Evening star., 1951-05-05
Home Rule. Defeat

I read with much interest your edi-
torial in The, Star of April 26 on Home
Rule Defeat" I was especially in
terested in your reference to four basic
issues" involved in the home rule bill:
It's constitutionality, its plans for bonded
debt, its dual voting" provision, and
election of councilmen at large instead
of by wards. Let me comment upon
each of these criticisms of the bill.
Doubts have been expressed as to the
constitutionality of the legislative veto
provisions of the Kefauver bill. If
full delegation of legislative powers to
a District council would be constitu-
tional, as the Board of Trades counsel
thought in 1948-such as that made to
the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii
then any lesser delegation of legislative
power, subject to disapproval by con-
current resolution Of Congress or veto
by the President, would also appear to
be constitutional. Prof. Edward S. Cor
win, an eminent authority on the Con-
stitution, writes that "the Constitution
does not permit Congress to grant the
citizens of the District of Columbia the
right to vote in Federal elections, but
there is no constitutional reason why
own local officials" Understanding the
Constitution, 1949, p. 32).
AS to bond issues, the bill contains
several safeguards against rash local
debt ventures. Bond issues must be
approved both by the District council
and in a popular referendum. They may
be disapproved by Congress and vetoed
by the President. And there is the 5
per cent debt limit Seventeen States
have higher debt limits in their consti-
tutions. The neighboring State of Vir-
ginia has debt limit of 18 per cent of
the assessed valuation of taxable prop
erty. figure that the per cent limit
in the Kefauver bill would place CELL
ing of sos million on the bonded indebt-
edness of the District. In 1947, Gen
Young estimated that the backlog Of
needed capital improvements in the
District aggregated $181 million.
At to dual voting, without such
provision perhaps 20 per cent of the
resident population of the District would
be disfranchised. Resident non-domi-
Giles should be entitled to share in the
local government. since they own prop
erty and pay taxes here and are affected
in their daily lives by the District gov
ernment. Non-domiciled residents are
just as interested in economy as any
one else. Most of them are probably
Federal employees. According to the
Civil Service Commission, the average
tenure of civil service employees is IL
years. 1t is believed to be even longer
among Federal employees in the District.
Government employees who reside in my
block, for example, have lived here for
35 years, on the average. If non-domi-
Giles were denied the right to vote in
District elections two classes of citizen
ship would be created in the District,
and the stage would be set for conflicts
between them which might jeopardize
the successful conduct of the District
government believe that the distinc-
ton between domiciled and non-domi-
ciled residents is false one.
AS to the method of elections, at large
or by wards, the AuchinclosS committee
carefully considered these alternatives
and finally decided in favor of elections
at large because Cd this method is used
in rs per cent of the council-manager
cities: (2) it prevents any organized
minority from winning majority control
of the council, and 90 it avoids the
familiar evils of the ward system. The
ward method is criticized on the ground
that it (a) restricts the voters range
of choice; (b) causes the election of in
ferior candidates from some wards; (c)
bases selection on service to ward in
stead of ability to serve the city; I'd