Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-11-14

Brandenburg, Walter A. Brown, L
w. T. Gallihcr, Chris J. Gockeler,
To the president of the Wash
ington Board of Trade:
The members of your special
committee are the representatives
of the Board Of Trade on the citi-
zens' joint committee on national
representation for the District OF
Columbia.
This joint committee was SO con-
stltuted as to combine the strong
est and most representative OF the
citizen organizations of Washing
ton In united campaign to secure
q constitutional amendment en-
towering Congress- to grant to res
idents Of the District the same rep
resentatton In Congress- and the
electoral college and the same right
TO sue and be sued in the federal
courts that are enjoyed by every
citizen of q state.
No Washingtonian who enlisted
in this campaign surrendered his
individual opinion concerning the
wisest and best form Of local gov
eminent, or concerning the degree
of participation in local self-gov-
eminent which Congress can and
should grant to the capital COM
munity; or concerning the desira-
bility or undesirability OF striving
Tor a District Of Columbia voteless
territorial delegate as prelimi-
nary to genuine national repre-
sentation, or concerning the Wis
dom or unwisdom or the POSSIBLE
ity or impossibiIity Of securing a
surrender by the nation Of it's con-
stitutional power of exclusive leg
seat Of government, the national
city.
But every Washingtonian who
enlisted in this army to fight to
AmeHcanize Washington put aside
temporarily his opinions on these
Issues of discord. in order that a
united and irresistible campaign
might be fought to secure some
thing vitality essential, something
everybody. and to win which all of
us could enthusiastically combine.
Cooperating with other organi-
cations, we applied. unsuccessfully,
for recognition of the justice OF
our demand in the political plat
forms adopted last June by the two
great parties in their presidential
nominating conventions. Our case
was not yet ripe. it appeared. to be
decided in our favor in this kind
OF partisan committa1. in framing
competitive vote-getting issues.
But the circumstances surrounding
our failure to secure a declaration
this year from either nominating
convention indicate that the refusal
is without prejudice" and no dis
couragement should develop from
it in our fight before Congress.
which is to be kept up vigorously
and necessarily. with individual
congressman and before congress
sional committees.
Every member of the Washing
ton Board of Trade and every.
Washingtonian, in addition to Co
operating through organization in
the community campaign, should
be committee Of one to make
clear to friends in Congress exactly
what in national representation
and Americanization we ask, why
we ask 1t and why in equity and
on American principles we must
have it.
Since your committee made it's
last report to the Board Of Trade
two departures from the sole basic
purpose of our campaign have been
suggested:
1t has been proposed that We abah-
don our fight for national represeu-
tation by constitutional amendment
and try to secure the creation Of the
sovereign state of Columbia, by ma
jority vote of Congress
1t is urged that, under it's constf-
tutiOnal power to admit new states
and to dispose of territory belonging
to the United States, Congress may
admit the District into the Union as
the State of Columbia, by a mere
majority vote of the two houses Of
Congress.
II national representation can be
secured by legislative act, enacted by
majority vote Of Congress- no Wash
ingtonian will he SO foolish as to ia
sist upon undertaking the difficult
task Of securing such representation
by constitutional amendment
But whenever in the past this Sug-
gestion has been preached, the con-
stitutional lawyers in and out Of Con-
gress have overruled it.
The Constitution, in the ten miles
square provision, gives Congress the
power (and imposes upon it the obi
gation) to exercise exclusive legisla-
ton in the scat OF government thus
created. The United States Supreme
Court has declared (StoutenbMfgh
VS.. Hennick, 129 L. S.. 141) that Con-
gress may not delegate this power Of
general legislation constitutionally
imposed upon it and that an act Of
general legislation by Il local legis-
lature created by Congress was void.
(The principle is the same as that
laid down by the Supreme Court OF
the District, sitting in general term,
in Roach VS.. Van Riswick (MacAr-
thur and Mackey's report. page ND.
IL Congress may not constitution
ally delegate its power Of general
legislation in the District to local
legislature created by 1t, it may not
delegate that power Of general legts-
lation in its entirety to q. sovereign
state also created by it.
The provision that Congress shall
have power (and obligatory OF ex-
elusive legislation in the District is
specific, and is not modified or diniR-
ished by the general power OF Con-
gress to admit new states carved
from territory belonging to the Unit
ed States.
If there were no court decisions
on the subject. the difficulty of
contending that Congress can at
it's pleasure transfer to anybody
else by any device the whole power
10 exercise exclusive legislation In
the District, which the Constitu-
ton specifically imposed upon 1t, is
painfully obvious.
Before anything can be accom-
plished through legislative enact
ment TO secure any worth while
representation of the people of the
District either in the national or a
local government the decision OF
a