Evening star., 1944-09-17
Unfounded Feors
Of District Vote

the tollotofnD reUised extract from
statement OF Theodore w. Noyes be-
fore the House Committee ON the
Judiciary In 1928 during hearing on
national representation proposed
amendment to the Constitution.
Every analysis Of the Districts popu-
lation which has been made emphasizes
the existence Of potential voting con-
stituency here which Is adequate In
numbers and unsurpassed in quality in
any State Of the Union, constituting
one Of the strongest, most intelligent.
most public-spirited and most American
communities In the whole Republic.
But If Our voting population were
viewed today as unfit in quality or in
adequate in quantity, no reason would
thereby be found to oppose the pending
Sumners-Capper resolution for a con-
stitutional amendment. For this amend
ment merely empowers Congress. In its
discretion, at some future time, to
admit District residents to the status
Of citizens Of = State for the purpose
Of national representation, and leaves
to Congress the duty of providing the
machinery to be utilized when Congress
wishes to exercise this power,
Does Not Decrease, but Enlarges Powers
of Congress.
This amendment does not take any
power whatsoever from Congress On
the contrary, its only effect Is to enlarge
the powers of Congress.
Congress now has the power to grant
full national representation to the peo-
pie Of Territory by admitting 1t TO
statehood. The constitutional provision
giving to the Nation through Congress
exclusive control over the seat of Gov
eminent deprives Congress OF the power
Of giving to residents Of the District full
statehood. The pending constitutional
amendment Is an enabling act for Con-
gress, empowering but not directing 1t
to admit District residents to the status
of citizens Of State only so far as will
not disturb the national exclusive control
OF the Capital by the Nation through
Congress. Voting representation OF the
District in Congress will clearly not
affect control Of the District by Congress
Why should any member of the Con-
gress be against an amendment which
merely enlarges an existing power Of
Congress on equitable and wholesome
lines, and which simply empowers Con-
gress to remedy a political inequity
whenever, II ever, 1t Is disposed to do so?
Why should Congress oppose the grant
to itself OF any new constitutional power
with which those affected are ready to
trust it? Surely Congress does not mis-
trust itself.
Washington is asking by constitutional
amendment. requiring two-thirds vote
Of Congress. only what is absolutely es-
sential to be secured In this way. II more
were asked by constitutional amend
ment nothing whatever could secure the
necessary two-thirds vote.
Surely no Washingtonian will contend
that the District should not by constitu-
ttonal amendment be placed on the same
basis as Alaska or Hawaii in respect
to the possibility OF national representa-
ton or that Congress should not then
in its discretion by majority vote grant
such equitable representation.
Surely Congress will not quibble or
delay In cooperating to give to itself
by constitutional amendment the power
at the right time to cure the evil and
shame Of completely nonrepresentative
government Of the seat Of government
Of the great American Republic.
Imagination Versus Facts.
1t is difficult to conceive how any one
can so pervert the modest proposals of
our amendment as to cause q State
reeking with graft, dominated by the
Negro, and threatening the stability of
the Republic to be evolved through COM
pliance with its provisions. But with
recklessness concerning facts and q
vivid and unbridled Imagination our op-
ponents attempt something in this di-
rection.
The immediate effect Of our amend
ment is. of course, merely to add q new
power to the list granted to Congress
by the Constitution, to wit, the power to
admit residents Of the District to the
status OF citizens Of State solely for
the purpose Of representation In Con-
gress and the electoral college. Con-
gress is granted the power, which 1t may
exercise in its discretion, to give GER
tain voting representation in itself to
residents of the District, but Is forbid
den by implication to grant state
hood. 1t is not to be empowered to make
State Of the District and thus to de-
stroy its constitutional power of exclu-
sive legislation, which the courts have
declared 1t may not even delegate. To
make q nearer approach to statehood
another constitutional amendment
would be necessary.
How can any imagination, even
though unrestrained by knowledge OF
or regard for facts, convert this re-
newed denial Of statehood into a grant
of It?
This conversion Is attempted by ignor-
ing the fact of the mere grant of a
power to Congress and by emitting the
limitation upon this grant Of power
Through this juggling the amendment
is made to grant directly to residents
Of the District "the status Of citizens OF
State"-and behold, there is your
District-State or city-state, an invita-
ton to New York or Chicago or Phila-
delphia to demand similar distinct
statehood, and q dangerous menace to
the Nation!
The District becomes a State in spite
Of itself; and what State All power