Evening star., 1932-02-05
Corporation Counsel Argues
Commissioners Should Have
Broader Powers.
PAL LMISAN0 AND BOWMAN
CRITICIZE PROPOSED BILL
Representatives Declare Changes
Contemplated Take in Too
Much Authority.

The District Commissioners are pow
erless to authorize the transfer of a
body from one cemetery to another
without an act of Congress, Corpora
ton Counsel William w. Bride told the
judiciary SubComr ittee Of the House
District Committee To-Day during hear
ing on the Norton bill to extend the
powers of the Board of Commissioners.
Mr Bride, the only witness, cited a
number of other similar cases in which
the Commissioners are forced to ask
Congress fCr legislation authorizing
them to perform duties of a purely
administrative character-duties which,
he said, board of aldermen in any
other municipal government would au-
thOriZe. The primary object of the
bill, he declared, is to give the Com
miSSiOnerS powers in certain matters
in which they lack authority now, and
also to relieve Congress Of detailed
legislation affecting the District.
Mr.. Bride explained the purpose of
the bill in detail. pointing out that it
would confer on the Commissioners all
powers of an administrative nature, but
not legislative in character.
Say Proposal Too Broad.
Representative Palmisano of Mary
land, chairman Of the subcommittee,
and Representative Bowman of West
Virginia, both expressed the opinion
that the grant of power proposed in the
bill appeared to be too broad. Par
tiCular objection was raised to a sec
ton which would give the Commits
siOnerS authority to reject legislation
inconsistent with the regulations of the
Commissioners.
Mr. PalmiSano said he would rather
delegate the powers proposed in the
bill to a commission elected by the
people of the District than to a COM
mission appointed by the President of
the United States. which is not di-
rectly responsive to the people
Il would be glad to see the powers
Of the Con miSSiOnerS brOadened," said
Mr.. Bowman. But Congress has
jealousy guarded its power and when
you present a bill t0 permit the CON-
mlSS.oncrS to reject the laws that
Congress has heretofore enacted. it
seems to me that is too broad There
arc no limitatiOnS-no restrictions"
Congress has. in the past frequently
legislated upon municipal subjects. and
the Commissioners are without power
to change these enactments and will
be without such power said Mr. Bride
unless this or similar legislation is
enacted
Urges Bill Be Passed.
1T is well recognized that the Con-
greSS Of the United States with the
enormous volume Of business before it
at each session, and the great variety
OF that business concerning the Ma
tiOn as a whole, cannot be expected to
turn its attention away from national
affairs to take up the consideration of
merely local and. at times, compare
lively unimportant matters. 1t is
necessity that powers be lodged some
where under modern conditions to
meet new situations that are constant
ly arising. and to adapt municipal Ordi-
nanCeS or make new ones to meet such
conditions as they arise This is eS-
peclally true at the present time. when
situation arise almost ove-..-Tht which
pre-emptorily demand speedy and ef-
feCtlve action which cannot be obtained
at all when Congress is in recess, and
most tardilv if that body be in ses-
sion. but absorbed in matters of ma
tiOnal Importance
Il am strongly of the opinion that
the proposed bill is badly needed and
should be promptly passed"
Mr.. Bride pointed out there are 29
bills pending in Congress at this time,
at least 20 Of which contain provisions
relating to purely municipal matters
which the District Commissioners could
control by municipal ordinance if the
powers contemplated in the bill are con-
ferred upon them.
Traffic Act Cited.
There are a number of other bills
pending which seem to fall definitely
into the legislative class" said Mr..
Bride. Whether the municipality would
have the power to act would depend
upon whether the courts followed the
old line of cases decided by the courts
in general terms in passing upon the
powers of the legislative assembly or
whether they followed the opinion of
the Court of Appeals
"AS a concrete illustration of the
difficulty Of securing needed legislation. |
purely municipal in character. atten- |
ton is invited to the amendment passed |
at the last session of Congress to the |
traffic act of 1925 as amended by the !
act of 1926 Since the passage of this
law in 1925, traffic conditions so
changed that further amendments be-
came imperative. The Commissioners
were powerleSS to act, for the traffic
act was specific in its provisions, and
no regulations could be adopted incon-
SiStent with the terms of the law.
The Senate and House District Com
mitteeS and their respective Subcom
mitteeS were required to devote many
of their sessions to a Considera tiCn of
a bill containing the desired amend
mentS, End the situation was such it
could only be passed by the respective
houses of Congress with unanimous
consent If the additional powers ere
granted the Commissioners as proposed
in the bill. there would be no need to
trespass upon the time of members of