Evening star., 1938-05-20
No Powers Lost.

A point correctly emphasized in the
argument for a constitutional amend
ment empowering Congress to extend
voting privileges to the residents of the
District is that such an amendment
would not repeal the exclusive legisla-
ton" clause of the Constitution. Even
with the adoption of the amendment and
the exercise of the new power granted
its power of exclusive legislation over the
seat of government and would continue
to exercise the whip hand in the District
of Columbia.
The purpose of the amendment is not
to take away from Congress any of the
powers it now possesses in relation to
control at the seat of government. The
purpose of the amendment is to add
new power to those already possessed by
Congress-this power being to give to the
people of the District of Columbia the
right to participate in their government
by being represented in the House and
Senate and the electoral college. The
LeWis-Randolph amendment would, in
addition, enable Congress to transfer
to locally elected body any portion Of
the legislative power it now possesses ex-
clusively.
Are these powers, if exercised by Con-
eress, irrevocable? AS pointed out in the
argument before the House Judiciary
Committee, approval by the States of
constitutional amendment empowering
Congress to grant national representa-
ton to the people of the District, would
in all likelihood be followed Immediately
by the exercise of that power by Con-
gress. Approval Of the amendment, in
deed, would indicate such overwhelming
popular sentiment in favor of granting
the franchise to the citizens Of the Dis
trict that Congress would act in accord
with that sentiment And it is unlikely
that, once national representation were
conferred upon the District Congress
would revoke such right. 1t is difficult
to see any situation which would even
suggest such revocation. For while the
people of the District of Columbia would
have vote in Congress and vote in the
electoral college, Congress would con-
tinue to exercise its power of exclusive
legislation and control in the District.
In the case OF local suffrage, powers
delegated to the people Of the District by
Congress would be far more revocable.
Congress would at all times be free to
experiment and naturally would expert
rlent with the form of local suffrage and
the degree of local participation in local
government that seemed most advisable.
Even constitutional amendment en-
powering Congress to extend local suf-
frage would not commit Congress irrevo-
cably to any set form of municipal
government.
Congress undoubtedly has the power
now to establish any form of local gov
eminent it chooses or to grant any sort
OF local suffrage it chooses without con-
stitutional amendment. But the highest
local court in decision Van Ryswick VS..
Roach, MacA. g. M. II D. c., I'D, which
has never been reversed by the Supreme
Court of the United States, has held
that under the Constitution as now
worded Congress cannot delegate to such
local government in its full law-making
power, but only the power to enact
municipal ordinances. A constitutional
amendment like that proposed by the
first section of the Randolph-Lewis
joint resolution is, therefore, desirable
because it would clarity and enlarge the
extent to which Congress may delegate
its legislative power. Without such
clarification and engagements it is felt
by many that the local government
would be of uncertain tenure and power,
giving little effective participation by the
people of the District in their local
affairs and perhaps, being treated by
many members of Congress as satisfac-
ton in full of the Districts claim to rep
resentation in the national and local
governments, would delay or defeat
meeting the Districts vital need of
voting representation in Congress and
the electoral college.