Evening star., 1916-04-14


trolled capitals in federal districts:
Mexico: Yes: by two senators and in
the chamber Of deputies by one repre-
sentative for each 10000 inhabitants;
| Rio: Yes; by three senators elected
for nine years and by ten deputies
elected for three years.
Buenos Aires: Yes: by two senator's
and by members of chamber of deputies.
one for each $4,000 inhabitants.
Brazil and Argentina have followed
the example of the United States in
tional capitals distinct from the states
and controlled in the last analysis by
| the nation. But Brazil and Argentina
have improved upon our example by de-
veloping the relations of nation and
capital on republican, democratic and
representative principles. and in ac-
cordance with the dictates of fairness
and patriotic pride. In both Buenos
Aires and Rio the people Of the national
capital have representation like other
citizens in proportion to their numbers
in the national government In both
council. in the disposition of their
municipal concerns. | In both capitals
the nation controlsi the municipality
! and through the. national president ap-
points the chief executive oficial-a
mayor with large powers.
Conceding that the nation should con-
tInue to govern and control the capital
through Congress. why should not the
Americans in the District of Columb bia
be treated as part of the nation which
is to exercise this exclusive control, and
be permitted in proportion to their
number representation in this govern
ment which is to control them, to tax
them, to send them to war, to dispose
Of their property and of their lives?
| The Americans in the District of Co
! Iumbia. constituting much more than
the average number of Americans rep
resented by each member of Congress;
| living within well-deffned geographical
| limits and possessed of more than the
| average of intelligence and good citi-
| Zenship; paying all national taxes, di-
rect and indirect. and responding to the
nations call to arms in time of war.
are entitled on general principles to
! representation in the national 1egisla-
ture. and would enjoy it if this legis-
| lature were not also their exclusive
| fact, instead of barring them from rep
! resentation, ought TO be viewed as Civ
/ ing them a double right to such repre-
| lsentation. OF all Americans they would
| seem to be most entitled to representa-
/ ton in a legislature which is their own
| nationally to the same extent as in the
| case of all other Americans, and which
is in addition their exclusive state
| legislature, their board of aldermen
! and common council. What
possible injury can the nation suffer
from permitting this American repre-
sentation? What possible plausible ex
| cuse can be devised for denying it?
/ I have indicated my belief that the
| South American republics. while ex-
/
practical appreciation of the true prin-
ciples of representative government.
| May they not, on the basis of our
handling of the problem of representa-
!ton in the national government for the
! District of Columbia, turn the tables on
| US and suggest that in this matter we
| betray that we have no real apprecia-
tion of those principles ourselves?
! No Constitutional Prohibition.
! 1t is easy to magnify unduly the
shock to the Constitution caused by
the proposition of non-sovereign
state. The real shock is SO much less
than that imagined that it is possible
to conceive the admission of such
/ state without any amendment of the
| Constitution at all.
| The Constitution does not explicitly
! prohibit the existence of a state with
genuine voting representation in Con-
gress which lacks some of the attri-
butes of a. sovereign state. 1t is not
declared that all the American com
munities represented as states" in
| Congress must be on precisely the
same footing and be shaped in .identi-
| cal1y the Same mold Perfect equality
| of the states is doubtless assumed in
the Constitution as it now stands 1t
! is provided, however. that no state
| shall without it's consent be deprived
| of it's equal suffrage in the Senate.
| Does not this provision imply that a
| state may with it's consent be deprived
| of its equal suffrage in the Senate; for
+, instance, that the District as new
! state for purposes of representation
may consent to unequal representation
in the Senate, as, for example, repre-
sentation by one senator instead of
two? And if a state may with it's
consent lack the important attribute
| of equality of representation in the
Senate. may it not also with it's con-
| sent lack some other attributes of a
| sovereign state and still exist as
/ state" under the constitutional pro-
! visions in regard to congressional rep
| resentation?
Under the power to admit new states
Congress has given certain repre-
sentation in the national legislature to
| territories, embryo states not recog
nized at all by the Constitution in pre-
scribing the makeup OF Congress 1t
would seem that under this provisi Jon
concerning the admission of new states,
i coupled with the power to regulate ter
ritory belonging to the United States
I and with the power in each House to
! Judge the qualifications of its own
/ members, Congress could admit to rep
! resentation in itself non-sovereign
state intermediate between the terri
! tory and the full-hedged state. The
! constitutional provision that no state
| may, without its consent be deprived of
! gests that with its consent state
could be deprived of equal representa-
ton in the Senate. and that state
could with its own consent exist which
was not on an equal footing in repre-
sentation with the other states. If this
inference is justifiable a constitutional
amendment might not be necessary to
! admit the District a non-sovereign
state of the Union with representation
according to it's population in the House
and with one instead of two senators,
acccnt,Iating the fact that it is not on
| the same plane in all respects with the
other states. Under this arrangement
i the nation, through Congress, would
retain exclusive power of legislation
over the District and the District would
merely secure representation in the
body which governed it. If Congress can
grant to a rudimentary state limited
| representation in one of its branches,
| can it not grant to a quasi state of
| higher grade full representa- ton in both
of it's branches without granting to it
! all the powers on other lines of a sover-
eign state? Having the power to bestow
all the rights and privileges of soyer-
/ eign state, may it not bestow less than
all? Does not the greater power include
! the less?
The power of exclusive legislation in
| the ten miles square given to Congress
| by the Constitution prohibits the eyo-
| luton of the District into sovereign
| state. While this constitutional provi-
sion is i'm force the District as state
could not have. all the self-governing
and independent powers of Maryland or