Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-02-15
House Advisers
Call Home Rule
Constitutional
Legislative Counsel
Office Suggests Bill
Might Go Further
By Don S. Warren

Might Go Further
By Don S. Warren
House legal advisers yesterday
termed constitutional a plan to give
an elected District Council genera
legislative proposal powers, subject
to congressional or presidential veto
The Office of Legislative Counsel
of the House suggested it might
be possible to go even further In
extending to the city's governing
body powers of legislation over Dis
trict affairs than is proposed in
the pending limited Home Rule bill
/. This development came as men,
bers and staff aides of the Con-
gressional Joint Committee on Home
Rule settled down to several weeks
of detailed work in analyzing the
thousands of words of recommen-
dations taken at the hearings as
suggestions or changes in the char
ter bill.
Auchincloss Optimistic.
Chairman Auchincloss of the
House Home Rule Subcommittee
said the reactions he had received
at the Capitol since the hearings
makes me very optimistic that
House action will be favorable"
Because of many details, he said
it is unlikely that the measure will
be ready for House action until late
March or early April.
Members of the joint group will
be designated to perfect the meas
ure. An. agreement then will be
sought from the full membership
of the House and Senate Home Rule
subcommittee. The next step
would be consideration by the
House District Committee and ap-
prevail there would send the meas
ure to the House for action.
The House legal adviser, in a 16-
page brief, reviewed numerous
court decisions and likened the Dis
trict's situation to that of the Ter
ritories where Congress has con-
ferred similar powers on territorial
Legislatures. They also relied on
precedents in acts of Congress
authorizing the President to re-
organize the Federal establishment
and the Supreme Court to draft
Federal court rules, subject to con.
gressional veto =
Most Opinions Favorable.
Most legal opinions placed before
the Home Rule committeeman have
called the legislative proposal plar
constitutional. These include COM
ments from a number of nationally
known constitutional lawyers anc
the legal section of the Washington
Home Rule Committee. The latter
included w. Graham Clayton, jr.
Lloyd N. Cutler, Gerhard A. Gesell
Samue! Spencer and A. Lloyd
Symington.
Doubts Of its constitutimality
were expressed by William D
Mitchell, former Attorney General
Corporation Counsel Vernon E
West, and others.
House counsel noted early in tn.
opinion that general legislation" a.
used in the home rule measure en-
braced only those subjects coming
withing the scope of congressional
power of legislation for the District
Therefore, the opinion stressed, i
does not include legislation based or
congressional powers as the ma
tional legislature, such as the powel
to regulate interstate commerce, o.
to establish a uniform rule of natur.
alization or to coin money.
THE question of the authority O
Congress to grant to the District thu
power to enact general legislation
with respect to the District" thu
opinion continued, appears to b.
virtually settled by the judicial.
sanctioned practice of Congress il
the case of the territorial legis
latures. " AS with respect to tn,
District, Congress has full and com
plete legislative powers over thu
territories. 1t has been thu
consistent practice of Congress tt
delegate general legislative power
to territorial legislatures. The au'
thority Of Congress to make sucf
delegations is not open to doubt.
High Court Rulings Discussed.
While significance might be at
tached to the fact that the Con.
stitution gives Congress power tt
exercise exclusive" legislation owe
the District, the House advisers said
it seems clear this provision iva!
intended to exclude the States from
the exercise of power, and not t.
foreclose Congress from vesting leg
islative power in a duly constituted
legislative body for the District"
Seeking to dispell doubts raised
by two Supreme Court decision!
outlawing acts of early District
governing bodies, the House advis'
ers contended that the finding wa!
that the Objectionable acts hae
gone beyond the powers granted by
Congressman that Congress hat
exceeded its powers in granting leg.
islative authority to the District
governing body.
They also commended that by tn,
use of the veto procedure Con.
gress would not relieve itsel
of its responsibility with respect tt
the District, nor would it substitute,
the Judgment, wisdom or patriotism
OF the District Council for its own.