Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-08-16
building this beautiful Capital o.
. symbol Of this country.
Local and National Interests

gtA4ANAAAA0 uAAA0 AEoAtAuAA4A N0NAA9NS8 80
. symbol Of this country.
Locol and National Interests
The theory behind what Is mis-
named home rule In Washington
Is based on q premise which has
proven itself to be false.
The premise is that local inter-
ests In Washington are divisible
from national interests. so that q
group Of elected local legislators.
charged with the responsibility
but subservient to the dominant
national Government in. which
they have no voice. can supervise
the local" interests Of the city
while the all-powerful Congress,
and Q myriad Of Federal execu-
tive agencies with fingers In the
pie, win take care Of the Federal"
interests Of the Capital.
> The territorial home rule bill is
Q ponderous and Impractical at
tempt to rationalize the separa-
bility Of local and national In
terests. 4s
The highly probable and only
too logical results Of making such
an experiment in home rule should
be Of great concern to those Of US
who live In this city. For history
supports q belief that among the
most serious Of such results would
be the impairment or loss Of the
concept Of the Federal City. That
would obviously endanger contin-
uing development Of Washington
as q fitting Capital, and would
handicap the discharge Of new
undertakings required for this busy
hub Of one Of the most repidly de-
veloping metropolitan areas Of
the United States.
It is al too reasonable to be-
lieve, however unfortunate such .
belief may be. that the attitude in
Congress. once q local. home rule
government took ONCE, would be
to say "OK, friends. that Is what
you asked for. Now that you have
1t. go roll your own hoop" For
when Congress delegates legisla-
tive authority over this Capital to
q locally elected council or assem-
bly,, 1t may be expected also to
delegate the fiscal responsibility
accompanying that authority.
The unique characteristics Of
this city. including its limited and
its untouchable economic re-
sources, should convince anybody
that under home rule Q locally
elected city government could not
roll its own hoop. and would fail
miserably In the attempt.
HozoFds Of Home Rule
Such failure would not mean
that the people Of this city are
incapable Of governing them
selves. Nor would such failure
have any connection with the vir-
tues or the defects Of democracy
and self-government. A funda-
mental error is to think Of Wash
ington as just another American
municipality. No other city Is
like 1t.
The hazards Of home rule in
Washington lie In the nature Of
the city-an artificial city" as
Prof. Royce Hansen called it in
his thoughtful testimony before
the Senate committee; its COM
plete dependence. economically as
well as politically, on the exclu-
sively controlling national Gov
eminent from which 1t Is excluded:
the hard facts Of its economic
structure and the vagaries Of poll
tics in practice. local as well as
national. in q city where govern
ment is the chief industry.
The history Of this city offers
repeated evidence. from highly
competent authority. Of the In
separability Of local and national
interests In Washington. and fall
ures which have resulted when
such separations were attempted.
! shall not attempt to cite them
here, but I shall be glad to furnish
for the record, II you desire, apt
quotations from the report Of .
Senate District COMMITTEES in 1885
which investigated conditions
threatening BANKRUPTCY under
home rule: Of q Select Joint Com
mittee appointed to view the re-
mains Of home rule in 1874; the
report Of another Select Joint