Evening star., 1941-08-08
Meaning Of Statehood
Arouses Discussion
Writer Denies Representation
Would Give the District
Position of Stute
To the Editor Of The Star:

The recent disapproval of the Capper-
Summers Resolution for an amendment
to the Constitution authorizing Congress
to grant national representation to the
District of Columbia seems to have been
based on the fear that it would confer
Statehood upon the District. Unfortu-
nately, the attributes of State are not
specifically defined at length although
some are summarized on pages 256 and
257 of the Senate hearings.
1t might be well to consider just what
seems to be the definition of State"
in the American political sense of the
word. One of the earlier attempts in
our constitutional history to define a
state" can be found in the case of
Hepburn e. Dundas VS.. Ellzey, 2 Cranch
452, decided by the Supreme Court in
1904 This case was mentioned a number
of times at the recent hearings Chief
Justice John Marshall ruled at that time
that while the District of Columbia was
state" in the sense of general political
thinking it was not a State under the
Federal Constitution. He reasoned that
the clauses relating to the composition
of the two Houses of Congress and of the
choice of presidential electors were de-
finitive. Any political organization in
the United States that had equal repre-
sentation in the Senate, proportional
representation in the House of Repre-
sentatives and could pick presidential
electors was an American State. Any
political organization that could not
exercise these three rights was not, and
could not be, State.
second decision of the Supreme
Court that attempted the definition of
the American State was the case OF
Texas VS.. White, 7 Wallace TOO, decided
in 1868. This case, particularly noted
for It's judicial support of the theory of
the indissolubility of the Union gave
another judicial definition of a State.
Chief Justice Chase said In the Consti-
tuition the term State most frequently
expresses the combined idea just noticed,
Of people, territory and government. A
State, in the ordinary sense of the
Constitution, is political community of
free citizens, occupying territory of de-
fined boundaries, and organized under
government sanctioned and limited by a
written constitution, and established by
the consent of the governed. 1t is the
union of such States, under a common
constitution, which forms the distinct
and greater political unit, which that
Constitution designates as the United
States -
Chases reasoning is quite similar to
the argument of E. F. Lee, the losing
counsel in Hepburn VS.. Ellzey, sixty-four
years previously. This case of Texas VS..
White practically supercedes the defini-
ton as given in Hepburn VS.. Ellzey.
Marshall said there was no State without
! representation in Congress; Chase said.
once a State, always State whether
represented in Congress or not. Justice
Grier dissented from Chase's decision,
and his dissent was based squarely upon
Hepburn VS.. Ellzey. I feel, therefore,
that the case of Hepburn VS.. Ellzey no
longer is part of the law of the land.
An attempt to determine if the Capper-
Summers Resolution confers Statehood
cannot be determined clearly by refer
| ence TO the Constitution and its interpre-
tation by the Supreme Court.
The powers and activities of States
may be helpful in determining if the
proposed status for the District consti
tutes Statehood. The States serve as
units of organization of the national
political parties. This activity exists
now to small degree in the District.
! Another power of a State is to determine
/ the suffrage for local officers, Senators,
| Representatives and presidential electors.
| I feel this determination should be left
in the hands of Congress A power of
! State is to mark out the limits of its
| congressional districts. This, too, should
| be left to Congress. A State makes laws
| governing nominations and elections.
| The broad outlines for this could be
| placed in the Act of Incorporation; the
| details could be made temporarily by the
Board of Commissioners and revised by
the new District Government after the
/ first election.
A State has the right to an equal vote
in the House of Representatives at any
time when the election of the President
falls to that body This power would not
be consistent with the proposed status
| of the District A clause to this effect
might be advisable as a part of the pro-
posed amendment. A State has the
power to ratify amendments to the
United States Constitution. The District
would not be entitled to this power.
States frequently act as agents of the
Federal Government. This is something
the District has been doing for some time
and can continue to do.
The District would be different in
status from a territory in that under
the terms of the amendment 1t would
have actual voting representation in the
House of Representatives and in the
election Of the President. In addition
1t never would achieve the ultimate goal
of territory which is government based
on native or inherent powers, as the
source of the District Governments
power always will be delegated from the
Federal Government.