Evening star., 1960-01-18
PRINCIPLES and Home Rule

Three of the presidential candi-
dates have issued statements supporting
home rule" for the District of Columbia
and each contains one or more of those
ambiguous generalities favored by polit-
ical statement writer's.
From Mr.. Nixon: "The right to vote
Is fundamental right in free society.
-. Consistent with this principle the
administration proposal, which would
grant District residents the right to
elect their own legislative assembly,
should have the support of both parties
in this session of Congress"
What is this fundamental right"
as defined by the administration pro-
poSal"? 1t is the right to vote for
members of local legislative assem-
bly, whose acts would be subject to
vetoeS from at least three sources-an
appointed governor an elected PreSi-
dent and members of an elected Con-
gress-in the choice of whom the people
Of the District would have no vote what
soever. The administration proposal"
was ditched before it even reached the
Senate last year without protest from
administration leaders. Senator Morse
denounced it as "a compromise of prin-
ciple, for the sake of expediency"
which provides only a false front, a
facade of Self-government, political
charade." The reasoning behind the
compromise, produced by the Commits
SionerS and the Budget Bureau, was that
the form OF home rule subsequently
approved by the Senate could endan-
ger the predominant interests of the
National Government in this Federal
City.
From Senator Kennedy: "It is long
past the time when home rule for the
District is merely subject of discussion.
With Statehood already fact for Alaska
and Hawaii, the major item of unfin-
iShed business becomes SELF government
for the District"
Is the Senator advocating State
hood for the District of Columbia? We
doubt it. Would so-called home rule
give to the people of the District any
Semblance of the self government" at
tained by Alaska or Hawaii? OF course
not Some 26 years even before Hawaii
became territory in 1900, a version of
the home rule" advocated by the ad-
ministration and not unlike the tradi-
tional territorial government from which
Alaska and Hawaii have now emerged
was tried and abolished in the District.
Why does so progressive and forward
looking a young man as Senator Ken
nedy now wish to turn the clock back
95 years and try it all over again, either
in the form proposed by the administra-
ton or the more radical plan approved
by the Senate?
From Senator Humphrey: Denial
of self government to the people of
the District is "in direct conflict with
our cherished principles of representa-
tive government" The people of any
American city should "have the right
to be governed by officials of their own
choosing"
Would "home rule" remove the con-
flict with our cherished principles?
1t would not 1t would magnify and
more grossly diStort them. Would the
people of the District, under "home
rule" have the right to be governed by
officials Of their own choosing? They
would not. They would continue to be
governed by President and Congress,
without a vote in the choice of either.
Their elected puppet municipal govern
ment would lack even the degree of
autonomy enjoyed by the government
of Hungary and would be saddled with
financial responsibility greater than the
local resources available to meet it.
When MessrS. Nixon, Kennedy and
Humphrey begin advocating real voting
rights for the residents of the American
Capitalize right to vote for President,
Vice President and representatives Of
their choice in Congress-We will then
take off our hats and cheer. But not
as long as they talk about noble prin-
ciples not eXempli1ed in the legislation
they indorSe.