Evening star., 1921-12-09
do We WANT HERE
|MP0TENT VOTES? )
|VoteIess District Delegate OF
Dubious Value as Forerun-
ner Of Real Representation
| and HurtfuI as Substitute.
without Constitutional Amend.
/ meat, No Possibility Of vot-
ing Representation.
- THEODORE W. MOVES.
Editorial. Correspondence Of The Star
>. THEODORE W. MOVES.
Editorial. Correspondence Of The Star

Some able and enthusiastic sup
porters OF the proposed constitu-
tional amendment, which empowers
Congress to give the District ma
tiona1 representation. believe that the
easiest way to secure such represen-
tation is, as a preliminary. to obtain
for the District a voteless territorial
delegate. Other advocates of our
constitutional amendment. equally
able and enthusiastic are convinced
that the territorial. delegate project
delays and tends to defeat the real
national representation proposed by
the constitutional amendment.
For example, the District Delegate
Association contends that a voteless
delegate is good in itself as far as 1t
goes, and Is a helpful preliminary to
real national representation. The
directors of the Board of Trade pro.
nounce the voteless delegate "a small
and negligible fraction of q terri
tory's powers and privileges."x grant
of which now would indefinitely
postpone and tend to defect the Sc
curing of genuine national represen-
iators "ast Iatisfaction in full Of the
Districts claim to real national rep
resentation." The voteless delegate
is urged on the ground that half a
loaf Is better than no bread, and is
rejected on the ground that it Is no
"bread" at all; that as petitioners for
national representation we have ask
ed for bread and are offered a stone.
For Bread Onerea a Stone.
The territorial delegate issue was
one in respect to which we Wash.
inetonians found ourselves seriously
divided in 1916. and is among the
issues which. In creating the citizens
Joint committee on District nationa
temporarily In order that, irrespective
Of our divisions on other issues, we
might unite in support of the con.
stitutional amendment. But all of u!
who favor real national representa-
tion for the District are, I believe
unitedly and vigorously opposed T.
the delegate proposition as subssi'
tute for voting representation in Con.
gress and the electoral college.
Thus, some of US favor 1t as a mean
toward national representation: som'
Of us oppose it as retarding nationA
representation: and all Of us rejec
It as q satisfaction in full of the Dis
The value Of the voteless delegat,
as q forerunner is affirmed and de
MED. The voteless delegate as sub
stitute for genuine representation II
rejected as hurtful to the last degree
Tke territorial delegate proposition
Of fhes pending bills e. II and AT
cannot. I think, in its present shap,
He cOnsideIeA ~ even Q helpful fore
runner Of our constitutional amend
mend, # cannot be amended 20 tina,
it win hex xan adequate substitute To-
the eonstitutfonal amendments 1t q
inadeQuate to put the District, In re
meet 10 vitally important powers
upon the territorial basisS 1T grant
even less o1 the territorial privifegs
ana mower than was GiveA In tn
~1eatler-dustefn legislature per10t
between 1871 ana 1874.
i iSs.,PsverThaa in 1871.
l. 1ns4he sso-calfsd stsxritorial gov
ernment between; fS1t and 1874 w
EAadFxya,callsd Territorial Legislature
with 5o9S4S elected branch. and sunde,
| that dn the whole unsatisfactory gov
efnpasnt :Ws enjoyed far greater ter