But were there no provisos to these acts?  The Maryland act had none.  The Virginia act had this proviso:  “Sect. 2.  Provided, 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.”

This specification touching the soil was merely definitive and explanatory of that clause in the act of cession, “full and absolute right.”  Instead of restraining the power of Congress on slavery and other subjects, it even gives it freer course; for exceptions to parts of a rule, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the exceptions.  If it was the design of the proviso to restrict congressional action on the subject of slavery, why is the soil alone specified?  As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in words, might not “John Doe,” out of his abundance, and without spoiling his style, have afforded an additional word—­at least a hint—­that slavery was meant, though nothing was said about it?

But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them to be made “in pursuance of” that clause of the constitution which gives to Congress “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the ten miles square—­thus, instead of restricting that clause, both States confirm it.  Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it.  If they conflicted with it, accepting the cessions was a violation of the constitution.  The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that in its views their terms did not conflict with its constitutional grant of power.  The inquiry whether these acts of cession were consistent or inconsistent with the United Status’ constitution, is totally irrelevant to the question at issue.  What with the CONSTITUTION?  That is the question.  Not, what with Virginia, or Maryland, or—­equally to the point—­John Bull!  If Maryland and Virginia had been the authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of cession could hardly have been more magnified than they have been recently by the southern delegation in Congress.  A true understanding of the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the light of Maryland and Virginia legislation!

We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish slavery in it.