Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-07-27
Worth WORKING For

It is unfortunate that underestimate
BILE sentiment in favor of "home rule" is
not directed toward something more
worth while. Enactment Of any of the
various forms of "home rule" to be
studied in House hearings beginning to-
morrow would accomplish little If any
thing to remedy the lack of representa-
tive self-government in Washington.
On the other hand, "home rule"
would impose dangerous financial re-
SponSibility on citizens who lack the
means to meet it. 1t would weaken the
concept of the Federal City and its de-
velopment by the Nation as fitting
Capital at a time when that concept so
greatly needs strengthening and sup
port. 1t would invite additional conflicts
between the purely local and the pre-
dominant Federal interest in this city.
1t would still leave citizens of the United
States resident in Washington deprived
of voting representation in the Govern
ment of the United States. The disad-
vantageS far outweigh any imaginary
advantages to be gained by substituting,
without removing their basic diSabili-
ties, few elected administrators Of
municipal government for those now
appointed.
The real objective should be voting
representation for Westinghouse in
the Government of their country. That
objective should be nearer attainment
than ever before, unless it is shunted
aside by the illusion of home rule"
The choice of "home rule" as the i'm
mediate objective seems based al
together on expediency. The theory is
that while "home rule" is attainable by
simple legislation, voting representation
in Congress and in the choice Of PreSi-
dent and Vice President require amend
ment of the Constitution.
The theory has respectable support.
But it should be re-eXamined in the
light of recent developments. There is
a good argument that Congress, possess
sing the power to admit new States by
legislation, could by the same method
create State of the District of Colum-
bia; State lacking certain attributes of
The existing so sovereign States Gnclud-
ing Hawaii), but non-sovereign State
still under the exclusive control Of Con-
greSS, with appropriate voting repre-
sentation in Congress and the Electoral
College.
The courts and Congress already
view the District as State for some
&c Cfofo JITho 70
are to be collected, but is not State
when Representatives are apportioncd,
although the Constitution couples the
two Representative and di-
rect taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be includ-
ed in this Union according to their re-
spective members"
Such a non-sovereign State, adj
mitted to the Union by legislation,
would be unique. But it would not be so
unusual, extraordinary or peculiar as
the original creation and retention by
this great Republic of the totally UNI
represented ten-mile square at the polit-
ical heart of the United States contain
Ing its Capital, yet excluded, in so far as
representation is concerned, from a
union of States now including far-away
Hawaii and Alaska.
The creation of such non-Sovereign
State-With Congress containing repre-
sentativeS of it's people and retaining
exclusive control-would violate no Spe-
ciflc provision of the Constitution It
would leave unchanged the concept of
Washington as the Federal City. It
would be far more worth while than any
form of futile, play-acting "home rule"