find however that Prof. Tucker, for the mere information of his students, has explicitly said that “congress cannot delegate the power of legislating for the District of Columbia to another body.”[1] Admitting therefore that this act, if passed by congress, might have had the extensive operation now in question, yet being passed by the corporation aforesaid, it is not to be considered as a statute of the United States, even for the purpose of sustaining the court's jurisdiction It should have been scouted by the court from its view as it appears from the first enacting clause thereof, to have been only an act ordained by the corporation of the city of Washington.
But if this document had been enacted by the congress itself and the words had been supplied in it which the court thinks are only wanting, it could not have had the very extensive effect now contended for. Such an act could not have had this effect considered as an ordinary act of congress under the grant of legislative power to it, by the constitution because that grant does not carry with it a right to establish lotteries and would be, besides, at most, concurrent with the admitted powers reserved to the several States.
It could not have an effect within the territory of Virginia, which no act of congress as such, can have; which the acts of no state in the Union can have; and which could not be reciprocal in favor of Virginia, either in the territories of the other states, or in that of the district in question. Nor could it have that effect, considered merely as an act of the local legislature of the district. They were not the less so devolved because congress acted also in another character. Where two rights concur in the same man, or set of men,
- ↑ 1 Tuck. Append 278.
