Evening star., 1926-04-28
.COMM|TTEEST|
|. FAvORS SUFFRAGE.
Three Opponents of Vote for
District Fail to Change
Views.


| luton, fathered by Representative
| Dyer. Republican, of Missouri. for
constitutional amendment authorizing
| Congress TO grant national representa-
| ton, with vote and voice In both
| houses of Congress, TO the residents
of the Capital.
/ Today opponents of this legislation
were given an opportunity to present
their views. There We're three speak
ers, Rear Admiral II. ii. Rogers, re
tired, the only one speaking in rep
| resentative capacity; Frank NJ. Lord
| and Grover w. Ayres.
Admiral Rogers said that he is an
! official of the Dupont Citizens Asso-
citation and said he appeared In he
| half of that association. Later, in
reply to questions by Representative
| Stobbs. Republican, of Massachusetts.
Admiral Rogers said that the Dupont
| Citizens Association had itself ex-
pressed no view on the resolution
which the judiciary committee is con
sideling and that his appearance was
authorized by the executive commit
tee of that association.
Satisfied With Government.
lie argued that suffrage is not an
end in itself. but only means To an
| end. and the end Is good government.
and that since there is good govern
ment in the District of Columbia with
out suffrage, there is no need for the
vote.
Mr.. Stobbs then asked Admiral
Rogers to state whether he was per
fectly contented to live in country
I that was well governed. even if 1t was
governed as n monarchy with no right
of suffrage.
Admiral Rogers told the committee
that he did not know by what ma
iority in each of the organizations,
reported al the hearing by the Joint
citizens committee on national repre-
sentation. the resolution had been APP
proved so that he believed the pro
ponents of the legislation have over
stated the unanimity with which the
orGa nizations are supporting the Dyer
resolution.
Mr.. Lord. speaking as an individual
told the committee he thought there
ought to he referendum on the sub
ject. He stated he was not opposed TO
the measure, but did wish TO bring TO
the committee some considerations
which might be helpful in solving the
problem.
He foresaw that candidates for Con
gress would be urged to pledge them
selves regarding activity in Congress
for A larger raasure Of local self gov
ernment.
Mr.. Lord expressed the view that
this projected difficulty might ne
avoided IL. before Congress did any
thing. there was referendum by
all the people of the District.
Mr.. Stohhs asked Mr.. Lord If he
favored the pending resolution and
he said he did. Mr.. Stobbs again
asked whether in his opinion ma
jority of the people in the District
desired the right to vote for Presi-
dent and Vice President. and he an
swered that he believed they do. Mr..
Lord illustrated his argument by
saying that this me lsure Is sup
ported by various national organiZa
tions. naming one organization in
particular. He expressed the opinion
that this is presumptuous on the
part of any national organization
not directly connected with the bust
ness of Government.
Mr.. ANres. speaking in no repre-
sentative capacity, told the judiciary
committee that figures given in the
! brief for the citizens joint committee
by Edwin G.. BrandenburS as to sub
scriptions by the District of Columbia
people to Liberty loans and enlist
ments in the military forces during
war times were misleading. He re-
ferred to these figures az having been
'jaZZed"
Claims Quota Boosted
He argued that many persons only
temporarily in the District during the
war period had subscribed to the war
loans from the District and that this
has boosted the District g quota.
Mr.. Ayres gave the committee fig-
ureS in regard to civil service EN-
ployes to show that the District OF
Columbia has more than its quota
under the civil service apportionment
law.
He called attention to the projected
capital of Australia, making the point
that It is more nearly like the Dis
trict Of Columbia than any Federal
district. He said that the proponents
of national representation had pur-
posely avoided mentioning this pro-
jected capital because, by solemn de-
cision of the commonwealth of
Australia. no suffrage whatever was
to be allowed in that district.
Raises Distinction.
Theodore w. Moves, chairman of
the Citizens Joint Committee on Suf
frage, asked Chairman Graham if he
might be permitted to ask Mr.. Ayres
question. Mr.. Noyes asked If the
real distinction between the proposed
capital of Australia and the District
of Columbia was not whether the
commonwealth of Australia did not
own title to the land itself upon which
the capital is being built. Mr.. Ayres
replied that was true, but the Federal
Government, by expenditure of APP
proXimately a billion dollars. could ac
quire title to all the privately-owned
la nd in the District of Columbia ac-
cording to the last assessment.
MIR. Ayres raised the point that OPP
ponents of the Dyer resolution had
been misinformed as to the time al
lotted to them. He asked Chairman
Graham if two hours only was to be
allowed, as he said he had been in
formed by the Federation of Citizens
tAssocia tions.
Mr. Graham replied that 'notwith-
standing what impression he might
have received otherwise. that the ju-
diciay committee had announced that
both sides would be given such time
as they wished and needed to present
their case.
Mr.. Ayres expressed the view that
| five years study, of the District of
Columbia had convinced him that
| majority of the people here are OPP
posed to any kind of suffrage-either
| national or local. He quoted former
Senator Work as favoring a scheme
| for the National Capital whereby the
Federal Government would pay all
expenses regardless of local revenues
and then levy on the citizens such
reasonable taxes as might be shown
fai oft
parable size. Mr.. Ayres attacked the
motives of those favoring national
representation, claiming that they are
using this as smoke screen to pre-
vent the, accomplishment of. what
MANY desire here--local Self-gOvern-