Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

HISTORY

The District of Columbia owes its origin to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, wherein Congress is empowered

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Governrment of the United States. * *

Commenting on this clause of the Constitution, Madison, in No. XLII of the Federalist, wrote:

"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it * * * Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the General Government on the State comprehending the seat of the Government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence."

The committee was impressed with the language employed by those who drafted the Constitution. It will be noted that Congress is given not only exclusive legislative jurisdiction in the District but that the phrase "in all cases whatsoever" is added to make doubly certain of the free and uncontested rule of Congress at the seat of government. The use of this language is by no means mere accident. Prior to the creation of the District of Columbia, no less than eight cities, in four States, were capitals of the United States, namely, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Lancaster, York, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New York. In no instance did the Federal Government enjoy an uncontested superiority at the seat of government. On the contrary, in each instance the Federal Government was subjected to the whim and caprice of local àdministrators. Indeed, in 1783 Pennsylvania troops, stationed at Lancaster, marched on Philadelphia to threaten and frighten Congress into passing increased Army pay legislation, forcing the Congress to flee to Princeton for safety. This flagrant insult to the national dignity was not forgotten by those who drafted the Constitution.

When it is recalled that one of the outstanding weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was the lack of exclusive Federal jurisdiction at the seat of government and that attempts to establish a permanent seat of government in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, after the adoption of the Constitution, were unsuccessful because of the conflict of authority between State and Nation, superimposed on a background of local political intrigue, it will be seen that the constitutional provision for exclusive Federal jurisdiction over a separate district was based upon a bitter experience. Because of the constant threat of political strife and turmoil at the seat of government, the District of Columbia was carved out to be and to remain a neutral entity.

By act of July 16, 1790 (I. Stat. L. 130), Congress provided for a district not exceeding 10 miles square, to be located on the Potomac. Virginia had provided on December 3, 1789, for the cession of such portion of the District as might be located in that State. On January 24, 1791, President Washington issued a proclamation designating the boundaries of the District. Maryland provided for the cession of the portion of the District in that State by an act of December 19, 1791.

The District was thus made up of two municipalities-Georgetown and Alexandria, and Washington and Alexandria Counties. In 1802 (2 Stat. L. 195), the inhabitants of Washington County were incorporated into the city of Washington, headed by a mayor and a council. The mayor of Washington was at first appointed by the President, but by the charter of May 15, 1820 (3 Stat. L. 583), it was provided that he should be elected.

In 1846 the Virginia portion of the District was retroceded to Virginia and the District was reduced to its present limits.

Under the act of August 6, 1861 (12 Stat. L. 320), the municipalities of Georgetown and Washington and the county of Washington were unified to a limited extent by the creation of the Metropolitan Police District of the District of Columbia.

From 1802 to 1871 the cities of Washington and Georgetown were administered by mayor-council types of city government. From 1820 to 1871 these offices were elective, each municipality choosing its own mayor and members of council with full autonomy.

The year 1871 brought a major change when Congress set up a municipal government for the District, patterned after that in the Territories. Washington and Georgetown charters were repealed and the executive power was vested in

a governor, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislative power was vested in an assembly consisting of a council of 11 members appointed by the President, and a House of Delegates of 22 members elected by popular vote.

Under the so-called Territorial government the tax burden was greatly increased, resulting in a series of special assessments. So much antagonism developed over the expanded debt that Congress was forced to make a detailed investigation into the matter, culminating in the act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. L. 116), which repealed all provisions of the Territorial government, so-called. That act further authorized the President to appoint a commission of three persons to administer the affairs of the District, generally called the temporary government. Four years later the act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. L. 102), established the present Board of Commissioners of three members, one to be an officer of the Engineer Corps of the Army. Changes have, of course, been made from time to time, but the present government is essentially that established in 1878.

THE ISSUES

Senate Joint Resolution 35 raises two issues, namely, (a) national representation for the District and (b) automony for the District.

After extensive hearings, your committee unanimously concluded that national representation for the District is both unwise and unsound. It would be contrary to the best interests of the United States, as well as detrimental to the citizens of the District. That there should be no conflict of authority between Nation and State at the seat of Government is admitted, manifest, and imperative. Although the pending resolution is in no sense self-executing in this regard (merely authorizing the Congress to provide national representation for the District at some future time), the committee is of the opinion that such a power vested in Congress would but admit of extreme pressure on the Congress to do that which we deem unwise and unnecessary.

No reference to statehood is made in the resolution, per se, but we believe that national representation as advocated by proponents, and as would be authorized by the measure, can mean no less. The Constitution confers national representation on States alone. Only a State may enjoy this privilege. It is not accorded to the Territories. To grant national representation to the District would confer on the District privileges tantamount to statehood without exacting coextensive responsibilities. Senate Joint Resolution 35, made a part of the Constitution and permitted to operate to its logical conclusion, would transfer the District into a super-State with all its attendant possibilities for confusion with the Federal Government. Under existing law, the Federal Government must contribute from the Public Treasury a portion of the cost of maintaining the District. Therefore, in addition to voting for President, Vice President, and Members of Congress (which is national representation for all the States), the District would also continue to draw on every other State in the Union for support of the newly created super-Commonwealth.

To continue with the process of contribution from the Federal Treasury to sustain the District after it had been virtually invested with statehood would be to invite legitimate objection from the States, or to encourage a demand from the States or other municipalities that they, too, be supported from the Federal Treasury.

To withdraw the Federal contribution from the District, which must inevitably result, would but place an additional tax burden on the tax-paying citizens of the District.

As to the other issue with respect to local self-government, Congress now possesses ample authority to establish a form of local autonomy and to revitalize suffrage in the District. Suffrage has never been taken from the District. It exists today as it did from 1820 to 1874. When in 1874 all elective offices were abolished, the vote remained untouched. Autonomous suffrage could be exercised today if offices were provided.

Should the Congress determine that self-government is desirable for the District, this may be accomplished by an act without a constitutional amendment. Finally, the resolution makes provision for extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies to which citizens of the District shall be parties the same as to controversies to which citizens of a State shall be parties. Such extension of original jurisdiction has already been provided in Public Law No. 463, Seventy-sixth Congress.

The committee recommend that consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 35 be indefinitely postponed.

Senator HATCH. We will adjourn now until 2:30 this afternoon, at which time we will hear the opponents of the resolution, and I would like to make the same suggestion to them, that they also, in the interest of conserving the time of our committee, keep their remarks concise and to the point.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of this same day.)

(The subcommittee resumed at 2:30 p. m., the Honorable Carl A. Hatch presiding.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I have been told that there were several representatives of the ladies' organizations who did not have an opportunity to be heard this morning. Is there anyone present who could give us briefly some of your viewpoints who wanted to testify?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly wanted it understood that it was not the intention of the committee or anyone connected with the presentation of the proponents' views that the ladies should be excluded. I think several of their statements have been filed and will be included in the record.

Dr. Howard asked if he might have 2 minutes for the proponents. Doctor, if you will, identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF DR. CLINTON N. HOWARD, SUPERINTENDENT, INTERNATIONAL REFORM FEDERATION, AND EDITOR, PROGRESS MAGAZINE

Dr. HOWARD. Clinton N. Howard, superintendent of the International Reform Federation and editor of Progress magazine.

About all I desired to say, Mr. Chairman, was to record the fact that I have been a voting citizen since the 1888 election and continued to vote in every election succeeding that time as a citizen of Rochester, N. Y., until 1936.

Under the laws of the State of New York at that time, we had personal registration, and my occupation as a platform man required my absence from home about 9 months during the year, which meant that I had to make two trips from whatever point I might be at that time of registration, to get back to Rochester, N. Y., to enjoy the privilege of casting my vote as a citizen, which I did. The record would show that I was never absent on registration day and never absent on election day from 1888 until 1936.

In 1936 I lost my citizenship. I wasn't convicted of any crime, I didn't change my color nor my sex, and that was before the nineteenth amendment was added to the Constitution, but I had the great misfortune to be elected to a national office that required my having headquarters in Washington, so I moved from Rochester, N. Y., to Washington, and since that time, I have lost my citizenship.

Another point that I would like to put on the record is the fact that as the father of a family of eight, four of whom are sons and four of them daughters, scattered around in different States, every one of my sons votes and every one of my daughters votes, and their

father cannot vote, and the reason for that is the fact that I live in Washington.

I don't believe that any country on the face of the earth would stand for that inequality. Just imagine, for example, that a Frenchman, if he had the misfortune to live in Paris, could not participate in the government of France. How long would the Frenchmen stand for that? And worse yet, suppose a man was a Londoner and he, because he lived in London, was denied the right of suffrage in his own country and in his own city, but an Irishman up in Dublin could vote, and more recently, of course, in Ulster County.

It seems to me that we ought to be here in the Capital City accorded the same privileges that are given to citizens anywhere else in the country, so far as representation in Congress is concerned, representation where national nominating conventions are concerned, and a representation in the electoral college; and so, because I have that conviction, I want to put our International Reformed Federation on record as favoring this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Have you any questions, Senator?

Senator WHERRY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone here who wants to be heard in opposition to this amendment? You wanted to be heard, I know, Mr. Cheyney. Will you please state your name and occupation for the

record.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. CHEYNEY, 2615 MYRTLE AVENUE NE., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CHEYNEY. Joseph W. Cheyney, 2615 Myrtle Avenue NE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, there are four important points which should be considered in connection with this proposed amendment.

The first is, Have the people petitioned for it?

The second is, Are these residents of the District of Columbia fitted for what it is proposed to accomplish?

The third is, Can this proposed amendment to the Constitution ever operate without ripping to pieces rights of States under the Constitution of the United States and tearing to shreds the fundamental principle of representation upon which this Union is based? For this country of ours is a union; it is not a general government to do as it please. Twelve sovereign States met in convention to perfect an imperfect form of government, and those 12 States formulated our Constitution of the United States, and those 12 States-and later, the thirteenth-all ratified that Constitution and made it the organic law of this country.

Now, have you any petitions in favor of it? You gentlemen who come from the States know that when the people of this country or any part of it are in favor of anything, that all over the territory concerned, there are open, public meetings of the people to declare in favor of it, ringing resolutions are adopted and sent to the authority which has the power to grant it, petitions are circulated, hundreds of names are collected and sent in. That, gentlemen, is the way in this country that people petition for anything, and they do it under the amend

ment of the Constitution which reserved to the people the right to petition.

You have a mass here of alleged petitions. Not one of them, unless it be by a legal entity, is genuine. Every one of them is spurious, because there has been set up in this District of Columbia a form of organization which presumes, without lawful authority, to control the public affairs of the District of Columbia. They have no legal right to do it. They have been declared by a court here as of no existence, they do not constitute a legal entity, and I say to you, as well you know, that you cannot receive something from nothing. You have no petitions.

The next question is, Are these people fitted for what this proposed amendment would convey? Men who will so override the constitutional rights of the people as to operate through those organizations, declare themselves as totally unfit in adding to our form of government and should be reprobated and never recognized by any man who has any idea of what our Government means, of the rights of every citizen under it.

The second reason is that no one has voted here since 1874, nearly three-quarters of a century. They don't want to vote here. They are opposed to local self-government. But gentlemen, as you know, and as throughout all the history of this country, local self-government, or a form of government in which the people participated, has been the school in which men and citizens fitted themselves for representation in the Congress of the United States.

When this Constitution was formed, this Nation had a Territory, but there wasn't any suggestion that that Territory should be admitted along with the States. I didn't participate in the Convention, it had no say in the matter, it didn't ratify it, it didn't approve it. That Territory was the territory northwest of the Ohio River, ceded by States which had claimed it, to the general Government, to avoid the contention, and over that territory the Continental Congress in 1787, 2 years before we had a Constitution, provided for those people a form of government through which they could exercise their inalienable right to suffrage, because these people had suffrage before you ever had a Continental Congress, before you ever had a Declaration of Independence, before you ever had a Constitution.

How did they get it, and where did they get it? Sirs, they were Englishmen. They came from the mother country to this soil. The right of suffrage with them was a birthright. When they came here, it was a heritage, and when they did come here, under charters from the King of England, that monarch-remember it; the rights of those people, born with them and inherited, and he provided that they should have a voice in their local legislature.

Particularly with reference to this soil of the District of Columbia that was a part of Maryland was that right confirmed. This land of Maryland was given to Cecilius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, with powers almost as great as that of a feudal king, and yet the historian tells us that that power was expressly limited, was limited to the extent that that king provided that laws could only be made with the assent of the freemen of the province, who, by their deputies or delegates, were to take part in that legislature which was formed, and that in that legislature, the people had the lower branch and, under time-honored

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »