Evening star., 1915-10-20

as SHOWH III the CONSTITUTION,
reports, is morally
sion for the National Capital.
the Constitution of the United States
legislative authority to any local
government Of the District of Column
bia. and that the act of the legisla-
tive assembly in question was there
And in stoutenburgh agt. Hennick
(135 U. s., 24O), the Supreme Court of
the United States in 1899 held that
while under the authority conferred
upon Congress by the Constitution ito
make all laws which shall be neces-
sary or proper to carry into execution"
Its exclusive legislation in the Dis
trict Of Columbia. Congress may con-
stitute the District "a body corporate
for municipal purposes" it can au-
thorize such body corporate to ex-
ercise only municipal powers. The
Supreme Court In the stoutenburgh
legislative assembly Of the District,
requiring commercial agents doing
business in the District to take out and
pay for license. was a regulation of
piled to persons soliciting the sale Of
goods on behalf of individuals or firms
doing business outside of the District
and that 1t was not within the con-
stitutional power Of Congress to dele
gate to the local legislature authority
to make such a law.
Congress Local Legislator.
In Cohens VS.. Virginia, 6 Wheaton.
260, 1t was urged upon the Supreme
Court of the United States that in leg
islating for the District of Columbia
Congress acts not as the legislature of
the Union. but as local legislature
of the District itself. But Chief Justice
Marshall. expressing the unanimous
opinion Of the court. held that there
was no merit in this contention-that
Congress 81 lesisiating for the District
of Columbia under the power of ex-
elusive legislation given it by the Con-
stitution exercises this particular
power like all its other powers" as the
legislature of the nation.
These decisions only confirm what the
Constitution inplies-.that -the--people
Of this District not only have no power
to make their own laws. but that Con-
gress cannot confer that BoWer upon
them; and that when~CoIsress makes
our laws it does not do eb as the rep
resentative OF the District or it's in
habitants. but as body acting for all
the people Of the United states.
In Loughborough VS." Blake. in 5th
Wheaton, 31f. there~svas involved the
question whether. under the eighth sec
tion Of article l of the Constitution.
which gives to Congress the power to
lay and collect taxes. duties. imposts
and excises," Congress could impose
direct tax on the inhabitants of the
District of Columbia. 1t was urged on
behalf of the people of the District that
the power thus given to Congress
ktA
ciple which was asserted in our revo
luton that representation Is insepara-
BILE from taxes" But Chief Justice
Marshall. again speaking for the entire
court, said:
Question Of D. c. Representation.
The difference between requiring a
continent, with an immense population,
to submit to be taxed by a government
having no common interest with 1t,
separated from 1t by a vast ocean. re-
strained by no principle of apportion-
ment. and associated with it by no
common feelings, and permitting the
representatives of the American peo-
pie, under the restrictions of our Con-
stitution. to tax part OF the society
which is either in state of infancy
advancing to manhood looking forward
to complete equality SO soon as that
state of manhood shall be attained, as
is the case with the territories: or
which has voluntarily relinquished the
adopted the whole body of Congress for
It's legitimate government, as Is the
case with the District. Is too obvious
not to present itself to the minds of
all. Although in theory it might be
more congenial to the spirit of our in
stitutions to admit a representative
from the District. it may be doubted
whether. In fact. its interests would
I,a nhv fhA
and certainly the Constitution does not
consider their want Of a representa-
tive in Congress as exempting it from
equal taxation"
citizens of the United States who have
cast their lot in this District can have
no part in the making of its general
laws. SO the fact that Congress in gov
the United States as superior to those
of the people who reside here is mani
Tested in many ways.
Great manufacturing establishments
are not wanted. AS was said by Sena-
tor Gallinger in the Senate last winter:
I'VE discourage all efforts to estab-
lish manufacturing esta blishments here.
Many such attempts have been with
drawn upon representations that some
of US have very urgently made"
Manufactures Opposed.
About the same time Mr.. Borland
said in the House:
'It Is entirely unlikely that Con-
gress would tolerate manufacturing
districts here with the massing of in
dustrial population. the danger of
strikes, boycotts, lockouts. etc. No one
but few real estate agents could pos
sibly profit by the establishment of
manufacturing Industries here. In all
other respects 1t would be a distinct
and irreparable disadvantage. Wash
ington will become the center of the
nations artistic. literary and scientific
life."
The stringent provisions of the anti
smoke act Of February 2. 1899 go Stat.
812), would of themselves keep away
most great manufacturing Industries.
More significant still are the statutes
of May l, 1899. and June l. 1910, which
restrict the height of buildings in pri-
vate ownership not only within the
limits of the original city of Washing
ton. but throughout its present limits
embracing the entire District of Colum-
bia Gao Stat. 922: So Stat. 452).
These acts expressly except buildings
owned by: the United States or by the
municipal corporation OF the District.