Evening star., 1934-05-15

IUy uTItCSS VI - ocfsSo ~S~~e'''b
proposed reorganization OF the
Municipal Government.
Preceding articles of this series have
set forth the fact that national repre-
sentation for local taxpayers. with
voting participation in Congress and
in the electoral college, is fundamental
in any reorganization scheme designed
to extend to citizens OF the District a
real voice In the Government which
taxes them and legislates for them.
Congress would continue to exercise
the exclusive power of legislation for
the District, as laid down In the Con-
stitution, but the citizens Of the Dis
trict would be permitted representa-
ton in Congress and in the choice of
executive officials with whom the
American people periodically intrust
the administration Of their Govern
ment.
There have been, however, various
proposals to give to local taxpayers q
limited form of expression in the local
government, and, as discussed in the
article Immediately preceding this,
important among such proposals are
those to establish locally the devices
of initiative, referendum and recall.
Referenda would be advisory, not
binding on the Congress. but indica-
tive of local sentiment on matters Of
Importance. Recall Of Commis-
sioner who by conduct prejudicial to
the interest OF the community had
become personally offensive would,
however, be binding upon the Presi-
dent to the extent of requiring him to
appoint successor.
Further Proposals Discussed.
More limited still are other pro-
posals for delegations of congressional
power to the Commissioners, such as
contained in Senator Kings bill en-
larging the powers Of the Commits
sioners to enable them to make and
enforce municipal regulations. and 1t
is with this type Of reorganization
that this article is concerned.
The subject Of conferring broad
powers upon the Commissioners in
the matter of municipal ordinance
and regulation has been discussed for
many years. Much Of the favorable
sentiment shown in Congress toward
legislation of this type is due to the
fact that it is in part intended to
relieve Congress of some of the tedi-
Gus and relatively unimportant rou-
tine business Of which members fire.
quently complain. Sometimes the pas
sage Of bill the purpose of which in
other municipalities would be accom-
plished through an ordinance ap-
proved by city council requires the
time of members Of Congress whose
national duties press heavily upon
them. A whole session passes, at
times. without the passage of some
locally essential but nationally unim-
portant measure because the members
Of Congress never quite had or took
the time to get around to it.
Constitutional Limitations.
But at the outset of any attempt
to delegate power to the Commission
ers, those who advocate delegation Of
authority are confronted with the
question how far such delegation Of
authority can 60 without infringing
on the Constitution.
There are some decisions which
still remain unreversed, which sharply
limit the power of Congress under the
Constitution to delegate its powers
Of legislation.
For example. see Roach VS.. Van
RiSwick (McArthur and Mackey,
Page 17D.
In 1871 the Legislative Assembly Of
the District of Columbia passed an
act declaring judgments of the Dis
trict Supreme Court lien on an
equitable interest in real estate.
Under the laws of Maryland, which at
that time governed the subject in this
District, judgment bound the lands
Of the judgment debtor only when he
held an unencumbered interest there
in. The Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia in general term
(Which corresponded then to the To-
cal Court of Appeals) held in 1879
that the act Of the Legislature was
invalid.
The court said:
Congress has no power under the
Constitution to delegate general legis-
lative authority to the local govern
ment Of the District of Columbia;
hence, as the act of the late Legis-
lative Assembly of said District, max
ing judgments obtained in this court
liens on equitable interests in real
estate was an act of general legis-
lation. it is imperative and void"
Excerpts from the same opinion:
"In this country, where the prin-
ciples Of constitutional law are bet
ter understood than elsewhere, it
seems perfectly established that the
power conferred by a constitution on
legislative body. to make laws. can
not be delegated by that body to any
other body or authority. but is re-
garded as a kind Of personal trust
reposed in the legislators, the mode
OF whose election is supposed to con-
tain guarantees of their judgment,
wisdom and patriotism"
cit is difficult to draw a line be-
tween powers strictly municipal,
which may be delegated. and those
properly legislative which cannot be
delegated. This difficulty. however,
| does not mean the line does not ex-
| ISL. EdCu case uiuSb VIC NCSl0C0 AAOA 9
or less on its own merits"
Municipal and General Legislation.
Thus, universal usage and legisla-
ton recognize the preservation Of
public order, morals and health, the
| regulation of markets and places of
amusement and repair Of streets, and,
as an incident to the others. the
levying of general taxes and special
assessments. as appropriate powers OF
a municipality"
ION the other hand, titles to prop
erty, its transfer and transmission, and
the form and effect of judicial pro-
ceedings, the formalities and effect
of contracts, the law Of commercial
papers, the whole subjects of crimes
If ori1o11v ooporal