Evening star., 1939-04-09

the people of the District con-
stituting the seat of the Gov
ernment of the United States
representation in Congress and
among the electors of President
and vice president no greater
than that of the people of States,
and to delegate to such Govern
ment as Congress may establish
therein all or any part of its
power over said District; and the
judicial power of the United
States shall extend to contro-
versies to which citizens of said
District shall be parties the same
as to which the citizens of a
State shall be parties"
Section 2. All legislation
hereunder shall be subject to
amendment and repeal. provided
that no amendment or repeal
shall affect the Office of a SEN
ator or Representative during the
time for which he was elected"
Members of Congress have fire.
quently raised the question as to
whether, under the other pend
ing proposals. the exercise by
Congress of the power conferred
would exhaust the power beyond
recall, If the plan did not work
out satisfactorily. Lawyers have
differed as to this. Section 2 of
the Summers proposal takes care
of this objection completely.
In local circles there is little
fear that Congress would with
draw rights and privileges Of
American citizens once they
were granted to the District peo-
pie. However there are many in
Congress who are not inclined
to grant such rights unless there
is a clearly defined authority for
withdrawal if deemed in the pub
lie interest.
AS explained by Representa-
tive Summers. his is simply an
enabling provision whereby Con-
gress may extend to the people
of the District such rights as it
may regard as not opposed to the
interests of the United States.
This proposal would strip Con-
gress of none of its power over the
National Capital. 1t would, how
ever, enable Congress to permit
local participation to any extent
to which it might consider to be
in the public interest.
Those who have examined the
Summers amendment most care
fully can see no valid objection
which might be raised against
this enabling proposal either by
members of the House and Sem
ate or by individual citizens or
organizations. With the incor-
poration of this provision into the
constitution there is no loss of
power either by the people of the
United States or the Congress.
Then any legislation enacted un-
der the provisions of the amend
ment may be amended or re-
pealed. 1t would therefore ap-
pear that the rights of all would
be safeguarded. If legislation un-
der the amendment should be
repealed, the Congress would still
be enabled to later enact other
or the same legislation.
There will probably be some
local organizations and individ-
uals who will be dissatisfied with
this proposal. They may continue
to demand that some amendment
in definite and mandatory form
be passed which will require, not
empower, Congress to give Dis
trict people these long-sought
rights. Such stand might bear
all the marks of logic and funda-
mental Americanism and still be
unsound SO far as to possibility
of attainment.
1t is necessary to keep in mind,
in considering this problem, that
success is only attainable through
getting favorable reports from
House and Senate committees,
and then the approval of each
house by two-thirds vote.
When the congressional hurdles
are passed over, then it is neces-
sary to obtain ratification by the
legislatures of three-fourths of
the States.
Some of the long-suffering,
voteless and unrepresented peo-
pie of the District may feel like
being stubborn and uttering that
old declaration of freemen, 1--WE
won't stand for that!", but they
will get nowhere with that atti-
tude. This proposal must be
couched in terms to suit the
Congress if the District people
are ever to be AmericaniZed.