Evening star., 1941-08-05
The New Issue


IN recommending indefinite post
ponement of Senate consideration OF
the national representation resolu-
ton, the Senate Judiciary Committee
expresses the fear that representa-
ton for the people of the District in
Congress would conflict with the
exclusive legislation" clause of the
Constitution. That is the chief rea-
son advanced for the unfavorable
report.
The proponents of national repre-
sentation long have argued that
there would be no such conflict; that
representation in Congress for the
people of the District would in no
wise impair the unquestioned, the
desirable and the exclusive sover-
eighty of Congress over the District.
The many able lawyers and students
of the Constitution who have studied
the question of possible conflict,
have in the past pretty well disposed
VI ~ do oil loOuC VI 4l1iPO1 GoA1NS' @AiAe
1t is possible that the proponents who
argued the case before the Senate
subcommittee failed to emphasize
the point, so certain were they in
their own minds that it would not
be raised against them.
But If the Senate committee fears
that through voting representation
In Congress for the District the ex-
elusive sovereignty of Congress
would be impaired; if, at the same
time, the advocates of such repre-
sentation do not question the wisdom
Of such sovereignty, wish it to be
maintained and are anxious that it
not be impaired, then the two sides
cannot be far apart and meeting
ground should be possible. The dis
covery of this meeting ground may
he hastened through rewriting the
language of the proposed constitu-
tional amendment.
The Senate Judiciary Committee
report discusses the historical back
ground of the establishment of the
National Capital in an area in which
the Congress would be free from local
interference, reciting in this connec-
tion the early experience of Congress
in seeking to locate Capital in the
States. The report then emphasizes
the wisdom of the founders in Gre
ating seat of government in which
Congress would exercise the exclusive
power of legislation. 1t is only when
the report seeks to read into pro-
posal for voting rights in the Ma
tional Government for the people of
the District threat to the exclusive
sovereignty of Congress that the ad-
vocates of national representation
disagree.
They have never questioned the
wisdom of the exclusive legislation"
clause. They have never sought
statehood, or, as the report sug-
gests, "superstatehood." They have
advocated no lessening of the
existing powers of Congress. They
have sought for Congress the
addition of new power: The power
to grant to the people of the District
of Columbia the inherent right Of
American citizens, the right to vote
and to participate in their Govern
ment through the vote. The exer-
else of this right is as basic as the
Constitution itself. 1t is the key
stone of American democracy. The
trainers of the Constitution did not
deny 1t to the people of the District.
Through some oversight, apparently
with! the thought that the ceding
States would safeguard it, they
omitted from the Constitution a
positive statement that American
citizens who lived in the District
could vote. 1t may not have oc-
Cured to them that any American
citizen would ever be denied the
right to vote.
The restoration Of this right does
not mean the creation OF a new
State; does not change the tradi-
tional conception of the seat of Gov
eminent, under exclusive jurisdic-
ton of Congress; does not create a
new source of possible interference
with the orderly proceedings of Con-
gress. To deny the citizens of the
District their rights on such grounds
is to create an issue which lacks the
substance of reality.
But, having been created, that is
sue must be removed. Some day
the people of the District will have
the right to vote and to participate
in their National Government, in
some form agreeable to Congress and
to the people of the States. To find
that form and to convince Congress
of it's desirability is the continuing
obligation of the people of the
District.