Evening star., 1938-04-27

In considering the course of this
legislation, however, it is important
to remember that when the Consti-
tuition was drafted it was by no
means certain that any State would
be found willing to make the needed
cession of territory for the seat Of
government. While in no event could
the Federal district be larger than 10
miles square, no one could foretell
how restricted the area might actually
be. When the present location was
finally decided upon the population of
the entire area, including the exist
ing towns Of Alexandria and George
town, was widely scattered and
scanty. And when a municipal gov
ernment for the city of Washington,
with suffrage for all white male in
habitants, was set up by the act of
May 3, 1902 cd Stat, 1859, the pop
ulation of the infant city, as shown
by the census of 1900. was but 1903
1t is not strange, under these cir
cumstanceS, that no provision was
made either by the trainers of the
Constitution or by the legislators of
those early days for the place in our
governmental system which should be
held by the inhabitants of the Federal
district when their popula ton. wealth
and other circumstances should have
raised them to the dignity of a sep
arate political community.
In the ordinance of 1887 for the
government of the Northwest Terri
tory Congress had provided for the
erection of new States when the pop
ulation of defined area should have
reached $4,000. This provision, al
though it antedates the Constitution,
may give us some clue as to the ideas
OF the time. 1t serves at least to eX-
plain the failure to provide for the
ultimate constitutional status of the
population of the Federal district at
a time when the very existence of
Such district was still conjectural
But 1t is worthy of note that Madi-
son. In discussing the provision for
legislative power over such a district,
had taken it for granted that "a mu-
nlclpal legislature for local PURPOSES.
derived from their own suffrage
would. Of course, be allowed" Fed
eralist, 52D. And in 1918 President
Monroe, in message to Congress,
to g.
While Congress legislated directly on
local concerns OF the District the peo-
pie had no participation in the exer-
else OF that power proceeded to add:
AS this is a departure for a spe-
clal purpose from the general princi-
pies OF our system, it may merit con-
Slderatlon whether an arrangement
better adapted to the principles of our
Government and to the particular in
terests OF the people may not be de-
vised which will neither infringe the
Constitution nor affect the object
which the provision in question was
intended to secure"
National Representation and the
Presidents.
AS the District continued to grow.
other Presidents, notably Jackson,
Harrison and Johnson, drew attention
to the disadvantages under which the
people of the District suffered bv rea-
son of their inability through polit-
lcal action to make known their pc
cullar wants and to secure legislation
adapted to them. None of these Presi-
dents. however, regarded the exercise
OF political rights by the people of
the District as in any wise incompati-
bic with the grant to Congress of ey-
elusive jurisdiction in the District
OF Columbia. In his message to Con-
greSs in 1882, President Jackson put
the matter in these terse words:
1T was doubtless wise in the trainers
OF our Constitution to place the people
OF this District under the jurisdiction
OF the general Government. But to
accomplish the object they had in view
1t is not necessary that this people
should be deprived of all the privileges
Of self-government.
And he put to Congress this signifl-
can't question:
Is it not just to allow them at least
delegate to Congress, if not a local
legislature to make laws for the Dis
trlct subject to the approval or rejec-
ton of Congress?"
No doubt it was this view of the
matter which led at length to the
establishment of territorial form of
government with a house of dele
gates chosen by universal manhood
suffrage and represented, as in the
case Of other territories, by a dele
gate in the House of Representatives
There are, however, manifest diff
culties in constituting a body with
legislative powers for local purposes
ana at the same time preserving un-
impaired the general power of legis-
lation in Congress itself. Whatever
pains may be taken to define and
limit the scope OF the inferior legis-
lature, the fact remains that there
are two sources Of law for the COM
munity. At any moment the question
may arise whether a particular SUBJ
ject matter falls within the SCOPE of
the delegated or of the reserved au-
thority.
Congress Cannot Delegate Its Power
of Exclusive Legislation.
In point of fact, the acts Of the Dis
trict Legislative Assembly were ulti-
mately denied authority by the Su.
preme Court of the District upon the
very ground that Congress was in.
capable of delegating to another body
the legislative power conferred by
the Constitution. Wan Ryswick v.
Roach, MacA. g. M. O1 D. c. I'll:
Stoutenburgh " Hennick, 12s U. s.,
141, lat, 148) Hence it follows that
the departure from the fundamental
principle involved in denying the peo-
pie Of the District all participation