by no common feelings, and permitting the representatives of the American people, 
 under the restrictions of our Constitution, to tax a part of the society, which is either 
 In a state of infancy advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete equality so 
 soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is the case with the Territories, or 
 which has voluntarily relinquished the right of representation and has adopted the 
 whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the District, 
 is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all. Although in theory it might 
 be more congenial to the spirit of our institutions to admit a representative from the 
 District, it may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered thereby 
 the more secure; and certainly the Constitution does not consider its want of a repre- 
 sentative in Congress as exempting it from equal taxation. 
 
 It is thus seen that the American people have not allowed then- 
 capital to become what it is in ignorance of what was happening; 
 and it is my pleasant task to review to-day the steps by which the 
 result which you see about you came to be. 
 
 As is well known, the establishment of the District as a political 
 entity came about through events which, for want of a more philo- 
 sophical expression, or rather, in the absence of reflection, we denomi- 
 nate fortuitous, but which, in their analysis and results are entitled 
 to be deemed truly providential. Superficially speaking, and judged 
 by the act at the time, by way of composing certain controversies, 
 which now interest us historically only, the territory contributed orig- 
 inally by Maryland and Virginia was chosen as the site of the federal 
 capital ; and by way of avoiding the possibility of disturbances such 
 as beset the national authorities when domiciled in Philadelphia, there 
 was written into the eighth article of the Federal Constitution that 
 supremely wise provision that " the Congress shalinave power * * * 
 to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such 
 District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particu- 
 lar States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the 
 Government of the United States." 
 
 As is equally well known, this territory, originally ceded by Mary- 
 land and Virginia, in fact comprised 10 miles square, or 100 square 
 miles in all. The legislative acts of Maryland and Virginia providing 
 for the cession were passed respectively December 23, 1788, and 
 December 3, 1789, and the first act of Congress on the subject was 
 
 ,m o.n \909 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 3 
 
 Q) 
 approved July 16, 1790, an amendment thereof being approved 
 March 3, 1791. The earlier act of Congress, that of 1790, accepted 
 for the permanent seat of the Government of the United States a 
 district of territory not exceeding 10 miles square, to be located on 
 the river Potomac between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and 
 Conogocheague, the same to be laid out by commissioners provided 
 for by. the act ; and it provided that by the first Monday in December, 
 1790, all offices attached to the seat of government of the United 
 States should be removed (from New York) to Philadelphia, and 
 there remain until the first Monday in December, 1800, on which day 
 the seat of government of the United States should be transferred to 
 the district and place aforesaid, and all offices attached to the said 
 seat of government accordingly be removed thereto by their respective 
 holders, and after said day cease to be exercised elsewhere. 
 
 The later act of Congress, that of 1791, amended the earlier act by 
 providing that the whole of the contemplated district need not be 
 located above the mouth of the Eastern Branch, but that a part of it 
 might be located below the said limit and include, with other territory, 
 the city of Alexandria, Va. On January 24, 1791, President Wash- 
 ington proclaimed a tentative location of the District by metes and 
 bounds,' and afterwards, on March 30, 1791, he proclaimed the 
 metes and bounds as fixed in accordance with the act of Congress of 
 that year. This latter proclamation located the District of Columbia 
 as it existed until, in conformity with the act of Congress of July 9, 
 1 846, the Virginia portion was retroceded to the State of Virginia, and 
 from the date of this retrocession (which became an accomplished fact 
 only upon the vote of the people of the county and town of Alexandria 
 in manner prescribed by the act), the District of Columbia has con- 
 sisted exclusively of the territory, about 64 square miles in extent, 
 originally ceded by the State of Maryland. In accordance with the 
 provisions of the act of Congress of April 24, 1800, which authorized 
 the President to direct the removal of the offices of the Government 
 to the District at any time that he might judge proper after the ad- 
 journment of the then present session of Congress, those offices were 
 so removed, and the Government of the people of the United States 
 made its permanent home on the banks of the Potomac. 
 
 I might, doubtless, in this presence have avoided going thus 
 into detail, but I have had an object in so doing; for in order to 
 indicate fully the matters entering into the political development 
 of the District it is necessary for us to know at how many points 
 the principles of political science have touched us in our birth and 
 growth; for, odd as it may seem, the situation demands treatment 
 from the top, instead of from the bottom, which latter is the natural 
 and proper order, for as between local and inter-local law the 
 former is naturally the first to be considered, and that form of inter- 
 local law which we call international is the latest of all. Yet, as I 
 am to deal with the political development of the District of Columbia 
 as it now is, I must first get rid of so much of the District as formerly 
 was but now is not. This demands a word as to the political make-up 
 of the original District, and leads to a consideration first of inter-local 
 or international law as bearing upon our subject. 
 
 It is a cardinal rule of international law that whenever there is a 
 change of sovereignty only the laws of the territory subjected to the 
 new soy e reign t} r continue until duly changed by that sovereignty. 
 
4 HI VELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 It is no exception to this rule to say that such laws may be changed 
 by the treaty or other act occasioning the change of sovereignty, for 
 
 this is the same as to say that the former laws are duly changed. 
 In the original act of Maryland relating to the cession of its portion 
 of the District of Columbia (the act of 178S) that State provided 
 onh T that its representatives in Congress should cede "to the Con- 
 gress of the United States" any district in the State not exceeding 
 10 miles square which Congress might fix upon and accept for the 
 seat of government of the United States. But after the Territory of 
 Columbia had been definitely located the general assembly of Mary- 
 land, by act of December 19, 1791, in addition to making sundry 
 provisions in relation to the Territory in general and the city of 
 Washington in particular, enacted specifically as follows: 
 
 That all thai part of the said territory, called Columbia, which lies within the 
 limits of this State shall he. and the same is hereby, acknowledged to be forever ceded 
 and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in full and 
 absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to 
 reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of the first article 
 of the ( 'oust it ut ion of Government of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein 
 contained shall be so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in 
 the soil, as to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or 
 may be transferred by such individuals to the United States: And provided <ilso. That 
 the jurisdiction of the laws of this State over the persons and property of individuals 
 residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid shall not cease or determine until 
 Congress shall by law provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in 
 manner provided by the article of the Constitution before recited. 
 
 Similarly, the State of Virginia, in making cession of its part of 
 the original District, enacted: 
 
 That nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest in the United States any 
 right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise 
 than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States: 
 And provided also, That the jurisdiction of the laws of this Commonwealth over 
 the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession afore- 
 said shall not cease or determine until Congress, having accepted the said cession, 
 shall, by law, provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner 
 provided by the article of the Constitution before recited. 
 
 As is thus apparent, the acts of Maryland and Virginia provided 
 for the continuance in the two portions of the newly formed District 
 of the laws of those States respectively until provision should be made 
 by the Congress of the United States for the government of the Dis- 
 trict. And when Congress came to deal with the matter, duly observ- 
 ing the rule of international law above noted, and not being ready to 
 make new- law in the premises, it enacted as follows on February 27, 
 1801 (2 Stats., 103): 
 
 That the laws of the State ut' Virginia, as they now exist, shall be and continue in 
 force in that pari of the District of Columbia which was ceded by the said State to 
 the United Stales and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; and 
 that the laws of the State of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be and continue in 
 force in that part of the said Distrid which was ceded by that State to the United 
 States and by them accepted as aforesaid. 
 
 This enactment of Congress left the two portions of the original 
 District wdiere they were at the time of its creation, and but for the 
 act of retrocession of the Virginia portion my task would be much 
 enlarged. As it is. however, we have now to do with only the Mary- 
 land portion, and to that I ask your attention. 
 
 As you look at the map, you observe that where it washes the 
 District of Columbia the Potomac River runs almost due south, 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 5 
 
 though with some hearing- toward the east, and that the uppermost 
 and lowermost points of the original square of the District are due 
 north and south from one another; and that the present territory 
 of the District is bounded on its eastern sides by the Maryland county 
 of Prince George and on its northern and western sides by the county 
 of Montgomery. So, also, you will observe that below the county of 
 Prince George in Maryland lie the counties of Charles and St. Mary, 
 and that all three of these counties, Prince George, Charles, and 
 St. Mary, are situated between the Potomac River on the west and 
 the Patuxent River on the east. 
 
 Originally the county of St. Mary was the only county of Maryland 
 west of the Patuxent River, and in contemplation of law it comprised 
 the whole of the State west of that stream. From April 23, 1696 
 (act of 1695, ch. 13), however, the northern boundary of the county 
 was fixed by a line drawn from Bud's Creek on the Potomac to Indian 
 Creek on the Patuxent, and the land above this line and as far up as 
 Mattawoman and Swanson creeks and branches constituted the 
 county of Charles, and all the land above Charles constituted the 
 county of Prince George, so named because the 23d day of April is 
 St. George's day. The present District of Columbia was, accordingly, 
 at first wholly within this county. 
 
 In 1748 (act of 1748, ch. 14) it was provided that as of the date 
 December 10 of that year there should be erected out of Prince George 
 County a new county named in honor of Prince Frederick, son of 
 George II, and "beginning at the lower side of the mouth of Rock 
 Creek ami thence by a straight line joining to the east side of Seth 
 Hyatt's plantation to the Patuxent River." This new county em- 
 braced part of the present county and original city of Washington 
 and all that part of the present city of Washington formerly known 
 in law and still colloquially known as Georgetown; the remainder of 
 the present District continuing in Prince George County. 
 
 On September 6, 1776, the revolutionary, or provincial, convention 
 of Maryland erected out of Frederick County tw T o other counties 
 named, respectively, after Generals Washington and Montgomery, 
 the boundaries of the latter beginning at the east side of Rock Creek 
 and running thence with the Potomac River to the mouth of the 
 Monocacy, thence to Par Spring, and thence with the line of the 
 original Frederick County to the place of beginning. This, it is seen, 
 threw Georgetown and part of the remainder of the present District 
 into the new county of Montgomery, and thus at the time of the 
 creation of the District of Columbia the Maryland portion, that is to 
 say, all of the present District, comprised parts of Prince George and 
 Montgomery counties. 
 
 The interest of this seemingly unnecessary detail lies in the fact 
 that the beginnings of the local government of the District were in 
 these respective counties, and the political development of the Dis- 
 trict starts with the institutions in existence therein. I regret that 
 time forbids my giving you a complete picture of a Maryland county 
 government in those early days, but I must forego the temptation to 
 do so. 1 must, however, ask attention to some features of that gov- 
 ernment, for the reason that those features survived in the District 
 until within a very few years, as we shall p^e sentry see. 
 
 Maryland, as we all know, was settled in March, 1634, upon the 
 landing of the first emigrants at St. Mary. Those emigrants brought 
 
6 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 with them the principles of law and government of the mother country 
 and the charter of Maryland establishing a palatinate under the all 
 but royal rule of Lord Baltimore. Again I must resist a temptation, 
 the temptation, namely, to give you a glimpse of the system of manors 
 and hundreds prevailing throughout the Province, and to tell you the 
 very interesting story of the early assemblies of the freemen, their 
 makeup, proceedings, and the rest. It must suffice, however, that I 
 point out to you the fact that, in the absence of the lord proprietary 
 of the Province, the general executive powers were vested in the gov- 
 ernor or lieutenant-general, while the general legislative powers (sub- 
 ject to the approval of the lord proprietary and liable to the dis- 
 approval of the Crown) were vested in the general assembly of the 
 freemen of the Province; and quite from the beginning there was a 
 lord chief justice of the Province. The affairs or 1 the Province were 
 managed by these various officials and the assembly, but as early as the 
 session of 1638-39 a system of government of the counties was inau- 
 gurated, and iiAhis S3?"stem began the local government of the District 
 of Columbia. 
 
 For in March of that year, more than two hundred and sixty 
 years ago, there was introduced into the assembly the bill out of 
 which grew the Maryland county court, the predecessor in certain 
 of its features of the levy court so familiar to' those of us of the 
 District who are not sensitive about our ages, for the levy court of 
 the county of Washington and District of Columbia was a living body 
 until the 1st day of June, 1871, less than twenty-eight years ago. 
 
 The bill so introduced into the assembly so many years ago, and 
 which ultimately became a law, is a perfect illustration of the way 
 in which all Anglo-Saxon institutions have grown up. You wil* 
 recall that in the beginning of the English judicial system the King 
 as the fountain of justice, was the ultimate judge, and that he first 
 appointed justiciars or justices to aid him in his judicial work, and 
 then, in the person of that very greatest of all English monarchs, 
 Henry II, sent certain persons, constituted justices for that purpose, 
 into the several shires or counties of England to hold court and 
 administer justice for him. Similarly, our legal ancestors of Mary- 
 land, sitting in that early assembly at St. Mary in 1038-39, provided 
 that ;i!l causes of a general nature should be heard in the several parts 
 of the state in a county court by the chief justice of the Province for 
 the time being, "or,'' as the bill read, "by and before such other com- 
 missioner or commissioners as the lord proprietary of this Province 
 or the lieutenant-general shall authorize to hear and determine the 
 same." 
 
 The bill further provided for a register to attend each session of the 
 county court, and that "the said chief justice or commissioners for 
 the time being and the said register shall be a court of record and 
 shall be called the county court, and the said court shall or may have, 
 use, exercise, and enjoy all or any the same or the like powers, privi- 
 leges, authorities, and jurisdictions within this Province (in the cause 
 aforesaid) as one of the King's courts of common law in England 
 useth or may use and exercise within the realm of England (except 
 where il is otherwise provided by any law of this Province)." To 
 this court, or, more accurately, to the commissioners provided by the 
 enactment, was committed the management of local affairs generally, 
 including the making of levies for the public charges and expenses. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 7 
 
 Not to go into unnecessary detail, it may be said generally that 
 from this time forth it was the practice for the commissioners of the 
 several counties, or of the several county courts, as they were indif- 
 ferently styled in subsequent enactments, to make all necessary levies 
 for the public charges and expenses and to administer the various 
 county affairs. In some instances the levies were made upon the 
 counties and in others upon the several hundreds within the counties, 
 and in every instance the levy was upon the taxable freemen or upon 
 such freemen and the "visible estates in the Province." 
 
 In later years the duties of the county commissioners in respect 
 of the levies were performed by the justices of the peace, who had 
 also been provided for at the same time as the county court; and by 
 a gradual process, but one in entire harmony with the manner of 
 growth of all institutions under our English system, the justices of 
 the peace wholly supplanted the commissioners in the respect under 
 consideration, until finally the meeting of the justices of the peace 
 for the purpose indicated came to be designated as levy courts, and 
 in 1794 (act of 1794, ch. 53) we find the assembly speaking of the 
 levy courts as definitely established bodies, and providing that such 
 courts may impose assessments for repairs of their court-houses and 
 the county prisons, and for the erection and repair of bridges; and, 
 further, that the justices of the peace in the respective counties, or 
 any five of them, shall meet annually between the 1st of March and 
 the 1st of October "to adjust the ordinary and necessary expenses of 
 their several counties," and to levy the necessary and proper assess- 
 ments in the premises; and finally, so far as we have to do with Mary- 
 land in the matter, in 1798 (act of 1798, ch. 34), it was enacted that 
 seven justices of the peace of those annually commissioned should be 
 commissioned by the governor and council as justices of the levy court 
 in each county, and designated in their commissions as "justices of 
 the levy court." 
 
 Accordingly, when on February 27, 1801, Congress assumed juris- 
 diction over the District of Columbia, its government was in the 
 hands of such a lev}?- court, or, speaking accurately, of two of such 
 courts, one each for the counties of Prince George and Montgomery, ' 
 except as to that portion of the District, or Montgomery County, as 
 it then was, which was occupied by the town of Georgetown, for 
 which, as we shall presently see, a separate municipal government 
 had already been provided. 
 
 Again following the course of things under the English system, 
 when Congress assumed jurisdiction over the present District of 
 Columbia, which was created a county by the name of Washington 
 (as the Virginia portion of the original District was created a county 
 by the name of Alexandria), provision was made for the appointment 
 by the President of officers familiar to the people of the territory, 
 including the constituents of a levy court, namely, justices of the 
 peace, and by act of March 3, 1801 (2 Stats., 115), it was specifically 
 enacted : 
 
 That the magistrates to be appointed for the said district shall be, and they are 
 hereby, constituted a board of commissioners within their respective counties, and 
 shall possess and exercise the same powers, perform the same duties, receive the same 
 fees and emoluments as the levy courts or commissioners of county for the State of 
 Maryland possess, perform, and receive; and the clerks and collectors, to be by them 
 appointed, shall be subject to the same laws, perform the same duties, possess the 
 same powers, and receive the same fees and emoluments as the clerks and collectors 
 of the county tax of the State of Maryland are entitled to receive. 
 
8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 In accordance with this enactment the levy court of the county of 
 Washington was organized and carried on its operations in accordance 
 with the Maryland system. On July 1, 1812 (2 Stats., 771), Congress 
 conferred certain specific powers upon the body, or " the board of com- 
 missioners or levy court for the county of Washington," as the lan- 
 guage of the act is, and provided that thereafter the board of court 
 should be composed of seven members to be designated annually by 
 the President from among the existing magistrates of the county, two 
 to be from the county east of Rock Creek and outside of the city of 
 Washington, two from the county west of Rock Creek and outside of 
 the city of Georgetown, and three from the city of Georgetown. 
 "Taxation without representation" still pursued the city of Wash- 
 ington, for, while it had no representative in the levy court, it was 
 required by the same act to bear one-half of all the general county 
 expenses and charges other than those for roads and bridges. But 
 in 1848 (9 Stats., 223, 230) this was righted by the provision by 
 Congress for the appointment annually of four additional members of 
 the court from the city of Washington, so that thereafter the court 
 should consist of eleven members. 
 
 The act of August 11, 1856 (11 Stats., 33), authorized the court 
 to appoint school commissioners, and provided fully for a system 
 of schools in the county, prescribing the powers and duties of the 
 levy court in relation thereto. By act of May 3, 1862 (12 Stats., 
 383), the court was given further specific powers, and the require- 
 ment that its members should be appointed from among the justices 
 of the peace was repealed. And by act of May 3, 1863 (12 Stats., 
 799), entitled "An act to define the powers and duties of the levy 
 court of the county of Washington, District of Columbia, in regard 
 to roads and for other purposes," which was in effect a code in 
 relation to the county, Congress made full provision for the court, 
 defining accurately its jurisdiction and duties, and reducing the 
 number of its members to nine, who were provided to be appointed 
 by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and to hold office 
 for three years; of the members to be first appointed one-third to 
 be appointed for one year, one-third for two years, and one-third 
 for three years, so that the body might be kept continuous and per- 
 manent. 
 
 There are several subsequent acts conferring certain powers on the 
 court and regulating its action in given cases, but the character and 
 importance of the court were in no wise affected thereby, and until 
 its abolition, in 1871, it remained substantiallv as fixed bv the act 
 of 1863. 
 
 The character of this body can not be better stated than in the 
 language of Mr. Justice Miller, of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, speaking for that court in the case of Lew Court v. Coro- 
 fter (2 Wall., 501, 507-508), as follows: 
 
 The levy court i< the body charged with the administration of the ministerial and 
 financial duties of Washington County. It is charged with the duty of laying out, 
 and repairing roads, building bridges, and keeping them in -nod order, providing 
 poorhouses, and the general care of the poor, and with laying and collecting the taxes 
 which arc necessary to enable it to discharge these and other duties, and to pay the 
 oilier expenses of the county. It has the capacity to make contracts in reference to 
 any of these matter.-, and to raise money to meet these contracts. It has perpetual 
 succession. Its functions arc those which, in the several States, are performed by 
 "county commissioners," "overseers of the poor." "county supervisors." and similar 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 9 
 
 bodies with other designations. Nearly all the functions of these various bodies, or 
 of any of them, reside in the levy court of Washington. It is, for all financial and min- 
 isterial purposes, the county of Washington. 
 
 I have said that at the time Congress assumed jurisdiction over the 
 District, and the lew court went into operation for the county of 
 Washington as" a separate territory, there had already been created a 
 separate municipal government for Georgetown. The history of this 
 government is not less interesting than that of the levy court. 
 
 Certain of the inhabitants of Frederick County having set forth in a 
 petition to the assembly of Maryland that there was a convenient 
 place for a town on the Potomac, above the mouth of Rock Creek, 
 and praying that 60 acres of land might there be laid out and erected 
 into a town, the assembly by act of June s, 1751 (ch. 21), appointed 
 seven commissioners to buy the necessary land and lay out the same 
 in 80 lots, to constitute a town by the name of Georgetown. The 
 act provided no government for the new town, which remained subject 
 to the levy court of the county of Frederick, except that the commis- 
 sioners were empowered to remove nuisances from the streets and 
 alleys (sec. 13), and except also as appears in the following interesting 
 breath from the past (sec. 12): 
 
 And whereas it may be advantageous to the said town to have fairs kept therein, 
 and may prove an encouragement to the back inhabitants and others to bring com- 
 modities there to sell and vend, Be it enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the 
 commissioners of the said town to appoint two fairs to be held therein annually, the 
 one fair to begin on the second Thursday in April and the other on the first Thursday 
 in October, annually, which said fairs shall he held each for the space of three days; 
 and that during the continuance of such fair or fairs all persons within the bounds 
 of the said town shall be privileged a.nd free from arrest, except for felony and breach 
 of the peace; and all persons coming to.such fair or fairs, or returning therefrom, shall 
 have the like privilege of one day before the fair and one day on their return there- 
 from; and the commissioners for the said town are hereby empowered to make such 
 rules and orders for the holding of the said fairs as may tend to prevent all disorders 
 and inconveniences that may happen in the said town and such as may tend to the 
 improvement and regulating of the said town in general, so as such rules, except in 
 fair time, affect none but livers in the said town or such persons or persons as shall 
 have a lot or freehold therein, any law, statute, usage, or custom to the contrary not- 
 withstanding: Provided, always, That such rules and orders be not inconsistent with 
 the laws of this province nor the statutes or customs of Great Britain. 
 
 And as showing that the feudal system was not vet fully dead, wit- 
 ness the following further provision of this act (sec. 15): 
 
 That all and every person and persons taking up and possessing the lots aforesaid, 
 or any of them, shall be, and are hereby, obliged to pay unto the right honorable the 
 lord proprietary, his heirs or successors, the yearly rent of one penny sterling money 
 for each respective lot by them so taken up and possessed, to be paid in the same man- 
 ner as his land rents in this province now are or hereafter shall be paid. 
 
 By act of December 26, 1783 (chap. 27), provision was made for 
 Beall's addition to the town of 61 acres of the tract known as the 
 Rock of Dumbarton, and by act of January 22, 1785 (acts of 1784, 
 ch. 45), similar provision was made for Peter, Deakins, Beatty, and 
 Threlkeld's addition of about 20| acres of the several tracts bearing 
 the attractive names of Frogland, Discovery, Conjuror's Disappoint- 
 ment, and Resurvey on Salop. 
 
 At last, on Christmas day, 1789 (ch. 23), the assembly incor- 
 porated the town, which by this time had fallen within Montgomery 
 County. The act of incorporation is interesting in many particu- 
 lars. Thus, in part imitation of the charter of London, the town 
 as a body corporate was made to consist of a mayor, recorder, six 
 
10 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 aldermen, and ten common councilmen, and was given the corporate 
 name of "the mayor, recorder, aldermen, and common council:" and 
 the act appointed by name the first mayor, recorder, and aldermen, 
 leaving the common councilmen to be elected by a viva voce vote 
 of the qualified freemen, and providing for the annual election of 
 a mayor from among the aldermen and for filling vacancies in the 
 several offices. 
 
 The recorder and all the aldermen and common councilmen were 
 to hold office during good behavior; the recorder was always to be 
 "a person learned in the law," and vacancies in the board of alder- 
 men were to be filled by election from among the common council- 
 men. The mayor, recorder, and aldermen were constituted justices 
 of the peace and given power to elect a sheriff and appoint constables 
 and other necessary offices for the town, and were also required to hold 
 a court to be called the mayor's court, the jurisdiction of which was 
 specifically defined ; and other municipal powers were granted to the 
 corporation. By subsequent legislation (e. g., f797, ch. 56: 1799, 
 ch. 85), the tenure of the officers was limited in time, the limitation 
 of the choice of mayor to be from among the aldermen was removed, 
 additional powers were given the corporation, and the limits of the 
 town were variously enlarged, altered and more clearly defined. 
 
 By its first act on the subject, that of March 3, 1805 (2 Stats., 332), 
 Congress amended the charter of Georgetown by providing that after 
 the second Monday in March of that year the corporation of the town 
 should be divided into two branches, the first to be composed of five 
 members and a recorder, and called ''the board of aldermen,'' and 
 the second to be composed of eleven members and called "the board 
 of common councilmen," all to be elected. The first election was 
 provided to be by the then existing members of the corporation, who 
 should choose five of their number to compose the board of alder- 
 men, the remainder to be the board of common councilmen and all to 
 remain in office until the fourth Monday of February following. The 
 then recorder was to be president of the board of aldermen until the 
 same day, and the then mayor to remain in office until the first Mon- 
 day of January following. For the future, aldermen and common 
 councilmen were to be elected by the people, the former for two 
 years and the latter for one year; while the two branches by joint' 
 ballot were annually to elect a mayor and recorder, the latter still 
 to be a "person learned in the law." The act defined the powers 
 and territorial jurisdiction of the corporation, provided for the filling 
 of vacancies in the several offices, and contained other useful pro- 
 visions. 
 
 Finally, by act of May 31, 1830 (4 Stats., 426), Congress provided 
 for the election of the mayor by the people on the same day as the 
 councilmen were chosen, and fixed the tenure of his office at two years; 
 and provided for filling a vacancy in the office by the two branches 
 until the next regular election. And, in the meanwhile, by the act of 
 May 20, 1826 (4 Stats., 183), Congress had deprived the levy court 
 of the county of Washington of the power to assess any tax in George- 
 town, so that tlie latter city from this time on stood as a quite fully 
 equipped and independent municipal corporation, retaining its 
 powers until 1871, and its separate name until the passage of the act 
 of 1895, hereafter to be noticed. 
 
 Tinning now to the city of Washington, it has already been pointed 
 out that Congress effectively assumed jurisdiction over the District 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 11 
 
 of Columbia by the act of February 27. 1801 (2 Stats.. 103). At that 
 time there was. of course, no such thing as a corporation of the city of 
 Washington; nor was there until after the passage of the act of Con- 
 gress of May 3, 1802 (2 Stats., 195). By the act for establishing the 
 temporary and permanent seat of government of the United States, 
 approved July 16, 1790 (1 Stats., 130), a board of three commis- 
 sioners was provided for, which board was charged with the duty of 
 surveying, defining, and limiting the district to be accepted for the 
 permanent seat of government, and providing suitable government 
 buildings. These officials were called in the later act of April 24, 
 1800 (2 Stats., 55), "the commissioners of the city," and were recog- 
 nized as being in effect intrusted with the affairs of the city in gen- 
 eral. By act of Congress of May 1, 1802 (2 Stats., 175), this board of 
 commissioners was abolished and the affairs of the city of Washington, 
 which had heretofore been under the care and superintendence of the 
 said commissioners, were put under the direction of a superintendent, 
 to be appointed by and to be under the control of the President of the 
 United States; which superintendent was vested with the powers and 
 charged with the duties formerly vested with or required to be per- 
 formed by the said commissioners by virtue of any act of Maryland 
 or of Congress, or the deeds of trust from the original proprietors of 
 the lots in the city, or in any other manner whatsoever. 
 
 By act of April 29, 1806* (3 Stats., 324), the office of this superin- 
 tendent was abolished and its powers and duties, as also the duties of 
 the earlier board of three commissioners, were devolved upon one com- 
 missioner, thereafter known as the "commissioner of public build- 
 ings;" and by act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stats., 466), the office of this 
 commissioner was in turn abolished and those powers and duties 
 devolved upon the Chief of Engineers of the Army. 
 
 By the act of May 3, 1802 (2 Stats., 195), Congress provided that 
 the inhabitants of the city of Washington should be a corporation "by 
 the name of a mayor and council of the city of Washington," and that 
 the city should be divided into three divisions or wards, as then divided 
 by the levy court, with power in the council to increase the number of 
 wards in its wisdom. 
 
 The council was provided to consist of twelve members, elected 
 annually by the qualified voters, and when elected the twelve were to 
 choose from their number by joint ballot five to constitute the second 
 chamber, the remaining seven to constitute the first. The mayor was 
 provided to be appointed annually by the President of the United 
 States, and the corporation was given usual municipal powers. A 
 somewhat unique provision was "that the by-laws or ordinances of 
 the said corporation shall be in no. wise obligatory upon the persons 
 of non-residents of the said city, unless in cases of intentional viola- 
 tions of bye-laws or ordinances previously promulgated." By its 
 terms and in imitation of the very wise practice of the State of Mary- 
 land at the time the act was limited in force to two years and to the 
 end of the next session of Congress thereafter. By the supplementary 
 act of February 24, 1804 (2 Stats., 254), the original act was continued 
 
 " A complete and accurate account of the creation of the city of Washington as the 
 federal -city, including a full exposition of the manner in which and the terms on which 
 ihe lands for the purpose were conveyed to the original commissioners, may be found 
 in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United Stales in the case of Morris v. United 
 States (commonly called the "Potomac Flats case"), decided May 1, 1899 (174 
 U. S., 196). 
 
12 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTKICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 in force for fifteen years from the end of the next session of Congress ; 
 certain additional powers were given to the corporation; the levy- 
 court was deprived of the power to impose any tax upon the inhabit- 
 ants of the city, and the constitution of the councils was changed by 
 provision that future councils should consist of two chambers of nine 
 members each, to be chosen by distinct ballots, and that any vacancy 
 should be filled by the chamber in which it should happen by an elec- 
 tion by ballot from the three persons next highest on the list to those 
 elected at the preceding election. 
 
 The charter of the city was radically changed by the act of May 4, 
 1812 (2 Stats., 721). By the terms of this act, after the first Monday 
 of June of that year the corporation was composed of a mayor, a board 
 of aldermen, and a board of common council, and its corporate name 
 was "the mayor, aldermen, and common council of the city of Wash- 
 ington." There were eight aldermen, two from each ward, and twelve 
 common councilmen, three from each ward, and all were elected by 
 ballot by the qualified voters, the former for two years and the latter 
 for one year. The mayor was elected annually by ballot by the two 
 chambers in joint meeting, and in case of three ballots without an 
 election he was to be chosen by lot. 
 
 Quite full municipal powers were given the corporation, including 
 the power to pass all laws necessary for carrying into execution the 
 powers specifically conferred upon and vested in the corporation, 
 whether by the act itself or any former one. Among the powers spe- 
 cifically conferred by the act was that "to authorize the drawing of 
 lotteries for effecting any important improvement in the city, which 
 the ordinary funds or revenues thereof will not accomplish : Provided, 
 That the amount to be raised in each year shall not exceed the sum of 
 ten thousand dollars: And, provided also, That the object for which the 
 money is intended to be raised shall be first submitted to the President 
 of the United States and shall be approved, by him." This act was 
 amended February 20, 1819 (3 Stats., 485), providing for tax sales, and 
 by act of February 28, 1820 (3 Stats., 543), it was extended to March 
 3, 1821, unless sooner repealed. 
 
 The act of May 15, 1820 (3 Stats., 583), was still more thorough. 
 It repealed all former enactments so far as inconsistent with its pro- 
 visions; continued the corporation under its later name; granted 
 many new powers; made elaborate provisions respecting tax sales; 
 prohibited any tax upon property in the city by the levy court, and 
 limited the contributions by the corporation to the expenditures of 
 that court: and made specific provisions for the division of the city 
 into wards. For the first time the mayor was to be elected by the 
 people, and he was to be chosen exvvy second year, and, as before, 
 there were to be two aldermen chosen from each ward for two years 
 and three common councilmen from each ward for one year. The 
 act was limited in duration to twenty years, or until Congress should 
 by law determine otherwise. 
 
 An interesting and important provision of this act, foreshadowing 
 the existing division of expenditures between the United States and 
 the District, is section 15, as follows: 
 
 Thai the commissioner of tin- public buildings, <>r other person appointed to super- 
 intend the United States disbursements in the city of Washington, shall reimburse 
 to the said corporation a just proportion of any expense which may hereafter be 
 incurred in laying open, paving, or otherwise improving anj of the streets or avenues 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTKICT OF COLUMBIA. 13 
 
 in front of or adjoining to, or which may pass through or between, any of the public 
 squares or reservations, which proportion shall be determined by a comparison of the 
 length of the front or fronts of the said squares or reservations of the United States 
 on any such street or avenue with the whole extent of the two side- thereof; and he 
 shall cause the curbstones to be set and footways to be paved on the side or sides of 
 any such street or avenue whenever the said corporation shall, by law, direct such 
 improvements to be made by the proprietors of the lots on the opposite side of any 
 such street or avenue, or adjacenl to any such square or reservation; and he shall 
 cause the footways to be paved and the curbstones to be set in front of any lot or lots 
 belonging to the United States when the like improvements shall l>c ordered by the 
 corporation in front of the lots adjoining or squares adjacent thereto; and he shall 
 defray the expenses directed by this section out of any moneys arising from the sale 
 of lots in the city of Washington belonging to the United States, and from no other 
 fund. 
 
 A supplementary act was passed May 26, 1824 (1 Stats., 75), pro- 
 viding more fully for tax sales, and providing also (by sec. 14) for 
 the removal of nuisances from lots belonging to the United States, 
 at the expense of the United States, to be defrayed out of moneys 
 in the hands of the city commissioner from the sale of public prop- 
 erty in the city. 
 
 The last general act of Congress in relation to the corporation of 
 Washington is that of May 17, 1848 (9 Stats., 228), entitled "An 
 act to continue, alter, and amend the charter of the city of Washing- 
 ton." This act provides for continuing in force for the term of 
 twenty vears from its date, or until Congress should bv law deter- 
 mine otherwise, the acts of May 15, 1820, and May 26," 1824, "and 
 the act or acts supplemental or additional to said acts which were in 
 force on the fourteenth, day of May, eighteen hundred and forty, or 
 which may, at the passing of this act, be in force." The act deals 
 largely with the levy and collection of taxes; provides for the elec- 
 tion of a board of assessors, a register, a collector and a surveyor; 
 and prescribes more fully the qualifications of electors and the juris- 
 diction, duties, and tenure of office of justices of the peace. Sections 
 12 and 13 of the act are of especial interest as dealing further with 
 the duty and liability of the General Government in respect of open- 
 ing streets and repairing pavements and highways. In view of the 
 popular error that Congress is doing a generous thing by the District 
 in sharing expenses with it, these two sections should be read in full. 
 They are as follows: 
 
 That the commissioner of public buildings, or other officer having charge and 
 authority over the lands and property of the United States lying within the city of 
 Washington, shall from time to time cause to be opened and improved such avenues 
 and streets, or parts or portions thereof, as the President of the United States, upon 
 application of the corporation of the said city, shall deem necessary for the public 
 convenience, and direct to be done; and he shall defray the expenses thereof out of 
 any money arising, or which shall have arisen, from the sale of lots in the city of Wash- 
 ington belonging, or which may have belonged, to the United States, and from no 
 other fund. And it shall be the duty of the said commissioner, or other United States 
 officer, as aforesaid, upon the application of the mayor, to repair and keep in repair 
 the pavements, water gutters, waterways, and flag footways which have been made 
 or shall be made opposite or along the public squares, reservations, or other property 
 belonging to the United States; as also, on like application, to repair and keep in 
 repair such streets and avenues, or parts thereof, as may have been, or shall hereafter 
 be, opened and improved by the United States; the expense of all such repairs to be 
 paid out of the fund before mentioned. 
 
 That the commissioner of public buildings be, and he is hereby, required to perform 
 the duties required of the city commissioner by the fourteenth section of the act of the 
 twenty-sixth of May, eighteen hundred and twenty-four, supplementary to the act of 
 the fifteenth of May, eighteen hundred and twenty, incorporating the inhabitants of 
 
14 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 the city of Washington. And it shall be the duty of the commissioner of public build- 
 ings, within ninety days after the sale of any lots or squares belonging to the United 
 States in the city of Washington, to report the fact to the' corporation of Washington, 
 giving the date of sale, the number of the lot and square, the name of the purchaser 
 or purchasers, and the said lots or squares shall be liable to taxation by the said corpora- 
 tion from the date of such sale. And no open space, public reservation, or other public 
 ground in the said city shall be occupied by any private person or for any private 
 purposes whatever. 
 
 With a few alterations, all appertaining to detail and none affect- 
 ing the general scheme of the government, the charter of the city of 
 Washington remained to the end substantiallv as the act of 1848 
 left it, 
 
 There were thus for some years side by side in the District three 
 separate municipal governments, the corporation of Washington, the 
 corporation of Georgetown, and the levy court, Each of these gov- 
 ernments had and exercised the power of making ordinances and 
 laws, and there accordingly existed at the same time one set of such 
 ordinances or laws for Washington, another set for Georgetown, and 
 a third set for the county. Perhaps no greater anomaly than this 
 can be presented for a territory of 64 square miles, especially when it 
 is considered that this territory is the seat of Time's latest and best 
 offspring in the way of government ; and I am constrained to wonder 
 what the Puritan forebears of sturdy New England would have 
 thought could they have come to life so lately as within the past 
 quarter of a century to find that the same act committed on the same 
 Sunday would have met with one punishment in Georgetown, another 
 in the county, and none at all in Washington. Yet this very fact, 
 for fact it is, is the highest possible testimonial to the conservatism 
 which characterizes the origin and growth of law and institutions in 
 our English system; the conservatism which has made us and our 
 kin beyond the sea the foremost in the universal brotherhood now 
 happily becoming so generally recognized. 
 
 In the growth and administration of these three municipalities, 
 helped along by the oversight of the federal power, there of course 
 came into being as occasion required the needful detail agencies of 
 government — courts greater and smaller, judicial and fiscal officers, 
 surveyors, school officials, boards of health, constabularies, and the 
 like. And although our institutions were thus growing and being- 
 added to in strict conformity to the principles of the distinction 
 between federal and local government which underlies the whole 
 American system, there was at the same time coming more and more 
 into play the other seemingly inevitable principle, so far as result is 
 concerned, that the national must and will to a great extent override 
 the local, and the general must and will supplant the particular. 
 
 This was first manifested in the establishment of courts and judicial 
 officers and general laws, of jurisdiction and authority extending 
 throughout the District; but, as is so often the case, it was reserved 
 for the stress of war to occasion the first comprehensive step in the 
 u ay of unity, at first seeming radical but in the end coming to be rec- 
 ognized as so natural as to make the wonder to be that it was so long 
 delayed. 
 
 This first step is to be found in the act of Congress of August 6, 
 1861 (12 Stats., 320), forming the cities of Washington and George- 
 town and the county outside of the limits of those cities — in a word, 
 the entire District— into "The Metropolitan Police District of the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia." There was providedfor this police district a board 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 15 
 
 of commissioners of police, consisting of the mayors of Washington and 
 Georgetown and five other members, three from Washington, one 
 from Georgetown, and one from the county, to be appointed by the 
 President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; which 
 board was vested with the police powers to be exercised throughout 
 the District, including the preservation of the peace, the prevention 
 of ciime and arrest of offenders, the protection of rights of person and 
 property and the public health, and the enforcement of the laws gen- 
 erally applicable to matters of police. 
 
 A police force was established, possessing in every part of the 
 District the common-law and statutory police powers of constables, 
 and provision was made for the division of the District into police 
 precincts, with convenient station houses, for the more efficient 
 administration of the police power, and a superintendent was created 
 to act as "the head and chief" of the force, subject to the orders 
 and regulations of the board. The several municipalities were 
 stripped of the police power as such, and the existing constabularies 
 were abolished. The initial act was several times amended and 
 supplemented, but in the main the police system as originally devised 
 remains to this day. 
 
 This was, in the beginning, not a popular departure from the old 
 system, but its wisdom was soon abundantly manifested; and it is, 
 perhaps, not too much to say that a more necessary and, in the 
 result, a more justifiable step was never taken, for the possibilities 
 of the situation, had the old system been left in operation, are diffi- 
 cult, if not impossible, of exaggeration. 
 
 The establishment of the Metropolitan police district bore, within 
 less than a decade, fruit not looked for at the planting; for by 
 act of February 21, 1871 (1(> Stats., 419), Congress created the whole 
 of the District "into a government by the name of the District of 
 Columbia." 
 
 The corporations of Washington and Georgetown and the levy 
 court, and all the offices appertaining thereto, were abolished at the 
 date of June 1, 1871, although all the ordinances and laws of the two 
 corporations and the levy court not consistent with the act were con- 
 tinued in force in their respective territories until modified and 
 repealed by Congress or the legislative assembly created by the act, 
 and the powers of the levy court were continued for certain purposes. 
 The new corporation, the District of Columbia, was made successor to 
 the municipal bodies which were abolished, and vested with all the 
 property of those bodies. The government of the District w T as vested 
 in a governor, a secretary, and a council of eleven, two from George- 
 town, two from the county, and the rest from Washington, all to be 
 appointed by the President by ami with the advice and consent of 
 the Senate, and a house of delegates, twenty-two in number, to be 
 elected by the people. 
 
 The governor and the secretary were to hold office four years, the 
 members of the council two years, and the delegates one year. The 
 first council was to be divided into a one-year class of five and a two- 
 year class of six, and afterwards all were to be appointed for two 
 years. It is interesting to note, as in the case of the latest legisla- 
 tion respecting the constitution of the levy court, the persistence of 
 this principle, first applied in the case of the United States Senate. 
 
 Besides these general municipal officials, the act provided a board 
 of health and a board of public works and gave the District the only 
 
1G DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 direct representation which it has ever had in Congress, in the person 
 of a Delegate to the House of Representatives to have the same 
 rights and privileges as Delegates from the Territories, and, besides, 
 to be a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia. The 
 board of public works was provided to consist of the governor and 
 four citizens and residents of the District, to be appointed by the 
 President and Senate for four years, of whom one was to be from 
 Georgetown, one from the county, and one a civil engineer. 
 
 This board was given entire control of and authorized to make all 
 regulations which it should deem necessary for keeping in repair the 
 streets, avenues, alleys, and sewers of the city (its powers were 
 extended to the county by the legislative assembly), and all other 
 works which might be intrusted to it by the legislative assembly or 
 Congress. The principle of division of expense between the United 
 States and the District was again recognized here, as in the further 
 provision of the act that all officers to be appointed by the President 
 were to be paid by the United States ami all others to be paid by the 
 District for their services. 
 
 An interesting provision of the scheme, though one that was never 
 acted upon, indicates the extent to which the principle of local gov- 
 ernment in local affairs still held sway, for it was provided by the 
 act that the legislative assembly might divide the portion of the 
 District outside of the cities into townships, not exceeding three, 
 and create township officers and prescribe their duties, but that all 
 township officers should be elected by the people of the townships 
 respectively. 
 
 The supreme court of the District of Columbia, in the case of Roach 
 V. Van Riswick (MacA. and M., 171, decided November 18, 1879), 
 held that much of this act, so far as it concerned the legislative assem- 
 bly, was unconstitutional and void, for the reason that Congress had 
 no power to delegate general legislative authority to the local govern- 
 ment of the District, but could give that government only such 
 powers as* might properly be conferred upon a municipal corporation; 
 a decision which may yet be brought under review, to somebody's 
 disaster, as I think; for it seems to me clearly wrong, seeing that the 
 Constitution only gave Congress the potential right of jurisdiction 
 over the District, and that it was Maryland, the sovereign of the ter- 
 ritory, that " ceded and relinquished" that territory — not delegated 
 any powers — "to the Congress and Government of the United States, 
 in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as 
 of persons residing or to reside thereon." This is not delegation; it is 
 absolute cession of territory and abdication of all rights therein, and 
 the successor to territory and all rights therein is surely under no 
 hamper of delegated authority. 
 
 The fate of the territorial government, as it is generally called, is 
 too freshly in mind to call for extended comment; and it suffices to. 
 sa\ that between the riot of extravagance of the board of public 
 works and the orgy of suffrage, which some of our good citizens 
 long to have restored, that government, after a fevered life of a little 
 more than three years, deservedly fell. And its fall ushered in what 
 I hope is to be the last stage of the District's political development. 
 
 When Congress could no longer endure its creature of 1871, it 
 enacted, on June 20, 1874 (IS Stats.. 116), that all provisions for an 
 executive, secretary, legislative assembly, board of public works, and 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 17 
 
 Delegate to Congress from the District should be repealed (saving 
 the term of office of the then sitting Delegate) , and that for the time 
 being, and until otherwise provided by law. the government of the 
 District should be committed to a board of three commissioners to 
 be appointed by the President and Senate and vested with all the 
 powers formerly belonging to the governor and board of public works, 
 except as otherwise provided by the act ; and that the powers of the 
 chief engineer of that board should be exercised by an officer of the 
 Engineer Corps of the Army of the United States, to be detailed by 
 the President. 
 
 In addition, a board of audit, consisting of the First and Second 
 Comptrollers of the Treasury was provided, with the authority and 
 duty to audit all claims growing out of the acts of the board of public 
 works in the execution of its "comprehensive plan of improvements," 
 the cost of which the District is yet paying and to pay through the 
 medium of the familiar and much-to-be-desired 3.65 bonds. 
 
 After a four years' trial of this form of government for the District, 
 Congress very wisely decided to make it, with certain improvements, 
 permanent, and on June 11, 1878 (20 Stats., 102), passed the act 
 under which, as amended and supplemented from time to time, we 
 now live. The government of the District under tins legislation, 
 which at the outset I made bold enough to speak of as the best pos- 
 sible for a municipality, may be generally described as follows: 
 
 The powers and authority of government are lodged in a board of 
 three commissioners, two of whom are civilians, citizens of the United 
 States, and actual residents of the District of Columbia for three 
 years before their appointment and having, during that period, 
 claimed residence nowhere else. These two commissioners are ap- 
 pointed for three years by the President and Senate, and the third 
 is an officer of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army 
 whose lineal rank is above that of captain, although the President 
 may, in his discretion, detail for this duty a captain of fifteen years' 
 service. This board of commissioners has all the powers and au- 
 thority formerly belonging to the governor and board of public works 
 of the District, and is, besides, vested with the powers and authority 
 formerly belonging to the boards of police, health, and public schools. 
 It has the power of appointment and removal of all the officers pro- 
 vided for the administration of the municipal affairs, may abolish 
 any office, and may consolidate any two or more offices. Within 
 the limitations of law on the subject, it fixes the rate of taxation, 
 which, however, is applied to assessments of value made by a board 
 of assessors of its own appointing, which latter board acts also as an 
 excise board for the granting and regulating of liquor licenses. 
 
 Besides its more purely executive powers, into the details of which 
 it is unnecessary to go, the board of commissioners has large powers 
 of a legislative nature, as the powers to make and enforce building 
 and coal regulations (20 Stats., 131), police regulations (24 Stats., 
 368; 27 Stats., 394), elevator regulations (24 Stats., 580), regulations 
 for public safety on bridges (27 Stats., 544) and in theaters (27 Stats., 
 394), regulations for the location and depths of gas mains (27 Stats., 
 544), plumbing regulations (27 Stats., 21), regulations relative to 
 medical and dental colleges (29 Stats., 112) and regulations for the 
 occupation of sidewalks and street parkings (30 Stats., 570), and the 
 platting of subdivisions of land (25 Stats., 451 ). It has also the power 
 
 S. Doc. 110, 61-1 2 
 
18 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLTJMBIA. 
 
 to order the erection of fire escapes (24 Stats., 365), to order work in 
 the nature of special improvements at the cost, in part, of the adjoin- 
 ing property owners (26 Stats., 296, 1066; 28 Stats., 247), and to 
 condemn lands for sites for school, fire, and police buildings and 
 rights of way for sewers (26 Stats., 302); to constitute or appoint to 
 various boards and institutions, as, to fill vacancies in the board of 
 trustees of Columbia Hospital (27 Stats., 551), to appoint dental 
 examiners (27 Stats., 42), and a board of medical supervisors and 
 boards of medical examiners (29 Stats., 198), to appoint trustees of 
 the Free Public Library and Reading Room (29 Stats., 244), and 
 trustees for the Industrial Home School (29 Stats., 410), and to 
 appoint a board for the licensing of plumbers and gas fitters (27 
 Stats., 21; 30 Stats., 477). It also has the power to grant pardons 
 for offenses against the laws of Washington, Georgetown, the levy 
 court, and the legislative assembly, and against the police and build- 
 ing regulations (27 Stats., 22). That a body of three American citi- 
 zens, mixed civil and military, vested with so numerous, varied, and 
 large powers exercises them with so little irritation and so little just 
 cause of complaint is surely a high tribute to the American character, 
 just now so much in evidence throughout the world, and just now 
 taking on so many new responsibilities, to which, it goes without 
 saying, it will prove fully adequate. 
 
 One of the most interesting features of our local government needs 
 yet to be noticed — the feature of its cost. The commissioners annually 
 submit to the Secretary of the Treasury estimates of the expenses of 
 the government of the District for the fiscal year beginning the 1st 
 day of July following. The Secretary of the Treasury passes upon 
 these estimates and sends to the commissioners a statement of the 
 amount approved by him, and this statement and their own original 
 estimates the commissioners transmit to Congress ; and to the extent 
 to which Congress approves of the estimates it appropriates one half 
 and the remaining half is levied upon the taxable property and privi- 
 leges in the District other than the property of the United States and 
 the District of Columbia; but the rate of taxation in any one year 
 can not exceed SI. 50 on every $100 of real property and personal 
 property not taxable elsewhere, or $1 on the hundred for agri- 
 cultural property. 
 
 What I wish especially to be noticed in this connection is the 
 oftmentioned division of expense between the United States and 
 the District. As we have seen, Congress took notice of this princi- 
 ple in the act of 1820, relating to the corporation of Washington, and 
 in its act of 1848 on the same subject gave the principle more specific 
 and extended application. In short, the principle may be said to 
 have existed from the first; and with good reason, seeing that the 
 District was established primarily for the purposes of the National 
 Government and that that Government is the owner of quite half 
 of all the property here with which governmental agencies as the 
 fruit of taxation are concerned, as in protection against fire and theft, 
 water supply, etc. Moreover, the National Government always bore 
 its due share of the cost of street improvements, etc., adjoining its 
 properties and for long bore exclusively the cost of the fire service 
 and almost exclusively the cost of the water service in the District. 
 All in all, if either party to the double government of the District 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 19 
 
 ought to be favored in the matter of expense it is the local and not 
 the National Government. 
 
 I have expressed the hope that this latest phase of our political 
 development will be its last. If not this, it seems destined to be 
 the last for some time to come, in view of the light in which it is 
 regarded by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Eckloff v. 
 District of Columbia (135 U. S., 240, 243-244), that court, speaking 
 of- the act of 1878, says: 
 
 The court below placed its decision on what we conceive to be the true significance 
 of the act of 1878. As said by that court, it is to be regarded as an organic act, intended 
 to dispose of the whole question of a government for this District. It is, as it were, 
 a constitution for the District. It is declared by its title to be an act to provide "a 
 permanent form of government for the District." The word permanent is suggestive. 
 It implies that prior systems have been temporary and provisional. As permanent 
 it is complete in itself. It is the system of government. The powers which are 
 conferred are organic powers. We look to the act itself for their extent and limita- 
 tions. It is not one act in a series of legislation, and to be made to fit into the pro- 
 visions of the prior legislation, but it is a single complete act, the outcome of pre- 
 vious experiments, and the final judgment of Congress as to the system of government 
 which should obtain. It is the constitution of the District, and its grants of power 
 are to be taken as new and independent grants, and expressing in themselves both 
 their extent and limitations. Such was the view taken by the court below, and 
 such we believe is the true view to be taken of the statute. 
 
 The last act in what may be termed the unification of the District 
 was the passage by Congress of the law of February 11, 1895 (28 
 Stats., 650), abolishing the city of Georgetown and its name, repeal- 
 ing all of its general laws, regulations, and ordinances, and extending 
 to it all general laws, regulations, and ordinances of the city of 
 Washington. And by an agency more effective than the most solemn 
 statute, namely, the usage of the people, the further result has been 
 accomplished that to all practical intents and purposes, and in the 
 eyes of the nation at large, the entire District now passes by the 
 name of the Father of our Country, originally given to our city, but 
 which, like the illustrious character from whom it was taken, has 
 drawn to itself its whole environment. 
 
 And the political development of the District of Columbia sug- 
 gests to me the plan of this beautiful city of ours, not built upon 
 an uninviting plain and not laid out in exclusively right lines, but 
 set in an environment of rare attractiveness; with its system of 
 wide streets overlaid by intersecting avenues which break the other- 
 wise mathematical stiffness of its thoroughfares, and set with beau- 
 tifying and refreshing parks unrivaled by any intraurban park sys- 
 tem of the world So with our political growth and development : 
 beginning with the simple institution of the levy court, taking up as 
 occasion required the forms of municipal government felt to be 
 adapted to the situation from time to time, and finally taking the 
 form of a wisely conceived and skillfully constructed scheme of 
 local government, and yet all the while under the play of the essen- 
 tially American distinction between the national and local systems. 
 While on every hand we find statutory provisions, with their arti- 
 ficiality of conception and rigidness of expression, we yet meet at 
 every point the freer action of those natural and more elastic ele- 
 ments of usage, tradition, and fundamental principles which are at 
 the bottom of all things English and out of which only all true law 
 anil political development spring and grow. 
 
20 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 While we find everywhere minute regard for the local, as in the 
 case of the levy court and the simple forms of municipal government 
 of the cities, we are everywhere also brought face to face with the 
 national, as in the original commissioners of the city, the superin- 
 tendent of the city, the commissioner of public buildings, the Chief 
 of Engineers of the Army, the Metropolitan police, and the board of 
 public works. And, strangest of all, at the very heart of a nation 
 grounded in the notion of "government of the people, by the people, 
 and for the people" we see from the beginning the almost aggressive 
 expression of distrust of the popular vote, the absence of which 
 has so often been remarked as the most striking feature of the govern- 
 ment of the capital. Thus always the levy court was in its personnel 
 the creature of the President and Senate, while for long the mayors 
 of the cities were either the choice of the President or of the vote 
 of the people only when filtered through the aldermen and councils. 
 Anomalous enough this seems; but how much more anomalous is 
 it that in the existing and best form of government of the District 
 yet devised, local suffrage is wholly eliminated and that the only 
 real guarantee of local participation in government is the residence 
 qualification of the civilian commissioners. Food for thought there 
 surely is in this, and an irresistible suggestion to turn again and 
 again to those words of President Monroe which I read to you in the 
 outset. 
 
 But who shall be heard to complain of any of this when we look 
 about and see the result as shown in our beautiful and orderly city? 
 Beautiful in its topography, plan, and embellishment, and orderly 
 beyond all other cities; rich in wealth and richer still in intelligence; 
 the very Mecca of the patriotism and intellect of the country; the 
 site of the great public institutions of our land and the depository 
 of its priceless archives and scientific and literary collections, which 
 are at once the possession and the pride of the people of the whole 
 nation; in a word, truly the city of Washington — Washington, who 
 has been aptly characterized as ''the greatest of good men and the 
 best of great men," and of whom the soundest of English historians, 
 John Richard Green, has truly said that "no nobler figure ever stood 
 in the forefront of a nation's life," and that men learned to cling to 
 him "with a trust and faith such as few other men have won, and to 
 regard him with a reverence which still hushes us in the presence of 
 his memory." To Patrick Henry in 1795 he spoke one dear wish 
 of his heart in the memorable words, "I want an American character:" 
 and in his will, devising a portion of his property for the founding 
 of a national university here, he expressed his "ardent wish to see a 
 plan devised on a liberal scale, which would have a tendency to 
 spread systematic ideas through all parts of this rising empire, thereby 
 to do away with local attachments and state prejudices, as far as 
 the nature of things would or indeed ought to admit, from our 
 national councils." If you seek Washington's true monument, look 
 upon your ideal city, at once the training school of the American 
 character and the university of his dream. 
 
 o 
 

 J2£?*3g 
 
 f 1i 
 
 *Zm