Evening star., 1948-11-12
The District as q State

has power, without constitutional amend
ment, to grant voting rights in Congress
and national elections to citizens of the
District.
Mr.. Perlman's belief was expressed as an
offhand opinion in answer to question
from one of the justices during his argu-
ment before the Supreme Court on Mon
day. He did not elaborate, and the issue
before the court did not directly involve
voting in the District.
The issue is the Gwynne Act of 1910.
In that act, the constitutionality of which
has been questioned, Congress extended
to the citizens of the District the right,
which is bestowed by the Constitution on
citizens of States and even aliens, to sue,
or be sued by, citizens of the States in
Federal courts outside the District. Denial
of such rights, like the denial to local
citizens of voting representation in Con-
gress springs from defect In the Con-
stitution. And this defect, in turn, is IN
part the result of the Constitutions am
biguous use of the term State" as inter-
preted by the courts.
In the past efforts have been made to
obtain representation in Congress for the
people of the District by constitutional
amendment which would remove that
ambiguity. Until the Gwynne Act became
law, drafts of proposed constitutional
amendments contained provision giving
District citizens the right to sue or be
sued in the Federal courts. Former Repre-
sentative Summers of Texas, for many
years chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, did not believe a constitutional
amendment was necessary in the latter
case. Mr. Gwynne's bill was approved by
Congress with that thought in mind. Now
the Supreme Court has the issue before
it once more. Should it consider that the
District is a "State," in SO far as litigatory
rights of its citizens are concerned, and
thus reverse the contrary opinion by Chief
Justice Marshall additional light may be
shed, if only by inference, as to available
remedies for denial of voting rights.
AS for Mr.. Perlman's statement, there Is
nothing in the Constitution which ex-
plicitly prohibits the existence Of State,
lacking all the attributes Of sovereign
State, but with representation in Congress
and the electoral college. The Constitu-
ton does not say that all American COM
munities represented in Congress as
States must be on precisely the same
footing, though such equality is assumed
as the Constitution now stands. 1t is
provided that no State shall 1otthout its
consent be deprived of equal suffrage IN
the Senate The inference follows that
State may, ,oith It's consent, be deprived
of equal suffrage.
Under the power to admit new States
Congress has given representation in the
National Legislature to Territories, not
recognized by the Constitution in pre-
scribing the makeup OF Congress. 1t
would seem logical that Congress could
admit to representation in itself non
sovereign State, something between a
Territory and a full-fedged State. II
Congress has the power to bestow all the
rights and privileges of sovereign State,
may it not bestow something less than all?
Does not the greater power include the
less?
The courts have viewed the District as
State for some purposes, and therein
lies the ambiguity in the Constitution.
The District has been pronounced State
under a treaty with France; but not
State whose people can sue, as citizens
of a State can sue, in the Federal Courts.
The District is State when direct taxes
are to be collected, but not State when
representatives are apportioned, though
the two are coupled in the Constitution.
The District seems to be State when
burdens are imposed, but not State when
privileges are bestowed.
The power of exclusive legislation given
to Congress in the ten miles square by
the Constitution prohibits the evolution
of the District into a sovereign State
There must be few people who would re-
gard that evolution as desirable even II
it were possible. The District could never
have all the self-governing and independ-
ent powers of Maryland or Virginia. But
there is no specific prohibition in the Con-
stitution against action in Congress which
would confer on the District some, If not
all, the representation in Congress and
the electoral college possessed by State.
The attainment of such representation
by Constitutional amendment, which would
remove all question, has seemed the
more simple and direct approach. But
the Solicitor General is on tenable ground
In suggesting that Congress already has
the power, if it chose to exercise 1t, to
bestow rights of American citizenship on
the people of the District without Const1-
tutional amendment. If it can do so as
respects litigation in Federal Courts, the
chances are increased that it could do so
as respects voting.
Red Headache in Germany?