confided thereto grew out of particular circumstances and the jurisdiction reserved to the district was intended merely as a shield of defence to the deliberations of congress, and not as a sword of annoyance upon the rights of the states. We are told in The Federalist[1] that a complete authority at the seat of government was necessary to secure the public authority from insult and its proceedings from interruption. In the convention we were told by Mr. Grayson[2] that what originated the idea of exclusive legislation in the district was an insurrection in Philadelphia whereby congress was insulted, and for which they left the state. Mr. Madison said[3] that without such exclusive legislation congress could not be guarded from insults. And again he says[4] that congress should not carry on their deliberations under the control of any state; that it would impair the dignity and hazard the safety of congress; and that gentlemen could not have forgotten the disgraceful insult which congress received in Philadelphia. Mr. Marshall said[5] that the power of legislation in the district is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. Mr. Pendleton said[6] that the power of exclusive legislation in the district was given in order to preserve the police of the place, and that congress may not be overawed and insulted. This great judge also, emphatically declared that this exclusive legislation could have no power “without the limits of the district.” The quotations show the express end and objects of the power, as well as the limits of the grant. That grant was intended as a shield of defence to the deliberations
Page:John P. Branch Historical Papers - Volume 2.djvu/326
Chief Justice Marshall
179
