Evening star., 1948-11-17
Letters to The Star
Delay on Senate Building Urged


Delay on Senate Building Urged
To the Editor Of The Star:
Referring to articles In The Star about family
evictions in order to build new Senate ONCE
Building won't you please carry on a strong
campaign to delay the whole matter for at
least two or three years, when property may
not be so high and when it may not work such
a hardship on the so families who have tc
move?
In the first place, 1t is not true that the
United States Senate really needs to evict the
families. I am very well acquainted with the
Senate Office Building and it would be possible
to add two more stories to the present building
without the slightest difficulty. The founda-
tion and the walls are more than strong
enough.
In the second place, it is downright cruelty,
in view Of the present housing situation in
Washington, and in view Of the fact that the
Senators do not really need the additional
space just now, for them to evict the so fam
lilies, many of whom no doubt have elderly rel
atives living with them and dependent upon
them for care.
I know of nothing that would be more pop
ular than a two-year delay of this building
operation. If the Senators have no regard for
the little people Of Washington and think only
about more luxury and more comfort for them
selves in these times of high prices, then they
are doing just what the majority OF the people
Of the country object to 80 bitterly, which
caused our good President to be reelected. No
doubt the President hesitates to try to delay
the construction of new Senate Office Build
ing at this time as he cannot afford to antag-
oniZe the Senator'S, but such a move on his
part would be most popular with the people Of
the whole Nation just now.
Round Hill, Va. GEORGE E. PELTON.
Citizenship and Voting Rights
To the Editor of The Star:
In your editorial "The District as a State"
November IL, is the sentence: But the Solc-
itor General is on tenable ground in suggest
ing that Congress already has the power, If
1t chose to exercise 1t, to bestow rights Of
American citizenship on the people of the
District without Constitutional amendment"
Evidently you do not mean that the people
of the District are not now citizens. "An
persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens OF the United States and Of the
State wherein they reside"-the Constitution,
Fourteenth Amendment, Clause l. This means
that the people Of the District are already
American citizens. What the editorial seems
to imply is that they do not have the rights
of citizens because no provision has been made
for them to vote. The implication is that
voting is one Of the rights of citizenship Thus
you support an erroneous conception which,
in the best interests OF the District, requires
correction.
Citizenship does not include the right to
vote-a fact that has been we'll established
in law for generations. There is no guarantee
under the Constitution that citizens in gen.
eral be permitted to vote. In the opinion Of
the Supreme Court in the case Of Minor v.
Happersett (187D Is the statement: Neither
the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amend
ment made all citizens voters. A provision in
a State constitution which confines the right
of voting to male citizens of the United
States is no violation Of the Federal Consti-
tution.'
Neither does the payment Of taxes give
citizen the right to vote. Not only In the Dis
trict but in every State Of the Union are tax
payers who, because of failure to meet res
idence or other requirements, cannot vote.
Nowhere in our country is a citizen exempt
from payment of taxes because he Is not an
elector. But what seems even more surpriS-
ing Is that one who Is neither a citizen nor
= taxpayer may be permitted, under the Con-
stitution, to vote in the election of public
officials Many States have actually enfran-
chised aliens who owed allegiance to foreign
ruler, while denying the same right to their
own women citizens. The Nineteenth Amend
ment now forbids that denial, but the en-
franchisement Of aliens is still permitted. In
the opinion of the Supreme Court referred to
above is the following: In Missouri persons
of foreign birth who have declared their in
tentions may vote. The provision is to be
Axlv.,
sas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Min
nesota, and Texas" In 1894 aliens not
naturaized could vote in Is states, and in
some Of them with declaration of intentions
to become citizens. Since that date, however,
the practice has nearly disappeared, but not
because Of any change In the Federal Con-
stitution.
District citizens have been deluded so long
with shouts of taxation without representa-
ton, lack Of citizenship disfranchisement and
natural rights to suffrage that they would be
surprised to learn that being q citizen, pay
ment Of taxes, military service, and provisions
OF the Constitution are so Ear removed from
the essentials Of actual enfranchisement.
Electors are determined by State laws, and
citizen has no more Constitutional right to
become an elector than he has to become a
Congressman.
There certainly should be way found 1or
District citizens to vote, but the organized
groups that have been most active in the
cause have been following the wrong road.
GEORGE FREDERICK MILLER.
To the Editor Of The Star:
The editorial of November IL entitled THE
District as State" impressed me very ia
vorably with its logic and its legal argument.
T had nccaS sion some time ago while teStifVing
in behalf of the Capper- Summers Act proposed
To hoy prenQred q