Evening star., 1948-03-04

Are openly receiving. arms from the British
as well as the United States, which had been
shipping them to Yemen, technically con-
sdered not in the Middle East.
Our Government, which was foremost in the
move for partition of the Holy Land, is morally
bound to heed the cry for aid coming from
the Jews in Palestine. The people there are
ready and willing to defend themselves We
must see to 1t that the Jews in Palestine
have the means with which to defend them
selves against the rapine and murder Of Nazi-
led Arabs, under the command of the Multi
The Arab cause is an assault against the
democratically arrived at decision made by
the worlds highest tribunal 1t was not the
Jews who decided on partition, but the United
Nations. Our Government holds the key to
the proper equipment of the Jewish militia.
In our long history the United States has not
hesitated to send arms and military missions
to other parts of the world to back up its
foreign policy, and it should not hesitate now
NORMAN GREENWALD,
President the George Washington University
Chapter of the Intercollegiate Zionist
Federation of America. 4:
Practical Home Rule Approved
To the Editor of The Star:
The writings of A. B. Woodward published
146 years ago, and cited by Jesse c. suter in
his civic column in The Sunday Star. Feb
rary 20, afford an interesting land, hope, not
too discouraging) commentary on the still
unmet need of national representation for the
District of Columbia, but they provide no
precedent whatever for declining to accept
local home rule just because it does not in
cude national representation. It was assumed
when Woodward wrote that municipal self
rule would prevail in the District Gas it actu-
ally did in substantial measure until 1870, and
1t hardly can be argued that it was useless and
unavoidable for all that time just because there
was merely local and not Ito use Woodward's
words complete recognition of the civil and
political privileges of its inhabitants"
Nothing is quoted from Woodward to indi-
cate that he objected to replacing the three
Federal commissioners of those days with the
first home rule charter d802) for the new city
of Washington until the Constitution could be
amended to give the city representation in
Congress and in presidential elections He did
not advise the citizens of Georgetown to give
up their existing type of town charter because
their town, by being included in the District,
had come under the control of Federal Gov
ernment which they could not share in choosing
in the 1902 and later elections.
History provides so many examples of local
autonomy without sharing in the paramount
power that the present insistence upon the
inseparabiity of the two kinds of levels OF self
government seems ALMOST new invention.
Having one kind without. the other has never
proved permanently satisfactory, but having
one for while has generally led to getting
the other, also.
We do not need to 60 beyond the history of
our own country. Did the settlers of James,
town or the New England towns decline to
assume responsibility for their local affairs just
because the sovereignty over them lay across
the sea? Eventually, that virtual represen-
tation" they were alleged to have In Parlia-
ment was replaced by actual representation in
a national government of their own, but a
century and a half of considerable local au-
tonomy helped greatly to make that possible.
And in later periods, did the settlers of the
western territories decline the boon. of local
self government until they could get complete
power all at once through statehood? The
District differs from the territories in the
closer Federal interest and in the need of a
special setup of representation without actual
statehood, but peculiar problems OF District
home rule can be met reasonably well by the
details of q charter to be granted us by
Congress in which we do not yet have repre-
sentation or such prospect of it as the initia-
ton of constitutional amendment would
provide.
agree that local referendum on the charter
before putting it into effect would be desirable
as matter of home-rule principle, and hope
that such a provision will be put into the bill,
and also that majority of the voters will
follow the lead of the 10 per cent vote in favor
of home rule in the 1946 plebiscite and agree
that the revised charter Is q practicable one
even If not perfect one.
do not see that there is too much mystery
or confusion about the meaning OF approyals
of the Auchincloss bill '.in principle which
Mr.. Suter also discussed in his column. Such
approval means that some practical form OF
home rule is definitely desired, and that the
Auchincloss bill, when improved as result OF
various suggestions offered, has promise OF
being just that GEORGE w. HODGKINS.
Charity for Helpless Animals