Evening star., 1928-03-16

conclude that negroes would dominate
an election on national issues for
Representatives and Senators. We ask
you 10 compare our opponents word
pictures with our cold statistics, which
time and probably the limit OF your
patience forbid my repeating.
An illogical Segment"
Thirdly. He says We are not such a
segment OF the American people as
may logically become a unit for repre-
sentation In the Senate and House.
lie compares us with dock yards and
arsenals, because we happen to be
dealt with In the same paragraph Of
the Constitution. The sites of such
Federal structures are owned by the
reoeral Government. The very pro-
vision OF the Constitution which he
CITES refers to the purchase of title
70 sucn land. We. the people Of the
District. own our own homes here, and
the purchase OF the sites of our DWELL
mgs by our predecessors in title pro-
vided funds for the building of the
Nations first buildings here. The
population of no arsenal can be COM
pared with the half million and future
millions OF citizens here. Whether Mr..
Ayers is right. and he believes It would
nave been wiser to have kept title to
all the land In the District, or whether.
ON the other hand, the fathers who
founded the Federal City were right.
does not now matter: the existing fact
is that a real resident community exists
here. and the people of 1t are but a
iair, though above the average, cross
section of the Nation at large. 1t Is
territorial unit, neighbored by other
territorial units. not all SO populous
who are represented. The burden of
PROOF Is on those who say Its people
should not be likewise represented
II the technical and legal argument
is made that We are not q State. that
Is. not unit for political purposes. we
can best answer 1t by referring the
committee to the Supreme Court. In
Bank OF Alexander VS.. Dyer, IA Peters.
l4l: Metropolitan Railroad VS.. D. c..
I32 U. s.. /; Geofrey VS.. Riggs. 1873
u. S., $50.
The Right Of Suit.
Conveniently here. though 1t is some
what OF a DEPRESSION. let me respond
70 request OF one Of the committee
and cite the authorities on access by
District residents to the Federal courts.
The case In which 1t was authorita-
lively denied was Hepburn VS.. Ellzey.
2 Cranch. AS. wherein the Supreme
Court had before 1t the question
whether plaintiffs who were residents
OF the District Of Columbia could sue
Inc defendant resident of Virginia
In the Circuit Court OF the United
states for the district OF Virginia under
lne act giving jurisdiction In cases be-
tween the citizens of different States.
Chief Justice Marshall said:
But as the act Of Congress OBJ
viously used the word State In refer
ence TO that term as used In the Con-
sutution, II becomes necessary TO in
qulre whether Columbia Is State In
tile sense OF that instrument, The re-
SUIT or that examination liz the con-
Vlctlon that the members Of the Ameri-
can Confederacy only are the States
contemplated In the Constitution.
II In true that as citizens OF
the United States and of that partic-
ular district which IN subject TO the
Jurisdiction OF Congress. II Is extraor-
binary that the courts of the United
states, which are open to aliens. and
10 the citizens Of every State In the
Union. should be closed upon them
But this is a subject for legislative
not for judicial. consideration.
The present provision relating TO
jurisdiction OF Federal courts based
upon diverse citizenship In United
states Code, Title 20. Chap. 2. Section
II % tbl tc,, and Chap. 3. Section z. .
Cases bearing on the constitutional
inability OF Congress 10 delegate legis~
lhtlve authority over the District,
which our amendment does not change
are; Roach Vs. Van Riswick. Macarthur
A Mackey I'd. G. SUPP. III: Stouten-
berg w, iiennick. 1870 IT, H., i4i:
Conghlin VI. ID. C.. 20 App. ID. c.. ISL.
Action Urged.
Finally. let me urge you 10 act.
am convinced That II n member Of this
COMMITTEES would undertake To frame a
logical report against this proposal
land such a report would ! hope. be
minority one II ever written). he
would become a convert, Bacon said
writing mnketh an exact man" We
respectfully submit that no exact or
accurate statement Of the opposition
can be made, uenefalitiea may be- In
dulgsd In, One may say. washington
In well governed" But 10 state the In
consistency between good government
In Washington and our proposal IN
more difticult. One may say: THE
purpose tor which the District was sci
apart must be preserved" but TO state
wherein our proposal inffingea that
purpose In impossible. One may say.
I'VE will not het up State here" but
we do not ask the status of citizens of
Stale. except on national elections.
One may say. when these people
came here they knew they would lnse
their vote, but asidH from the fact
that this III not generally true. this
advance knowledge does not make a
wrong system right,
without understanding or giving real
study IA our proposal, one may oppose
IT, but II you gentlemen set yourselves
Ia the task of recommending to the
House whether this proposal shall be
approved ~ disapptoved. wa are con-
fident that the unGnnvlnned will iind
ditfjeulty In framing their appnsittnn
In words which VIII satisfy them.
soe7asr'9aaears-7
Ggeehoslopakia, with population Of