Evening star., 1943-12-12
Founding Fathers
And the CAPITAL

for home rule" last week produced
discussion as to the intent of the
Constitution makers regarding the
voting status OF citizens of the Dis
trfct. Theodore w. NoyeS, editor of
The Star. has 10ritten extensively on
this subject, and the folloluing article
is a condensation OF his testimony at
q previous hearing on an amendment
to the Constitution giDing Washinq-
tonians national representation
What was the intent of the trainers
OF the Constitution as to the future
political status of the people OF the
District?
Very likely they had no distinct intent
and gave no thought at all to provisions
concerning the future status of the imag-
mary population of hypothetical city.
If they thought at all on the subject
they probably thought that in giving
Congress power to admit new States,
and to dispose of and regulate territory
belonging to the United States they had
cared for any future population of the
Nations city, just as by these provisions
they had arranged for the political flu
ture of every other American in the
entire territorial area of the United
States, present and prospective.
If they did not think at all about the
future status of bit of territory which
might under the Constitution be so
small in size that its population would
never be otherwise than negligible, 1t
was because they were engaged in
desperate struggle to overcome deadly
political dangers of the strenuous
present and to get 13 jealous, wrangling
communities, that were equal in the
federation that had broken down, to
make the sacrifices necessary to create
the American Union. At times the task
seemed almost hopeless.
The Constitution makers did not know
from day to day whether there would be
Union. Disturbed and distracted over
this vital problem, they may be forgiven
If they forgot to project themselves into
the future in order to provide properly
for the American rights in the remote
future of territory which had no mini
mum limit OF area, and which might be
SO small as not to be able ever to secure
more than the most meager and negli-
gible of local populations.
The other alternative is that the Con-
stitution makers did think of the future
rights of the possible capital community,
and believed that they had safeguarded
these rights, if any ever developed, by
the power given to Congress to dispose
of and to regulate territory belonging
TO the United States and the power to
admit new States, coupled with the free
hand given to Congress by the Consti-
tuition concerning the terms upon which
new States might be admitted, enabling
Congress, If it wished to admit a new
State with its consent which was not on
equal terms with the other States, and
which had not even equal representation
in the Senate.
How did the forefathers who were
the contemporaneous defenders of the
new Constitution interpret the exclusive
legislation provision in its bearing upon
the rights, present and prospective. Of
residents of the Federal District? What
was their intent in respect to the future
inhabitants of the seat of Government?
Hamilton, Madison and Jay in the Fed
eralist analyze minutely and defend
ably and brilliantly the provisions of
the new Constitution. In No. ~ Of the
Federalist Madison has this to say of
the rights Of the people of the seat Of
Government under the exclusive legis-
lation clause.
And as it (the Federal DISTRICT is
to be appropriated to the use with
the consent of the State ceding 1t;
as the State will no doubt provide in
the compact for the rights and the
consent of the citizens inhabiting it.:
as the inhabitants will find sufficient
inducements Of interest to become
willing parties to the cession; as they
will have had their voice in the cleo
t1on OF the Government which is to
exercise authority over them; as
municipal legislature for local pur-
poses. derived from their own suf-
frages, will of course be allowed them,
and as the authority of the Legis-
lature of the State and of the in
habitants of the ceded part of it to
concur in the cession. will be derived
AAoAi eiiC WllOIC pcOplt VI tIlc SLdGc
In their adoption of the Constitu-
tion-every imaginable objection
seems to be obviated
Madison does not treat the residents
OF the Federal District as deprived of
American rights. He suggests first that
the ceding State or States will in the
compact safeguard these rights, just as
the States did in ceding Western terri
tory and as France did in ceding LOU
isiana. Second, that the inhabitants
at the time of cession will have had
their voice in the election of their Ma
tional Government, and, third, that they
will, of course, have their own municipal
legislature for local purposes.
Madlson's idea was that the COM
munity should have local elected legis-
lature, and it did have shadowy imi-
tation of municipal self government for
nearly three-quarters of a century. In
the beginning the Nation had no great
property interests at the Capital which
required it to control the local govern
ment in self-protection. Conditions
have changed. The National Govern
ment is now very large property owner
at the Capital. 1t feels that for the
protection of its interests it must DOM
mate the local government.
Under these changed conditions the
local legislature, which, according to
Madison, would, of course, be granted
to Washingtonians, has been denied.
According to the construction which the
courts have put upon the Constitution,
lac