Evening star., 1940-08-02

ton, providing that no State with
out its consent shall be deprived Of
its equal suffrage In the Senate.
But how will the admission of a
Senator, or even two Senators,
elected by the people of the District
of Columbia, deprive any State Of
its equal suffrage in the Senate?
The plain meaning of this provision
is that no State shall have any
greater numerical representation in
the Senate than any other State.
1t cannot mean that the aliquot
share Of the legislative power pos
sessed by a State at any given time
cannot be reduced, as the proportion
OF that power. which was origi-
nally two as to twenty-six, has been
steadily diminished by the admis-
sion of new States until it is now
two as to ninety-six.
Nor is it Of any Importance that
the people by whom this Senator or
these Senators would be elected
would not have any separate legis-
lature. Even when Senators were
elected by State legislatures, the
legislatures did not act as the legis-
lature in the sense of the law
making body of the Senate, but as
specially designated body of elec-
tors by virtue of an express power
conferred by the Federal Constitu-
ton itself. Senators are no longer
elected by the State legislatures,
but by the people. Under the pro-
posed amendment the people of the
District. of Columbia, in choosing
their Senators, would, to that
extent, but to that extent only, stand
on the same footing with the people
OF the States. But as the people of
a State, in the election of Senators
as in the election of Representatives
in the lower House, exercise this
right without regard to the form
and organization of their respective
local legislature, so would the people
OF the District of Columbia elect
their Senators and Representatives
without regard to the existence or
non-existence of local legislature.
1T is, OF course, no answer to say
that the Senate is composed only of
members selected by the several
States. That is merely to declare an
obvious fact as the Constitution now
stands. The Senate shall be COM
posed of two Senators from each
State Before the seventeenth
amendment the Constitution went
on to say chosen by the legislatures
thereof But as we have seen, that
is no longer true. What remains is
no less subject to amendment. There
is no principle of our Constitution,
much less any specific provision ia
its articles, which forbids its amend
ment SO as to admit into the Senate
as well as the House members who
shall represent an integral part of
the country such as the District of
Columbia without requiring that
such area shall be for all purposes
whatsoever precisely like the exist
ing States. The only limitation is
that in thus amending the Consti-
tuition no State shall be deprived of
its equal suffrage in the Senate,
and, as we have already shown, the
equality of the States in the Senate
will not be in any wise affected by
the proposed amendment"
The Summers amendment, of
course, does not go as far as the
Jones amendment on which the
report was made. The Jones amend
ment directed that the District be
accorded representation in the Sem
ate, leaving only the number, two
or one, to be fixed by legislation. The
Summers amendment, as originally
written, left to future Congresses to
determine whether there should be
any representation in the Senate.
That is where the decision should be
left by Constitutional provision.
1t could be understood 1Dhy the Dis
trict might desire more, but it is
difficult to understand Why Congress
should seek noU to limit its o,Dn
future poDer.