Evening star., 1951-08-01

three issues involved in the bill.
One was the delegation of law
making powers by Congress to the
proposed city council, while also
reserving to Congress its constitu-
tional authority of exclusive leg
islation over the National Capital.
Another and related issue went
to the authority of the council to
float bond issues and other city
Indebtedness which Congress later
might cancel. A third was the
omission from the compromise bill
of virtually all of the District Gov
ernment reorganization provisions
contained in the earlier Kefauver-
Taft home rule bill.
The Kefauver-Taft bill was bot
tied up in the District Committee
earlier this summer by a tie vote
of 6 to 6.
The elimination of the reorgan-
ization features, and numerous
other provisions of the earlier bill
was a move to answer some of the
criticisms voiced against the Ke-
fauver-Taft bill.
Senator Welker made a sharp
issue over the general purpose of
the bill by declaring that it's title
ito provide for home rule in the
District of Columbia" was a mis-
nomer. He charged that the bill,
while ostensibly providing the Dis
trict with home rule, did not de-
prive Congress of any of its exclu-
sive legislative power.
Could Be Stricken.
Home rule sponsors suggested
this reservation could be stricken
from the bill without harm be-
cause the Constitution itself con-
ferred on Congress this final legis-
lative power.
Senator Dirksen, who fought In
the House for enactment of the
AuchinclosS home rule bill by the
Both Congress, said the bill would
give absolute concurrent legisla-
tive authority to the Congress and
the council" but that Congress
would reserve its right ito legislate
at any time on any subject" He
said this meant, I'VE say to the
council we can undo anything
that you do"
Senator Kefauver said Mr..
Dlrksen was right, but contended
that the same thing would apply
to the Territories of Alaska and
Hawaii.
Senator Dirksen replied, But
that Is not home rule"
The Illinois Senator suggested
there should be a long list of spe-
cif1c powers which Congress would
delegate to the city council, He
llkened this to the case OF a state
legislature granting specific DOW
ers to a city government.
Senator Dirksen first suggested
the need for further hearings
There had been extensive hearings
on the general question and on the
Kefauver-Taft bill, but no hear
ings have been held on the new
compromise bill.
Senator Butler, a lawyer, raised
the question about the validity of
bond issues approved by the city
council.
Referring to the constitutional
right OF Congress to undo any act
OF the city council, he said, IF
Congress should repeal a bond
issue act of the council where
would the bonds go?"
Board Of Trade Involved.
The opposition of the Board of
Trade to the compromise bill as
well as to the Kefauver-Taft bill
was brought into the debate.
Senator DirkSen said he was not
disturbed by the position of the
Board OF Trade and recalled that
in the 80th Congress when he
was fighting for the Auchincloss
bill, 1.-The Board of Trade fought
1t to a Standstill."
Because of the many changes
in the new draft from the Ke-
f
bill, the Board of
Trade some days ago demanded
new hearings.
This request was sharply turned
down by Chairman Neely, who