Evening star., 1955-02-27
Motives and Home Rule


those with whom one disagreeS is COM
mon tactic in controversy. The Very Rev.
erend Francis B. Sayre, dean of the Wash
ington Cathedral found it useful to him
self the other evening in addressing gath
ering of "home-rule" advocates. 1t was
necessary, the dean concluded, to "get
tough" BY getting tough he meant to 'get
down" to the "nasty motives" Of those who
oppose home rule.
These nasty motives" in the deans
opinion involve an attempt to hold on to
the powers they" the opponents, have
gained through "back alleys" For, under
home rule, they" would be forced to find
other pipelines to power"
There is nothing new in this brand of
stale nonsense. Its effectiveness in debate,
however, is open to question. 1t plants the
inevitable suggestion that the debate over
home rule is between those who have
achieved power and those who so far have
been unsuccessful but are painting to ac-
quire it for themselveS-thrOugh home rule.
It would follow that the virtue of home
rule is transfer of power. presumably from
one set of rascals to another.
1t is unfortunate that this type of de-
difference between the advocates of home
rule and those who believe that the idea
of home rule is deceptive, even to the point
of fraudulence Home rule, of course, would
mean the right to vote AS Dean Sayre very
correctly says, "Everyone's for the principle
of it"-meaning the principle of voting.
But the sort of voting that Dean Sayre is
talking about is not the sort of voting that
most people associate with the word. The
dean is not talking about vote in our Gov
ernment. He is talking about vote for
a mayor, a vote for a city council, a. Board
of Education, and votelesS delegate in the
House of Representatives. These agencies
would not constitute our real Government
And to believe that they could operate
effectively in this Federal City, as they do in
other cities, is, in The Stars opinion, an
unrealiStic belief.
It is unreaistic because this city is the
seat of the National Government, and the
interests of the National Government are
predominant. When they cease to be pre-
dominant, the Federal City will suffer.
Those who are familiar, by experience or
study, with the nature and the breadth of
the clash between purely local and purely
Federal interests in Washington find 1t dlt-
f1cult to believe that any helpful solution
lies in transferring the superficial appear
ances of governing power from the Congress
of the United States to locally elected city
government The Illustrations of the pres
ent system would be as nothing compared
with those that would accompany the re-
turn to "home rule"-a form of local gov
ernment which demonstrated it's futility
and repeated failures in over 10 years Of
trial.
The failures were not the failures of
men to govern themselves. OF course, the
people of Washington are fit for self-gov-
ernment in every respect, and always have
been. But there can be no real home rule
in Washington without representation of
the people in their Government, and the
Government must remain in exclusive con-
troll of this city, its chosen seat. Home rule
would provide no such representation. 1t
would merely transfer heavy responsible
ity, without the means of meeting it. That
would be bad day for all of the people of
Washington.