Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-31
A CITIZEN ANALYZES THE REY-
NOLDS PLAN.
It Would Deprive People of All
Voice in Affairs-Changes in
Present System Suggested.

wolves the comforting Of municipal self
government Upon the District and the
amendment of the Constitution SO as to
provide for the representation of the Dis
'rict In the House of Representatives.
senate and electoral college In view of
the practical impossibility of amending
the federal Constitution. this proposal
may be at once dismissed from considera-
ton The proposal now most strongly
supported is that for limited suffrage.
with educational and property qualifica-
tons for voting. Those adhering to this
view seem not to consider the practical
impossibility of securing such legislation
Political reasons will prevent members Of
the House and Senate from committing
themselves in favor of a project having
for its purpose the grant of suffrage to
whites and the withholding of a similar
privilege from large part of the colored
population.
Perhaps Congress will establish in the
District an advisory referendum--that is.
1t may submit important local questions
to vote of the people simply for the
purpose Of learning what is the prevalent
local opinion. without binding itself to act
IN accordance with such expression.
The Reynolds Plan.
With reference to a change to one gov
ernor. the suggestions made by Mr.. James
ton. The Reynolds plan is open to sew
eral objections. 1t places the work Of local
legislation upon technical experts, and as
the head of one department could not
know what ordinances would be best in
the field covered by another department
each of the seven commissioners would
probably come to tacit agreement with
the others that municipal legislation with
reference to his department should be
enacted a matter of course upon his
recommendation. The Legislative body
would on this account probably proceed
from a too narrowly technical point of
view. though the proposed provision for
public hearings and for approval of legis-
lation by the governor would minimize
this danger. Another defect of this plan
is that it provides for the appointment of
the governor and of the seven heads of
departments by the President. these Off
GERS presumably being subject to removal
only by the President. The heads of de-
partments are not made responsible to the
governor, but after they are once appoint
ed seem to be responsible directly to the
President. who has power to remove them.
The District would thus have eight practi-
cally Independent executives, bound to-
gether only by their common dependence
upon the President of the United States.
Rule by Outsiders.
The Reynolds plan is also defective in
that it permits the appointment of a gov
ernor and of the seven commissioners of
departments from outside the District of
Columbia and thus reduces to minimum
the power of local opinion over these
officers The object sought by this plan
is that of definite individual responsible
ty to the President Few Presidents have
taken sufficient interest in the affairs
of the federal capital to make such a
plan work successfully. and it seems hard
ly safe to assume that future Presidents
will take such an interest. The proper
responsibility of District officials can prob
ably best be enforced by means of an in
telligent public opinion.
The purpose of the Reynolds plan seems
to be that of obtaining a definite indi-
vidual responsibility for the conduct of
governmental affairs in the District of
Columbia. Under the present system legis-
lative and administrative powers are
combined in the same body. The Com
missioners have divided the District af-
fairs into three approximately equal
groups, and each Commissioner exercises
practically independent control over the
affairs committed to his charge. Under
the arrangement of divided duties an
action may be taken by one Commits
sioner for which the board of Commits
sioners is responsible-the responsibility
for a governmental activities is a joint
responsibility of three Commissioners
while the power to act is often vested in
and exercised by one Commissioner. 1t
is this fact which now makes II difficult
to place a definite responsibility for every
administrative act 1t would seem that
this situation might be remedied by a legal
provision: Cd That each board of Com
missoners when It organizes should APP
portion the administrative duties of the
District government among the three Com
missioners. co That public notice should
be given of such apportionment and that
no change should be made without sim
liar notice. 90 That each Commissiqner
should be individually responsible for the
administrative duties assigned to him.
The first and second suggestions in
vove but the legalization of existing prac-
tees, the third contemplates no change
in the general structure of the present
government. but simply a closer dedni-
ton of the administrative duties and re-
sponSibilitieS of each Commissioner Each
Commissioner should, as at present sim
ply exercise general supervision over the !
matters placed under his charge. and the |
detailed work of administration should re-
main under the immediate control of the
heads Of the several offices and depart |
mentS: but the Commissioner having SUI
pervision over a given department should
be made responsible for the work of that
department in such a manner that his
responsibility cannot be shifted. The
three Commissioners acting body
should retain the power of municipal leg !
islatiop and be jointly responsible for
the general policy of the District gov
Present Division of Authority.
Under the present organization of the |
District government there is failure TO |
distinguish clearly between federal and
local functions and to place full RESPONSE |
bility upon local officials. Practically the |
whole park system and a large portion of |
the water supply system are under the |
control OF the chief of engineers of the |
army, and by a law Of 1905 control over |
the street railways Is placed ii the hands |
of the interstate commerce commission. |
From all administrative standpoint one |
OF the greatest defects in the present Dis !
trict government Is the division OF local
administrative work between federal and
local agencies In such matters as that of
the water system. where a cumbersome
and expensive ORGANIZATION is maintained
because the United States government
persists in administering the aqueduct
and filtration plant. while leaving to the
local government the management of the
service OF distributing water 10 consum-