Evening star., 1949-07-05
Mr.. Hodgkins Argues Home Rule
As Something Standing Alone

Mr. Hodgkins Argues Home Rule
As Something Standing Alone
To the Editor Of The Star:
In the interest OF clarity and fairness in
the discussion of District home rule meas
ures now before Congress- may I make
public plea for an end to the strange logic
of those who can't see home rule for lack
of national representation. as If the latter
were supposed to be part OF the former
idea? My very good friend. Jesse c. Suter.
indulges in this unfortunate use OF terms
in his civic column in The Star of June 26.
under the title of 'Denatured Home Rule"
which deserves an answer at some length.
I would certainly dispute the truth OF Mr..
Suffers statement that the advocates OF
elective local government who also would
like to have national representation "recog-
nize that any of the pending bills in the
House District Committee would provide
only a very limited gesture toward home
rule" Some of them dncluding myself
would like to have some improvements in
the measure either before passage or by
action of the. home-rule government after
wards, but we are, think. generally agreed
that either the Kefauver or the Auchincloss
bill would constitute "home rule" without
"denaturing" of what that term means in
common usage elsewhere and was intended
to mean in the official title of both bills.
What Home Rule Means.
81 Let us not assume the prerogative OF Lewis
CAROLS Humpty Dumpty to have words
mean whatever we choose to have them
mean in the face Of established practice to
the contrary. Comparison OF several def1ni-
tions indicates that home rule, in its general
political sense, means the carrying on OF
local government in any part OF 9 country
or state by authorities responsible to the
people OF that part, with as little interfer
ence as practicable by the authorities OF
the country or state at large. No definition
I have seen includes any stipulation about
representation in the sovereign or general
government to which the local area Is still
subject in more general affairs.
SO far from being of little account II the
local area is poorly or not at all represented
in the general Government, home rule is
all the more valuable in such circumstances.
city that had everything its own way in its
State, would have little need for a separate
home-rule government. A city that is only
one of many important local areas in
State needs local home rule so that too
busy uninterested. or even antagoniStic cen
trail Government would not be upsetting the
local situation by positive action or by in
action.
Only Immediate Possibilities.
Inc blStTiCo udS AO Representative Az
Congress, and cannot have for some little
time. even If the present Congress should
submit our constitutional amendment to the
states. That is all the more reason why
Congress should now do what 1t can, by
ordinary legislation. to let the District c1tl-
zens attend to their own local affairs Even
IL we did have. or can soon get, national
representation we will still want local hcme
rule, since that representation (by some
thing like one per cent Of Congress and OF
the electoral college) will be our fair share
Of national affairs but obviously too small
on our own distinctly local affairs.
There is another specialized meaning OF
home rule In American political practice.
applying to the situation where city or
county may adopt its own home-rule charter
under appropriate constitutional prescrip-
tions. and the State Legislature is forbidden
to interfere within the constitutionally
granted scope Of home-rule powers. The
people of the District have not shared In
making the proposed charter in quite this
fashion. as would have more nearly been
the case under the charter commission plan
formerly suggested. But local views have
been literally consulted and there is to be
q referendum on adoption. And by the sys-
tenn Of Legislative proposals" embodied in
the pending bills. the District Council under
home rule could in effect revise as well as
supplement the District charter at the viii
Of the District voters. NJ
OF course. what Congress has given it
could take away or override at will, and
nobody seems to be proposing that Con-.
gress be subjected to- any constitutional
limitatjen IN doing this. In the stafes.