Evening star., 1937-01-08


division Of powers between the gen.
eral and State OocaD government.
Congress has the entire control
over the District for every purpose
of government.
within the District OF Columbia.
and the other places purchased and
used for the purpose above men,
toned (forts, etc. the national and
municipal powers OF government.
Of every description, are united in
the Government of the Union.
And these are the only cases, within
the United States. in which all the
powers of government are united In
a single government. except in the
cases already mentioned Of the
temporary territorial governments.
and there a local government
exists"
In an opinion rendered May IL,
1886. upon an appeal from the
Supreme Court OF the District OF
Columbia. the United States Court
Of Appeals for the District of Co.
lumbia made the following state
ment:
In legislating for the District Of
Columbia, Congress acts with sub
stantially the powers that a State
legislature has in legislating for a
State. Congress has the entire
control over the District Of Co.
lumbia for every purpose of gov
ernment, national or local. 1t may
exercise within the District all
legislative powers that the legis-
lature OF a State might ex-
ercise within the State so long
as it does not contravene any pro-
vision of the Constitution OF the
United States Capital Traction
Co. vs.. Hof. l74 U. s. /, S. See
also District Of Columbia VS.. Kraft,
IS App. D. c. 243."
Intention to Deny
Control BY Residents Disputed.
Congress took over the govern.
ment of the District in 1901, and
since then has provided for local
representation for the people Of
the District according to con-
greSsional enactments Municipal
governments elected by popular vote
existed from 1901 to 1871, and q
territorial government with a non-
voting delegate in Congress from
1871 to 1874. Since 1874 the Dis
trict residents have not had suf-
frage in local affairs.
Much support can be found for
the contention that the trainers of
the Constitution did not intend to
deny residents Of the seat Of gov
eminent a controlling interest in
their local affairs. The contem-
porary writings of James Madison
are frequently quoted to indicate
that 1t was assumed. when the Con-
stitution was drawn up and before
details regarding the seat of gov
ernment had been decided upon.
that citizens living in the selected
district would have the same po-
litical rights granted all other
Americans under a representative
form OF government. Among other
things, Madison wrote that
". as the State [ceding the
territory will no doubt provide in
the compact for the rights and the
consent of the citizens inhabiting
it. - as they will have had their
voice in the election OF the govern
ment which is to exercise authority
over them, and as municipal
legislature for local purposes de-
rived from their own suffrages will
of course be allowed them: -
every imaginable objection seems to
be obviated."
Local Representation
Frequently Debated In Congress.
Other contemporary evidence
also shows that the existence of
political rights in local as we'll as
national affairs was not considered
incompatible with exclusive Fed
eral jurisdiction.
The question of local representa-
ton for the District has been con-
sidered frequently in Congress, in
writings, in debates, and in numer-
Gus meetings and discussions in
the District and throughout the
country. Some Of the arguments
of those opposed to such repre-
sentation have been given as fol-
lows:
Many Of them Presidents of the
District hesitate to join in the de-
mand for the ballot, which just
now Is once again agitating the
minds Of the people. The Federal
Capital, they believe, should be
forever free from the strife, the
turmoil, and struggle of political
campaigns, its atmosphere forever
undisturbed by the quarrels of po-
litical partisans."
Little that Is new can be added
to previous summaries of the situa-
tion, Of which perhaps the follow
ing is especially clear:
1T seems reasonably certain,
from the absence of contrary evi-
dence, that the Constitutional Con.
vention did not seek to deprive the
people Of the District Of Columbia
of their political privileges. The
sole aim Of that body was to secure
the national Government from
State interference. In view of GER
tain alleviating circumstances.
more potent then than now, the
convention felt itself justified in
sacrificing some of the political
privileges Of the people to the Sc
curity of the national Government,
but certainly this sacrifice was any
thing but an end sought. 1t was
found necessary to sacrifice partici-
patton in national affairs. since the
machinery for it apparently could
not be placed in operation under
the peculiar plan whereby the
Capital was separated from the
States: but the convention certain
ly did not contemplate the irre-
vocable perpetuation of this sac
rifice If some means of placing that
machinery in operation should ap-
pear in later years under changed
conditions. The case OF the exercise
of the method originally deemed
expedient was still less contem-
plated.