Evening star., 1947-01-27
Letters to The Star
Believes Suffrage Plebiscite Now
Would Be Be>Premature

Believes Suffrage Plebiscite Now
Would Be premature
To the Editor Of The Star:
The editorial titled "Why Not Find
Out?" in The Star of January "a argues
that Congress should order an official
referendum to find out what the people
of the District of Columbia really want
in the way of voting participation in
for wanting new plebiscite so soon
after last election day when "some TO-
900 Washingtonians turned out and
voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
right to VOTE" seems to be not 20 much
df at alb the unofficial character or
the size Of vote in our recent plehscite,
but the fact that the two questions
voted on were necessarily generalized."
The next question IS, when and in what
form does a new vote need to be taken
In order for Congress to know something
beyond the "generalized" verdict Of the
recent plebiscite?
It happens that both of the two
chief propositions now being urged on
Capitol Hill are in the nature of pre-
liminary enabling acts" and not the
final establishment of suffrage in a
specific form. The constitutional amend
ment for national representation is like
the plebiscite in being necessarily gen.
eralized," and an "a per cent majority
last November, and many other express
sions of local sentiment on this PROPOSE
tion, combine to justify putting it
through. After the adoption of such an
amendment enables Congress to proceed
with specific legislation under 1t, Con-
gress might then consider whether new
plebiscite is needed to ascertain senti-
ment on what legislation, or even on
whether any such legislation at all, is
desired by the local public just at that
time. A new plebiscite on this matter
now would be premature.
The recent 10 per cent majority on
the general proposition of local suffrage
does not warrant the immediate enact
ment of any particular system Of local
self-government, but it is ample to JUS
tify giving a local charter commission
a favorable chance to work out q de-
tailed plan Of government which might
satisfy most of those who hopefully
voted Eyes" and even good many who
skeptically voted mo" in the recent
plebiscite-plus majority of the other
folks who didn't vote at all but who
will have another chance when there is
a more detailed proposition to put be-
fore them. Even those who are def
nitely opposed to local suffrage now,
ought to be willing to have the issue
settled on this fair and reasonable basis.
Trying to draft short and yet definite
plebiscite question on local suffrage
would be difficult, and vote on 1t would
not be as conclusive as vote on an
actual charter, during the framing Of
which many questions could be gradu-
ally cleared up by discussion on par
ticular points.
One such particular point can be
cleared up right away. You express
doubt that local suffrage would gain
much support if it means surrender by
Congress of its control over the District"
but no such surrender would be possible
under the constitutional provision now
existing, and District charter granted
by Congress would have to be consistent
herewith. There could be what you re-
fer to as "a substantial division of con-
troll" only in the sense that Congress
would (as the La Toilette Monroney
"streamlining' committee urged it to do
in its report last spring. relieve itself of
unwelcome burdens Of direct operation
while necessarily retaining supreme leg
islative authority. The details Of this
basically similar to State Legislatures
authority over its chartered cities, but
with some special questions involved IN
the extensive Federal property and other
interests here-would have to be worked
out in the charter. There is no need to
prejudge the case until the charter is
worked out. The sooner Congress puts
the desired charter commission to work,
the sooner will the time be ripe for a
new plebiscite to let Congress know
whether the people want such a form
of local government
GEORGE w. HODGKINS.