This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-05-10T21:19:00-07:00 Overreaches of Power 16 plain 865915 2019-05-17T01:06:44-07:00 Continuing with the analysis of the land deals, there are prevalent instances of the federal government overstepping its newly founded authority. Beyond leaving Congress out of the process, the Executive branch at times contradicted the Constitution and overpowered local governments for its own benefit. Explore the various schemes of Washington, Jefferson, and L'Enfant as they tried to acquire their preferred land.
  
  Undermining Local Authority
  
  Since Jefferson warned against relying on funds from Congress to purchase land for the city, the Executive needed to decide which land to purchase and how to purchase it. In a letter from March 1791, Jefferson updates Washington on the progress made regarding the capital. He explains that it was time for “deeds of cession to be taken from the landholders” (Founders, March 11, 1791). To be sure the federal government could obtain the needed land, Jefferson offers some advice. Because “there is not as yet a town-legislature in existence” where the necessary land is located, the President “should form a Capitulary of such regulations as he may think necessary” to settle the terms of sale for the land (Founders, March 11, 1791). While Jefferson does not tell Washington to make regulations that will favor the federal government, his proposal implies that the federal government has the ability to take the place of local authority. Jefferson writes that “things may be done before there is [a legislature] to prevent them,” (Founders, March 11, 1791) meaning that the federal government can act in ways to prevent the local government from creating unfavorable regulations in the terms of sale for the land. Overall, Jefferson advocates that the federal government take the place of a local government in order to ensure the desired lands are secured, demonstrating an overstep of the newly established federal government.
  
  Fair Deals?
  In an agreement between the proprietors of the Federal District from March 1790, the proprietors state that "the President shall have the sole power of directing the Federal City to be laid off in what manner he pleases" (Founders, March 30, 1791). Changing the agreement Jefferson reported in September 1790, which stated that landowners would give up their land for “double” (Founders, September 14, 1790) its value, the proprietors write to Washington that lands which will “be taken for Public buildings [...] shall receive [...] the rate of twenty five pounds per Acre” (Founders, March 30, 1791). While the landowners now agree to receive a flat rate of twenty five pounds per acre rather than double, evidence suggests that this price was not reflective of what the land was actually worth. In fact, according to the historian and political scientist James Sterling Young, the government would finance the construction by “secretly purchas[ing] an excess of land on the capital site at a cheap price” then “sell[ing] the unneeded portions on the open market at a greatly inflated price” (Young 1966, 17-18). Then, the government would use that revenue to pay “for the construction of of public buildings, roadways, bridges, parks” (Young 1966, 17-18) along with other elements of the city. Without Congressional appropriations to build the city, the government was essentially able to engage in speculative activities in order to get the capital built faster.
  
  Violations of Eminent Domain
  Washington writes to Jefferson, describing the agreement between the government and Georgetown landowners. In his letter from March 1791, Washington writes that in buying land for the city, "no compensation is to be made for the ground that may be occupied as streets or alleys" (Founders, March 31, 1791). At the time of writing this letter, the fifth amendment to the Constitution had not yet been ratified by the states—despite this, it is significant as the federal government appears to be contradicting the eminent domain clause that would be ratified in the following December. By not compensating landowners for what would become streets or alleys, landowners are not receiving “just compensation” (The Constitution, 2015) for their land. Though land designated for public buildings may better fit the idea of compensation for “land taken for public use,” (The Constitution, 2015) will the streets in the capital not be used by the public? Here, the federal government is perhaps overstepping its newly legitimate power. As aforementioned, the fifth amendment had not been ratified at the time of this action, but the Bill of Rights had been introduced prior to this action, meaning that decision makers must have known about this clause. This overreach of power by the federal government illustrates the ability of the government to abandon its newly signed Constitution to benefit its own interests.
  
  Click here for a timeline of the land deals.