Evening star., 1955-03-09
Another View on Home Rule


Your editorial Of February 81 on
home rule deserves careful considers
ton 1t makes the argument that the
local government under home rule
would be ineffective because Of an
alleged clash between local and Fed
eral interests. In support of this argu-
ment it cites the long history of elected
District governments, preceding our
present voteless form. believe that
both the argument and the historical
reference are in error.
1t is true. of course, that under home
rule. ultimate legislative authority over
the city would remain with Congress.
Under the Constitution it must do so,
unless the District is to be made a
State-a step which I believe The Star
would concede is not politically feasible.
But this does not mean that the local
government could not govern.
In the first place. its administration
would be independent of Federal ad-
ministrative control and solely respon-
sible to the District voters.
AS for legislation, the overwhelming
bulk of the matters which would be-
come the responsibility of the elected
council instead of that of Congress are
not such as to provoke clash of in
terests, or indeed any Federal interest
at ALL AS an illustration, the present
legislative calendar of the House Dis
trict Committee lists as pending bills
on the following subjects among others:
To require premarital examination OF
applicants for marriage licenses; to in
crease the 12-mile limit where Metro
politan policemen and firemen can re-
side: to regulate the business of making
small loans; to permit the consolida-
ton of District banks; to increase the
salaries of employees of the Board of
Education; to consolidate the Roose-
welt Memorial Association with the
Women's Theodore Roosevelt Memorial
Association; to pay compensation to
policemen and f1remen for emergency
duty on days off; to establish work.
mems compensation act for the Dis
trict; to make insanity ground for
divorce; to apply the Uniform Simul-
taneous Death Act to the District; to
amend the Act as to the employment
of minors; and so on, and so on.
The Stars forecast of friction be-
tween the local and Federal govern
ments presumably foresees that local
interests, whenever disgruntled by &C
ton Of the District Council, would rush
to Congress to try to have it overruled.
I have no doubt that this would be at
tempted at first. In my opinion, how
ever, such attempts would be unsuc-
cessful I have faith, to this extent,
in the good sense of Congress.
Moreover Congressman are generally
bored to death with their responsibility
for this city. They resent the time and
energy which its government demands.
Most of them detest being assigned TO
the District Committees. In the face
of action of democratically elected
and responsible District Council. think
nothing could induce the intervention
of majorities of two houses of Congress,
plus the President, unless really i'm
portant Federal interest was at stake.
We have in the territories experience
of division of authority between the
Federal and locally elected govern
ments along the same lines as in the
proposed home rule bill. AS under the
home rule bill, the legislation of ter
ritorial government can be repealed
or amended at any time by Congress.
Inquiry at the Offices of the delegates
of Alaska and Hawaii discloses no in
stance in which this ultimate authority
has been exercised.
1t was not "clash" of Federal and
local interests which led to difficulties
in the 70 years of elected District gov
ernments. In most of this period we
had confusion arising from multiple
ity of local governmentS-two or three
cities and one or two counties at time.
The territorial government of 1871
1874, embracing the whole District, was
abolished in favor of our present vote
less government for two other reasons:
Cd The bankruptcy brought on by the
presidentially appointed Chairman of
Public Works; and ca the opposition
of some of the Districts leading clti-
zens to Negro suffrage. which had fol-
lowed the Civil War.
AS for the first reason. the home rule
bill carefully and drastically limits the
authority of the District government to
incur Indebtedness.
AS for the second reason, it is to be
hoped that a more enlightened view
now prevails in the Capital of our Ma
ton.
The suggestion that representation
in Congress would constitute home rule,
repeated by The Star, has always been
puzzling to me. The share of one per
cent Cor less) in the Senate and House
to which the District might hope to
attain would properly represent our
interest in national matters. But where
local matters are involved, 10 is hardly
enough. The home rule bill gives the
citizens of the District everything on
the local level that can be attained
short of statehood.
National representation will not give
us the appropriate degree of control
over our local affairs At the same
time, the constitutional reservation Of
ultimate authority to Congress is a
fact of life which must be faced. The
craftsmen of the home rule bill have
presented a carefully thought-out an
swer to the problem created by these