Evening star., 1949-07-24


The Washington Home Rule Committee in
it's letter published in todays Star advocates
home rule in the abstract as a desirable
principle of government and then attempts
to prove that the Kefauver bill would give
the District of Columbia that brand of gov
ernment. They completely fail to define
"home rule"
The Board of Trade objects to the Kefauver
bill, just as it objected to the AuchincloSS
bill, because it does not offer to the citizens
of the District of Columbia real home rule
and because it would foist upon them a
bogus form of home rule which would not
in any respect give them as good mu
nicipal government as they have at the
present time and have had since 1878.
The present commission form of govern
ment of the District of Columbia has been
the admiration of many distinguished stu
dents of government who have come in con-
tact with it and 1t has justly merited their
appreciation. We quote one OF them:
"It is generally admitted that for the District
OF Columbia the present form of Government
is the best possible. Free from scandal OF every
Sort successive Boards of Commissioners OF
ability and character have administered the
affairs Of the District during the past q
wears more efficiently and economically than
the affairs of any other American municipality
-. To quote the words of an experienced
and acute observer, Washington is one of the
best governed cities in the world" Rufus
Rockwell Wilson, Washington, The Capitol
City, Volume g. pp 379-380.
Why 1t Is a Sham.
The Washington Home Rule Committees
letter undertakes to refute the Board of
Trades contention that home rule without
national representation would necessarily
be an empty shell and a sham. Their con-
tention is not correct, because the District
Council offered us in the Kefauver bill could
make no complete enactment other than an
ordinary municipal ordinance. Moreover,
the District Council in that bill would not
really be elected by the citizens of the District
of Columbia. but the balance of power in
the Council would rest with the one-year
temporary residents and with the two
appointed members of the Council to be
named by the President and confirmed by
the United States Senate.
National representation is an absolutely
necessary part of franchise granted to the
citizens of the District of Columbia. Citizens
of the District do not need the mere right
to vote for city council in order to have
say in the writing of policies and other
municipal regulations. What they need is
the full right of suffrage by participation
in the introduction in Congress of any pro-
posed new law, the debates thereon and the
vote for or against its passage. This refers
to laws taxing them, laws taking away their
property for public use, laws holding them
guilty Of crime and any and every other
law of general nature.
No Analogy for Territories.
The evolution of government in the West
ern States through the territorial form to
statehood is not parallel with our problem.
Every territory was given delegate in Con-
nd 70 anic c1ofy,
with power to enact general laws and also
municipal government in every city with
power to pass municipal ordinances. The
Board o. Trade is unalterably opposed to
giving up the present municipal govern
ment of the District of Columbia in exchange
for anything which purports to give to its
citizens the franchise as citizens of the
United States of America, but upon exami-
nation is found to give nothing but the
right to vote for city council and continues
to deprive them of the right to vote for any
part of the general government which
actually governs them.
The Home Rule Committee INDUCES in
levty in likening our real home rule argu-
ment' to the case of beggar in rags who
is offered new suit and Spurns it because
1t does not have two pairs of pants. Adopting
the slmlle, we Spurn the offer of the substi-
tute suit because it is only a flimsy, new
looking suit and we can see that it Is not
made of as good material as the suit we
now wear, which has served us we'll through
out the years. We refuse to give it up until
we know the thing we are offered is better
The Home Rule Committee states that:
Under the Kefauver bill no one can vote in
two places for the same official The vote in
the District would be for District officials only
The vote IN the home State would be for Pres
ldent, Senators and Congressman State officials
and possibly minor local officials of political
subdivisions of the State"
The Provision of the Kefauver Bill on
this point Is as follows:
Sec. 1905 (a) To be qualified to vote in the
District, 1t is not intended that a person be
required to relinqush his rights in another
jurisdiction"
Efficiency Alone Is Not the Standard.
There can be no question that the pro-
vision above quoted was intended to assure
to the one-year temporary resident of the
District of Columbia who would vote for
members of the District Council and men,
bers OF the School Board under the Kefauver
Bill the right also to vote for similar officials
in his home city.
The Home Rule Committee implies that
the Board of Trade has placed too much
emphasis upon its contention that the
present municipal government is efficient"
and in that connection goes to the extreme
OF citing Hitler's government and Musso-
lini's government as outstanding examples
OF efficiency" The Board of Trade does
not contend that the present municipal
government is merely efficient" We have
already mentioned the fine record estab-
lished by it, During its II years of history
it has received compliments without number
from Senators and Representatives in the
debates in Congress and from authors of
mt hNe L&~
strated that the Commissioners are close to
the people, in the great number of public
hearings held by them which always precede
any important official action. There has
never been charge of dishonesty or cor
ruption against member of the Board of
Commissioners or against an assistant
Commissioner or any head of department
of the government.
E. F. COLLADAY,
General Counse1 Wa shinotoy, po,rd of IT,, l..