Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-13

proposes d Z Z part OF the local
tax money CT HAT year. not dupll-
cation as directed by law, but fed
eral confiscatiun. And ii this pro-
vision is enacted it will operate to
repeal the llali-and-half provision
OF the act OF 1873. certainly for
IoI4-IqI5. and a. a precedent per
haps permanently. as effectively
"a the Crisp bill itself: though the
appropriation bill contains no
word OF reference to the act OF
1873 and no clause repeating III
consistent legislation.
! Everybody in ashington and
every friend ct the capital Iii Con
orc>> should understand that sec
ton s oi the District appropriation
bill. passed by the House, and
now pending i'll the Senate. carries
out the deadly purpose OF the
Crisp bill and gives the half-and-
hall principle d mortal wound.
a. The hali-and halt provision
should not be repealed in the
manner proposed by section s.
colertlv. in>idiou~ly by indirec-
ton: and C2D without the sub
istittition of some other DEFINITE
percentage al proportlonatc con
tributiou in its place; - the
hali-and-h provision should no,
be DESTROYED at this time as pro
posed BY section s. when under its
operation with reasonable taNa-
ton OF the District no more than
sufficient revenue is derived for
the wise and economical main
tenance and development OF the
capital: and when the effect OF
rendering uncertain the degree OF
national participation III capital
making would expose the capital,
helpless. to the attacks nj CON
spicuous and influential Legislators
who are now sche1ning and labor
| ING to minimize or eliminate ma
tional participation in capita,
maintenance.
No Covert Repeal.
| The half-and-haif provision. the
guaranty of fair play and prosperity
for the capital. should not he destroyed
inSidiOusiy by indirectiOn. aS pro-
posed by section $. but. II at all. openly
and after full icIiberation. and with all
the care and anxious thought which
law.
There are some otherwise perfectly
reasonable congressman who are an
parently inspired by an Irresistible
tendency to have q crack at the .or-
ganlc act because they think they are
told that il is sacred. inviola BILE, ard
that they cannot touch it.
or course. as far as power OF Congress
to amend or repeal is concerned. there is
nothing sacred or inviolable about the
organic act" One Congress cannot thus
tie the hands Of subsequent CONGRESSES
Washinstons contention is not that il
cannot hut that II ought not to be re-
peaied The Supreme Court has spoken
OF this legislation as an organic act the
Constitution OF the District of Columbia
and has shown clearly the thought and
wish of the enacting Congress that this
act should be regarded as the basis
OF a local Constitution rather than an
ordinary current law. But the exclusive
power of legislation concerning the Dis
trict is in the majority of the existing
Congress No greater vote is required
to repeal the Constitution of the District
than to repeal the most insignificant leg
islative item of municipal regulation The
term organic act is convenient from
its brevity. and it is accurately descrip-
tive according to the Supreme Court Of
the United States The suggestion CON
| veyed by it is not that Congress cannot
| alter this act but that it ought not, ex-
cept with the careful elaboration with
which the alteration of fundamental leg
islation is properly approached The fact
that the Congress of 1878 tried 10 the
extent of its power to clothe this legis-
lation with the attributes OF permanency.
calling permanent the form OF govern
Ment created by il, and refusing to add
the usual reservation of power to amend
or repeal. and the fact that the Supreme
Court recognized that this legislation was
fundamental in its nature and complete
and rounded in itself do not in the slight
est degree tie the hands of future Con-
crosses so far as power is concerned.
They do make in combination a pow
| erful appeal to the discretion OF Con-
gress to exercise the most thoughtful
| and deliberate care. taking into conSid-
GRAFTON all the equities existing in 1878
on which the Districts Constitution is
based. before repeating vitally amend
| ing the organic act and substituting
another Constitution of the District in its
place If. however, the words organic
act are an irritating, eXaSperating red
rag. provocative of congressional as
saust Washagtonians ought not to use
them even though the Supreme Court
used them and even though we mean no
offense by them. Washingtonians ought
not to make any of their legislators angry
to the point of injustice, even if it is
not reasonable that the latter should
get angry. fair compromise might
! he suggested in accordance with which
Congress should. with Tie Supreme Court.
treat the law of 1878 as an organic act
on condition that WashiuStonianS refrain
from calling il the organic act.
OF course. Congress would uof impair
the obligation of contract. and so far
as the legislation of 1878. coupled with
previous and immediately subsequent leg
| islation. was contractual in its nature Gas
for example in connection with its suaran-
~ and pledge in respect to the
:.SI hondsl il may be that the
hands of Congress se1f-tied. But
this limitation upon the powers of Con
gress is not suggested by the term or
ganic act" and can exist and he effective
| in connection with an insignificant mimic
| ipal regulation or private act as readily
as with legislation amending vitality the
! Districts Constitution.
No Shifting. Capricious Standard.
| The haIf-and-haIf provision should
not he destroyed. proposed in
4