Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-05-07
WHY A DELEGATE
FOR THE DISTRICT?
! Reasons Urged Against This 1nef-
fective Measure of Repre-
sentation."

fective Measure of Repre-
sentation."
To the Editor Of The Star:
Why does any one want a delegate in
Congress from the District? What is
a delegate? And what could such an
official do il we had one?
! There is now much awakened senti-
ment in the District favorable to re-
publican form of government here. So
far it has taken more pronounced form
in demanding full representation in
Congress. There is no good reason APP
parent why this demand should not be
granted, "in ungrudging measure" in
the near future. as it Is not only fair
| and just to the citizens of the District.
but is American and republican. While
| recorded expressions so far have been
mainly from official bodies and organi-
cations representing business interests
| there is also widespread. though yet
| largely unvoiced, popular demand for
the same.
| This manifest interest answers the
charge made for decades. that residents
OF the cdplidl were lnulllel eHL " poPu-
lar government 1t is a fact there has
not been much clamor, but there were
reasons for silence that do not obtain
today. But it is proposed now by some
that "as first step" we ask only for
delegate in Congress. A subcommittee
of the Senate committee on the Dis
trict has reported vorably upon the
proposition, and has declined to report
upon the demand for full representa-
ton.
Had ne1ooato
Let us examine this proposition. This
District had a delegate in Congress
once for four years. June. 1871. to
March, 1875. His name. Norton p. Chip
man, a very capable, industrious and
honora BILE gentleman. He was tire
less worker, was very much over
worked, and all of little avail, as events
of that period show.
We have testimony as to the value OF
the services of such a delegate from
those familiar with it-men in Con-
gress a the time. A few weeks before
the services of Mr.. Chapman terminated,
during debate upon the Morrill, bill in
the Senate, the matter was considered,
introduced by Senator Sargent, who had
proposed an amendment to the Dill
granting the District a delegate 1t
was just following the defeat of the
Morton amendment (by vote OF Is TO
2S), seeking to make the Commission
ers. or regents, elective and not ap-
pointive. In support of his proposal
for delegate, Senator Sargent sald, IN
part:
Il agree with those who want entire
municipal selfgovernment. II they can
get 1t. 1t is their right. But do not
agree that if we cannot get that, that
nothing elective be asked. or allowed
1t seems to me. in the absence of the
greater provision, this lesser is in the
same direction.
others took issue with Mr.. Sargent and
| those who favored a delegate and
pointed out from historic facts that the
| Office of delegate was not IN harmony
Morrill, bill, despotic. Senator Edmuhds
said:
Could Say Everything; Do Nothing
You propose to have delegate In
the House, an ornamental parsonage.
a figure merely. who can DO hothlhs'
but say everything, at the other END OF
the Capitol"
Montesquieu has pointed out, with
learning and logic, that any form OF
government, to be efficient. must be
harmonious. or consistent with itself. |
Popular government and despotlc gov
eminent cannot be combined without
weaker form than either resulting.
This mlScdlleO lcIIitoi idi OWN
ment of the District. 1871-1S74), was
not stronger. but was weaker. Tor the
popular element in it. including the
delegate in Congress. 1t had the pre-,
tense only of being republican. All real
power was in the board of public
works, which were appointed
The present government is not IN
harmony with American institutions.
for it is not popular in any sense the
people of the District are not respons-
ible They are taxed and ruled. but |
may be ignored. as to how they Zee!
about it They would be no better on
would be worse off. The reason seems |
plain. Now responsibility can be plac-
ed. Then man who could do moth |
ing. but talk everything" could be ig- |
missioners. Yet it could be said, The :
people of the District have voice in |
congress" 1t would be voice cry |
ing in the wilderness" His chief in |
terest would be to draw his salary |
and explain why he could do nothing.
No Analogy in Territories.
Further, there is no analogy from
history for a delegate in Congress I
from the District. Thirty-fve states
have come into the Union. formed out
of territory of the United States. in
1925 years These were all first Eek
cept Texas) carved out as territories.
Most all of them had delegate in
Congress for years. This neces
Isary to inform Congress. The delegate
was sent by the people of the territory.
organized in local se!f-government,
with legislature. So that the dele
gate did represent. in republican fash
ion. a republican community.
In 1871 tJanuary) Senator Sumner.
d chatting the new plan OF government
for the District. then proposed. said:
I'VE are about to create a territory
that can never become a state"
No. not become a state; but 1t was.
then, more than a territory. 1t had |
been carved out of states. over which
the Constitution and state governments
had had control, before it became the
seat of government of the Federal
Union So the analogy does not apply. |
other territories were incipient states. |
Not one tenth Of the members of any