Evening star., 1941-07-11
Member of the Associated Press.
A Bitter Disappointment

A Bitter Disappointment
Failure of the special Senate sub
committee yesterday to report favor
ably the national representation
amendment is, Of course, diSap-
pointment. 1t becomes bitter when
examination is given to the reasons
advanced by individual members of
the subcommittee for withholding
approval. What are these reasons?
Chief among them seemed to be
the impression that the national
representation amendment would
confer statehood on the District.
This is, indeed, discouraging. For
the old statehood bugaboo ignores
completely the infinite pains that
the trainers of the amendment have
taken to avoid even the slightest dis
turbance of the national control of
the Federal district which statehood
would absolutely destroy.
Proponents of the national repre-
sentation amendment never asked
for statehood. They have avoided
all pleas for statehood in their
petitions for voice intheir National
Government. There are two ways of
granting statehood to the District:
Repeal the exclusive legislation pro-
vision of the Constitution and then
Cd retrocede the District to Mary
land or 90 grant statehood outright
to the District.
Neither of these was asked. What
the national representation amend
ment does do is to retain the ex-
elusive legislation clause Of the Con-
Stltution and make a grant of ma
tional representation to the people
of the District entirely consistent
with exclusive control of the Dis
trict by Congress. To grant to the
people of the District certain ex-
pressly enumerated powers of state
hood naturally denies to them all
other powers of statehood. The
amendment left specifically to Con-
greSs the extent of representation to
be conferred; left Congress free to
amend or to withdraw any or all of
the unenumerated voting privileges
1t might confer; expressly refrained
from including ordinary powers sof
statehood.
That is not conferring stateb 1od
on the District. The amendment
never sought statehood. The amend
ment sought for the District a new
political status, neither a State nor a
Territory, but new voting constitu-
ency of Americans, controlled ex-
elusively by Congress, yet with
unspecif1ed voting representation in
Congress and among the presidential
electors; politically uplifted Dis
trict of Columbia, an enfranchised
seat of government already made
unique by the Constitution. 1t is
naturally disillusioning and disheart-
ening to find the outworn, complete
iy discrediped statehood" argument
resurrected now in the form of a
valid reason for withholding ap-
proval of the national representation
amendment.
But to this reason has been added
another, in some respects even
harder to bear. For we are told that
national representation, the right of
citizens Of the District to participa-
ton in their Government, would end
the Federal payment. Is the Federal
payment, then, to be viewed as cash
compensation offered in lieu of the
right to vote? Is the District receiv-
ing $6,000,000 a year in hush money"
to smother its aspirations as an
American community to participate
in its national government? Then
the District is, indeed, selling itself
cheaply and has been defrauded.
Surely, Americanism was never so
grossly undervaluedl
For the Federal payment is part
and parcel of the Nations exclusive
responsibility and exclusive control
over the American seat of govern
ment. 1t is an inadequate recogni-
ton of the Nations obligation to
maintain and develop the Federal
city. AS the Nations control of it's
Capital would remain unaffected by
enfranchising the citizens of the
Capital, so would the principle of the
Federal payment remain unaffected.
When the two principles are con-
fused by picturing one as the substi-
tute for the other, the implications
slur both Congress and the District.