Evening star., 1960-06-19

crat of Arkansas; Broyhill, Re-
publican of Virginia, and
Kechler, Democrat of West
Virginia, and Senators Keat-
ling. Case, Randolph and Hum
phrey, Democrat of Minnesota.
The Senators urged that the
House accept the language of
the Senate version and. in even
stronger terms, urged Mr.. Gel
Ter to place on the House legis-
lation the title and number of
the bill which had been ap-
proved by the Senate.
Identification Number
While seemingly a technical
matter. this latter appeal was
Of prime Importance, for this
reason: If the House placed a
new House Identification num-
Der of its own on the bill. passed
it, and sent it back to the Sem
ate, it would have to be referred
as a new bill" to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. And in
the hands Of Chairman East
land. it surely would have died
there.
II the Senate number were
retained on the bill, however,
even If changes were made in
its language, the Senate would
be able to reconsider it on the
floor without referral to Sen
ator. Eastland.
In the later stages of con-
sideration, this problem was the
most crucial which the legisla-
ton had to face.
On April 81, meanwhile, the
Celler subcommittee approved
its amendment, providing for
the election of District Dele
gates to the House and the
election of the same number
of electors of President and
Vice President to which the
District would be entitled if it
were a State.
In the full Judiciary Com
mittee consideration, however,
members at their closed-door
meetings expressed serious con-
Germ about certain provisions
especially those dealing with
House representation and with
the number of electors to which
the District should be entitled.
During the next few weeks,
every constitutional question
was investigated exhaustively
and, as it turned out, a majority
was not willing to abide by the
findings Of the subcommittee.
Two Drastic Changes
This became evident on May
II, when the full committee
approved a new form of the
resolution. 1t now contained
the Senate number" as the
Senators had requested, but it
also contained these two drastic
changes:
!. The provision permitting
Congress to pass legislation
later for the election of voting
Delegates to the House was
deleted entirely.
Q. The number of members of
electoral colleges from the Dis
trict was limited to the mini
mum number enjoyed by any of
the States.
Both cutbacks were deeply
disappointing to Washington
residents. They pointed out
that there is doubt as to the
ability of Congress to authorize
voting Delegates in the House,
and that the only reason for
putting this provision in the
constitutional amendment was
to remove this doubt in the
event that Congress should
choose to authorize such rep
resentation in some later year.
While the electoral college
limit will have no immediate
effect on the District, it might
well mean that the votes of
District residents will count for
less than those of other Amer
leans in the event the District
population grows substantially
larger in the future.
But both Mr.. Celler and
Representative McCulloch of
Ohio. the ranking Republican
member, stressed that the COM
mittee was adamant on these
cutbacks, and would not be
shaken.
Powerful Rules Committee
Other House members mean
while served notice that they
felt these provisions should be
strengthened, and hoped they
would be on the House floor.
The question of whether any
amendments at all would be
permitted, however, rested in
the hands of the powerful House
Rules Committee-which sets
conditions of procedure for all
legislation reaching the floor.
AS it turned out, the Rules
Committee members, including
its chairman, Representative
Smith. Democrat of Virginia,
strongly favored the resolution
as reported by the Judiciary
Committee. At their meeting on
June SO days ago-however,
the Rules Committee members
had two serious concerns:
/. They wanted to make GER
tain that no amendments would
be permitted on the House floor.
2. They feared that the bill
with the Senate number" on
it might permit the issue of the
.n1l Aa.. L.