Evening star., 1954-05-20

Davis, CHAIRMAN OF the NatlOuaL
Representation and District
For moi Government Committee
of the washington Board of
Trade.
Quoting from the Constitu-
ton, Mr.. Davis said:
There is nothing in the Con-
stitution declaring that the right
Of citizens of the United States
to vote shall be denied or
abridged on account Of residence
in the National Capital.
"The citizens Of the District
have an absolute and conStitu-
tional right to exercise suffrage,
but no machinery has been set
up. and permanent District res
identS are without legal resi-
dence in any State Of the Union.
Their predicament traces di-
rectly back to the Constitution,
which fails to give them any
political status and also fails
to give Congress the authority
to grant it to them"
Tax Figures Produced.
He also produced figures to
show that the District is mot q
tax-free paradise" In the fiscal
year ended June 80, 1948, he
reported. the people Of the Dis
trict paid in national taxes for
national purposes 63,210, ,489.
He said this was more than that
contributed by any one Of Is
States.
The Davis statement en-
phasized that the District, with
no representation in Congress.
had a population as recorded in
the 1850 census that outnum-
bered that of 13 States-Rhode
Island. Arizona, Utah, New
Mexico, North and South
Dakota, Montana, Idaho, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware,
Wyoming and Nevada.
"In 1948 the District of Co
lumbia, with no Senators or Rep.
resentatives, contributed $48,-
412,73 in national taxes to the
fund from which the salaries of
Senators and Representatives
are paid" he said. This was
more than the aggregate Of ma
tional taxes paid by these six
States: Nevada, South Dakota,
North Dakota, New Mexico. YER
mont and Wyoming.
"These States paid in national
taxes a combined total of $314.7
million and sent to the National
Legislature 81 men to represent
them in all tax legislation.
"The District of Columbia. on
the other hand, with its total
payment of $363.2 million, was
permitted to send no representa-
tives to Congress to participate
in deciding how the tax money
should be raised and spent"
He said "a more fragrant" case
Of taxation without representa-
ton would be hard to conceive.
Advocate Since 1916.
Edward F. Colladay, veteran
general counsel of the Board of
Trade. urged a favorable report
on the national representation
question. He recalled that the
trade body had been advocating
the n national representation
amendment since 1916.
He called attention also to the
suffrage planks in the 1852 plat
forms of both the Republican
and Democratic Parties and in
terpreted them as calling for
votes in presidential elections
and representation in Congress
for District residents.
Mr.. Colladay. cited two polls
made by the Board of Trade of
its membership. in 1949 and
1852. on the question "do you
think local suffrage without
representation in Congress is
deSirable?"
In both polls. he said. an over
whelming majority of those
members responding to the ques-
tionnaire, voted mo-"
Mr.. Colladay refused to agree
with Senator LANCER that he
opposed the Case resolution, de-
claring. 1--WE are in favor of
amending it to make it the Cap
per-Sumners resolution"
Mr.. Colladay charged that "to
take a craven position and not
ask for representation in the
Senate is cowardly."
Home Rule Plans Discussed.
Discussion of home rule pro-
poSals broke out when Herbert
P. Leeman, president of the Gen.
tral Suffrage Conference, rose to
ask Mr.. Colladay if he also be-
lieves that the District should
have all rights and privileges
through local self-government.
mo, I don't. but I am not
here to debate that today" Mr..
Colladay replied. "You may get
that after you get national rep
resentation," he said, insisting
there was no inconsistency be-
tween his support of national
representation and his opposition
and his opinion to home rule.
Jesse c. Suter, veteran civic
spokesman. advocated approval
of the constitutional amend
ment as chairman of the Citi-
zens' Joint Committee on Ma
tinna1 characterization for the