t . ( j r
r -
T
\
-3
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HEARINGS dot
•I *'
BEFORE THE
Ui ,*2 , ConQV2.S_s . ^ /e. •
^COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES SENATE
SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
ON
S. 14, S. 417, and S. J. RES. 133
PROVIDING FOR SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
November 8 , 14 , 18 , 21 , December 13 , 1921
and January 12 and 13 , 1922
Printed for the use of]the Committee on the District of Columbia
83480
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1922
7
o v\ \ 1 ^
,TJ fcPl 5
s q 2>2.
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Li. HEISLER BALL, Delaware, Chairman.
WILLIAM P. DILLINGHAM, Vermont.
WESLEY L. JONES, Washington.
ARTHUR CAPPER, Kansas.
DAVIS ELKINS, West Virginia.
FRANK R. GOODING, Idaho.
RALPH H. CAMERON, Arizona.
OVINGTON E. WELLER, Maryland.
Thomas E. Peeney, Clerk .
2
ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio.
WILLIAM H. KING, Utah.
MORRIS SHEPPARD, Texas.
CARTER GLASS, Virginia.
A. OWSLEY STANLEY,, Kentucky
, OFCONGRESS
: :rf - 51324
| DOCUMENTS PlV( StQN
M.e.A. io j
T3-
C*>
CONTENTS.
Statements of— Pa ^e.
Adriaans, John H_ 257
Ayers, G. W___ 55,140, 284
Bradshaw, Aaron_ 274
Brandenburg, E. G__3, 45, 80
Claflin, Roy C_5,281
Clayton, C. T_ 40
Clayton, William McK_ 263
Fairbairn, A. D___1_ 157
Glassie, Henry H_ 123
Gurley, Joseph G_»___ 277
Hickey, William A_ r ___ 5
Jones, Col. Winfield_ 283,288
Johnson, Mrs. Mary Wright_37,184
Keller, W. W_ 35
Lesh, Paul E__ 68,184,204,304
Lloyd, James T_51, 67
Lord, Frank B_ 39
Macpherson, Donald_•_ 165. 302
Marks. Avery_ 4
Miller, Kelly_._ 211
Nicholson, Soterios_ 282
Noyes, Theodore W_=_ 215
Oyster, E. W____ 185
Perry, Frank Sprigg_'_ 169
Snell, Mrs. Frank Hiram_ 168
Topham, Washington_^_ 283
Tucker, Evan H___ 160
Waldron, Rev. John Milton_ 151
Westlake, William B_ 38
0|
Delegate to the Senate from
the Mstrict of Columbia
is discussed on pp* 36,
hO and 5>0 o
.
■
■
-
■
. .
! • r r• i s ■
■
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1921.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in the committee room,
Capitol, Senator L. Heisler Ball, chairman, presiding.
Present: Senators Ball (chairman), Capper, Jones, and Sheppard.
Present also: Col. Winfield Jones, chairman of the National Press Committee,
representing those favoring the bills pending before the committee providing
for suffrage in the District of Columbia.
Present also: Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, appearing on behalf of those opposing
the proposed legislation.
The Chairman. Two bills have been referred to the Committee on the Dis¬
trict of Columbia. One was introduced by Senator Poindexter and provides
for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives from the Dis¬
trict of Columbia, and for other purposes. One was introduced by Senator
Capper, providing for the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives
from the District of Columbia and for the election of Commissioners of the
District of Columbia, for the election of a public-utilities commission, a board
of education, and for other purposes. Then a bill was introduced by Senator
Jones of Washington and referred to the Judiciary Committee, providing for
an amendment to the Constitution which will permit statehood in the District.
In this hearing we will permit the discussion of all these bills.
The time to be consumed by the respective sides ought to be divided in some
way. I would like to ask about how much time will probably be required for
those favoring any one or all of these bills. Will six hours be sufficient?
Col. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in behalf of those I
represent that we contemplated a hearing on the Capper bill and the Poindexter
bill which are before you. We did not contemplate a hearing on the bill pro¬
viding for a constitutional amendment. That is' a matter which at present is
pending before the House Judiciary Committee. We had one extended hearing
lasting a number of days, and we are informed and expect we will have an¬
other hearing shortly after the convening of the new Congress in December.
The Chairman. I might say for your information that a similar bill is not
before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, but is before the
House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Brandenburg. It is?
The Chairman. And also before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So I think
we will have to exclude that. It is before neither Committee on the District
of Columbia. It is a matter for the Judiciary Committee to dispose of.
We will allow not more than six hours to each side, hoping, of course, that
one side or the other will not take up quite so much. The committee wants a
thorough hearing, so far as the desires of the people are concerned, and the
reasons why this bill or that bill should be passed. We want all the speakers
to present the views of the people and the reasons why the bills should be en¬
acted into law, and not take up any unnecessary time.
Now, in presenting this matter, would you prefer to have two hours for the
bill and two hours against the bill, alternating in that way, or let one side
present its entire case first?
Mr. Brandenburg. I think it would be well, Mr. Chairman, for the proponents
of the bill to present their side in full.
Col. Jones. I think it would be better to alternate.
3
4
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Chairman. It will be necessary for those favoring the bills to present part
of their case first. I would be willing to alternate, but it would be much better
to have the complete presentation of one side first.
Col. Jones. I would not object to that, if we have a chance to reply to some
of the arguments of the other side. Otherwise, they might present their views,
and we would be shut off from replying to them.
The Chairman. I am willing to give two hours to each side alternately. I
can see the advantage of having an opportunity to reply to the arguments of
the other side. You may proceed, Col. Jones.
STATEMENT OF AVERY MARKS, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL
PRESS CLUB.
Mr. Marks. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have no argument to set forth
in respect to this or any other bill in regard to District suffrage. I only want to
lay before the committee the facts as they appear to me. I have learned these
facts from letters written to the editor of the Washington Times within the
last five years. During that period I have had available to me such letters,
and I have concluded from those letters and the proportion of the letters re¬
ceived that the people of the District of Columbia do want participation in the
local government, at least to some extent.
To digress a moment, it is rather hard to say that a proportion of letters re¬
ceived on any certain subject is indicative of public sentiment in a community.
We know that in case we publish an editorial on any subject the proportion of
denunciations to the proportion of approvals is not in proportion to public
sentiment. The paper which I represent is by its friends called vigorous and
by its enemies called violent. Its editorial policies are always very strong.
If we are right we are emphatically right, and if we are wrong we put our foot
in it away up to the hip. That sort of policy, as the committee knows, is
conducive of what in newspaper parlance we call “ stirring up the animals,”
making people think, making them protest or agree with us.
I have watched this carefully for five years, and we have found that in case
sentiment in a community is about evenly divided on a subject, the letters writ¬
ten to the editor favoring an editorial on that subject, no matter which side
we take in the matter, the proportion is about three denunciations to one ap¬
proval of our editorial policy. If we were to advocate free trade we would
receive three protests to a single agreement with us. If we were to oppose
free trade, we would have the same result—three denunciations to one approval.
That has been the case in the letters received by our paper upon every other
subject, except the soldiers’ bonus and District suffrage. Our paper has very
vigorously supported suffrage for Washington and local participation in the
government for several years, and with these two excetpions the rule of three
to one against whatever we say has held good.
You gentlemen know that if a person agrees with you he usually says very
little or nothing about it. If he disagrees with you he will tell you about it
very strongly. In case of an election a man will go 10 miles to vote against
something when he will only go 1 mile to vote for a matter.
In the case of suffrage we find that in spite of our editorial stand, and in spite
of what might be expected in the way of letters commenting upon our stand, a
ratio of about 3 to 1 in favor of our position. If we would be fair in the
matter, in considering the ratio on every other subject, we would multiply the
approvals of our stand by three in order to find the public sentiment on that
subject. Therefore the ratio of public sentiment appears to be not 3 to 1 but about
9 to 1. In other words, about 9 out of every 10 in the community, as represented
by those who have been interested enough to write to us, are in favor of local
participation.
The letters which have come to the editor in behalf of suffrage have been
intelligent, helpful letters. There has been no organized letter-writing propa¬
ganda behind them. You gentlemen are familiar with letter-writing campaigns
to influence legislation, and it is very easily spotted. There has been none of
that, and in -fairness to the other side I should say there has been none on the
other side that .we could see.
The letters agreeing with us have set forth a good many arguments for Dis¬
trict suffrage, embracing practically every argument for a democracy. Those
protesting against it have, almost without exception, been based upon "one argu¬
ment; that is, that in order to enfranchise 400,000 people it is necessary to
enfranchise one-fourth that number of colored people. That has been put
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
5
forward in most cases as a final and determining argument against suffrage for
400,000 people. Those people seem to have forgotten that is no longer an issue;
that that was written into the Constitution of the United States some 60 years
ago and has been settled. I presume they were very seriously shocked when
-the President of the United States some two weeks ago at Birmingham reiterated
his belief in the Constitution of the United States. That is the main protest, and
practically the only protest, we have received against suffrage.
To sum up, I believe it is manifest that at least 90 per cent of the people of
the District of Columbia are in favor of participation in the Government and
the other 10 "per cent base their protest on an issue which has been settled long
since.
Senator Capper. You say “ participation in local government.” To what ex¬
tent has your paper supported participation in local government?
Mr. Marks. In general, a participation proportionate to the financial burdens
borne by the people.
Senator Capper. How far would you go in the matter of popular election ?
Mr. Marks. I have not gone into that matter specifically. In the period of
which I speak the paper has changed hands once, ‘so that the accumulation is
not exact in regard to that specific feature.
The Chairman. Have you not advocated an indefinite policy, so far as repre¬
sentation in Congress and statehood are concerned?
Mr. Marks. It is believed that our policy has been for an authoritative rep¬
resentation before Congress and delegate representation in or before Congress.
We have used the term “before Congress,” meaning participation in the local
government commensurate with the financial burdens borne by the people.
Senator Capper. Through a general election in the District?
Mr. Marks. Yes, sir. I might add that the only , other time when we have
received similar approval of our policy in these letters has been in the case of
the soldiers’ bonus, and the soldiers’ bonus has outvoted suffrage, as far as
agreeing with the paper is concerned. We have discounted that because of the
large number of disabled soldiers in Washington.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM A. HICKEY, REPRESENTING THE
ARMY AND NAVY VETERANS.
Mr. Hickey. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we are ex-sol¬
diers representing the veterans who served in the Spanish-American War, in
the Philippine insurrection, and some who served in the World War, and I
think I can speak for the members of the Grand Army of the Republic. We
fought for liberty, we fought for the right to vote, and we ex-soldiers in the
District of Columbia, numbering some thirty-odd thousand, feel we should
have the right to have a vote, to elect our own officers, and have a government
that we can control by the voice of the majority. That is one of the principles
of Americanism and one of the things our forefathers contended for in the
establishment of the Constitution—the right of representation in the Govern¬
ment, as well as being taxed. We soldiers feel that we should have that right.
We fought for that principle for others. We fought for that principle in Cuba,
we fought for that principle in the recent World War, and our forefathers of
the Grand Army of the Republic fought for the right to liberate a people who
were in serfdom, and the American Congress rightfully gave those people the
franchise and clothed them with citizenship. They have the right to vote in
other places, but, of course, do not have the right to vote here, as we do not
have that right.
Therefore, we ex-soldiers contend and feel that we should have the right to
have some say in our local government.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROY C. CLAFLIN, PRESIDENT OF THE DIS¬
TRICT DELEGATE ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Claflin. Mr. Chairman, I understand that one of the things up for con¬
sideration, among others, is the election of the board of education. I do not
care to speak specifically on that, but I would like to have introduced in the
record and report of the hearings some arguments in favor of electing the
board of education, and not go into that personally at this time. I would also
like to have incorporated in the record in the same connection a copy of the
bill introduced by Senator Sherman in the last Congress, in connection with
electing a board of education.
The Chairman. Those may go in the record.
6
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(The documents referred to are here printed in full, as follows:)
Citizens’ Joint Committee foe an Elective School Board.
This committee is composed of representatives of organizations cooperating
to secure from Congress the right for the citizens of the District of Columbia
to elect the members of their board of education.
STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY P. BLAIR, PROMINENT LAWYER AND FORMER PRESIDENT
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Mr. Henry P. Blair, testifying on April 5, 1920, before the Senate committee
investigating the District Board of Education, made the following statement:
“ I have never considered the appointment of the school board by the judges
a proper judicial function and am against the change of the appointing power
back to the commissioners.
“ I have been in favor of suffrage in the District of Columbia ever sinc^ I
was old enough to vote. The people of the District should elect their board of
education—that is where the appointing power belongs.
“ It would be an excellent thing for the people of the District to begin to
learn something about voting, and elections, and they could learn in the elec¬
tion of the board of education.”
CITIZENS’ JOINT COMMITTEE FOR AN ELECTIVE SCHOOL BOARD.
On June 25, 1919, the citizen’s joint committee for an elective school board
was organized in the rooms of the Washington Board of Trade by the official
representatives of 26 civic organizations of the District of Columbia. Since
that date the number of organizations affiliated with the movement has been
increased to 33, making the aggregate membership of the bodies represented
considerably over 200,000 citizens at the present writing.
The movement was initiated by the action of the board of trade on January
21, 1919, when it declared in favor of the election of the school board members
and instructed its committee on public schools to work for the enactment of
legislation granting this right to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
Accordingly the matter w T as laid before various organizations of Washing¬
ton and their cooperation was asked. The response was spontaneous, indicating
the overwhelming sentiment of the citizens generally favoring the selection
of the members of their board of education by their own vote.
At the call of the chairman of the board of trade committee on public schools
a conference was held on June 25, 1919, of two duly accredited representatives
from each of 26 organizations. At this conference the citizens’ joint committee
for an elective school board was organized and officers elected as follows:
Chairman of the committee, Roy C. Claflin, of the board of trade; secretary,
J. Clinton Hiatt, of the board of trade; members of steering committee, B. W.
Payne, chairman, of the Maryland and District of Columbia Federation of
Labor; Dr. Starr Parsons, of the Northeast Washington Citizens’ Association;
William W. Keeler, of the Central Labor Union; Henry W. Draper, grade
principal of che public schools; Mrs. Florence Rogers, of the High School
Teachers’ Union; Miss Ethel M. Smith, of the National Women’s Trade Union
League; Rev. J. Milton Waldron, of the Parents’ League; Walter S. Early, of
the FairmoUnt Citizens’ Association ; Miss Estelle C. Jackson, of the Washington
Elementary Teachers’ Union; secretary to the steering committee, J. Clinton
Hiatt; Roy C. Caflin, ex-officio member.
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED ON THE CITIZENS’ JOINT COMMITTEE FOR AN ELECTIVE
SCHOOL BOARD.
Washington Board of Trade, Columbia Heights Citizens’ Association, Chevy
Chase Citizens’ Association, Central Labor Union, East Washington Citizens’
Association, Daughters of Veterans U. S. A. (Ellen Spencer Mussey Tent
No. 1), Congress Heights Public Improvement Association, Rhode Island
Avenue Citizens’ Association, Petworth Citizens’ Association, Southwest Civic
Association, Maryland and District of Columbia Federation of Labor, North
Capitol and Eckington Citizens’ Association, West End Citizens’ Association,
Washington News Writers’ Association, Washington Lodge, No. 193, Interna¬
tional Association of Machinists, Washington Elementary Teachers’ Union,
Washington Civic Center, Sons of Veterans, U. S. A. (Wm. B. Cushing Camp,
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
7
No. 30), Sixteenth Street Highlands Association, Public Interest Association
of East Washington, Parents League of District of Columbia, Northeast Wash¬
ington Citizens’ Association, National Women’s Trade Union League, Manual
Training Association of Washington, D. C. (District of Columbia Manual
Training Union, No. 10), Kenilworth Citizens’ Association, High School
Teachers’ Union, Central Citizens’ Association, Fairmount Heights Citizens’
Association, Deanwood Citizens’ Association, Federal Employees Union, No. 2,
Benning Citizens’ Association, Grade Teachers’ Union, Bradbury Heights Citi¬
zens’ Association.
HOW OTHER AMERICAN CITIES SELECT THEIR SCHOOL BOARDS.
[Information taken from “ Current Practice in City School Administration,” compiled by
the United States Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1917, No. 8.]
Educational thought favors election of board members at large by popular
vote of appointment by elective officials. The majority of school men favor
election by the people, even in preference to appointment by elective officials.
Practically no students of school administration favor appointment by the
courts.
In practice, over 75 per cent of American cities having a population of 25,000
and over select the members of their boards of education by popular election.
In about 18 per cent of these cities the school board is appointed by elective offi¬
cials, and in less than 7 per cent of these cities are the school boards appointed
by members of the courts. Even in some of these cases, Philadelphia for ex¬
ample, the judges who appoint the school board are themselves elected by the
people, so that probably in less than 5 per cent of American cities are the
boards of education selected in the manner prescribed in the District of
Columbia.
The tendency of reform is away from appointed to elected boards. The city
of Cincinnati is an example. The public-school system of this city has never
been so efficient as it has been since the method of selection was changed to
election at large by the people.
REASONS WHY THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON SHOULD SELECT THEIR SCHOOL-BOARD
MEMBERS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN PLAN.
From a study of the methods of selecting members of boards of education
throughout the country, it can properly be said that the American plan is
popular election by the people.
In no place would it be more appropriate to follow the American plan of
selecting the board of education members than in the National Capital. In
this city we should have the model system.
To grant to the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to elect the
members of their board of education would be a big step toward the Americani¬
zation of the seat of government of the United States.
This right should be granted not only as a matter of principle, but as a means
of placing our school system on a more efficient basis. Without reflecting upon
the personnel of the present or any past board of education of the District, it
stands to reason that if the members were elected by the people they would
be more representative of the community and therefore administer their duties
as a school board more in conformity with the desires of the people. These
desires are always for an efficient school system.
Also, without reflecting upon the personnel of the judges who have been
selecting the members of the board of education in the District of Columbia,
it stands to reason that the people themselves are much better qualified to select
the administrators of their schools than are the judges, who usually are not in
touch with school problems. The majority of the voters would be parents with
children in the schools, and obviously they are in a much better position than
the judges to know who will serve their interest better in school matters.
SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL NO. 4001, INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE ON MARCH 2, 1920,
BY SENATOR LAWRENCE Y. SHERMAN AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCA¬
TION AND LABOR.
Object .—To provide for the election of the members of the board of educa¬
tion of the District of Columbia, etc.
Qualification of voters .—All citizens of the United States 21 years of age
and over, without regard to sex, who are actual and bona fide residents of the
8
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
District of Columbia and desire to vote in the District of Columbia and no other
place, and who have been such residents continuously during the entire year
immediately preceding the election, and who have been such residents con¬
tinuously for 30 days next preceding the election in the precinct in which they
vote, shall be qualified to vote: Provided, That no idiot or insane person or
person convicted of a felony shall be entitled to vote. Temporary absence from
the District shall not affect the question of residence of any person. (Sec. 6.)
Qualification of members of board of education. —Any person so elected shall,
at the time of his or her election, have been for seven years a citizen of the
United States and shall be an inhabitant and qualified voter of the District of
Columbia, and shall be not less than 25 years of age. (Sec. 1.)
Time of election. —All elections for the members of the board of education,
as herein provided, shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday
in November of each year. (Sec. 3.)
The polls shall be opened at 7 o’clock a. m. and closed at 7 o’clock p. ma.
(Sec. 30.)
Composition of board and terms of office. —The members of the board of edu¬
cation chosen at each election subsequent to the first election held under this
act shall hold their office for a term of three years. In the first election nine
members shall be elected, as follows: Three white men, three white women, and
three colored persons, not less than one or more than two of such colored
persons to be women. The white male member and white female member,
respectively, receiving the highest number of votes in their group and colored
member receiving the highest number of votes cast for a colored member shall
serve for a term of three years. The white male member and the white female
member receiving the next highest number of votes in their respective group,
together with the colored member receiving the next highest number of votes in
the colored group, shall serve for a term of two years. The other three mem¬
bers elected in said first election shall serve for a term of one year. The
vacancies created by the expiration of terms as above indicated shall be filled
in the subsequent elections with members corresponding, respectively, in sex
and color, to the order set forth in this section, so that the composition of the
board in these respects shall remain unchanged. (Sec. 4.)
Vacancies. —Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the board for any
cause other than expiration of term shall be filled by the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia within 30' days by naming the person receiving the
next highest number of votes in the same group as the vacating member in the
last election at which said group was voted on. If such person is not available
for service, the next highest shall be named, and so on. (Sec. 5.)
Nominations. —All nominations shall be by petition. Each candidate shall be
placed in nomination by the signatures of at least 100 qualified voters on a form
corresponding in effect to the following: “ We, the undersigned qualified voters
of the District of Columbia, do hereby nominate ” (here shall appear the names
of the proposed candidates, together with the designation of color and sex of
each and their respective street addresses) “for membership on the board of
education of the District of Columbia.” Then shall follow the names of the
petitioners. All nominating petitions must be filed with the secretary of the
commissioners not less than 30 days prior to the date of the election. Any
petition of nomination not so received shall not be valid. (Sec. 28.)
Registration. —The registration of voters is provided for to be carried on
under the supervision of the secretary of the commissioners who is designated
as the registration officer. No one is allowed to vote who has not properly
registered prior to the election.
Election machinery. —The bill provides that the Commissioners of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia shall constitute an election board, and that they shall have
charge of carrying out the provisions of the act.
They are to divide the District into voting precincts, each containing a voting
population of approximately 500, and define the boundaries thereof, and shall
appoint, at least 30 days before each election, one inspector, two judges, and
two clerks for each voting precinct, all of whom shall be qualified voters of
the precinct.
The commissioners are to provide suitable polling places for each precinct,
preferably a public-school building, and give due notice of elections, specifying
the time and places and the names and addresses of the nominees.
The bill contains the usual election machinery for carrying out the election
in a most efficient and thorough manner, providing every precaution against any
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
9
possibility of fraud. Suitable penalties are provided for violation of the re¬
quirements of the act. The election machinery provided in the bill is based
upon the most modern election laws of the various States.
(The bill in full follows:)
[S. 4001, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session.]
A BILL To provide for the election of the members of the Board of Education of the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of the District of
Columbia shall elect the members of the board of education of said District
in the manner and at the times hereinafter prescribed. Any person so elected
shall, at the time of his or her election, have been for seven years a citizen
of the United States and shall be an inhabitant and qualified voter of the
District of Columbia, and shall be not less than twenty-five years of age.
Sec. 2. That the words and phrases in this act shall, unless the same be in¬
consistent with the context, be construed as follows:
(a) The word “commissioners” shall mean the Commissioners of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia.
(b) The word “ District ” shall mean the District of Columbia.
(c) The words “registration officer” shall mean the secretary of the Com¬
missioners of the District of Columbia.
(d) The word “ ballot ” shall mean the ballot herein prescribed.
(e) The word “group” shall mean the list of candidates of the same color
and sex.
(f) The words “he,” “his,” or “him,” referring to electors or candidates,
shall include female as well as male.
Sec. 3. That all elections for members of the board of education, as herein
provided, shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November
■of each year.
Sec. 4. That the members of the board of education chosen at each election
subsequent to the first election held under this act shall hold their office for
a term of three years. In the first election nine members shall be elected as
follows: Three white men, three white women, and three colored persons, not
less than one nor more than two of such colored persons to be women. The
white male member and white female member, respectively, receiving the high¬
est number of votes in their group and the colored member receiving the high¬
est number of votes cast for a colored member shall serve for a term of three
years. The white male member and the white female member receiving the
next highest number of votes in their respective group, together with the colored
member receiving the next highest number of votes in the colored group, shall
serve for a term of two years. The other members elected in said first election
shall serve for a term of one year. The vacancies created by the expiration
•of terms, as above indicated, shall be filled in the subsequent elections with
members corresponding, respectively, in sex and color to the order set forth
in this section, so that the composition of the board in these respects shall
remain unchanged.
Sec. 5. That any vacancy occurring in the membership of the board for any
cause other than expiration of term shall be filled by the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia within thirty days by naming the person receiving the next
highest number of votes in the same group as the vacating member in the last
election at which said group was voted on. If such person is not available for
service, the next highest shall be named, and so on.
Sec. 6. That all citizens of the United States, 21 years of age and over, with¬
out regard to sex, who are actual and bona fide residents of the District of
Columbia and desire to vote in the District of Columbia and no other place, and
who have ‘been such residents continuously during the entire year immediately
preceding the election, and who have been such residents continuously for thirty
days next preceding the election in the precinct in which they vote, shall be
qualified to vote: Provided, That no idiot or insane person or person convicted
of a felony shall be entitled to vote. Temporary absence from the District shall
not affect the question of residence of any person.
Sec. 7. That the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, at least sixty
days before the first election herein provided for, shall divide said District into
noting precincts, each containing a voting population of approximately five
hundred, and define the boundaries thereof, and they shall also appoint, at least
10
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
thirty days before each election, one inspector, two judges, and two clerks for
each voting precinct, all of whom shall be qualified voters of the precinct.
•The said commissioners shall also, at least ten days before the election, pro¬
vide a suitable polling place for each voting precinct, preferably a public-school
building, and give due notice of the election by posting a written or printed
notice in at least three public places in each precinct, one of which shall be the
polling place, specifying the time and place of the election and the names and
addresses of the nominees, together with their proper group designations. A
copy of said notice shall be published in a newspaper published and of general
circulation in the District, once a day for seven consecutive days next prior to
the date of the election. That not more than $10 at each election shall be al¬
lowed for the rental of a polling place in each precinct.
Sec. 8. That the inspector and judges in each precinct shall constitute the
election board and shall supervise and have charge of the election therein.
Before entering upon the duties of their office each of the members of said
election board and the clerks of the election in the precinct shall take an oath,
which shall be reduced to writing, before an officer qualified to administer oaths,
to perform honestly, faithfully, and promptly the duties of their positions.
That each member of the election board shall have authority to administer
any oath to the voter necessary or proper under this act, and in case of any ques¬
tion or disagreement over any matter during the course of said election thfr
decision of a majority of the board shall govern.
That it shall be the duty of the clerks at each voting precinct to make a full
written record of such election as held in that precinct, and to keep a correct
record in the poll book, as herein provided, of the names of the persons voting"
and the fact that they have voted, or have offered to vote and were refused, and
a brief statement of the reasons for said refusal.
Sec. 9. That each of the candidates for the office of member of the board of
education herein provided for, at any election held hereunder, shall be entitled
to one watcher at each voting precinct, who shall be permitted to be present
within the place of voting at such precinct, and in some place therein where he'
may at all times be in full view of every act done. Such watcher shall have the
right to be so present at all times from the opening of the polls until the ballots
are finally counted and the result certified by the election board. Each watcher
shall be required to present to the election board proper credentials, signed by
the candidate he represents, showing him to be the duly authorized watcher for
such person.
Sec. 10. That in case any of the officers or clerks of election selected as herein
provided for any precinct shall fail to appear and qualify at the time and place
designated for the opening of the polls, then, in that event, the qualified voters
present may, by a majority viva voce vote, select a suitable person or persons to
fill the vacancy or vacancies, and the person or persons so selected shall qualify
and serve with the same powers and in the same manner as if appointed as here¬
inbefore provided.
Sec. 11. That any person offering to vote may be challenged by any election
officer or any other person entitled to vote at the same polling place, or by anjr
duly authorized watcher, and when so challenged, before being allowed to vote
he shall make and subscribe to the following oath: “ I do solemnly swear (or
affirm, as the case may be) that I am twenty-one years of age or over and a
citizen of the United States; that I am an actual and bona fide resident of the 1
District of Columbia, and have been such resident during the entire year imme¬
diately preceding this election, and have been a resident in this voting precinct
for thirty days next preceding this election, and that I have not voted at this
election.” And when he has made such an affidavit he shall be allowed to vote;
but if any person so challenged shall refuse or fail to take such oath or affirma¬
tion and sign such affidavit, then his vote shall be rejected; and any person
swearing falsely in any such affidavit shall be guilty of perjury and shall, upon
conviction thereof, suffer punishment as is prescribed by law for persons guilty
of perjury.
Sec. 12. That the election board at each polling place, as soon as the polls
are closed, shall immediately publicly proceed to open the ballot box .and count
the votes cast, and the clerks shall make duplicate tally lists of the votes cast
for each candidate opposite his name in the tally books prepared therefor,
and the election board shall thereupon, under their hands and seals, make out
in duplicate a certificate of the result of said election, specifying the number
of votes, in words and figures, cast for each candidate, and they shall then
immediately, carefully, and securely seal up in one envelope said duplicate cer-
SUFFRAGE IU THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
11
tificates, the duplicate tally books, and the registers of voters, all the ballots
cast, and all affidavits made, and deliver such envelope, with said papers
inclosed, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 13. That said commissioners shall, within seven days after the election,
canvass and determine the total number of votes cast for each candidate,
and shall officially announce the names of the successful candidates imme¬
diately thereafter, together with the names of the candidates receiving the next
highest number of votes in each group. Within ten days after the election the
commissioners shall issue a certificate of election to each of the newly elected
members of the board of education, and said members shall enter upon their
respective terms of office on the 1st day of December next.
Sec. 14. That all election ballots prepared under the provisions of this act
shall conform to the following requirements:
First. They shall be of white and a good quality of paper, and the names
shall be printed thereon in black ink.
Second. Every ballot shall contain the name of every candidate whose nomi¬
nation has been filed according to the provisions of this act, and no other names.
Third. The names of the nominees shall be placed under the designation:
“ For member of the board of education.”
Fourth. There shall be a space one-fourth inch square at the right of the
name of each nominee, so that the voter may clearly indicate the candidates
for whom he wishes to cast his ballot. The size of type for the designation of
the office shall be nonpareil caps; that of the candidates not smaller than
brevier or larger than small pica caps, and shall be connected with the squares
by leaders.
Fifth. The names of the candidates shall be placed on the ballot in the fol¬
lowing groups: (1) White male candidates; (2) colored male candidates; (3)
white female candidates; (4) colored female candidates. Within the groups
the names of the candidates shall be arranged in the order in which the
petitions of nomination shall have been filed as hereinafter provided.
The line of demarcation between the said groups shall be inverted nonpareil
rule.
Sixth. Upon each official ballot a perforated line one-half inch from the left-
hand edge of said ballot shall extend from the top of said ballot toward the
bottom of the same two inches thence to the left-hand edge of the ballot, and
upon the space thus formed there shall be no printing except the number of
such ballot, which shall be upon the back of such space in such position that
it shall appear on the outside when the ballot is folded. The secretary of the
commissioners shall cause official ballots to be numbered consecutively, begin¬
ning with number one, for each separate voting precinct. Each group column
shall be two and five eighths inches wide.
Seventh. On the top of each of said ballots and extending across the said
groups there shall be printed instructions directing the voters how to mark
the ballot before the same shall be deposited with the judges of election. At
the head of each group of candidates the number to be voted for shall be
indicated.
Sec. 15. That before the opening of the polls the secretary of the commis¬
sioners shall cause to be delivered to the judges of election of each election pre¬
cinct in the District at the polling place of the precinct, two ballots for each elec¬
tor registered in the precinct, and two tallying books that shall be printed in
relation and accord with the ballots. The ballots shall be given to the in¬
spector of each election precinct; but in case it may be impracticable to deliver
such ballots to the inspector, then they may be delivered to one of the judges
of election of any such precinct.
Sec. 16. That at any election it shall be the duty of the inspector, of one of
the judges of election, .to deliver ballots to the qualified electors. Any elector
desiring to vote shall give his name to the inspector or one of the judges,
who shall then, in an audible tone of voice, announce the same, whereupon
a challenge may be interposed in the manner herein provided. If no challenge
be interposed, or if the challenge be overruled, the inspector or one of the
judges shall give him' a ballot, at the same time calling to the clerks of election
the number of such ballot. It shall be the duty of such clerks to write the
number of the ballot against the name of such elector as the same appears
upon the certified poll book of registration in their possession. Each qualified
elector shall be entitled to receive from the said judges one ballot.
Sec. 17. That on receipt of his ballot the elector shall forthwith and without
leaving the polling place retire alone to one of the booths or compartments pro-
12
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
vided to prepare liis ballot. He shall prepare his ballot by marking a cross (X)
after each of the names of the persons or candidates for whom he wishes to
vote. Before leaving the booth or compartment the elector shall fold his ballot
in, such a manner that the number of the ballot shall appear on the outside
thereof without displaying the marks on the face thereof, and he shall keep
it folded until he has voted. Having folded the ballot, the elector shall deliver
it folded to the inspector, who shall in an audible tone of voice repeat the name
of the elector and the number of the ballot. The election clerks having the poll-
books of registration in charge shall, if they find the number marked opposite
the elector’s name on the poll books to correspond with the number of the ballot
handed to the inspector, mark opposite the name of such elector the word
“ voted,” and one of the clerks shall call back in an audible tone the name of
the elector and the number of his ballot. The inspector shall separate the slip
containing the number of the ballot from the ballot and shall deposit the ballot
in the ballot box. The slips containing the numbers removed from ballots shall
be immediately destroyed.
Sec. 18. That not more than one person shall be permitted to occupy any one
booth at one time, and no person shall remain in or occupy a booth or com¬
partment longer than may be necessary to prepare his ballot, and in no event,
longer than two minutes: Provided, That the other booths and compartments are
occupied.
Sec. 19. That any voter who shall, by accident or mistake, spoil his ballot
may, on returning said* spoiled ballot, receive another in place thereof.
Sec. 20. That the secretary of the commissioners shall provide for each polling
place a sufficient number of booths or compartments, which shall be furnished
with such supplies and conveniences as shall enable the voter conveniently to
prepare his ballot for voting, and in which electors shall mark their ballots
screened from observation; and a guardrail so constructed that only persons
within such rail can approach within ten feet of the ballot boxes or the booths
or compartments herein prescribed. The number of such booths or compart¬
ments shall not be less than one for every one hundred electors or fraction
thereof registered in the precinct. No person other than electors engaged in re¬
ceiving, preparing, or depositing their ballots, or a person present for the pur¬
pose of challenging the vote of an elector about to cast his ballot, shall be per¬
mitted to be within said rail. The expense of providing such booths or com¬
partments and guardrails shall be a public charge, and shall be provided for
in the same manner as the other election expenses. Subsequent to the first Tues¬
day after the first Monday of November and prior to the 1st day of December
thereafter, the Commissioners of the District shall, as far as necessary, alter
or divide the existing election precincts in such manner that each election
precinct shall not contain more than five hundred voters.
Sec. 21. That any voter who declares to the judges of election, or when it shall
appear to the judges of election, that by blindness or other physical disability
said voter is unable to mark his ballot, shall, upon request, receive the assistance
of one or two of the election officers or a watcher in the marking thereof, and
such officer or officers shall certify on the outside thereof that it has been so
marked with his or their assistance, and shall thereafter give no information
regarding the same. The judges may, in their discretion, require from such
person so offering to vote a declaration of disability. No elector, other than
the one who may, because of his physical disabilty, be unable to mark his ballot,
shall divulge to any person within the polling place the name of any candidate
for whom he intends to vote, or ask or receive the assistance of anyone within,
the polling place in the preparation of his ballot.
Sec. 22. That no inspector shall deposit in any ballot box any ballot upon
which the official stamp, as herein provided, shall not appear. Every person
violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Sec. 28. That the secretary of the Commissioners of the District shall cause
to be printed in large type on cards, in English, instructions for the guidance
of electors in preparing their ballots. He shall furnish ten such cards to the
judges of election of each election precinct and one additional card for each
fifty electors or fractional part thereof in the precinct, at the same time and
in the same manner as the printed ballots. The judges of election shall post
not less than one of such cards in each booth or compartment provided for the
preparation of ballots and not less than three of such cards elsewhere in and
about the polling places upon the day of election. Such cards shall be printed
in large, clear type, and shall contain full instructions to the voters as to what
should be done, namely:
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
18
First. To obtain ballots for voting.
Second. To prepare the ballots for deposit in the ballot boxes.
Third. To obtain a new ballot in the place of one spoiled by accident or
mistake.
Sec. 24. That it shall be the duty of the secretary of the Commissioners of
the District to cause to be published in pamphlet form and distributed to each
election precinct, at public expense, a sufficient number of copies of til's act
as will place a copy thereof in the hands of all officers of election.
Secl 25. That in the count and canvass of the votes any ballot or parts of
a ballot from which it is impossible to determine the elector’s choice shall be
void and shall not be counted.
Sec. 26. That all ballots cast at the election shall be printed and distributed
at public expense, as herein provided. The printing of ballots and cards of
instruction for the electors, and the delivery of the same to the election officers,
as hereinafter provided, shall be a District charge, the payment of which shall
be provided for in the same manner as the payment of other District expenses.
Sec. 27. That the commissioners shall cause to be printed upon the official
ballots at the election, in the form and manner prescribed by this act, the
names of those candidates who shall have been nominated by petition, as herein
provided.
Secx 28. That all nominations shall be by petition. Each candidate shall be
placed in nomination by the signatures of at least one hundred qualified voters
on a form corresponding in effect to the following: “ We, the undersigned
qualified voters of the District of Columbia, do hereby nominate” (here shall
appear the names of the proposed candidates, together with the designation of
color and sex of each and their respective street addresses) “for membership
on the Board of Education of the District of Columbia.” Then shall follow
the names of the petitioners. All nominating petitions must be filed with the
secretary of the commissioners not less than thirty days prior to the date of
the election. Any petition of nomination not so received shall not be valid.
Sec. 29. That it shall be the duty of the secretary of the Commissioners of the
District to provide ballot boxes, or pouches, printed ballots, duplicate tally
books, and a poll book for each precinct at every direction, and to cause to be
printed on the ballot the name of every candidate who has been nominated in
accordance with this act. Ballots other than those printed by the secretary
of the commissioners, according to the provisions of this act, shall not be cast
or counted in any election. Nothing in this act contained shall prevent any
voter from writing or pasting on his ballot the name of any person for whom
he desires to vote, and such vote shall be counted the same as if printed upon
the ballot and marked by the voter, and any voter may take with him into the
polling place any printed or written memorandum or paper to assist him in
marking or preparing his ballot, except as herein otherwise provided.
Sec. 30. That at all elections held under the provisions of this act the poll
shall be opened at seven o’clock antemeridian and closed at seven o’clock post¬
meridian.
Sec. 31. That the secretary of the commissioners shall cause to be preserved
in his office for six months all petitions of nomination, and they shall be kept
open to public inspection under proper regulations to be made by the com¬
missioners.
Sec. 32. That if at any election hereafter eight hundred or more votes shall
be cast at any voting place, it shall be the duty of the inspector in such pre¬
cinct to report the same to the commissioners, who shall, as soon as practicable,
divide such precinct, so that the new precincts formed thereof shall each con¬
tain approximately an equal number of voters.
Sec. 33. That it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of the District, on
or before July 1, 1920, to prepare all forms necessary to carry out the provisions
of this act, which forms shall be substantially followed in all elections held
in pursuance hereof and shall be printed with copies of this act for public use
and distribution.
Sec. 34. That there shall be a registration of voters prior to the election as
herein provided.
Sec. 35. That it shall be the duty of the Commissioners of the District of Co¬
lumbia immediately upon the taking effect of this act to procure and open for the
registration of voters duplicate poll books for each precinct in the District, and
the secretary of the commissioners shall be the registration officer.
Sec. 36. That such poll books shall at all times, except as herein otherwise
provided, be kept in the office of the secretary of the Commissioners of the Dis-
14
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
trict. It shall be the duty of said secretary as registration officer to register
all qualified electors of the District of Columbia on such pooll books, as herein¬
after provided: Provided, That the commissioners may direct that in all or
certain of the precincts of the District the poll books of such precincts shall be
kept open in such precincts for the registration of the voters thereof at and dur¬
ing such time as they shall designate. It shall be the duty of the commissioners
to designate and publish the time and place where the registration poll book
for each precinct will be open in such precinct for the registration of voters
of such precinct, and to provide for a deputy officer of registration to be at
the place designated to be kept open for the registration of voters qualified to
register, between the hours of nine o’clock antemeridian and nine o’clock and
thirty minutes postmeridian on the days designated in said published notice.
Sec. 37. That it shall be the duty of all qualified voters of the District of
Columbia, after the opening of the books as herein provided, to apply to the
officer of registration, and be registered therein, at such time or times as said
books shall be open for that purpose, as provided in this act; and such reg¬
istration when made, as in this act provided, shall entitle such citizens to
vote in their respective precincts if such citizens are otherwise legally qualified
voters at such election. Such registration shall be prima facie evidence of
the right of such citizens to vote at any election held within two years sub¬
sequent to such registration.
Sec. 38. That it shall be the duty of the officer of registration, upon receipt
of the poll books in this act provided for, to cause to be published a notice
in'two newspapers of general circulation in the District of Columbia, for ten
days, notifying the citizens of the District of Columbia that they can register
at the place or places designated in said notice, and a like notice shall be
published within twenty days after the first Monday in each July preceding
the annual election.
Sec. 39. That the poll books provided for in this act shall be open at the
office of the secretary of the commissioners at all times during the year for the
registration of voters, except that they shall be closed on any day in which
an election shall be held in the District of Columbia, and excepting that they
shall be closed for the purpose of organization during and for the next pre¬
ceding five days prior to any election. The officer of registration shall give
notice of the closing of said books by publication in two newspapers of general
circulation in the District of Columbia not more than ten days nor less than
two days preceding the day of such closing, and such notice of publication
shall have at least two insertions in each of such newspapers.
Sec. 40. That the poll books aforesaid shall be so arranged as to admit the
alphabetical classification of the names of the voters, and ruled in parallel
columns, with appropriate heads as follows: Date of registration; name;
age; occupation; place of residence; place of birth; time of residence in the
District of Columbia and precinct, and, if of foreign birth, name and place of
court where and date when naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and
with column headed “ Signature,” for signature of the voter at the time of
registering, and another and similar column immediately following, headed
“ Identification,” for the signature of the voter in case he be challenged when
he offers to vote, and a column for remarks, and one column for checking the
name of voter at the time of voting. If the voter registering is of foreign
birth, he shall at the time of registering produce satisfactory evidence to the
registration officer that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States. Under
the head of “ Place of residence ” shall be noted the number of lot and block
or street name and number where the applicant resides or some other definite
description sufficient to locate the residence; and the voter so registered as
provided in this section shall sign his name in each of the duplicate poll books
on the registry opposite the entries above required, in the column headed
“ Signature.”
Sec. 41. That no person shall be allowed to vote at any election herein pro¬
vided who is not registered according to the provisions of this act. The regis¬
tration shall not be conclusive evidence of the right of any registered person
to vote, but said person may be challenged and required to establish his right
at the polls in the manner required by this act.
Sec. 42. That the officer of registration is hereby empowered to administer
all necessary oaths in examining an applicant for registration, or any witness
he may offer in his behalf, in order to ascertain his right to be registered
under the provisions of this act; and the said registration officer shall closely
examine any applicant for registration whose right to registration he may
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
15
doubt or who may be callenged, and shall explain the necessary qualifications
of a voter; and if the applicant for registration be entitled to vote at the
next election, he shall be registered, otherwise he shall not.
Sec. 43. That no person shall be registered unless he shall appear in person
before the officer of registration at his office during office hours and apply
to be registered and give his name, age, occupation, number or place of resi¬
dence, place of birth, time of residence in the District , of Columbia, and such
applicant shall make and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
District of Columbia, United States of America, ss:
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I shall be, on the date of the
next election, twenty-one years of age or over; that I am a citizen of the
United States; that I shall have been an actual resident of the District of
Columbia for one year prior to said election and of the - precent thirty
days prior thereto, and I have not lost my civil rights by reason of being con¬
victed of an infamous crime.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this-of
Said affidavit shall be bound in book form and preserved with the other records
of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 44. That if a citizen of the District of Columbia shall, during the year for
which he has been registered, change his residence from one voting precinct in
said District to another voting precinct in said District, he shall apply to the
officer of registration to have said removal noted on said poll books when the
same are open. The officer of registration shall register said person in the voting
precinct to which lie has removed aintadraw a red-ink line across his name in
the precinct book of his former residence, and likewise note the transfer in the
column “ Remarks ” in said poll book.
Sec. 45. That it shall be the duty of the officer of registration, immediately
upon the close of the poll books preceding any election to be held in said Dis¬
trict, to certify to the authenticity of said duplicate poll books and, in time for
the opening of polls as provided by law, to have one of said duplicate poll books
at each of the voting precincts and deliver the same to the inspector or one of
the judges of said election and take his receipt therefor. The other of said
duplicate poll books shall remain in the custody of the said officer of registration.
Sec. 46. That at every election one of the judges of election shall, as each
person registered votes, enter on the said poll book in the check line opposite the
name of such person the word “ voted,” said poll .book to be returned to the
officer of registration after said election and by him preserved.
Sec. 47. That no officer of election shall do any electioneering on election day.
No person shall do any electioneering on election day within any polling place,
or any building in which an election is being held, or within fifty feet thereof,
nor obstruct the doors or entries thereto, or prevent free ingress to and egress
from said building. Any election officer, marshal, or other peace officer is
hereby authorized and empowered, and it is hereby made his duty, to clear the
passageway and prevent such obstruction and to arrest any person creating
such obstruction. No person shall remove any ballot from the polling place
before the closing of the polls. No person shall show his ballot after it is
marked to any person in such a way as to reveal the contents thereof or the
name of any candidate for whom he has marked his vote, nor shall any person
solicit the elector to show the same, nor shall any person, except a judge of
election, receive from any elector a ballot prepared for voting. No elector shall
receive a ballot from any other person than one of the judges of election having
charge of the ballots, nor shall any person other than such inspector or judges
of election deliver a ballot to such elector. No elector shall vote or offer to
vote any ballot except such as he has received from the judges of election having
charge of the ballots. No elector shall place any mark upon his ballot by which
it may afterwards be identified as the one voted by him. Any elector who does
not vote a ballot delivered to him by the judges of election having charge of the
ballots shall, before leaving the polling place, return such ballot to such judge.
Whoever shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof in any court of competent
jurisdiction shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $100.
Sec. 48. That any person who shall falsely make, or make oath to, or fraudu¬
lently deface or fraudulently destroy any election certificate, tally sheet, ballot,
or return, or any part thereof, or suppress the same or forge or falsely make the
83480—22-2
16
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
official indorsement on any ballot, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and
upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished
by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of not less than one year nor
more than five years.
Sec. 49. That any person who shall during the election willfully remove or
destroy any of the supplies or other conveniences placed in the booths or com¬
partments for the purpose of enabling the voter to prepare his ballot, or prior
to or on the day of election willfully deface or destroy any list of candidates
posted in accordance with the provisions of this act, or who shall during an
election tear down or deface the cards printed for the instruction of voters, shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof in any court of
competent jurisdiction shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $100.
Sec. 50. That any public officer upon whom any duty is imposed by this act
who shall willfully do or perform any act or thing herein prohibited, or willfully
neglect or omit to perform any duty as imposed upon him by the provisions of
this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall forfeit his office and shall be punished by imprisonment in the District
Jail or workhouse for a term of not less than one month nor more than six
months or by a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.
Sec. 51. That if any person shall falsely swear or affirm in taking the oath
or making the affirmation for registration prescribed herein, or shall falsely
personate another and procure the person so personated to be registered, or
if any person shall represent his name to the officer of registration to be
different from what it actually is and cause such name to be registered, or if
any person shall cause any name to be placed upon the registry list otherwise
than in the manner provided in this act }> lip shall be deemed guilty of a felony,
and upon conviction be punished by confinement in the penitentiary not more
than five years nor less than one year.
Sec. 52. That if any official shall neglect or refuse to perform any duty relat¬
ing to the registration imposed upon him by this act, or in the manner required
by this act, or shall neglect or refuse to enter upon the performance of any
such duty, or shall enter or cause or permit to be entered on the registry books
the name of any person in any other manner or at any other time than as
prescribed by this act, or shall enter or cause or permit to be entered on such
books the name of any person not entitled to be registered thereon according to
the provisions of this act, or shall destroy, secrete, mutilate, alter, or change
any such registry books, he shall upon conviction be punished by confinement
in the penitentiary not more than five years nor less than one year, and shall
forfeit any office he may then hold.
Sec. 53. That no person shall in any way, directly or indirectly, by menace
or other corrupt means or device, attempt to influence any person in giving or
refusing to give his vote in any election, or to deter or dissuade any person
from giving his vote therein, or to disturb, hinder, persuade, threaten, or
intimidate any person from giving his vote therein, nor shall any person at
any such election knowingly and willfully make any false assertion or propa¬
gate any false report concerning any person who shall be a candidate thereat
with the intention of preventing the election of such candidate, and if any
person shall be guilty of any act forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this
section he shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction
thereof shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion
of the court before which such conviction shall be had: Provided, That in no
case shall such fine exceed the sum of $250 or such imprisonment the term of
six months.
Sec. 54. That any person who shall solicit, request, or demand, directly or
indirectly, any money, or any thing of value, or promise thereof, either to
influence his own vote or to be used, or under the pretense of being used, to
procure or influence the vote of any other person or persons, or to be used at
any poll or other place prior to or on the day of any election under this act,
for or against any candidate for office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and
upon trial and conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$10 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment in the District Jail or workhouse
for not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or by both such tine
and imprisonment.
Sec. 55. That any person who shall forge any name of a person as a. signer
to a nomination paper shall be deemed guilty of forgery, and on conviction shall
be punished accordingly.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
17
Sec. 56. Tliat any person who shall violate any section of this act for which
no. punishment is therein especially provided shall. be deemed guilty of a mis¬
demeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $50 nor
more than $200, or by imprisonment in the District Jail or workhouse for
not less than one nor more than three months, or by both such fine and
impifisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 57. That the act of Congress approved June 20, 1906, entitled “An act
to fix and regulate the salaries of teachers, school officers, and other employees
of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia” (Public Document
Numbered 254) be, and hereby is, amended to conform with this act.
Mr. Glaflin. Just briefly sketching the history of the campaign for a Dele¬
gate in Congress, and that is what I wish to speak about, the Poindexter bill
which is before you for consideration, the District Delegate Association, organ¬
ized to push this campaign, was organized September 28, 1912. The members
of the executive council were Frank J. Hogan, at that time national committee¬
man of the Progressive Party; William McK. Clayton, then president of the
Federation of Citizens’ Associations; John F. Oyster, at that time president of
the Washington Chamber of Commerce; Ellen Spencer Mussey, dean of the
Washington College of Law; and myself, as chairman. We started an active
campaign about that time and built up a representative membership of ap¬
proximately 25,000 citizens. The campaign culminated in the introduction of
the Poindetxer delegate bill, and finally we secured a hearing on that bill in
February, 1916, at which time it was linked with the constitutional amendment
bill. There was a joint hearing held on the two.. A subcommittee of the main
District committee, headed by Senator Pomerene, reported favorably to the
Senate on the bill and urged its passage; that is, the Delegate bill, but made
no report on the constitutional amendment bill. That was the first time since
the present form of government was‘‘established in the District of Columbia
in 1878 that any bill providing suffrage for the District has ever got on the
calendar of either House, and it is the only time.
The Chairman. I understand you are filing a statement on the matter of the
election of the school board.
Mr. Claflin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I should like to ask you a question or two concerning that:
Did they not elect the school board at one time in the District?
Mr. Claflin. Not that I recall. My memory does not go back that far.
The Chairman. I was told that they formerly did.
Mr. Claflin. I never heard that had been the case.
Mr. Henry H. Glassie. I think before the Civil War. It has not been done
under the present organic act at any time since 1878 or before.
The Chairman. I understood they had elected the school board since the war,
during the time those bonds were issued, during that short administration.
Mr. Glassie. 1871 to 1874.
The Chairman. Yes. I understood they elected a school board, and it was
not'at all satisfactory.
Mr. Glassie. It must have been prior to the present organic act.
The Chairman. It was, and the reorganization followed after that.
Mr. A. E. Seymour (secretary of the Washington Chamber of Commerce). It
was just prior to that. I think it was between 1874 and 1878.
The Chairman. I just wanted to know if you knew anything concerning that.
Mr. Claflin. There were other features of the established form of govern¬
ment at that-time which were not desirable, but that does not mean by having
an elective board in the District now it would be in any way unsatisfactory.
The government of about 1874, which put the District into bankruptcy, had, for
instance, as a part of the government, a Territorial Delegate, but because that
government was not successful is no argument against a Territorial Delegate,
because I think that was one of the redeeming features of that form of govern¬
ment, and it was not because of the Delegate that it was an unsuccessful
attempt.
Going back to the fact that the Poindexter Delegate bill was reported favor¬
ably to the Senate by Senator Pomerene, and its passage urgently requested,
the bill was on the calendar but did not come to a vote. After that time and
during the last five years we have allowed our campaign for a Delegate-to be
eclipsed by the campaign for a constitutional amendment. During those five
years it has not been clearly demonstrated that it is possible to secure the
passage of a bill providing for a constitutional amendment, giving the District
18
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
of Columbia full statehood rights; that is, a voting delegation in the House
and one or two Senators. However, in my opinion, it has been demonstrated
that you can not get such legislation. Therefore, I think the time is ripe that
we should push something practical, something that we can get, something
Congress is willing to give us.
Now, some of the fundamental reasons why the District of Columbia ought
to be represented in the House of Representatives are that, first, it is right, it is
just, it is logical, it is expedient, and above all, it is American. I do not wish
to take your time t;o expand on these arguments for myself, but I will ask
leave to read quotations from men whose opinions are much more weighty
than my own. I will quote from Presidents of the United States, from Senators,
from Representatives, from other officials of the Government, from prominent
and leading local citizens, and from men from other States, showing that the
sentiment for a proposition of this kind is universal, and that those opinions
are not confined to the present day, but they go back over a period of 100 years.
VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENTS.
The first President to discuss formally the political status of the District was
Monroe, who, in his message of 1818, said:
“ By the Constitution the power of legislation is exclusively in the Congress
of the United States. In the exercise of this power, in which the people have
no participation, Congress legislates in all cases directly on the local concerns
of the District. As this is a departure from a special purpose from the general
principles of our system, it may merit consideration whether an arrangement
better adapted to the principles of our Government and to the particular
interests of the people may not be devised which will neither infringe ibe
Constitution nor affect the object which the provision in question was intended
to secure.”
Thus in 1818 President Monroe suggested as alternatives either a separate
legislature for the District or some device under which the District should be
represented in Congress.
In 1818 Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria were enjoying, by the
grace of Congress, municipal “ self-government.” Washington, for instance,
elected city councils, who elected a mayor. Nonparticipation by the people in
the congressional power of exclusive legislation was the “ departure from the
general principles ” of the American system, of which Monroe suggested a
correction.
Andrew Jackson was the first President to urge specifically the election by
the District of a Territorial Delegate in Congress. He made this recommenda¬
tion in 1830, and repeated and enlarged it in 1831 and 1835. In 1831 he said:
“ It was doubtless wise in the framers of our Constitution to place the people
of this District under the jurisdiction of the General Government. But to
accomplish the objects they had in view it is not necessary that this people
should be deprived of all the privileges of self-government. Independently of
the difficulty of inducing the Representatives of distant States to turn their
attention to projects of laws which are not of the highest interests to their
constituents, they are not individually nor in Congress collectively well qualified
to legislate over the local concerns of this District. Consequently its interests
are much neglected and the people are almost afraid to present their grievances
lest a body in which they are not represented, and which feels little sympathy in
their local relations, should, in its attempts to make laws for them, do more
harm than good. * * * Is it not just to allow them at least a Delegate to
Congress if not a local legislature to make laws for the District subject to the
approval or rejection of Congress? I earnestly recommend the extension to
them of every political right which their interests require and which may be
compatible with the Constitution.”
President William Henry Harrison in 1841 discussed the political status of
the District sympathetically and earnestly, saying:
“Are there indeed citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of their
subject in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by
any agency of mine. The people of the District of Columbia are not the sub¬
jects of the people of the United States, but free American citizens. Being in
the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no words used in that
instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character. If
there is anything in the great principle of inalienable rights so emphatically
insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
19
nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberty and become the
subjects—in other words, the slaves—<of their former fellow citizens. If this
be true—and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea of
his own right as an American citizen—the grant to Congress of exclusive
jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be interpreted as far as respects
the aggregate people of the United States as meaning nothing more than to
allow the Congress the controlling power necessary to accord a free and safe
exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by the Con¬
stitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted
by their peculiar position and wants and be comformable with their deliberate
opinions of their own interests.”
. President Andrew Johnson repeated in 1866 Jackson’s recommendation of a
Territorial Delegate in Congress, saying:
“ Our fellow citizens residing in the District, whose interests are thus con¬
fided to the special guardianship of Congress, exceed in number the population
of several of our Territories, and no just reason is perceived why a Delegate
of their choice should not be admitted to a seat in the House of Representa¬
tives. No move seems so appropriate and effectual of enabling them to make
known their peculiar condition and wants and of securing the local legislation
adapted to them. I therefore recommend the passage of a law authorizing the
electors of the District of Columbia to choose a Delegate, to be allowed the
same rights and privileges as a Delegate representing a Territory.”
President Abraham Lincoln said :
“ I am opposed to the limitation or lessening of the right of suffrage. If
anything, I am in favor of its extension or enlargement. I want to lift men
up, to broaden rather than contract their privileges.”
Permit me to quote the late Senator Jacob H. Gallinger, former chairman
of the Senate District Committee, on the proposition for a District Delegate.
This is from an interview published in the local papers in December, 1912. In
addition to promising his support for the proposition he said:
“I firmly believe that more responsibility should be placed upon the people
of the District of Columbia. The form of government here is absolutely un¬
republican. It seemed so strange when I had studied in my history from youth
up that the Revolutionary War was fought over the false principle of taxation
without representation and then to come to Washington over a hundred years
after that great struggle to find the very same principle existing at the very
heart of the great Republic.
“ I have always felt that an unjust situation exists here, and that it ought
to be corrected. Aside from the principle of the thing, I can see many ad¬
vantages the people of the District will enjoy through having a Delegate to
represent them in the body that governs them.”
I will say that Senator Gallinger kindly offered his services in preparing the
bill to provide a Delegate, with an offer also to introduce it. Senator Poin¬
dexter, however, drew up the present bill in its entirety, after very careful
study.
From the Washington Times of June 1, 1920, I quote the following:
“ Senator Boies Penrose, of Pennsylvania, favors giving the people of the
District of Columbia a Delegate in the House of Representatives and one vote
in the electoral college for President and Vice President.
“ ‘ I shall be much interested in examining any plans for national representa¬
tion,’ he added, ‘ but I do not favor the proposition to give the people here two
United States Senators and a Member of the House of Representatives. They
are, however, entitled to a Delegate in Congress and a vote for President.’ ”
I also quote the views, in part., of Senator Weeks, expressed in connection
with the report of the joint select committee investigating the fiscal relations
of the District four years ago:
“ It is unjust and un-American to deny the franchise to any citizen having
the requisite qualifications of a voter. * * * I submit, too, that as the
District is governed by Congress the people should have some representation
or representatives in that body.”
One of the first Members of the Congress from whom we secured an inter¬
view for publication was Senator Chamberlain, of Oregon, who later intro¬
duced the resolution for a constitutional amendment providing statehood for
the District. I had a long talk with Mr. Chamberlain in his office and he de¬
clared very emphatically in favor of a Delegate representing the District in
the House.
20
SUFFRAGE IX THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
At a joint hearing on the Poindexter Delegate bill and on h’s bill for a
constitutional amendment Senator Chamberlain made the following statement:
“ I do not see why a Delegate might not be selected to sit in an advisory
capacity in the Senate; but in any event I do not oppose the election of a
Delegate to the House. * * * I think it would be well that the District
should be represented until the constitutional amendment has been submitted.
I do not think there would be any question about the House. * * * Of
course, as to a Delegate, he can not vote. He is a voteless individual; he has
not much voice in things, but he can at least advise the body in relation to
the legislation needed by the District, and keep the people informed. I think
they ought to have a Delegate.”
I will quote also from the remarks of a prominent member of the Senate
Committed on the District of Columbia, made in a rousing speech which he
delivered before the Washington Chamber of Commerce on October 14, 1913.
In part he said:
“ It’s a wonder to me you people don’t rise up and demand a vote. Prior to
1776 there was a little tea party in Boston Harbor. Every one throughout
this country has profited by this save the people of the District of Columbia
and the women of the land. There can be no excuse for the people of Wash¬
ington not voting. The District should be granted a Delegate to Congress.
“ It is strange that in Washington, the Capital of the greatest Republic
known to history, and it being in our Constitution that none shall be deprived
of the right to vote becausee of coor or previous condition of servitude, the
people should be deprived of the privilege to vote.
“ I do not know what pearls of wisdom dropped from the lips of the states¬
men who voted to take away this right, but I think in view of the calcium
light of present enlightenment that they must have been pearls of paste. No¬
where else under the Stars and Stripes does taxation without representation
exist.”
Senator Capper. Could you give the name of the author of that?
Mr. Clafein. That was Senator Pomerene.
Statement of Senator Miles Poindexter, author and sponsor for the present
Delegate bill now under consideration. The following is a part of a statement
published in a local newspaper on September 4, 1913:
“ The District Delegate bill should be enacted for two general reasons: First,
in order that the inhabitants of the District may have the right to choose some
one to represent them in legislation which so vitally concerns them; and sec¬
ond, in order that Representatives may be relieved to some extent of the
burden and responsibility of taking care of local District matters. As the
situation now is, Congress has a good deal of its time taken up sitting in the
capacity of a city council for the City of Washington. With the interests of
their own constituents to look after, even the members of the District com¬
mittees of the House and Senate can scarcely be expected to give the requisite
time and attention which the present arrangement calls for to District matters.
“ Of course, in a sense the government of the District is a national concern,
in which all Congressmen might well have a responsibility and interest. How¬
ever, the Government of the District also involves a vast number of matters
which are largely of local and in a very slight sense of national concern. There
should by all means be a special Delegate, whose chief concern and responsi¬
bility would be to study these questions and present them properly in the
House of Representatives. It would be a relief to the rest of the country by
freeing Congress in general from the anomalous situation of being called upon
to decide upon so many questions which it is no one’s special business to
take care of.
“ In their own interests and in the interests of the rest of the Nation, the
people of the District should have a voice in their own government. If they
do not desire it they should be required to have it and to exercise the responsi¬
bility which it will entail upon them. I am satisfied, however, that they do
desire it. This bill proposes only to give them a voice n Congress; whether or
not they shall have a vote there may be reserved for future considerations.
“ This bill, while it only authorizes the election of a Delegate in Congress,
contains complete election machinery, so that if hereafter it should be decided
to extend the political privileges of the District the election machinery will
be already provided therefor.”
A further statement of Senator Miles Poindexter before a subcommittee
of the Senate District committee in a hearing on the Delegate bill, Febru¬
ary 29, 1916:
SUFFRAGE 1ST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
21
“ Furthermore, Mr. Chairman and Senators, it is not only in the interests of
the.people of the District and of the United States, in order to take away from
them the example of a people of their own race being governed without their
consent, without participation in the Government, but there is a practical
reason in promoting the work of Congress. More business is transacted by
Congress in dealing with the special affairs of the District of Columbia than
with the special measures of any State in the'Union or of any half dozen States
put together.
“ The Committees on the District of Columbia in both Houses are among the
very greatest committees in Congress. The questions which they deal with
require as much study, though they relate only to the District of Columbia, as
the questions relating to the great national and international affairs on which
Congress has to act. Yet there is no one here in either branch of Congress who
is so situated as to be relieved of the duties which he owes to his constituents
at home, or to his State if he is a Senator, so that he can devote his entire
time to make himself a specialist in studying and working in matters that
relate only to the District of Columbia. For that reason there ought to be a
Delegate in Congress from the District whose service of the District would not
be merely an incident to his service of another constituency.
“We can depend upon the citizenship of the District of Columbia to.elect a
man, I presume, I hope, I think, I know, who would represent their views and
their interests in Congress in the work which he would do, though he may not
have a vote; and one vote in the House of Representatives, even though he had
it—and that is all he would have if he were a Member—is very seldom a deter¬
mining influence. Far more than the vote are the voice and the labor of the
chosen Representatives of the people.”
Statement of Representative John H. Rothermel, of Pennsylvania, published
August 30, 1913:
“ I have seen the business interests of the District attacked on the floor of
the House until it looked to me to be a deplorable fact that the citizens of this
city were not represented there.
“ The Members of the House are too busy attending to their constituents to
bother with the needs of the people of the District of Columbia. Therefore these
people should have a Representative in each body of Congress—one at least—
and these Representatives should shape and mold legislation when Congress is
not in session.
“ I have more than 325,000 people in the district which I represent, and all of
these are for the sentiments I have expressed. They are true Americans back
there in Lehigh Valley.”
Statement of the late Champ Clark in a speech before the House of Repre¬
sentatives delivered on April 6, 1900, when the question of whether Hawaii
should have a Delegate in the House was being discussed. Mr. Clark said he
thought that the District of Columbia also should have a Delegate. After
remarking that Congress sat on designated days as a common council for the
city of Washington, with Members generally “ ignorant of the wants of the
people and the proper relation of one thing to another,” Mr. Clark said:
“ The fact that under the shadow of the Nation’s Capitol 300,000 American
citizens are completely disfranchised, not permitted to vote on any proposition
under the sun, are reduced to the low estate of being the Nation’s wards, have
no more voice in the Government under which they live than have the inhabit¬
ants of Africa, is the saddest commentary to be found anywhere on the theory
of representative government.”
In a debate in the House December, 1800, Representative Smilie said:
“ Not a man in the District would be represented in the Government, whereas
every man who contributed to the support of a government ought to be repre¬
sented in it; otherwise his natural rights were subverted and he was left not a
citizen but a slave. It was a right which this country, when under subjection to
Great Britain, thought worth making a resolute struggle for and evinced a
determination to perish rather than not enjoy.”
In 1803 the “ unrepublican ” condition of the District was again a matter of
comment and it was proposed to recede to Maryland and Virginia jurisdiction
over the parts of the District originally ceded by them. John Randolph, jr.,
in February of that year, said in the House:
“ I could wish, indeed, to see the people within this District restored to their
rights. This species of government is an experiment how far freemen can be
reconciled to live without rights; an experiment dangerous to the liberties of
these States.”
22
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Statement of James Wickersham, Delegate from Alaska, in an interview pub¬
lished August 10, 1913:
“ It is amazing that the District of Columbia, with nearly 400,000 highly edu¬
cated inhabitants, has been refused representation in Congress when there are
at least six States in the Union with a less population, less wealth, and that
pay less taxes and have no more reason for representation than this District
of Columbia. But each enjoys full representation in the House of -Represen¬
tatives as well as in the Senate.
“Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1867, but the first Delegate
was not elected until 1906. Prior to 1906 the Territory had received no bene¬
ficial legislation in aid of the development of her resources or government by
the people there. Since that date there has been a greater material develop¬
ment in Alaska than in all the preceding 40 years.
“ No American community ought to be compelled to exist for so many years
without representation in Congress. It is illogical in the first place and an
injustice in the second place, to say nothing of the inconvenience to the people
who are thus excommunicated from the enjoyment of their American birth¬
right—participation in their own governmental affairs.
“ I feel most emphatically that the bill designed to grant this long-delayed
representation of the District of Columbia in the National Legislature should
be passed by Congress without delay.”
Later, when asked his opinion as to Whether he considered his effectiveness
as Delegate from Alaska would be strengthened by his having a vote as do the
Representatives from the States, he declared that, on the contrary, he believed
his usefulness was greater through not having a vote. “ I find it a great ad¬
vantage,” he said, “ not to be required to be a partisan at critical times; not
to be required to line up with any particular group and thereby incur antago¬
nism from other groups. Furthermore, my not being required to study all
general matters of legislation coming up for a vote in the House gives me a
great deal more time to devote to the particular interests of Alaska.”
Statement of Representative C. O. Lobeck, of Nebraska, in a speech at a
meeting of local citizens at the Ebbitt House, November 26, 1913:
“ The District of Columbia is sorely handicapped by reason of the fact that
it has no representative in Congress to look after the interests of the people
here.”
The “ cow-boy mayor ” of Omaha, James Dahlman, was present on the same
occasion and declared:
“ I am tempted to come to Washington myself and join you in the fight for
suffrage.”
Statement of William C. Redfield, then Secretary of the Department of Com¬
merce, at an annual meeting of the Associated Charities at Rauscher’s, Decem¬
ber 2, 1913:
“ From a governmental standpoint, I look upon the District of Columbia as
a curiosity. In my home city of Brooklyn, N. Y., we make the commissioner
of charities do as we want him to do because we are governed by a people
whom we select.
“We are governed there by those who are of us. In the District it is quite
different. The men who govern you are not of you. Suppose one of you were
to be sent 3,000 miles across the country and were there asked to make wise
decisions on various subjects for that community, and then to take care of your
home town, in addition to looking after the affairs of the Nation as a whole.
The whole problem is one amusingly ridiculous as far as its responsibilities
are concerned. But you have the right to appeal to the peculiar sense of
honor of those who have charge of this great and growing city.”
Statement of Joseph W. Folk, former governor of Missouri, then chief coun¬
selor for the Interstate Commerce Commission, made in a speech at a meeting
at the Ebbitt House on April 13, 1914:
“ Washington should be made a model for all America, not only in civic
playgrounds, etc., but in the government by the people. If it be said that the
experiment were tried in years gone by and resulted in corruption, the answer
is that all the large cities of the country were venal in their governments at
this time. The people everywhere have been awakened since then. They have
come to realize that where they have the ballot, they can make the government
of the city and of the State just as good as they wish to make it, or just as
bad as they permit it to become.
“ There should not be any place in the United States where the people are
subjects rather than citizens. Above all, the Capital City itself should not be
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
23
denied the privilege of American citizenship and be kept in ignorance of
American ideals, a knowledge of which can only come through the exercise of
the ballot according to a freeman’s will.”
Statement of John Burke, former governor of North Dakota, and then Treas¬
urer of the United States, on the same occasion:
“We have heard speeches here on equal rights and equal privileges. It
seems you have not equal rights of others you are deprived of the right of
suffrage. I believe that what makes better citizens is giving the individual
more responsibility. What reason has a man to respect the law when he is
denied a part in making the law?”
Statement of William F. Gude, prominent local business man and civic
worker, then president of the Washington Chamber of Commerce, now a mem¬
ber of the District Rent Commission:
“ I am for a District delegate, because it would give justice to all concerned.
The District is like an orphan and is not treated with the consideration that
it deserves as the seat of the National Capital. This is so not because Con¬
gress does not want to do better by the District but because of a lack of a
thorough understanding.
“ Members of Congress need some one to keep them properly in touch with
the needs of the District.
“ There are plenty of cases on record where Congressmen actually have lost
their seats because of the time they have taken from their constituents’ interests
to look out for District matters. It has been necessary for some one to do this,
owing to the lack of a District delegate.
“ If we had a delegate in Congress to officially represent our interest, he would
be responsible for attending to local matters in Congress, and it would be his
business to get matters in their proper shape for presentation to that body.”
Statement of Mrs. Mary E. Brown, a member of the committee of the
W. C. T. U. appointed to cooperate with the District Delegate Association, con¬
tained in a letter written to the Senate District Committee, February 25, 1914:
“ Being a property holder and a taxpayer of the District of Columbia, also rep¬
resenting about 800 women of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, I urge
your most honorable body to a favorable action on the Poindexter bill, which
provides for the election of District delegate. We feel the urgent need of a rep¬
resentative in Congress to present our needs.”
Statement of Ross P. Andrews, prominent District merchant and civic
worker, then president of the Retail Merchants’ Association, published in the
Evening Star, September 4, 1913:
“ I am emphatically in favor of a delegate in Congress representing the Dis¬
trict of Columbia. I •think it takes nerve to ask any man elected to serve in
interests, for instance, of Minnesota, to devote his time to the consideration of
District of Columbia affairs. A personal friend of mine on the District Com¬
mittee says that while he appreciates his obligation of serving the National
Capital and all that, at the same time his constituents look to him to serve the
interests of those who elected him. They say to him, ‘ Why do you spend your
time on the affairs of Washington City? We want you to look out for us.’ This
Member of Congress came near to being defeated on account of his zeal for Dis¬
trict affairs. My experience has been that this is the universal sentiment in
Congress.
“ It is an inconsistent situation that allows this community no right to par¬
ticipate in-the discussion of legislation for its own government, and I am heartily
in favor of the effeorts of the District Delegates’ Association to secure this much-
needed representation.
“ I think all organizations of the District should follow the example of the
Federation of Citizens’ Associations in indorsing the proposition and giving their
assistance to this worthy campaign.”
I would like to say that the Federation of Citizens’ Associations, which repre¬
sents practically all the citizens’ associations of the city, 20 or 25 at that time,
voted unanimously in favor of the delegate bill.
The Chairman. How many did you have present when that vote was taken?
Mr. Claflin. Can Mr. Clayton answer that question?
Mr. William McK. Clayton. In the federation there are 38 associations.
Senator Sheppard. How many were present when the vote was taken?
The Chairman. You may have a unanimous vote when there are only one or
two persons present.
Mr. Claflin. Mr. Clayton presided at the meeting.
24 SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
fc
Mr. Clayton. At that time there were three questions presented to the federa¬
tion. All of the associations were not represented there. There were three propo¬
sitions presented at that meeting: First, the local self-government feature, town
council, sponsored by a few; and, second, the delegate proposition. When put
to a vote the local self-government proposition failed, I think having two or
three votes. The delegate proposition, as I remember, passed unanimously.
The Chairman. I want to know whether it was a representative meeting or a
meeting of only a few people.
Mr. Clayton. Thoroughly representative. It was a regular meeting of the
federation.
The Chairman. Were there 50 people there?
Mr. Clayton. At that, time we only had one delegate from each citizens’
association.
The Chairman. Were all these delegates present from these associations?
Mr. Clayton. All were present that were usually present. It was a thoroughly
representative meeting, and there was no effort to do anything but what was
square and honest in taking the vote. The federation also is in favor of national
representation and stands solidly back of that.
Mr. Claflin. The date on which the action was taken by the federation was
at a meeting on August 30, 1913. In view of the fact that the suffrage ques¬
tion was a live issue, the meeting of the federation was unusually well at¬
tended.
Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Claflin is speaking of one meeting and
Mr. Clayton is speaking of an entirely different meeting. The meeting Mr.
Claflin is speaking of was held in 1913, and the meeting Mr. Clayton is speaking
of was held in 1921. Is not that right?
Mr. Clayton. No. I made myself very plain. It was unanimously for the
delegate proposition. I can not give those dates.
Mr. Lloyd. He says it was in 1913. Is that the meeting to which you refer?
Mr. Clayton. Yes.
Mr. Claflin. Statement of Ellen Spencer Mussey, then dean of the Washing¬
ton College of Law, formerly vice president* of the Washington Board of Edu¬
cation. In a letter to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, in
February, 1914, advocating a favorable report to the Senate on the Poindexter
delegate bill, Mrs. Mussey said in part:
“ I have been a resident of the District for 40 years and actively interested
in all that concerns the welfare of the people. It is my belief that no community
of equal intelligence in the United States ever suffered so much from mis¬
representation as have the citizens of the District.”
Mrs. Mussey in her letter then discusses how her experience as a member
of the local board of education thoroughly convinced her of the need of a
delegate from the District on the floor of the House of Representatives.
The Chairman. You say “ nlisrepresentation ” or “ misgovernment.” She does
not give any specific forms of misgovernment. Does she mean to imply that the
District of Columbia is not as well governed as other cities?
Mr. Claflin. I don’t think that is what she had in mind at all, for I know
she has the highest respect for the government of the District of Columbia.
The Chairman. I wanted to get an idea whether it was a satisfactory plan,
whether the plan itself was condemned or whether the government itself was
unsatisfactory.
Mr. Claflin. The real point which she felt strongly at that time was that we
did not have national representation. What she meant by “ misrepresentation ”
was the fact that at times Members on the floor of Congress made statements
concerning District affairs of which they were not well informed, and if we had
had a. delegate that delegate could have supplied that information. There have
been hundreds of instances of that kind.
Mr. Ayres. Is the gentleman speaking with authority or is this just his
opinion as to what she meant?
Mr. Claflin. It is my opinion, based on a pretty good knowledge of her
ideas.
The Chairman. The reason I asked the question is that the committee wants
to know where the charge is made that the District of Columbia is not a good
government, that the people are not .as well governed as they are in other com¬
munities, or whether the charge is entirely based upon the fact that the people
are dissatisfied because they do not have a part in that government. If you
have a bad government, that ought to be shown here, it ought to be brought
out; but if you are as well governed as other cities, and you are dissatisfied
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 25
merely because you are not given the right to vote, we want to know that. We
want to know which one of those is uppermost in your mind.
Mr. Claflin. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no information to
present to the committee to show that the present form of government is not
satisfactory.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr.' Chairman, I think I can speak as well for Mrs.
Mussey in this matter as the speaker who has just addressed the committee.
Mrs. Mussey is in hearty support of the position we take, namely, for a con¬
stitutional amendment. Mrs. Mussey has never, so far as I know, and T
know her well, taken the position that the city of Washington is not well gov¬
erned. Her theory is entirely one that we are taxed without representation.
Mr. Claflin. Statement of Frank J. Hogan, prominent local attorney, pub¬
lished August 8, 1918:
“ The government and citizens of the National Capital are at present with¬
out a voice respecting matters of the most vital importance that come con¬
tinually before the body that legislates for this helpless community.-
“A delegate in Congress—a man thoroughly familiar and in sympathy with
District affairs—would be of inestimable aid in protecting local officials from
the inconvenience and possible embarrassment of appearing before committees
of investigation.
“ He would be in ai position to give Congress all the information desired
and thus make formal investigations unnecessary.
“ I think the Poindexter delegate bill is admirable. It is fair and just in its
treatment in every issue and should meet with the approbation of every true
and loyal citizen of the District.”
Statement of Joseph P. Annin, newspaper writer, in an article published in
the Washington Herald, March 31, 1913:
“ Sentiment in favor of a delegate from the District to Congress has grown
rapidly since District affairs began to require more than the usual amount
of individual thought from the national legislators. It is a peculiar anomaly
that a Territory the size of the District embracing a population as great as
that of many States at the time of their entry into the Union, should be with¬
out a voice on the floor of the House, while distant territories, populated by
alien races, at best not many generations removed from the savage, should be
granted privileges denied the residents at a Nation’s capital. The Philippine
Islands have two elected resident commissioners; Porto Rico has one com¬
missioner; Alaska and Hawaii each has a delegate. The need of such a voice
in the House is felt by all who have been called upon to pass on District mat¬
ters, a»d if such a bill could be brought to the calendar of the House, it
would be assured of early and favorable action, if properly framed.”
Statement of Capt. James F. Oyster, now one of the Commissioners of the
District, formerly president of the board of education, then president of the
Washington Chamber of Commerce, at a meeting of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America on September 16, 1912:
“ Congressmen give us very little attention here in the District because we
have no vote. We are taxpayers without representation. We have a form
of government that is very agreeable, but the District commissioners have not
enough power. We should have a representative on the floor of the House to
tell the Members our needs.”
A later statement of Capt. Oyster in an interview published August 7, 1913:
“ I am heartily in favor of the District being represented in Congress by a
Delegate. The more I have thought about it the more positive I am that it
would be an excellent thing for the District. Members of Congress, I believe,
would take more interest in local legislation and committees would be more
active in handling matters pertaining to the District.
“ This bill, introduced by Senator Poindexter, makes careful provision for
the qualification of voters, which I consider to be wise, and the bill goes into
the general subject very much in detail.
“ The District has long needed an official representative in Congress, one to
whom the people as a whole may look for presenting the views and sentiments
of the community in matters affecting them, and I believe this bill to be the
one that will most satisfactorily provide for this representation.”
The Chairman. At the beginning of the hearing I stated that the Jones bill
would also be considered during this hearing. We afterwards found it had
been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and I then stated that it would
not be considered at this time. Senator Jones thinks it should have been
referred to this committee. He has now gone into the Senate to have the - refer-
26
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
ence changed from the Judiciary Committee to this committee, so the scope of
this hearing will cover that bill as well as the other.
Mr. Claflin. May I ask what that bill covers?
The Chairman. That provides for a constitutional amendment.
Mr. Brandenburg. May I speak for this side?
The Chairman. I just wanted to make the statement that those who wish
to speak for complete statehood will have the right to do so. Otherwise it
would not be presented at this hearing.
Mr. Claflin. I will quote also an editorial in the Evening Star in support
of our Delegate proposition. The editorial appeared in the issue of October 24,
1913, and in part is as follows:
“ The strongest argument for a Delegate is found in present conditions,
which suggest that through the hurtful activities of certain of the legislators
whom the American people have chosen to represent the District in Congress
the financial relations between Capital and Nation are already as disturbed
and chaotic as they can be; that real representation in Congress, though desir¬
able and equitable, can not at this time be secured; and that it is possible at
this time to win for the District a Territorial Delegate who may serve a useful
purpose in any event and may help to real representation in Congress.
“ The Star is in sympathy with the District’s appeal for increased repre¬
sentation in its government and for protection in the feeble, indirect repre¬
sentation which it now has. It believes Washington entitled to every political
privilege consistent with full legislative and executive control of the Capital
by the Nation. It believes that the local community should be treated as an
integral part of the Nation in exercising this control. While it feels that
Washington should ask full representation so far as Congress is concerned
and be satisfied with nothing less, if the community after due deliberation
shall be disposed to try again the experiment of a voteless Delegate the District’s
wish in this respect should, in the Star’s opinion, be met by Congress, and the
Star will cooperate heartily to this end.”
We feel that it has been fairly shown that the people of the District of Co¬
lumbia want a Delegate. It is almost impossible to find anyone who is not in
favor of representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. However, a
good many people feel that w T e ought to have full statehood, voting representa¬
tion, Senators, and so on, but they do not realize in taking that position that it
is a very difficult thing to get. They do no stop to realize that it will require
a good many years to secure a constitutional amendment. However, when you
discuss it with them on that basis they invariably say they believe .we should
have a Delegate at once to represent us during the 8 or 10 years it mrght re¬
quire to get through a constitutional amendment.
Senator Capper, You favor the Delegate plan ?
Mr. Claflin. Yes, sir.
Senator Capper. Is that as far as you go now?
Mr. Claflin. I think that is as far as we can go now.
Mr. John Joy Edson. You are in favor of a constitutional amendment, are-
you not?
Mr. Claflin. We always have been, but do not believe it practical to push
that at this time. I feel, and my opinion is based on some definite information,,
that there is not a majority of the Senate nor in the House that will vote for a
constitutional amendment, but that there is a very strong sentiment, in fact,
what you might call an overwhelming sentiment in both Houses for the granting
of a Delegate to the District of Columbia. Therefore, while I would like to see
the District get as full representation as possible, I believe it is entirely feasible
and expedient to take the Delegate at the present time, if we can get it.
Senator Sheppard. How do you propose to select a Delegate?
Mr. Claflin. By popular election.
I desire to read the report which the subcommittee of the Senate District
Committee made in presenting to the Senate for favorable consideration, the
Poindexter Delegate bill.
Senator Capper. What year was that?
Mr. Claflin. That was in 1916. The report was made to the Senate on
May 15, 1916, and placed on the calendar.
The Chairman. In discussing this matter it would help the committee very
much if those discussing it could give us the character of the administration at
the different times, when you had a mayor that you elected yourselves, when
you had a local government that was the result of your own vote. We would
like to have you give the character of that government. What this committee-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
27
wants is to give the District of Columbia the best government we can. Whether
it is to give you a District Delegate, or whatever it is, we want to do it, but we
want to give you the best government we can, and we must be governed some¬
what in our own opinions by the result of the trial of the former governments.
Mr. Claflin. I understand other speakers will cover that phase of the subject.
The Chairman. I just called attention to the fact that I think you can help
us very much if you will do that.
Mr. Claflin. I think that is a logical proposition.
I wish now to read the report made by Senator Pomerene and the subcom¬
mittee on the Poindexter bill:
[Senate report No. 443, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.]
The Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate reports favorably
upon Senate bill 681, and recommends its passage with the amendments therein
indicated.
The bill as presented by Senator Poindexter provides for—
(a-) The nomination and election of a Delegate to the House of Representa¬
tives from the District of Columbia, and defines his powers and privileges.
(&) A presidential primary.
(c) The election of delegates to the national presidential conventions.
( d ) The necessary election machinery for said purposes.
(e) Prescribes the qualifications of electors.
The bill as favorably reported eliminates the provisions relating to the
presidential primary and the election of delegates to the national presidential
conventions. As amended and approved by the committee, it authorizes (a)
the nomination and election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives and
defines his powers and privileges; ( b ) the necessary election machinery; and
(e) prescribes the qualifications of electors in the District. Under this bill, the
Delegate is given the same powers and privileges and is entitled to the same
rate of compensation as the Delegates in the House of Representatives from
the Territories of the United States.
The committee decided to strike out the provisions of the bill relating to a
presidential primary and the election of delegates to the national presidential
conventions, because waiving the differences of opinion as to the policy of such
legislation, the members believed it would be impossible to pass this bill so as
to make it effective for the coming presidential conventions. If the pending
bill should be passed the election machinery will be provided and it will be a
comparatively simple matter, later, to provide for the presidential preference
primary and the election of delegates to the national presidential conventions.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Under the Constitution Congress exercises “ exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever of such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession
of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the
Government of the United States.”
On July 16, 1790, the Congress accepted from Maryland and Virginia the
District of Columbia, and it was provided that “ the operation of the laws of
the State within such District shall not be affected by this acceptance until
the time fixed for the removal of the Government thereto and until Congress
•shall otherwise, by law, provide.” Under this act, and for 10 years thereafter,
the territory ceded by Maryland was subject to Maryland-made laws and that
ceded by Virginia to Virginia-made law.
On February 27, 1801, Congress again declared that the laws of Maryland
should continue in force in that portion of the District ceded by Maryland and
the laws of Virginia in that portion of the District ceded by Virginia.
On May 3, 1802, the city of Washington was incorporated. Under this act,
a council of 12 members was created to be elected annually by ballot by the
free white male inhabitants of full age. The 12 councilors thus elected chose
from their number 5 members to form a second chamber. The mayor was
appointed by the President of the United States. He in turn appointed all
other officers of the corporation. Ordinances passed by the council were sub¬
ject to the approval of the mayor, but could be reconsidered and passed over
his veto by three-fourths vote of the two branches of the city council.
In 1804, this system was so changed as to provide for two chambers in the
city council, of nine members each, elected annually.
28
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
In 1812, the character was again amended so that the corporation was com¬
posed of a mayor and board of aldermen and a board of common council. The
board of aldermen had eight members elected for a term of two years, two
from each of the four wards, one-half retiring each year. Theboard of common
council had 12 members, 3 from each ward, elected: annually. The mayor
was annually elected by the joint ballot of the common council and the board
of aldermen. The franchise was restricted to white male citizens .who were
taxpayers.
In 1820, a new charter was provided, to remain in force for 20 years, or until
Congress should otherwise provide. The most important change made in the
city government was the election of a mayor biennially by popular vote. With
slight changes, this charter continued until 1848, when it was again amended
and renewed for another period of 20 years.
By the act of 1848, other offices were made elective and suffrage was extended
to all free white males of 21 years of age who were subject to and had'paid
their taxes.
In August, 1861, Congress passed an act combining the cities of Washington
and Georgetown and the county of Washington into a “Metropolitan police
district.” Five commissioners of police, appointed by the President of the-
United States for a term of three years, together with the mayors of George¬
town and Washington, formed the board of police commissioners, to which
was given entire control of the police force of the District of Columbia.
On January 8, 1867, the right to vote at elections in the District of Columbia
was extended so that all male persons above the age of 21 years should have
the right to vote in the District, without distinction on account of color or race.
In 1868, with slight changes, the charter was again extended for one year and
later, until 1871, when the city of Washington was merged with the other parts
of the District of Columbia.
On February 21, 1871, the government of the District was reorganized in a
way similar to that provided for the Territories of the United States. The
executive power was plac.ed in a governor appointed by the President and con¬
firmed by the Senate. The legislative power was vested in a legislative as¬
sembly composed of a council and the house of delegates. The council had 11
members appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. The
house of delegates was composed of 22 members elected annually. The governor
was given the right of veto, which could be overruled by a two-thirds vote of all
the members of the council and the house of delegates. The right of suffrage
was exercised by all male citizens over 21 years of age. The legislative power
of the District extended “ to all rightful subjects of legislation within said Dis¬
trict, consistent with the Constitution of the United States,” and the provisions of
the act of February 21, 1871, subject, however, to certain limitations contained
in the act itself and all the acts of the legislative assembly were at all times-
subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the Uhited States. The
financial powers of the new government were definitely limited. The power
to tax and to make appropriations was vested in the legislative assembly within
prescribed limits.
A board of public works, however, was created, consisting of the governor and
four persons appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It was
vested with power to make all regulations considered necessary for keeping in
repair the streets, avenues, and sewers of the city and all other work which
should be intrusted to it by the legislative assembly or by Congress.
This act further specially provided for the election of a Delegate to the House
of Representatives, with the same rights and privileges exercised and enjoyed
by the Delegates from the Territories of the United States, and he became ex
officio a member of the Committee for the District of Columbia.
It will serve no good purpose to go into the details of the history of the admin¬
istration of the affairs of the District during the operation of this law. Suffice
it to say that the board of public works, under the authority vested in it, adopted
elaborate plans of public improvement at a total estimated cost aggregating
over $6,000,000, one-third to be assessed upon private property according to the
benefits conferred by such improvements; but while the original plans provided
for the expenditure of over $6,000,000, the board of public works entered into
contracts involving an expenditure of over $12,000,000 in excess of this sum.
The District became bankrupt and the law of 1871 was repealed.
On June 20, 1874, a new law governing the District was passed. Under it,
while the Delegate then serving was permitted to continue for the term for
which he was elected, the Delegate was thereafter discontinued. Three com-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
29
missioners were appointed, vested with all powers formerly exercised by the
governor and the board of public works. They were forbidden, however, to
make any contract or incur any obligations “ other than such contracts and obli¬
gations as may be necessary to the faithful administration of the valid laws
enacted for the government of said District, in the execution of existing legal
obligations and contracts, and to the protection or preservation of improvements
existing or commenced and not completed at the time of the passage of this act.”
The “ organic law ” of the District of Columbia was passed June 11, 1878, and
with sundry amendments now remains in force.
Under its operation the administrative authority in the District is vested in
three commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
They are also clothed with legislative authority in purely local matters. The
judicial officers in the District are also appointed by the President and con¬
firmed by the Senate. Under this law the citizens of the District are without
any voice whatever in either local or National Government.
Briefly stated, the foregoing resume of the history of the District shows four
different periods, each with its own plan of government. During the first period,
that part of the District coming from Virginia was governed by Virginia laws
and that part of the District coming from Maryland by Maryland laws.
During the second period, the government was vested a portion of the time in
a mayor appointed by the President and a council elected by the people, and
a second chamber of five members chosen by the council. During the rest of
this period and continuing until 1871 the District was controlled by a board
of eight aldermen elected biennially and a board of common council elected an¬
nually, and a mayor chosen by joint ballots of the common council and board of
aldermen.
During the third period, the District had the Territorial form of government,
consisting of a governor appointed by the President, a legislative assembly
composed of a council and house of delegates. The council were appointed by
the President and the house of delegates elected by the people. A Delegate was
provided for to represent the District in the House of Representatives.
Th fourth period began with the organic act of 1878, and is now in operation,
with a board of three commissioners appointed by the President.
Of course, the government of the District could not continue to be operated
and to progress under the laws of Maryland and Virginia. As the District was
formed for the seat of the National Government, your committee can understand
why the people within the District might not, if given full and complete control,
administer its affairs on a scale sufficiently national either to meet the require¬
ments of the Government itself or of the American people. Because of this fact
it is believed that the municipal form of government as it existed prior to the
year 1871 did not meet the national requirements, and the Territorial form of
government between 1871 and 1878, because of its extravagance and lax adminis¬
tration, met neither the approval of the people of the District locally or of the
people of the country at large.
While sound governmental policy would seem to suggest that the National
Government should have control of the District rather than that the District
should have control of the Government buildings and property within the Dis¬
trict, we believe there is no valid reason why the people of the District should
not have some voice in the National Government, as well as those who are living
outside of the District and in other sections of the country. The United States
is a representative Government. Congress meets in the Capitol. Senators and
Representatives come yearly to perform their legislative duties, refreshed by
contact with their home people, and because thereof better able to represent
their views. Each of their constituents is a sovereign citizen; he is a part
of the Government, State and National; he has a voice in the selection of his
officers and, either directly or indirectly through his Representatives, makes
and enforces all laws, State and National, affecting life, liberty, and property.
But here in the District of Columbia, in the Capital of our country, in the
shadow of the very dome of the Capitol itself, where our Chief Executive lives,
and where sit the greatest court in the world and the two branches of Congress,
controlling the affairs and the destinies of a hundred millions of people, live
nearly 400,000 American citizens whose life, whose liberty, and whose property
are under the absolute control of the Executive, the Congress, and the judiciary,
without any right to vote or to participate in the making or administration of
the laws under which they live and move and have their being.
More American citizens live in the District of Columbia than in any one of
the States of Nevada, Wyoming, Delaware, Arizona, Idaho, or New Mexico, yet
30
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Senators and Congressmen have waxed eloquent in their demands that Ter¬
ritories subject to the control of the Federal Government shall have statehood
and that our foreign possessions may have independence so that they may work
out their own destinies. Is it possible that a Congress of a sovereign people
will continue to insist, as they have insisted, that all the people of our island
possessions shall have a voice in their own Government, and yet deny this sacred
right to the nearly 400,000 people who live within the District of Columbia?
The control of the Czar of all the Russias over his subjects is not more complete
than is the jurisdiction of our Government over the people of this District.
Argentine, Brazil, and Mexico have copied our Constitution and form of
government. They have Federal districts for their respective capitals similar to
the District of Columbia, but the people in those districts are given the right of
representation in Congress.
It is in no sense a disrespect to the Members of either House of Congress to
say that they have a more personal interest in the affairs of their respective
States or Districts than they have in the District of Columbia. As a conse¬
quence, there is not that personal touch between the District and the Congress
that exists between the Congress and the people of the several States or
Districts.
The pending measure, if passed, gives to the citizens of the District only
the right to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives who may, on the
floor, represent its citizens and present their cause without the right to vote.
It gives them only the same right in national legislation that the people
living in the Territory of Alaska now have. If the people of Alaska have the
right to be thus represented, by what process of reasoning can the people 0:6
the District be denied the right? Are they less patriotic or less intelligent than
the people of Alaska or the people of our own States? Have they less SO' mucn
of civic pride that they do not deserve to share in working out the political
destinies of a great .people in which they are so much interested and a part of
which they are? May we ask those who oppose this legislation, are they willing
to have laws enacted for their own constituents which will shear them of their
political status and leave them with no greater share in their Government, local
or national, than the people of this District now have? How many of them are
willing to say, “ We will consent that our States or our Districts shall be con¬
trolled by a Congress composed of men elected by other States and other
Districts,” and deny themselves the right of representation in Congress? If
Senators and Congressmen are not willing to surrender these rights, how can
they consistently deny to nearly 400,000 of their fellow citizens living in the
District the right of representation on the floor of the House of Repre¬
sentatives ?
Some men oppose all representation for the District in either branch of
Congress, because, it is said, that when the District had local self-government
it was not properly administered. We grant that this may be so, but who will
rise up and say that since the people of the District have been denied repre¬
sentation the burdens of government have been equally distributed, its blessings
properly bestowed, its affairs properly administered, its poor sufficiently cared
for, or that its slums have been wiped out? To what greater or better extent
has municipal government prospered here than in other cities which are self-
governed? The majority of the committee recognize that the status of the
people of the District is different from that of any other portion of the country,
because it is the site of the National Government, and it is and always will be
the principal institution in the District. As a consequence, any legislation on
the subject should have a national rather than a local aspect, and if it were a
choice between a purely local government as controlling the District and all
its institutions therein, of one purely national, the committee would prefer the
latter, but it is not denationalizing the District to allow its citizens to par¬
ticipate with the rest of the people of the Nation in the government of the
District itself. To that extent it helps to nationalize the significance of the
District. It helps to popularize government. It will wipe out the incon¬
sistencies in our institutions of having a nonrepresentative people in the very
shadow of a representative Government.
The writer only regrets that the bill does not go further.
QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS.
Section 3 of the bill defines the qualifications of electors as follows:
Sec. 3. That all citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and
over, without regard to sex, who are actual and bona fide residents of the
District of Columbia, and who have been such residents continuously during
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
31
the entire year immediately preceding the election, and who have been such
residents continuously for thirty days next preceding the election in the
precinct in which they vote, and who shall be able to read the Constitution of
the United States in English and write their own names, shall be qualified to
vote in all elections held in the District of Columbia: Provided, That no idiot
or insane person or persons convicted of a felony shall be entitled to vote.
Temporary absence from the District shall not affect the question of residence
of any person, provided the right to vote has not been claimed or exercised
elsewhere.
By the law of May 3, 1802, the right of suffrage was limited to free white
male inhabitants 21 years of age.
By the act of 1848 it was limited to all free white males of 21 years of age
who were subject to and who had paid their taxes.
By act of January 8, 1867, the right to vote was extended to all male persons
above the age of 21 who had the right to vote in the District without distinction
on account of color or race.
By act of February 21, 1871, the right of suffrage was exercised by all male
citizens over 21 years of age.
At present the right of suffrage does not exist in the District. Congress alone
has the sole power to confer it within the District and upon such terms and
condit : ons not inconsistent with the Constitution as in its wisdom it may de¬
termine. There is no other way under the Constitution whereby to bestow this
right.
The majority of the committee believe that it should be granted to both
men and women alike who have continuously resided in the D strict for a
period of one year, and who have continuously resided in the precincts in which
they vote for 30 days and who meet the following qualifications: That they
may be able to read the Constitution of the United States in English and write
their own names.
ELECTION MACHINERY.
The bill clothes the Commissioners of the District with the powers of an
election board and adopts the Australian method of voting which prevails in
many of the States.
The members of subcommittee giving the hearing and making this report
were as follows: Atlee Pomerene, Ohio, chairman; Henry F. Hollis, New Hamp¬
shire; Willard Saulsbury, Delaware; William P. Dillingham, Vermont; Law¬
rence Y. Sherman, Illinois.
The main committee on the District of Columbia favoring this report and
placing the delegate bill on the calendar were John Walter Smith, Maryland,
chairman; Atlee Pomerene, Ohio; Marcus A. Smith, Arizona; Henry F. Hollis,
New Hampshire; Ollie M. James, Kentucky; Willard Saulsbury, Delaware;
Thomas S. Martin, Virginia; James D. Phelan, California; William P. Dilling¬
ham, Vermont; Wesley M. Jones, Washington; John D. Works, California;
William S. Kenyon, Iowa; Lawrence Y. Sherman, Illinois; Thomas Sterling,
South Dakota, Alban M. Wood, clerk.
Senator Jones. I want to make a statement right here. I was a member of
that committee. That relates to a Delegate in the House of Representatives.
My opinion then was the same as my opinion now, that the Senate really ought
not to consider a proposition of that kind until the House has acted upon it,
as it has to do with who shall compose its membership. Each House is the
judge of the qualifications of its Members, and I think the Senate should not
consider the question of putting a Delegate in the House until the House has
expressed its desire in the matter.
Mr. Claflin. That is a matter of procedure, of course, and for you to decide.
I have here several letters on the subject of the District of Columbia being
represented in Congress by a Delegate that I would like to submit. The general
ground has been pretty well covered.
(The documents referred to are here printed in full as follows:)
November 1, 1915.
Senator W. E. Chilton,
' Chairman Joint Select Committee of Congress investigating the fiscal
relations of the Federal Government and the District of Columbia.
I desire to present for your consideration the following proposition on behalf
of the District Delegate Association:
We believe the first logical reform in the affairs of the District of Columbia
should be that its people be provided with an official spokesman, a representative
83480—22-3
32
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
elected by them at a properly authorized and conducted election, who could
thus speak for them with due and legal authority.
As matters now stand there is no one man or group of men, even in this
hearing being conducted by your committee, who has the authority or right
to say that he or they represent the taxpayers or the people of the District
of Columbia. No one can do so, as the District people have had no opportunity
to authorize anyone to speak for them. No one officially knows the- majority
sentiment of the people of the District; at best it can only be surmised.
Our proposition is that the whole people of the District, should be given a
real hearing—an opportunity to express officially their majority sentiment
regarding this question which is so vital to their government. It affects the
community as a whole, and the community as a whole should be heard from
before a radical change is made. No man should be accepted by your com¬
mittee as spokesman for the local people, and no man should presume to exer¬
cise that prerogative under the present circumstances of the District of
Columbia.
Our proposition is that Congress, in the coming session, shall authorize tne
citizens of the District to hold an election, express their views on this fiscal
question and on other questions affecting their government. At the same time
a delegate could be elected by them to represent them before Congress and its
committees.
; Is $t right that your committee should recommend to Congress a radical
change in our local government without giving us a real opportunity to be
heard? Is this not a community of Americans.? Are we not entitled to our
rights and liberties as such? Do you not, as a committee acting for! the
highest legislative body in the Republic, stand for American principles? I
believe that we all agree with President Wilson in his opinion that the funda¬
mental principles which give America distinction in the annals of the*world
is that America shall have no government at all that does not rest upon the
consent of the governed.
No group of men, not even those constituting the National Congress, has the
moral right to make a radical change in the form of local government of a
community of fellow American citizens, especially where that form was given
to.them and so accepted as permanent, without their officially expressed consent.
While, the present form of government in the District of Columbia has
operated over 35 years with all the outward evidences of a satisfactory, peaceful,
just, and successful arrangement, it is nevertheless true that improvements
Cfin be made to bring it up to date. But to make these improvements it is not
necessary to uproot the entire foundation.
The greatest needed improvement—one which must and will come, for it is
right—-is that the people of the District be represented and given a voice in
their own government. This is right because it is the very cornerstone of the
American principles laid by our forefathers. Grant this right to the District
people and the necessary reforms will gradually work themselves out, and in
a more satisfactory manner than is possible where one side has all the say.
There is too much politics in the country in general and not enough in the
District, of Columbia.
The men of Congress can not truly sense our local needs. We must work out
our own salvation. Give us the opportunity to get together at the polls and
we will tell you what we need better than you can figure it out in the light of
the problems of your respective communities. Our conditions here are peculiar
to ourselves. Give us the “ pencil and paper ” and we will help you, and in a
way that will be fair and honest to you as well as to ourselves.
This is a practical and vital question. Justice can not be done it in a few
months’ time by a small committee, however competent it may be, and even
though each member concentrates his most earnest efforts and his undivided
attention. It requires the consideration of many minds, particularly of those
who are most, affected by it, the people of the District of Columbia.
We, the Districe Delegate Association, believe that this community should be
granted a Delegate in Congress. We do not believe that will be sufficient. But
it is something which can be brough about practically at once and will, in addi¬
tion to its consequent advantages, be a step in the right direction.
In conclusion, I urge that your committee not recommend to Congress a radi¬
cal change in our local government at the present time, but that you recom¬
mend that the citizens of the District of Columbia be authorized to hold an
election in the near future, when they shall express their convictions as to
their form of local government.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
33
November 29, 1913.
Mr." Oliver P. Newman,
Chairman Commissioners of the District of Columbia:
On behalf of the District Delegate Association I respectfully urge your favor¬
able recommendation to Congress of the Poindexter bill, S. 2863, providing for
the election of a delegate to‘represent the people of the District of Columbia in
Congress.
It is the fundamental principle of the American Government that the people
themselves should have a voice in the management of their civic affairs, and
that taxation without representation shall not exist anywhere within the
American borders.
We urge District representation in Congress in pursuance of the right be¬
stowed upon all American citizens by the forefathers of this country through
the Federal authorities.
If the present Congress refuses to grant representation to the District of
Columbia, together with the right of voting, then their neglect will be counter
to the principles emphasized by President Woodrow Wilson on October 25 last,
when, in Swarthmore, Pa., he made the following statement:
“ The extent of the American conquest is not what gives America distinc¬
tion in the annals of the world. It is the professed purpose of the conquest,
which was to see to it that every foot of that land should be the home of free,
self-governed people, who should have no government whatever which did not
rest upon the consent of the governed.”
Thus we believe that the people of the National Capitol should be represented
in their Government as a matter of principle in keeping with the great idea of
American civic thought.
A delegate to Congress from this community would save the Commissioners
of the District a great deal of valuable time.
A delegate in Congress from the District would also save the individual
Members of Congress much annoyance and time now devoted to the hearing
of complaints of many citizens and organizations of Washington.
The delegate would afford the District an official voice on the floor of the
House, and all know the hundreds of instances where this advantage would
have been of inestimable value to this community.
We believe the granting of a delegate should precede all other reforms for
the District of Columbia, because the people should have a spokesman to rep¬
resent them in the shaping of legislation to remodel their government.
A District delegate would expedite local legislation in Congress. It would
be his concern to keep in touch with bills desired by the District people and to
promote the same.
It appears that an overwhelming majority of the people of the District of
Columbia want representation in Congress.
February 19, 1914.
Hon. John Walter Smith,
Chairman Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.
On behalf of the District Delegate Association I urge upon you a favorable
consideration of Senate bill 2863, providing primarily for the representation of
the District of Columbia in Congress by a delegate.
The passage of this bill will restore to the 360,000 of the National Capital
the right bestowed on all qualified American citizens—the right to vote.
It will give to this community, the population of which is greater than that of
each of eight States of the Union, the privilege of being represented by one of
their number in their legislative assembly, a right not denied any other American
political entity.
The enacting of this bill into law will afford a much needed official connecting
link between Congress and the people of the District of Columbia over whom
they exercise absolute control.
This will result in the elimination of much embarrassing and detrimental
misunderstanding between Congress and the local community, insuring a more
harmonious and sympathetic cooperation between them.
Furthermore, it will expedite District legislation to a remarkable extent,
and will relieve individual Members of the Senate and the House of Representa¬
tives of considerable time which is now required of them in attending to many
routine details involved in the relations of Congress and the District govern¬
ment.
34
SUFFRAGE IN' THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
In debates on the floor of Congress on legislation pertaining to the District,
the people of this community will have the right and advantage of being repre¬
sented by an official spokesman, the right that members of Congress can not with
justice withhold indefinitely from a community of their fellow American
citizens.
Not only would this proposed law expedite District legislation in Congress,
rendering greater fairness to the District and making the Congressmen’s task
lighter, but it will relieve the District Commissioners of burdensome duties
which they now must perform at the Capitol, explaining, defending, and pleading
for the needs of the people of Washington.
The Poindexter delegate bill does not involve any change in the present form
of local government, and therefore should become a law before any such change
shall seriously be considered by Congress, for this would entitle the people of
the District to be heard through their elected representative on a matter so
vitally affecting them.
A further reason why the Poindexter delegate bill should be made a law
prior to the passage of any legislation to change the form ot*local government
is that any alteration of the organic act in 1878 would undoubtedly provide for
the establishment of a general franchise, and the Poindexter bill provides for
a most complete, modern, and efficient basic election law. This law could later
be made to include any other elected officers for the District, with the ad¬
vantage that this law would then have been given the test of actual operation.
Not only should the Poindexter delegate bill be made a law as a matter of
expediency both to the Congress and the people of the National Capital, but
above all, aside from the innumerable practical advantages most sure to be de¬
rived, this representation should be granted to this community of over a quarter
million of American citizens as a matter of justice and common sense.
In conclusion, permit me to call your attention to the views of Mr. Thomas
Nelson Page, which he has expressed as follows:
“ Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District
of Columbia; but this power is not an unbridled and unlicensed power. It is
subject to all the modifications and restraints which underlie all powers.
“ Under modern conditions governing bodies almost invariably endeavor to
act in harmony with the views of those governed by them and endeavor to
promote their interests. The good of the people is the supreme law. Abso¬
lutism does not exist in the United States—not even in the District of Columbia.
u Other Territories have their representatives. The District of Columba
alone has none. It alone must rely on the Congress for justice, for a govern¬
ment as good as that in other parts of the land. If the Congress fails to
give it this, then it is as derelict as any other Government which is guilty of
malfeasance in office. And though there be no remedy available under which
the wrongs of the people of the District of Columbia may be righted, yet the
Congress is all the more culpable in such a case, for* it is exercising mere
tyranny. And this is an injury to the whole Nation, to every citizen of the
country, and to the Congress itself.”
AEGUMENT FOE DELEGATE PEESENTED TO THE PAEK VIEW CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION.
March 2, 1911.
I believe the District of Columbia should be represented in Congress by an
elective delegate for the following reasons:
Because it is right and just as an American principle for a community of
citizens to have a voice in its local government.
The Constitution does not imply that Congress should deprive the District of
representation as a legitimate portion of the Nation, whose citizens pay taxes
into the public coffers.
The general trend of decision has been that the District of Columbia is non¬
descript—it is more than a Territory—distinguished by the framers of the Con¬
stitution by a dignity peculiar to itself. It is, therefore, entitled to even more
consideration than a Territory or a possession. As it is, it does not have as
much consideration in the matter of representation.
Every thinking man in the District, as well as in Congress, realizes that the
District does not receive fair treatment from Congress under the present
arrangement.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
35
The presence in the House of Representatives of a delegate from the Dis¬
trict would insure more definitely an open ear of Congress for our needs. The
necessity is emphasized by the fact that not one District legislative bill has
been passed during the session just closing; thus the accumulation of much-
needed legislation has not in any wise been relieved, but added to.
No other city of over 800,000. population could make progress with its city
council meeting but one or two days a year and then not producing results.
Any city this size requires a very busy council working almost constantly to
keep abreast of the times.
Patience ceases to be a virtue when our acting city council turns a deaf
ear to our earnest appeals for the necessities of communtiy life—when we
find that body immovable by appeals to their logic or to their sense of justice
or even to their sympathy for a voteless people, though living in the realm of
American liberty.
When in 1878 the predecessors of the present Members of Congress assumed
the responsibility of performing the duties of a city council for us, depriving
the District of suffrage, it was done through patriotic motives, and was hailed
by the residents as a relief on account of circumstances then existing. Did
those men foresee the increase of the national demands on the time of Congress
which to-day renders impossible a proper consideration of legislation for the
District, whose needs also demand greater thought?
One of the stated objects of our Constitution is to establish justice.” The
present predicament of the District—at the mercy of and dependent upon the
charity in time and good will of the Members of Congress—is at once conceded
by all to be the essence of injustice. Our interests are obviously not their
interests and consequently suffer.
Congress as a whole has demonstrated conclusively not its inability to cope
with our legal problems but its absolute unwillingness to do so.
A delegate representing the District could devote his entire attention to
District matters and engage himself in a systematic education of Members of
Congress, enabling them to vote intelligently on local affairs. He would
relieve the citizens and also Congressmen of the time and labor now necessarily
spent in “ lobbying.” It stands to reason that a local citizen living the year
around in Washington will be in closer touch with the sentiment and needs
of the Capital than a Congressman residing here only a few months of the year,
with his interests elsewhere.
Mr. Claflin. I think that from the opinions I have read from' these various
men and women I have demonstrated that we should have a Delegate in Con¬
gress, because it is right, it is just, it is logical, it is expedient, and, above all,
it is American, as I started out to endeavor to show. I will predict that if
this delegate bill is reported favorably to the Senate the vote will be, perhaps,
two to one in favor of its passage, and the same in the House of Representatives.
I certainly express confidence that this committee will report the Poindexter
delegate bill favorably to the Senate.
The Chairman. You understood what Senator Jones said, that action pro¬
viding for a Delegate in the House should first come from the House?
Senator Jones. Of course, I was only expressing my own view. I was not
attempting to speak for the committee.
Mr. Claflin. I did not know that was an official decision of the committee.
I understood Senator Jones was expressing his view. Of course, we are not
concerned about procedure. What we want is a Delegate to represent us, and
the procedure is a matter to be decided by you gentlemen.
I thank you very much for your patience.
STATEMENT OF W. W. KEELER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF CENTRAL
LABOR UNION AND NOW MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING ALL THE LABOR UNIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
Mr. Keeler. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will state that, representing
organized labor of the District of Columbia, for the past 20 years they have gone
on record as favoring local self-government and District suffrage—that is, a
vote at all elections, such as elections that occur in the different States. Our
indorsements qre recent. During the past month I personally accompanied the
committee to the different organizations with the present bills pending before
36
SUFFRAGE 11ST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
the Senate and one before the House, and they have been unanimously indorsed
by every meeting we have attended.
I am not authorized to speak for labor at large; but it is a matter of record
of all American Federation of Labor conventions, and all international conven¬
tions that have been held in the last number of years, that they have also
indorsed resolutions calling for or seeking local self-government or local suffrage
in the District of Columbia.
Senator Jones. How far do you want to go in local self-government?
Mr. Keeler. I will say “ local suffrage,” the residents of the District to elect
their local officers.
Senator Jones. Do you want to elect the commissioners and the superin¬
tendent of police?
Mr. Keeler. Oh, no; not the superintendent of police, but the commissioners,
the utilities commission, the school board.
_ Senator Jones. Do you want a legislative council in the District?
Mr. Keeler. That has not been gone into very extensively. The commission
form of government at the present time is quite popular throughout the United
States, but they are elective commissioners. I think possibly that would be
favored by labor.
Senator Jones. I just wanted to get your views and what you mean by “ local
government.”
Mr. Keeler. I think I am safe in saying the same as any other locality.
Senator Jones. In a good many they elect a council and elect a marshal and
all that sort of thing. I wanted to know if you wanted to go that far.
Mr. Keeler. No ; I doiTt suppose I would. I would not favor going as far
as electing the marshal or such officers as the chief of police and the chief of
the fire department. That is not done in other municipalities. I would not want
to go that far.
Senator Capper. You mean to take the appointment of the government officials
out of the hands of the President and put it in the hands of the people?
Mr. Keeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Jones. Your idea is that you would elect the three commissioners for
the District?
Mr. Keeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Jones. And you would provide for a separate public utilities com¬
mission and elect them?
Mr. Keeler. Yes. sir.
Senator Jones. And you would elect a board of education?
Mr. Keeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Jones. And you would elect a Delegate in Congress?
Mr. Keeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Jones. Do you want a Delegate in the Senate?
Mr. Keller. I presume they would like to have as much representation as
other States have if they could get it, but from the legal information that we
have had it would be a long-drawn-out affair. To obviate the present situation
a Delegate in Congress, I believe, would be satisfactory;
Senator Jones. In the House?
Mr. Keeler. In the House, similar to Alaska and other Territories that we
have had in the past, and later on full representation.
I attended an international convention of the machinists last October in
Rochester, and there introduced a resolution on this subject. We had a repre¬
sentation of 670 delegates. That was a resolution seeking the indorsement of
the machinists of the United States and Canada, and was indorsed unani¬
mously by the convention. I believe that was known as the Capper-Zihlman
bill.
That is all .1 have to say.
Senator Jones. I might ask you the same question the chairman asked the
nfher witness. Do you consider that the government of the District is bad
and that by your system you would improve the government, or is your posi¬
tion based largely upon your desire for active participation by the people in
the Government?
Mr. Keeler.. Active participation by the people.
Senator Jones. You do not think if the change is made that you would
really have any better government than you have now, except that you would
have a part in it?
Mr. Keeler. Have a part in it. That is right. The laboring people are very
jealous of their American rights.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
37
Senator Jones. They are not alone in that.
Mr. Keeler. I know they are not. As American citizens 'they want all the
rights that are granted them by the Constitution as to participation in election
of their own officers, and the citizens of the District of Columbia are denied
that right. Their main object is to try to get democratic Americanism.
Mr. Brandenburg. Have not your labor organizations taken the position that
they advocate the. full franchise and the right to vote for the election of Presi¬
dent and Vice President?
Mr. Keeler. The local organizations have in the past, but recently upon
information that it would be a long-drawn-out affair they favor the present
bills as a sort of a starter, as it were, toward general representation in Con¬
gress. They want a Delegate the same as all Territories of the United States
have had Delegates in the past, to be followed later on by regularly elected
Congressmen.
Mr. Ayers. May I ask the gentleman a question? Did your organization
ever advocate the granting of the right to vote to Indians as citizens of the
United States?
Mr. Keeler. I don’t know. Labor organizations are in favor of all American
citizens voting. I don’t know where there is a more established American
citizen than the American Indian.
The Chairman. I would suggest that each side has six hours on this subject,
and that the committee will ask any questions they see fit. The opposite sides
in presenting their case can present it as they see fit, keeping within proper
bounds. Any questions that are asked must be asked through the committee.
If there is any special reason why the question should be asked, you can take
it up with the committee, and no doubt they will ask it.
Senator Jones. I would suggest that anybody who desires to have a ques¬
tion asked reduce it to writing and hand it to the chairman of the committee.
STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY WRIGHT JOHNSON, OF THE FEDERA¬
TION OF WOMEN’S CLUBS.
Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I had not expected to say anything until to¬
morrow. First, I want to call your attention to the fact that you may think
this is another thing the women are mixing into. The reason we are mixing
into this is not a question of rights—fighting for equal rights. It is a question
that with some of we local people Washington is our Main Street. You who
come here from all over the country do the best you can for us, but you can
not get the proper viewpoint of our problems with the little time you are able
to give us.
We people here have our problems to discuss, and we discuss them as we
talk from our porches. I discuss them with neighbors as I shape my rugs and
exchange recipes for rheumatism. We don’t exchange recipes for croup any
more, because we have progressed so that the children do not have it. We
exchange recipes for marmalade and talk about the Borland law that makes
us pay the cost of repairs to the streets whether we feel like it or not. We
talk over the shortage of water here that, after we have had our lawns sodded,
we have to let them go dry so the people who come here from the States can
have water enough to drink and have their baths. It is something which affects
our homes and our firesides. It is not that we want to shirk the work a
woman should do in the home, or that we are not just as good cooks as any
woman on the Main Street in your homes. We will match up with any of
them. If you are hungry any time, let us know and we will give you a good
home meal.
We have been very much interested in the tubercular school. Some of us
who have raised our children now have time to go out aiid work on these
problems and help the women who still have children to raise and must stay
at home. If some of we women had not gone out of our homes and worked
at that problem, where would the tubercular children be to-day? We were
simply helping those people who could not get out.
Now, in regard to the criticism made of the time when we had a mayor of
our own election, time has proven he was a wise mayor. He left the city in
debt, but he improved the city more in the time of his administration than
in all the time previous. He finished the unfinished streets; he started the
sewer system; he turned the Tiber Canal at the foot of Rome into a part of
the sewer system of the city; he looked out for the interests of Washington.
38
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
We believe that if you give us a chance, not only to have a Delegate in Con¬
gress, but a chance for every form of government possible for an American
to have, that we would do the work well and be better satisfied. It is not any
question or objection to the form of government, but the inherent instinct in
every animal to have some chance to look out for itself. It is the instinct
of every mother to protect hey young, and the modern method is with the ballot.
We can’t go out and fight the way animals did. The only way we have is
through the vote.
I could talk along this line for a long while, but there are many speakers
here, and I want you to realize that we are not trying to dictate, but simply
working for the betterment of our homes. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. WESTLAKE, FORMER PRESIDENT OF
THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. Westlake. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I came here to-day rather to
urge upon the committee some definite action than a specific course of action.
My several years of active participation in civic affairs in the District of Colum¬
bia has led me to the very strong conclusion that the people of Washington are
hoping for very prompt action to give them some sort of representation in their
government. Naturally, we are not united. We are no more united in Wash¬
ington than are the residents of any of the cities from which you gentlemen
come. We will never be able to have a hearing where there will be no opposi¬
tion to any plan that is proposed. It is useless to expect us to do that, because
we can not.
Some time ago we united on what we believed to be one thing that everybody
could ask for and honestly want, and that was representation in both Houses of
Congress by constitutional amendment: I think everybody still wants that. A
great number of our people believe that will be hard to obtain, and have asked
for something else, and these bills represent some compromise. There are
many people who will be satisfied with a compromise, and others will not be.
We can only ask that the committee in its wisdom will make the report which
it believes to be the best recommendation, but we do hope that it will be some
sort of a report favorable to representation of the District of Columbia, and we
desire that for this reason:
It is a tremendous tax on the time and energy of the people of the District of
Columbia to come up here year after year, month after month, and week after
week, to discuss questions with the committees which those committees can not
otherwise be acquainted with. If we had some sort of representation which
would enable us to have at all times in Congress representatives who could
enlighten the committees on any subject, we would be saving a great deal of
the confusion and loss of time and trouble to which we are now put for that
express purpose. I think it is impossible to expect the people of Washington
to come to Congress every year on the same subject, time after time, and
express opinions which could be so much better expressed if the authority to
express them was brought down to one or two men, as the case might be. Of
course, a good many of our civic bodies have taken positions which at first
appearance might seem to be antagonistic, but underlying the whole thing is the
one thought that we would like to have some direct means of participating in
our local government.
I do not mean that in the broad sense. I don’t think many people in Wash¬
ington want any condition of State rights. I don’t think many of the people of
Washington want to change our present form of government. I think we are
pretty well satisfied with that. We would like to have some voice in determin¬
ing the question of who administers for us and some means of going direct to
Congress, saving your time and ours on the question of what legislation should
be passed.
We are all satisfied that Congress does the best it can for us. We have
absolute confidence in the integrity and good intentions of Congress. That
question does not enter into this discussion in any way. But it is cumber¬
some ; it cosumes lots of time and energy which might be better directed.
I think that is a statement of what the people of Washington want, and I
think most of them will be pretty well satisfied with your conclusion as to
what they should have, providing you give them some relief.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
39
STATEMENT OE FRANK B. LORD, OF THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB.
Mr. Lord. Mr. Chairman, in the light of what you have already heard, and
in view of what has been told you by the representatives of the various groups
which have expressed the sentiment of the people of Washington, I do not
propose to enter into an elaborate discussion of the measures before you. It
seems to me almost unnecessary to argue before a committee of the United
States Senate, the members of which are elected by the popular vote of the
people, in favor of extending the right of franchise in a limited way to a
community of American citizens who are in every way as well qualified and
as intelligent and as deserving as the people of the communities which the
Members of Congress represent. I can scarcely conceive that a Member of
the Senate or Member of the House in returning to his constituency would
he subject to any censure or criticism for having conferred the right of suffrage
upon an American community of half a million people. On the other hand,
I can conceive that perhaps a Member of Congress might be subjected to a
rebuke, perhaps, for having so long delayed action upon this matter.
But, after all, I am frank to admit that in my humble opinion the reason why
Congress has not heretofore acted upon this subject is largely the fault of the
people of the District of Columbia themselves. I have been upon the floor
of the House for many years, as the Senator from Texas and the Senator
from Washington know, and in my conversations with Members of the House
and Senate I have reached the conclusion that they are willing, if the people
of Washington would get together and determine what they want and deter¬
mine the form in which they want it and present their claims to Congress, to
yield to the wishes of the people in a very large measure.
But instead of doing that the people of the District of Columbia have been
growling some and complaining a good deal. They have been like a man with
indigestion, sitting around and making themselves obnoxious to their friends
rather than going to a physician and getting some relief.
The people of the District of Columbia have not come to Congress for relief
with any united and concerted effort.
I recall that the late Speaker Clark, who was one of the best friends the
District ever had and who was so much beloved by the people of the District
that when he became a candidate for the nomination of the Presidency there
were at least three sets of delegates contesting with each other for the right
of representation in the nominating convention for the privilege of voting
for him; and Mr. Clark, on the opening day of every Congress for a number
of terms, introduced a bill conferring the right of suffrage upon the District
in some form or other.
Unfortunately and, it might be said, to the shame of the people of the Dis¬
trict, they never got behind him with any united effort. They never fully ap :
preciated the work he was willing to undertake.
It has only been in the last two or three years, since Col. Jones started the
national press committee on suffrage, that there has been a concerted and
united effort to bring the matter forcibly to the attention of Congress and tell
Congress what we need and what we want.
I realize that probably there are some elements in the District of Columbia
that are not in favor of this bill. There are others to whom the bill does not
express their full sentiment and belief in respect to suffrage. But this is a
sort of compromise measure, which all the 'groups of citizens and organizations
which are represented here in favor of the bill have agreed upon.
So we have come to Congress with an agreement upon something which we
ask your favorable consideration of. There is one point which the Senator
from Washington made and which, while I have the fullest respect for his
opinion, seems to me theoretical rather than practical. As I understood him,
his idea was that a bill to confer the right of suffrage for the purpose of elect¬
ing a Delegate to the House of Representatives should originate in the House.
Am I correct in my understanding?
Senator Jones. It should pass there first.
Mr. Lord. That is theoretical, I think, rather than practical.
Senator Jones. I do not think so. Each House is pretty jealous of inter¬
ference from the other, and I think it would hardly be right for the Senate to
say there should be a Delegate in the House.
40
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Lord. If the House of Representatives is so sensitive and jealous of its
prerogatives on that subject, if the Senate can pass a bill and send it over to
the House, if they feel outraged by it they can very easily refuse to pass the
bill.
Senator Jones. You are not asking for representation in the Senate?
Mr. Lord. Not under this bill?
Senator Jones. Why not?
Senator Sheppard. Why not have a Delegate in both Houses?
Mr. Lord. I want to answer also the point raised by the chairman of the
committee, that he wanted to know whether the government of the District of
Columbia would be improved by the election of a Delegate, or whether we
could devise any better form of government than we have at present in the
District of Columbia. That is not exactly the point. We are not changing the
government of the District by this bill. We are simply providing a liaison
officer, as it were, between the governing body of the District, the Senate
and the House of Representatives, and the people. To that extent I think
the government would be improved, because it would afford a Representa¬
tive, a Delegate, if you will, in the Senate or in the House, of course with
the privilege of appearing on the floor of the Senate, not to speak, but to
be on the floor of the Senate and appear before the committees. He would be
responsible to the whole people rather than the self-constituted individuals
who come to Congress and ask for action or the rejection of a measure and
represent only a particular group.
The Chairman. You are speaking only for the Delegate in Congress now?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Your form of government would not be changed if you send
a Delegate to either House or both Houses?
Mr. Lord. No, sir. The election of a Delegate would simply be a liaison
officer between the governing body of the District and the people, and to that
extent he would be a better representative than a self-constituted individual
who comes here, has an ax to grind or wants some particular legislation en¬
acted, and speaks only for a particular group.
The Chairman. I think you are correct, but should we pass the Capper bill,
which provides for the election of the board of education and the commis¬
sioners, then you decidedly change your form of government.
Mr. Lord. That would be true.
The Chairman. You are speaking only for the Delegate bill?
Mr. Lord. I am speaking for the election of a Delegate.
Senator Jones. Are you in favor of the election of the commissioners and
the board of education and the public utilities commission?
Mr. Lord. I don’t want to be placed in the attitude of criticising either the
government of the District of Columbia or its officers. There are a good many
things it has done which, if I had the power, I woulld not do; and a good
many things which it has not done which I wouuld like to see done.
The Chairman. Any suggestions you may make as to a change of govern¬
ment will not be construed by this committee at least as any criticism of the
present administration.
Mr. Lord. I am willing to say that I think the legislation to be enacted should
be legislation which the people of the District of Columbia favor.
Senator Jones. I can see how yoq might well favor the election of a Dele¬
gate, and possibly not favor the election of other officers. I understand you
are urging only the election of the Delegate.
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir. I will say that if Congress has any doubt as to what the
people of the District desire a plebiscite will determine what form of local
government they desire. In the meantime I think a great advantage would
accrue if we would have the right to elect a Delegate.
STATEMENT OF C. T. CLAYTON, OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Clayton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Columbia Heights Citizens’
Association has considered the question of suffrage a good many times. On the
various occasions, so far as my recollection goes, the vote has been overwhelm¬
ingly in favor of the general proposition of suffrage in the District. When it
comes to the details, the association has not considered the particular bills be¬
fore the committee. The only bill they have recently considered was the Bur¬
roughs resolution, which was very emphatically indorsed, as perhaps the com-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
41
niittee knows, by tlie citizens of the District last spring*. But at a recent meeting
that citizens’ association, which is represented to-day by nearly one-fourth of
the gentlemen and ladies here present, I believe, they did appoint a committee
of five with authority to appear, and I am speaking for that committee. The
committee has examined the two bills now before the committee—the Poin¬
dexter bill and the Capper bill—and we have informally reached certain con¬
clusions which I have been directed to give you.
The Chairman. And we now have the Jones bill before the committee.
Mr. Clayton. I am very glad to hear that. Personally, I think that is what
the citizens of the District really do want, and I believe that is what they
would stand for if they had an opportunity.
There are three propositions, then, before the committee. The Jones bill is
intended to give us the rights of citizens. I am a lawyer; and when I have to
draw a petition for a client and commence it with the form in vogue here, that
the complainant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District
of Columbia, my mind always jumps away for a moment to a reflection upon
the peculiar and anomalous condition which we American citizens are living
under. A citizen of the United States—just exactly like a Chinaman born in the
United States. We can’t vote. It is an impossible condition. I don’t think the
fathers who organized this Republic ever dreamed the language they used in
that section of the Constitution, giving the Government exclusive control over
10 miles square, would be construed to mean that exclusive power prevented any
participation in Government of the people who lived within those 10 miles square.
The Chairman. Was not that the very reason for taking that 10 miles square,
so as to get a place where the Government of the United States would have abso¬
lute control over that Government? Was not that the real fundamental reason,
brought about by conflict of authority in other places where they had had the
Government ?
Mr. Clayton. I don’t think there is any doubt of it. I think probably in the
minds of the gentlemen who wrote the constitutional provision was a recollection
of the unhappy conditions which existed in a Pennsylvania city upon the well-
remembered occasion when a regiment of troops stormed the Pennsylvania
statehouse where they were sitting. I have no doubt they wanted to have ex¬
clusive control, and I don’t think any citizen of the District wants to deprive
Congress of that exclusive control.
The Chairman. The moment you give statehood you certainly would not have
control by Congress.
Mr. Clayton. The Jones resolution, as I understand it, although it gives state¬
hood, would not have the effect of giving it to us to such an extent as to en¬
tirely emancipate us from the control of Congress. I don’t think that is the
intention.
Senator Jones. It does not really contemplate statehood. It simply gives to
Congress the authority to use its discretion to give you representation in Con¬
gress and the right to vote for presidential electors.
The Chairman. It is merely an amendment to the Constitution.
Senator Jones. Yes.
The Chairman. I would like to ask you, Senator Jones, if you get a consti¬
tutional amendment giving the right to vote for Representatives in Congress
and for Senators and for presidential electors, would you not expect to elect
some head of the District?
Senator Jones. This resolution does not even give them the right to vote.
The Chairman. It merely amends the Constitution, giving the right to vote
for Senator and Representative?
Senator Jones. It does not go that far. It amends the Consftution to
give to Congress the authority to provide for representation in the House and
in the Senate. Congress may see fit to grant that, and it may refuse it. It
also gives to Congress the authority to grant to the people of the District the
right to vote for presidential electors. Congress may grant them that right
and may refuse it. It does not contemplate any legislative assembly or anything
of that sort—does not give that right to Congress.
The Chairman. I would like very much to see the inhabitants of the District
of Columbia entitled to a vote for President. The President now appoints your
commissioners, and that would give you a direct voice in who would appoint
your governing officers.
Mr. Clayton. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But as to giving you a local government, I th'nk it would be
a very serious mistake, and I think in doing that you would defeat the very
aims for which the District of Columbia was created.
42
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Clayton. I am very glad you do not wish to limit us to local government.
Senator Jones. If this -resolution should be adopted and ratified by Congress,
then Congress could provide for the election of a Delegate without going any
further, or could provide for representation in Congress. Congress could pro¬
vide for representation in Congress and stop there, or it could go further and
provide for election of Representative and Senator, but it can not go further
than that.
The Chairman. Congress to-day, in my judgment, has the right to provide
for the election of certain officers.
Senator Jones. Not for the election of a Senator. It does not interfere with
with any other authority which Cogress has.
Mr. Clayton. It only makes it possible for us to have representation in both
Houses.
Senator Jones. And to participate in the election of President.
Mr. Clayton. I am speaking for myself when I say I think that is what we
ought to have.
Now, if I may speak for the committee, the Poindexter bill has been referred
to a number of times as the Delegate plan. The great fundamental difference,
as I see it and as the committee sees it, between the Poindexter and the Capper
bills is this: The Capper bill turns over to the citizens the election of certain
administrative officers in the District—the public utilities commission, the com¬
missioners, and the board of education. Then it provides machinery for their
election. All of those are simply matters of administrative provision. The
officers themselves are ministrant, and it does not go to the root of the matter.
What we are really concerned about is our connection with our governing body
here—Congress. Suppose we want to put in an additional waterworks sys¬
tem. We must present the matter to Congress and inform Congress, and some¬
times when they are busy it is very difficult for Members of Congress to take
the time to go into the vast array of details necessary to fully advise themselves
before they determine whether we shall or shall not have it. If we have a
voice here, and that voice is intelligent and informed, it would save a good deal
of time of Congress and would give us an opportunity to express our desires.
That we have not now. All we can do is to come here in mass meeting and
bother you for hours at a time expressing opr views, perhaps none too well
defined. If we had some one who is on the job all the time lie could tell you
what we want and tell you when we want it and advise you intelligently about
it. That is provided for in the Poindexter bill.
As far as the other proposition is concerned, the election of commissioners, the
board of education, etc., I must say there is an irreconcilable conflict of opinion
among our own people on nearly every one of them. Some want to elect the
commissioners, and others don’t want it. Many believe that the commission
form of government is very satisfactory. There is a great difference of opinion
with relation to the members of the board of education. I have'had some
experience in that myself. To elect a board of education with a salary of $1,000
a year would be an incentive for persons who are not fitted for that place to
want the job, and there is not enough money to get first-class brains. I think
we would be better off with no salary, if we had the board elected. There
might be other things said about the public utilities commission.
But now, speaking for the committee, I want to sum up our judgment to be that
as between these two bills we favor the delegate bill; but speaking for myself,
and I believe speaking for the committee also, we would prefer to have rep¬
resentation in both Houses so that we can bring to you our views intelligently
at the proper time on the very vital matters concerning the government of
Washington.
If I may refer to a question the chairman asked a while ago, if you undertake
to go into the history of previous experiments upon government in Washington,
it is necessary to bear in mind that those experiments were all abandoned in
favor of our present form quite a number of years ago. Washington to-day is
in no sense to be compared with the city governed by a town council and a
mayor some 50 years ago. Therefore, a comparison can not throw very much
light upon the situation which you have to deal with now.
The Chairman. We are going to close the hearing to-day. The committee will
adjourn until 2 o’clock next Monday afternoon, at which time the opponents
to this legislation will have two hours.
(Whereupon, at 4 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet again on
Monday, the 14th day of November, 1921, at 2 o’clock p. m.)
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1921.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the committee room, Capitol,
at 2 o’clock p. m., Senator L. Heisler Ball presiding.
Present: Senators Ball (chairman), Capper, Gooding, Jones, and Sheppard.
Present also: Col. Winfield Jones, representing those favoring the bill provid¬
ing for a Delegate in the House of Representatives; Mr. E. C. Brandenburg,
representing those favoring the adoption of the Jones resolution, providing for
a constitutional amendment; Mr. G. W. Ayers, representing those opposed to
any form of suffrage in the District.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the division of time. I made
the statement that six hours would be allowed to each side in the discussion.
I mean by that if you need that much time. If you do not need the six hours,
I do not mean to say you have to by wandering speeches take up the time, be¬
cause our time is valuable. However, we are perfectly willing to give you the
six hours. That means those for suffrage in any form will have six hours;
those against suffrage in any form will have six hours, if they need it. This
does not mean that you can discuss any one bill for six hours, but draws the
line at those favoring suffrage in some form, who will be given six hours, and
those opposing suffrage in any form, who will be given six hours, if they find
they require that much time.
I want to say further that I think it is possible for any one speaker to-state
clearly his position, and in such a manner that the committee in reading the
rec.ord will get the argument very much more forcibly, if it is stated briefly. I
believe in half an hour any person ought to be able to state his position. I
understand at some of these hearings some of the speakers have spoken as long
as five hours. I am not going to permit any one speaker to speak five hours. It
is unfair to the other speakers who want to express their views. You will have
ample time to say what you desire to say. Half an hour, or at least three-
quarters of an hour, will give everybody ample time to express the reasons for
or against a proposition of this kind, and to give all of their arguments, with¬
out going into flights of oratory, which we do not want here.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I appear in behalf
of the joint citizens’ committee, an organization composed of substantially
all the civic bodies in the city of Washington. At the former hearing we
understood that the advocates of the voteless Delegate were to present their
side of the case. We have appeared to-day to present our side in opposition to
that and to show why the Jones bill should be the bill reported by this com¬
mittee. We, of course, will naturally take the affirmative for the Jones bill
and take the negative so far as the other bills are concerned.
The Chairman. Still you are in favor of the amendment?
Mr. Brandenburg. We are in favor of the amendment.
The Chairman. Therefore you will come within the six hours- allotted to
those favoring suffrage, two hours of which were taken up at the former
session.
Mr. Brandenburg. How many hours will we have to present our side? These
gentlemen who are favoring the Delegate bill are in favor also of the Jones bill.
It is more of necessity than choice that they are advocating the Delegate bill.
The Chairman. Of course, that is not for the committee to decide. You
are granted six hours for suffrage.
43
44
SUFFRAGE IU THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I feel that if the civic organizations had gotten together and agreed on some
definite plan and submitted that plan to the committee, representing some defi¬
nite, concrete method of granting suffrage, it would have had more force with
the committee; but since you can not agree, then you will have to divide your
time among yourselves, so that each side may present its views properly.
Mr. Brandenburg. But we have agreed, sir. Even those who advocate suf¬
frage are parties to a petition to Congress in favor of the Burroughs bill,
which is identical with the Jones bill. I appear in behalf of the representative
organizations of this city to support that.
The Chairman. Of course, the other side has the floor to-day. We had
better let them proceed, and if we And they are not going to consume the two
hours we can hear you.
Mr. Brandenburg. We would like to present our views in opposition to the
Delegate bill.
The Chairman. To-day those who are opposed to suffrage at all will have
the floor. That was my ruling the other day, and I must live up to it. Is there
anybody here that wishes to speak in opposition to suffrage?
Mr. G. W. Ayers. Mr. Chairman, I would be perfectly willing, as representing
the opposition, to allow them to use any part of my time up to an hour and a
half or two hours. I will be generous with them.
The Chairman. I would not permit him to use two hours.
Mr. Ayers. Any part of the two hours they wish to use I am willing to
allow them.
The Chairman. Are you the only speaker for the opposition?
Mr. Ayers. I have two others, who are not here how.
The Chairman. You are only allowed two hours. If you give him. an hour
and a half, you will only have 30 minutes to divide between you on your
side.
Mr. Ayers. If we have another meeting, we will have several hours?
The Chairman. Yes; you will have another opportunity.
Mr. Ayers. All right, I will take it. I am willing to be generous and let
them speak to-day.
The Chairman. Then you may proceed, Mr. Brandenburg.
Mr. Brandenburg. I think he should present the opposition, so we may reply.
I think he should present the views of the opposition, and then we will reply
to it.
The Chairman. He is granting you time at his disposal. He can do it now
or at the end.
Mr. Brandenburg. We would prefer it to be at the end, so we can reply to it.
The Chairman. Do I understand you are representing the opposition to suf¬
frage and that you want to speak first, or do you want to allow him to take an
hour of your time now?
Mr. Ayers. We will allow him to take an hour of the time now.
The Chairman. All right; proceed.
Mr. William McK. Clayton. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Brandenburg pro¬
ceeds I should like very much to present a matter at this time. I will confine
myself to five minutes. I have a short manuscript here that I think should go
into this record before Mr. Brandenburg proceeds. It relates to a point which
has not yet been brought before the committee. It is for suffrage and I think
some argument might be based upon it later. I will promise to be very, very
brief. I think it might clarify some of the argument that will come after this.
The Chairman. We have limited the time allowed for each side. You are
for suffrage?
Mr. Clayton. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It is not right that those who are for suffrage should take
half an hour out of these two hours. They have already granted a man who is
for suffrage an hour of this time. You must get his consent for that, not mine.
Mr. Clayton. I spoke to Mr. Brandenburg about this. Do I understand those
in favor of the delegate proposition will have further time?
The Chairman. You still have four hours.
Mr. Clayton. I will yield whatever is necessary of my time later on. I
really feel this is a question that has not been touched upon at all. I want
Mr. Brandenburg to hear it. I think it should be put in the record here.
Mr. Brandenburg. We have no objection. We don’t control the time.
The Chairman. Y r ou control that hour that has been granted you.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
45
Mr. Brandenburg. Then I want to preserve the hour.
The Chairman. You can not do that and grant him part of the time.
Mr. Brandenburg. I am very sorry that I can not comply with Mr. Clayton’s
request.
STATEMENT OF E. C. BRANDENBURG, ESQ.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, I appear here in the first instance before
the committee as a representative of the citizens’ joint committee on national
representation for the District of Columbia. This committee is composed of a
number of organizations, comprising, perhaps I might safely state, the entire
District of Columbia. We are united in support of the Jones bill. We differ
simply on the question of the delegate. The advocates of the Poindexter bill
and the Capper bill, as I said a moment ago, do so merely because of necessity
rather than because of choice. They are with us.
The Chairman. You should draw a distinction between the Jones bill, on
the one hand, and the Poindexter bill and Capper bill on the other. The Cap¬
per bill gives you local administration, changes your whole method of adminis¬
tration of the District, while the others do not.
Mr. Brandenburg. I am aware of that fact, sir.
Now. this joint citizens’ committee is composed of delegates from the Wash¬
ington Board of Trade, with a membership of more than 2,300; from the
Chamber of Commerce, with a membership of more than 1,100; from the
Federation of Citizens’ Associations, which comprises some 38 sectional citi¬
zens’ organizations, each sending their delegate to the main meeting. It
also represents the Central Labor Union, and they represent 90 local unions and
7 local auxiliaries, with an aggregate membership of considerably more than
50,000. It also represents the Merchants and Manufacturers’ Association, the
Monday Evening Club, the Bar Association, the Women’s Bar Association, the
suffrage group of the City Club, the Association of Oldest Inhabitants, the
District Delegate Association, and a number of other organizations.
Now, inasmuch as this organization is composed of representatives of all
these great bodies of organizations', naturally there is some difference of
opinion as to the methods of securing suffrage. We are all united, even the
gentlemen who presented the argument here the other day, on the proposition
that taxation without representation should not exist anywhere under the
flag of the United States. We are united upon it. It is simply a question of
procedure. The gentlemen who appear here in behalf of the Delegate feel,
that it may be some time before Congress will grant us the privileges set forth
in the Jones bill.
Now, that bing so, the joint citizens’ committee when we come before you
can not say that we are united as against the Delegate bill, or in favor of the
Delegate bill; but we do present in the memorandum which I shall file with
the committee the views of that joint organization, setting forth the fact
that we believe that the election of a voteless Delegate would simply postpone
indefinitely consideration of the constitutional amendment which is set forth
in the Jones bill. I shall not take time to read this memorandum, but will
ask that it be incorporated in the record as a part of my remarks. This is
signed by representatives from nearly all the organizations.
The Chairman. That may be inserted in the record.
(The document referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)
Memorandum on Behalf of Citizens Joint Committee on National Repre¬
sentation for the District of Columbia on Senate Bills Nos. 14 and
417 of the Sixty-seventh Congress, First Session.
To the Congress of the United States:
This memorandum has been prepared and is submitted pursuant to a reso¬
lution adopted October 27, 1921, by the directing and brief committees of the
citizens’ joint committee on national representation, which resolution, in so far
as it is here material, is as follows:
“Resolved, That the brief committee be requested to follow attentively the
Senate district committee hearings on the bills proposing a voteless territorial
delegate for the District; and be empowered in its discretion to supplement
these hearings by a statement to the Senate district committee in the form of
46
SUFFRAGE IU THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
a petition or otherwise of the relation between the Territorial Delegate project
and our constitutional amendment empowering Congress to grant to District
residents voting representation in Congress and the Electoral College and of
the inadequacy of the former as a substitute for the latter.”
The reasons leading to this action are these:
The citizens’ joint committee is composed of delegate representatives of prac-
. tically all of the civic organizations of the District of Columbia. A list of
these powerful and numerous constituent organizations is appended to this
memorandum. The committee is organized for one specific purpose, and that is
\ to secure, for the residents of the District, representation in Congress and in
the Electoral College, and access to the Federal courts. The proposal which
the committee is united in advocating was embodied in House Joint resolu¬
tion 11 of the Sixty-sixth Congress, proposing an amendment to the Consti-
"N tution, upon which hearings were had before the House Judiciary Committee
January 11-15, 1921, and in the prints of those hearings will be found a full
statement of the committee’s contentions. The committee therefore has no
mandate from its constituent organizations to advocate other measures or to
oppose them unless such other measures threaten to defeat or postpone indefi¬
nitely the measure which they unite in advocating.
The pending bills above mentioned include one feature which might be con¬
founded with the “ national representation ” which the joint committee is advo-
eating. We refer to the provision made in both pending bills for the election
by the inhabitants of the District of a voteless Delegate to the House of Rep¬
resentatives.
Some members of the joint committee and of the constituent organizations
believe that no secure a Territorial Delegate from the District of Columbia
would he a helpful preliminary to national representation. They point out
that States which now have national representation passed through a prelimi¬
nary stage in which they hnd a Territorial Delegate.
Others of the joint committee and of the constituent organizations believe,
on the contrary, that the Territorial Delegate project delays and tends to de¬
feat full national representation as proposed by the constitutional amendment
which we advocate. They point out that Congress is not likely to pass imme¬
diately or in the near future more than one measure looking toward “ suffrage ”
in the District, and they urge that many of our congressional legislators are
inclined to view the voteless-delegate proposal and the proposal for representa¬
tion in Congress and in the Electoral College as essentially alternative pro¬
posals, and with them to adopt the former would be to reject or at least to
delay the latter.
If it is true the two proposals are to be considered by Congress as alter¬
native, then the difference between the proposal of the pending bills and what
would be secured by the proposed constitutional amendment should be noticed.
Some are so obvious as to make complete enumeration unnecessary. We men¬
tion, however, the following:
(1) The pending bills give the people of the District of Columbia no atom
of power in the two yitally important functions of government, viz, the levy¬
ing of taxes and the appropriation of public funds, either with respect to local
taxes and local appropriations, or with respect to national taxes and national
appropriations; nor in the making of laws, excepting with respect to such
municipal regulations as are within the power of the municipal administrative
boards to be elected as proposed by one of the bills.
(2) They give the people of the District of Columbia no voice in the election
of the Chief Executive.
(3) They give to the people of the District not even a voteless voice in the
Senate, and hence none in the special functions of that branch of Congress.
(4) They give the people of the District of Columbia no power in the selec¬
tion of the members of their judiciary, which power is to be exercised under
our proposal through participation in the selection of the President and the
Senate.
(5) Obviously the Territorial Delegate project does not deal at all with the
need of access for residents of the District to Federal courts.
The proposals are also essentially dissimilar from the Territorial legislation
with which they are usually compared in that no Territorial legislature, not
even one with the scanty powers of the legislature of 1871-1874, is proposed.
The proposals not only do not contemplate the further step which has followed
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
47
the grant of Territorial representation in continental United States, viz, the
ultimate grant of full statehood, but such a further step would, in the opinion
of this committee, be impossible without an amendment to the Constitution,
more difficult to secure because open to more objections than the more limited
amendment which this committee advocates.
If favorable consideration is to be given the Territorial Delegate proposal
as a step toward a later grant of voting representation, then this committee
earnestly urges that such a conclusion logically and inevitably requires imme¬
diate favorable action by Congress upon the proposed constitutional amend¬
ment. For the postponement of voting representation after Territorial status
is accorded is only justifiable and has occurred in the case of other Terri¬
tories only on the ground of the smallness or lack of qualification of.the popula¬
tion of the Territory or its unreadiness from other causes for voting representa¬
tion in Congress. No such condition exists with regard to the District. If
we are entitled to a Delegate, we are entitled to voting representation, and
no reason exists against the latter any more than against the former. The
only impediment to national representation is the constitutional difficulty, ana
every argument for a delegate is an argument for removing this constitutional
defect.
On the other hand, considered as a step toward full voting representation,
the Delegate proposals of the pending bills involve a possibility of injury to
our proposal, which is one of the considerations leading many of our con¬
stituent members to oppose flatly the Delegate proposal.
It is that both bills provide in section 3, and it seems that any similar bill
must necessarily provide, that no person shall vote in the District of Columbia
who claims the right to vote or claims residence elsewhere. The exceptional
fact concerning the inhabitants of the District of Columbia is that so many
of them claim residence in States. Their continued claim is to be expected,
not only to preserve their status with respect to employment by the Government
(which difficulty could be removed by simple legislation), but also in order to
preserve their share of control through the ballot of the affairs of the Nation.
It is not to be expected that such citizens would surrender the right to elect
voting Members of the Senate and House and the right to participate in the
election of the President for the privilege of electing a voteless Delegate or
even the privilege of electing the municipal administrators of the District of
Columbia affairs (the commissioners, the board of education, etc., who have
no real legislative power). If, therefore, the proposals of the pending bills
are adopted, the voting constituency of the District of Columbia will not be
of the strength that would be developed if representatives in Congress and in
the Electoral College were to be elected, as proposed to be secured through
legislation authorized by the constitutional amendment which we advocate.
Those who believe that the election here of a Territorial Delegate would
retard the adoption of our constitutional amendment point to this difference
in the probable voting constituency of the District of Columbia upon an elec¬
tion for a Delegate on the one hand and upon an election such as would be
held under the proposed constitutional amendment on the other, saying that
the holding of the election for delegate would furnish misleading informa¬
tion as to the number and quality of the qualified voters in the District of
Columbia, which could be used by opponents of full national representation
here to oppose the enactment of such an amendment to the Constitution.
There are obviously other considerations so well known to the Congress
that we do not venture to restate them which make it impossible that the
people of the District of Columbia should accept the grant of a voteless
Delegate as a satisfaction in full of their claim for participation, in the
National Government.
On the whole, therefore, the joint committee on national representation
makes this record of the fact that neither the pending bills nor any amend¬
ments to them within the existing power of Congress, nor any bill excepting
one proposing the constitutional amendment, would be acceptable to the people
of the District of Columbia in satisfaction of their respectful demand for
representation in both Houses of Congress and participation in the election
of the President, according to population, and access to the Federal courts.
No other proposal than the proposal which we advocate has received
indorsement from the civic organizations of the District of Columbia (their
only present means of making their wishes known) with practical unanimity.
83480—22- 4
48
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
We therefore urge that whatever disposition is made of the pending bills,
they may be not allowed to divert attention from nor to postpone the con¬
sideration of and action upon the proposal to amend the Constitution embodied
in the House joint resolution 6 and in Senate joint resolution 133 of this
Congress.
Respectfully submitted.
Edwin C. Brandenburg, Chairman,
A. S. Worthington,
Henry H. Glassie,
Chapin Brown,
E. F. Colladay,
A. Leftwich Sinclair,
John B. Larner,
James T. Lloyd,
Wm. McK. Clayton,
Paul E. Lesh,
Frank J. Hogan,
Theodore W. Noyes, ex officio,
Committee on Brief.
LIST OF CONSTITUENT ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED IN THE CITIZENS’ JOINT COM¬
MITTEE ON NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The organizations represented in the citizens’ joint committee on national
representation for the District of Columbia are as follows:
Board of Trade (2,100 members).
Chamber of Commerce (1,100 members).
Federation of Citizens’ Associations, representing 38 sectional citizens’ asso¬
ciations, as follows: Anacostia, Benning, Brightwood, Brookland, Cathedral
Heights, Central, Chevy Chase, Chillum Castle-Woodburn, Cleveland Park
School Community, Columbia Heights, Conduit Road, Connecticut Avenue, Con¬
gress Heights, Georgetown, Kalorama, Kenilworth, Lincoln Park, Mid City,
Mount Pleasant, North Capitol and Eckington, North Washington, Northwest
Suburban. Park View, Petworth, Piney Branch, Rhode Island Avenue Suburban,
Randle Highlands, Sixteenth Street Highlands, Sixteenth Street Heights, South
Washington, Southeast, Stanton, Park, Takoma Park, Trinidad, West End,
Washington Civic Association, Washington Society of Fine Arts, American
Institute of Fine Arts, Arts Club of Washington, District of Columbia Society
of Architects, Society of Nations. These associations cover nearly the entire
District, with an aggregate membership (estimated) of 20,000. Many of these
sectional associations have, in addition to participation through the federation,
separately indorsed District national representation through constitutional
amendment and have appointed cooperating campaign committees.
Central Labor Union, representing 90 local unions and 7 local auxiliaries,
with aggregate membership (estimated) of 85,000.
Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association.
Monday Evening Club.
Bar Association.
The suffrage group of the City Club.
Association of Oldest Inhabitants.
District Delegate Association.
Citizens’ associations not represented in the federation, including East Wash¬
ington, Northeast Washington, and Southwest Citizens’ Associations.
Washington Real Estate Board of the District of Columbia.
Advertising Club of Washington.
Woman’s Bar Association.
Manual Training Teacbers’ Association.
Twentieth Century Club.
COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS.
The American Federatioon of Labor.
The Woman’s City Club.
Federation of Women’s Clubs.
The local branch of the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association.
The Anthony League.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
49
Washintgon section of the Progressive Education Association.
District of Columbia Congress of Mothers’ and Parent and Teachers’ Asso¬
ciation.
The Men’s Club of Mount Pleasant Congregational Church.
_ The Chairman. Permit me to ask you a few questions, that we may get dis¬
tinctly in our minds the position that these various organizations take.
Mr. Brandenburg. I will be very glad to answer them.
The Chairman. You say they are in favor of all these bills?
Mr. Brandenburg. No, sir.
The Chairman. But they object to the Poindexter bill because they fear it
will postpone action on the other, instead of leading up to it ?
Mr. Brandenburg. That is one of them. They are all united on the Jones
bill, which is identical with the Burroughs bill, that we desire a constitutional
amendment.
. The Chairman. Are they opposed to the Capper bill? You must remember
that differs from either of the others. The Jones bill and the Poindexter bill
both leave the control of the District of Columbia in the hands of Congress.
The Capper bill takes local control of the District of Columbia out of the hands
of Congress and places it in the hands of commissioners elected directly by
the people.
Mr. Brandenburg. I shall approach that subject in a moment.
The Chairman. I would like you to make yourself clear on that point.
Mr. Brandenburg. The organization has not taken a position on the question
of local self-government; that is, the joint citizens’ committee has taken no
stand upon that matter. They are united, however, in response to the sugges¬
tion, made a moment ago by yourself, in support of the Jones bill, namely, the
right of absolute franchise.
The Chairman. When you say “ absolute franchise,” it is rather misleading.
Absolute franchise means the right to vote for every officer who has to do with
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Brandenburg. No ; we do not take that position.
The Chairman. Then you should not say “ absolute franchise.”
Mr. Brandenburg. Very good. That was inadvertent and probably going a
little too far. What I mean is just set forth in the Jones'bill, namely, the
right to vote for electors for President and Vice President, to have representation
in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and that the citizens of the
District of Columbia when it comes to going into the United States court be
treated the same as the citizens of any State. This joint citizens’ committee
has not taken any position with reference to the question of local self-govern¬
ment, but are united, as I have said, on the provisions of the Jones bill.
The Chairman. I am glad you make that distinction clear, because there is
a wide distinction.
Mr. Branderburg. There is, and we do not agree on that proposition.
Now, then, I also appear here as the representative and former president
of the Washington Board of Trade, an organization composed of more than
2,300 of the business, professional, and representative citizens of the District
of Columbia. This organization has time and again taken the position that
they are opposed to local self-government. We are opposed to local self-
government because under the Constitution the exclusive right to jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia, we think, should be where it is to-day, namely,
with the Federal Government. We do not for a moment believe that conditions
can be improved through the election of a board of commissioners nor do we
believe that conditions can be improved through the election of a city council.
‘And why do I say that? I say it for this reason: That a local city govern¬
ment would be one in name only if granted,in accordance with the bill which
is before this committee. That is true for this reason: That no local city
government can exist except there be also with it the power of taxation—of
levying taxes and providing for their distribution—and I say that Congress
never will, so long as this country exists, give the citizens of the District of
Columbia the right to levy taxes upon the property in the District of Columbia.
The Chairman. You say it never will. Do you think it should?
Mr. Brandenburg. No ; I say it never should.
The Chairman. I think that should be made clear.
Mr. Brandenburg. Yes. They never should surrender that right. I don’t
think the conditions which prevailed in Philadelphia and which caused the Gov-
50
SUFFRAGE IN' THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
ernment to come to the city of Washington should play any part in this matter.
The days when the military can walk up to the halls of a legislature and stay
the proceedings have long since passed. That can not occur in the District of
Columbia. So, I say, that if you provide for local city government, as provided
in one of these bills, you do an idle thing. How long would that satisfy
even the advocates of that provision? Not very long, for the reason that there
would still rankle in their hearts the old feeling against taxation without repre¬
sentation. It was inherent in the American colonists, and it has come down
through the course of time, and it still exists with the people in the city of
Washington.
Now*, a voteless Delegate in the House of Representatives and also in the
Senate, if you please, would be an idle ceremony. What good would it be to
give us the right to have a Delegate who can only talk? As I have had occasion
to say once before, it would be about as useless as the appendix in the human
anatomy. It would be like shooting one' of our 12-inch guns with a blank
cartridge.
The Chairman. And might cause just as much damage at that causes some¬
times.
Mr. Brandenburg. And might cause just as much damage as that would cause,
I would say.
Now, the real facts—and we might as well look them right in the face-
underlying this request for a change in the local form of government is the
fact that the people are dissatisfied because they have no say in tlrs question of
taxation and how those taxes shall be disbursed. That is the underlying fact,
and you can talk as much as you please and it will never change.
The Chairman. Do you think they have no say?
Mr. Brandenburg. No: we have absolutely no say; but if vou give us the
provisions of the .Tones bill then we have a voice, because our representatives
will be in Congress and can vote on the question of the levying of taxes and of
their distribution.
And what is more. Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention to this fact:
That if we are given the right to vote for President and Vice President
we do have a say in the appointment of the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia. There is no doubt about it.
So that T say'that tlus is a different privilege which is attempted to be set
forth in the Poindexter bill and in the Capper bill.
I have here a resolution which was passed a few days ago by the directors
of the Washington Board of Trade, which sets forth their views, and I shall
read it into the record:
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ROARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF
TRADE, NOVEMBER 7, 1921.
Whereas the Washington Board of Trade, on April 24, 1916, unanimously
approved amendment of the Constitution to provide voting representation for
residents of the District in both Houses of Congress and in the Electoral Col¬
lege, and directed its officers and appropriate committees to work to secure
the adoption of this constitutional amendment, which is now pending in
Congress and under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee;
Whereas the mandate to fight for adoption of the constitutional amendment
includes authority to oppose any other legislative proposition which defeats or
threa tens to defeat that in support of which we are thus united;
Whereas bills now before the Senate District Committee propose for the District
a voteless Delegate or Delegates in the House, a small and negligible fraction
of a Territory’s powers and privileges, conveying to the people of the Capftal
no atom of legislative participation in their government or of a genuine
national representation.
Resolved, That the directors of the board of trade record their conviction that
the grant to the District of a voteless Territorial Delegate in advance of our
constitutional amendment would indefinitely postpone and tend to defeat the
securing of genuine national representation. Adoption of the Territorial Dele¬
gate project would, in the opinion of the directors, expose the District to the
risk that many legislators will treat it as substitute or alternative legislation
along the line of national representation and as satisfaction in full of the Dis¬
trict’s claim to real national representation and will use assent to it as a reason
for shelving or rejecting genuine voting national representation through con¬
stitutional amendment, or will treat this grant of something almost worthless as
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
51
a pretext for shirking or repudiating legislative responsibility in respect to
the Capital; and that as a natural result of this procedure the constitutional
amendment would be pushed aside and a voteless Delegate in one House would
become the permanent substitute for adequate voting representation in both
Houses.
Resolved, That the directors of the board of trade record the opinion that the
duty of the board’s officers and appropriate committees to fight for adoption of
the constitutional amendment includes authority to oppose the voteless Delegate
projects which thus threatens to defeat or postpone indefinitely the real national
representation through constitutional amendment which we seek.
I want to say, furthermore, may it please the committee, that the distin¬
guished gentleman the other day referred to and quoted from a number of
Presidents on this question of franchise and Delegate. I don’t think there is
a question of doubt that they realized the impotent and helpless condition of
the citizens of the District, and simply because we at that time had not reached
the stage in population, in other requisites, to entitle us to full representation
in Congress, that that is the reason why these various Presidents have advo¬
cated a Delegate in Congress. The situation has changed. We have now
advanced, and during the time you will give us to present our .views on the
Jones bill we shall present the reasons and show you that we have passed ^
from the state of a Delegate and that we have reached the stage which justifies
giving us the right which is guaranteed to every citizen of the United States.
In other words, we want to be removed from the state of the criminal, the alien,
and the mentally incompetent, in which we now stand so far as our rights
before the Federal Government are concerned.
I shall call upon Mr. Lesh, who also represents the citizens’ joint committee
and represents the City Club, an organization, who desires to say something in
opposition to the Delegate bill.
Mr. James T. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt a moment? I wish to
be heard on the part of the joint citizens’ committee as a representative of the
chamber of commerce in favor of the Jones bill. It will take me about 30
minutes to present my views, and I do not know that I can attend the next
session. I would therefore be very much pleased if I could go on this after¬
noon.
The Chairman. It will be agreeable to me if you gentlemen can divide the
time between yourselves.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Lloyd’s engagements, and so far as I
am personally concerned it is agreeable to me; but the City Club does wish to
be heard in favor of the Jones bill and in opposition to the Capper and Poin¬
dexter bills before these hearings are concluded.
The Chairman. You will have four hours after to-day for those favoring
suffrage. You are granted an hour to-day by the opposition, but only an hour.
It is now 2.30, so you only have half an hour more.
Mr. Lesh. If I have any right by reason of the fact that I am at present on
my feet, I wish to say that I hope the committee will consider the City Club
the next order of business when we come to the affirmative side of the case
«again.
STATEMENT OE JAMES T. LLOYD, ESQ.
pi
Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, I think you understand whom I represent. I will
endeavor to be as brief as possible.
At the former hearing you properly asked the question whether the people
here are satisfied with the present system of District government. I think I
- can safely answer that question in the affirmative. The people believe that
Washington is one of the best-governed cities in the United States. Its officers
are honest and have the best interests of the people at heart. The dissatisfac¬
tion in Washington is not on account of its local government, but because of
the fact that the people are not represented in that government and have no
voice in its councils. With one accord they come to you now, asking that they
may have the right to vote for presidential electors and for representatives in
both branches of Congress. They wish to be recognized as citizens, with the
rights that are attached to citizenship. The President appoints their com¬
missioners. They wish to vote for the officer that names these commissioners.
Congress is their legislative body. They wish the right to have representatives
in that Congress.
In these urgent requests they are all agreed and among them there are no
dissenting views. Those who indorse the Poindexter bill do so, in most in-
52
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA.
stances, because tliey believe it is the first step toward representation in Con¬
gress and in the electoral college and because they believe Congress will do
nothing more for them. Those who advocate local self-government and support
the Capper bill are equally anxious to secure the representation asked in the
Jones bill. You have observed, I am sure, in the statements which have been
made in favor of the Poindexter bill that none of them opposed the Jones bill.
The people are seriously divided on the advisability of the passage of the
Poindexter bill; but few advocate the passage of the Capper bill; but all, of
every class and condition of our people, favor the Jones bill. If you give
Washington what it wants, what it insists upon, what it believes in common
justice it ought to receive, you will favorably consider the Jones bill.
You may inquire why the people wish representation. It is because of that
inherent feeling in all Americans, that they should have a voice in government.
As you know, I am somewhat familiar with the viewpoint of the Congressman,
but I have learned, as a resident of Washington, the humiliation of its people
in being totally disfranchised. Those who enjoy citizenship, with voice in the
affairs of the Government, do not realize the mortification that comes to Wash¬
ingtonians in being deprived of their rights. Before you is a forceful example
of it. John Joy Edson, whom you all know, who is past 75 years of age, has
never had the right to vote for President or Congressman. No more patriotic
man can be found. He fought in the Civil War in defense of the flag; he con¬
tributed of his money and time during the World War; he has lived an un¬
blemished life. I have talked with him and know the anguish of his soul in
having no voice directly or indirectly in the affairs of the Government. He has
shown his willingness to give his life, if need be, for his country, and yet, be¬
cause he lives in the District of Columbia, he is deprived of that priceless
boon, the right of participation in governmental affairs. Why should he not
vote for presidential electors? Why should he not vote for Representatives in
Congress? No satisfactory answer can be given for his being deprived of these
privileges.
The people do not demand the granting of these privileges simply because
other people have them, but because, in the light of present-day conditions it
is the right which, as American citizens, they should be permitted to enjoy.
Would anyone take from the splendid State of Delaware, rich in achievement
in the councils of the Nation as it has been, any of its representation in Con¬
gress? This remarkable little State, small in area and population, the home
of the chairman of this committee and the birthplace of my father, has a his¬
tory in the galaxy of States that much larger States might covet, and yet to-day
it has not half the population of the District of Columbia and has a citizen¬
ship no more intelligent, no more loyal to the Government and no more moral
and lawabiding than the residents of the District.
It is said that this District was dedicated as the seat of Government and
placed under the control of Congress. The people here are pleased that it was,
and no one would change such seat of Government, nor prevent the control of
Congress. What these people ask is that the District shall remain under the
control of Congress and shall have the same representation in Congress as a
State.
The President, by appointment, and the Senate, by confirmation, control the
executive and judicial branches of the District government. Why should not
the people here have a voice in the selection of that President and in the
body which confirms the appointments of its chief officers?
I know how jealous the Senate is of its power; I know with what caution it
has considered the various applications for statehood in the past, but the peo¬
ple here are not asking statehood; they do not want it; they are only asking
representation in the Congress and the right to vote for presidential electors.
If the Jones resolution is adopted and the proposed constitutional amend¬
ment ratified, Congress and the Executive will yet have complete control of
the District, but the people will enjoy that privilege which they crave; that
right which every American covets; they will then enjoy that right which
our revolutionary fathers demanded from England—the right of representa¬
tion. They will have that for which the revolutionary fathers fought.
The people come to you in no spirit of antagonism. They come with loyal
hearts, asking for that to which all free people are entitled, in the confident
belief that if the Congress will only seriously consider their plea on its merits
there can be only one response, and that is that the people of the District shall
be given the rights which free men enjoy in all republics—the right of repre¬
sentation.
SUFFRAGE IN. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
53
Senator Jones. Mr. Lloyd, it might be well to call attention to the fact that
they would not have that right, by virtue of the passage of this resolution.
Congress would still have to give it to them,'but Congress would have the right
to do it.
Mr. Lloyd. I supposed you understood that.
Senator Jones. We do, but I thought while you and Mr. Brandenburg were
talking that people reading what you say would conclude that necessarily gives
that right.
Mr. Brandenburg. I did not discuss that, because the chairman held me to
the opposition of these two bills. I expected to discuss that.
Mr. Lloyd. The Declaration of Independence asserted as a self-evident truth,
that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The people here, in all seriousness, ask what powers have been granted to the
government by the consent of the governed in the District of Columbia. It is
ruled absolutely by the will of Congress, and yet the more than 435,000 people
here have not, nor can not, give any consent to such government.
It has been argued that the population is composed largely of employees of
the Government, and as these come from the States they have residence and
citizenship elsewhere. This statement is erroneous. There are in the employ
of '.he Government about 85,000 people. At least one-half of these have lost
their residence in the States. It is safe to say there are 380,000 bona fide
residents of the District of Columbia. Of this number at least 150,000 are of
-s oting age and have not the right of suffrage anywhere. It is for these 150,000
voters that the various organizations in the District speak and for them they
make this urgent demand.
Senator Sheppard. When you say there are 85,000 people here who are em¬
ployed by the Government, do you mean that your figures include the families?
Mr. Lloyd. No. There are some of them who have families, but a majority
of those in the District who have residences elsewhere are persons who are
living alone, who are single. Those persons living here who are employed by
the Government and have families, as a rule, have lost their residence else¬
where.
The Chairman. You say there are 150,000 voters?
Mr. Lloyd. That includes men and women, of course.
The Chairman. What is the population of the District at this time?
Mr. Lloyd. It is a little over 435,000.
The Chairman. Do you not think there are at least 100,000 of those who
claim their residence in other States?
Mr. Lloyd. No ; I think not. Of the 85,000 employed by the Government it
is safe to say that half of them have lost their voting residence elsewhere.
The Chairman. Tfie 85,000 employed by the Government are not the only
ones who are counted in this District as residing in other States. You will
find of the 85,000 probably half who have families. There will be two or three
in each family that have a vote in other States.
Mr. Lloyd. I think I have stated the fact correctly, sir, that a decided ma¬
jority of those in the employ of the Government are single. I am quite sure,
from my knowledge of it, that I would be safe in saying that two-thirds of
those employed by the Government are single, and that only one-third of them
have families dependent upon them.
The Chairman. Of course, it is immaterial, because the force of the argu¬
ment is the same, but I think you are mistaken in those figures. To-day there
are many States that permit voting by mail, and I was very much surprised
during the last Presidential election to find such a large percentage from the
States of Iowa, New York, and such States as permit voting by mail, that
did vote, and the whole families voted. I think your statement of the number
of people voting in the various States is entirely too low.
Mr. Lloyd. That may be true, that I may be wrong. I am bound to make
an estimate. There is no way of stating it accurately.
The Chairman. The thing that called it specially to my attention was the
fact that you said you had double the voting population of the State of
Delaware. .
Mr. Lloyd. Again referring to the State of Delaware, of which I am per¬
sonally especially proud, the record shows that at the last election, in No¬
vember, 1920, there were 92,755 votes cast for President. There can be no
question that there would be more votes cast here in an election for President
than in any of the States of Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, or Wyoming.
54
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF.COLUMBIA.
The only serious objection urged to the Jones resolution, so far as I know,
is the character of the citizenship here. There can he no question of the in
telligence of our voters.
Literacy is considered by many as one of the best tests of ability to cast
an intelligent ballot. The census shows that only 4.9 per cent of the males in
the District of Columbia above 21 years of age are unable to read and write.
This is a lower per cent than any of the States north of us.
Maryland has 8.5 per cent illiteracy; Delaware 10.1 per cent; Pennsylvania,
7.8 per cent; New Jersey, 6.6 per cent; New York, 6 per cent; Connecticut,
6.8 per cent; Rhode Island, 8.8 per cent; Massachusetts, 6.1 per cent; New
Hampshire, 6.2 per cent; Vermont. 5.3 per cent; and Maine, 5.5 per cent.
In fact, out of the 48 States, 30 have a greater per cent of illiteracy in its
voting population than in the District of Columbia, while 8 of the remaining
States have less than three-fourths of 1 per cent less illiteracy than in the
District. The remaining States which have less than 4 per cent of illiteracy
are Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, and Washington.
Senator Jones. In these last figures do you include men and women?
Mr. Lloyd. No; those figures represent only men. I did not have before me
at the time the figures as to women.
In the United States the average of illiteracy is 8.4 per cent, which is nearly
double the illiteracy in the District.
These statistics will be surprising to the man who has not inquired into
the situation, for there seems to be a general impression that the percentage
of illiteracy in the District of Columbia is very great.
There are those who claim that the best means of determining the capa¬
bilities of citizenship is in the frugality of its people and in the number of
its paupers. In the District of Columbia the number of paupers in its alms¬
houses is 83.4 per population of 100,000. Every State north of the District,
including Maine, has a greater percentage of paupers than is found in the Dis¬
trict, and this is true of nearly half of the States of the Union.
As to the frugality and business success of our people, it would be interest¬
ing to note that in the year 1919 and the first half of 1920 there were 9,803
business failures, and out of this number only 14 were in the District of
Columbia. It has approximately one three-hundredth part of the population
of the United States and only one seven-hundredth part of the number of
failures.
The assessed value of the property in the District of Columbia is about
$1,300 per capita, while that in the United States is only about $750 per
capita, showing that the wealth upon which taxes are paid is nearly twice
as great in the District as in the States.
Considering the District from the standpoint of its illiteracy, its frugality,
its accumulated wealth, or its prosperity in business, it stands far above the
average in the States. In fact, from any standpoint the District may be con¬
sidered, its ability to cast an intelligent ballot is equal to that of any of the
States of the Union, and it is a serious and unjustifiable reflection on its in¬
telligence, its business ability, and its patriotism to say that it can not be
trusted to vote for Representatives in Congress or for presidential electors.
If the qualifications for voters in the District are to be viewed from the
standpoint of morals, it is worthy to note that in church affiliation, attendance
at their services, support of their institutions, it is not equaled by any city
of 200,000 population in the United States.
Its schools, both public and private, are not surpassed. The laws here are
better enforced tha*n in most of the States, and from any moral comparison
with the States the District will not be at a disadvantage.
The patriotism and loyalty of our people can not be questioned. This has
been exhibited in the past whenever opportunity has been presented; in the
War between the States, in the Spanish-American War, and in the World War.
It is only necessary to remind you of its part in the last Great War. You saw
it demonstrated on every hand. It had more volunteers in 1917 in proportion
to population than almost any State. It furnished more than its quota under
the draft. Many of our homes are made sorrowful because of the supreme
sacrifice of those who did not come back from overseas. We have some un¬
known dead. No braver soldiers were found on the fields of France than the
boys from the District of Columbia.
The people here paid more than their share in every Liberty loan drive that
was made and supported liberally every enterprise helpful in winning the war.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
55
The people are native-born Americans. They speak the English language,
and they are in complete sympathy with American ideals. Then, why fear their
ability in the matter of their representation? There can be no well-founded
reason to doubt the intelligent use of their ballot. It is safe to say that repre¬
sentatives that may be chosen here will be equal in intelligence, in morals,
and in patriotic devotion to the Government of those from the States.
The people of the District beg your committee to favorably report the Jones
resolution. They urge the Congress to pass it; that the loyal, liberty-loving
Americans living in the District may have submitted to the various States of
the Union the proposed amendment which, if adopted, will give the people here
not Statehood, but representation in Congress and the right to have a voice in
the selection of the President of the United States.
These people have more interest in the President than any others, because
the President has more direct relation to them than to the people of the States
for the reason that there is no State Government. They are more interested in
Congress than any other people because it is their only law-making body.
To-day these people, out of the 531 Members of Congress in both branches, have
no one of whom it may be said he is their Congressman or Senator.
These people urge you to give them an opportunity to say that they have rep¬
resentatives in both branches of Congress who are answerable to them and who
may be held responsible by them. They ask an American birthright; they wish
freedom in fact, a voice in the councils of the Nation. They urge, as a matter
of justice, the right of representation, and they crave the privilege of giving
consent to the Government that their powers of citizenship may be exercised.
They have shown their loyalty in war and in peace, and they pray for that
recognition which would give them partnership in the affairs of the Republic.
They desire to be more useful to the Government. They believe the Jones bill, if
adopted and made a part of the Constitution, would enable them to do so. They
wish to teach their children that they are the citizens of the best Government
amongst men and to encourage them to actively participate in its affairs. They
wish them to love the flag of our country and to know that it means the same to
them as it does to your children. They do not come to you in a complaining
mood. They have no grievance, but they want to possess the God-giving rights
for which the fathers fought and for which the people here and their posterity
will ever strive to maintain, whether in times of peace or when the clouds of
war shall gather.
The Chairman. Mr. Lloyd, without committing the chairman or any member
of the committee to any of the propositions, I wish to congratulate you upon
your presentation of your views. It is the kind of presentation that the com¬
mittee desires. You have given your reasons clearly and concisely set forth.
Mr. Lloyd. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The hour has expired, within five minutes.
Mr. Brandenburg. We will reserve-that. There is no use in starting if we
only have five minutes.
The Chairman. Who is here now representing those opposed to any form of
suffrage?
STATEMENT OF G. W. AYERS.
Mr. Ayers. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, these, papers may look a little
formidable, but I hope .they are not too long. The other side has had three
hours to present their views. Over in the House they had about 9 to 1. It
looks like it may be necessary for me to make the most of this presentatiton.
It has been my experience, in politics in particular, that men who are after
something will organize and go after it, but those who are merely negatively
opposed, until a crisis arises, rarely come out and take an active part in
opposing anything. I think that is true in regard to a great many things.
Now, I do not think I can make a good speech, as good a speech as Mr.
Lloyd made, and I am consuming my own time in this with no pay for it in any
way. I am representing no organized body.
Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, we do not want it understood that any of us around
this table are paid for the services we render. We are here as a patriotic duty,
everyone of us, and there is no suggestion, and no one dares to suggest, that any
of us receive a cent for those services.
Mr. Ayers. I had not implied that, and I beg your pardon if you so under¬
stood me.
Mr. Lloyd. I was afraid you would be misunderstood.
The Chairman. Are you a resident of Washington?
56
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Ayees. I am a Hoosier from Indiana. I have been living here three
years; was here six years around 1900; was here in 1892.
Senator Jones. Are you coming here iji an individual capacity or representing
any body or organization.
Mr. Ayees. Not an organized organization definitely after anything, but rep¬
resenting quite a few men, many of them members of the chamber of commerce,,
board of trade, City Club, Kiwanis Club, Elks Club, and Federation of Citizens’
Associations, of which I have had the honor recently to become a member.
Senator Jones. You have no authority here to represent them?
Mr. Ayees. I have authority to represent those individuals, and several others
should be here, but I do not see them.
Senator Gooding. As organizations or as individuals?
Mr. Ayees. As individuals. Let us get that clear.
The Chaibman. You have a perfect right to come here and present your views,
because this is a national matter. You have that right whether you are a citizen
of the District of Columbia or not.
Mr. Ayees. I thought so, Mr. Chairman.
The Chaieman. It is a matter that involves the whole Nation, and that every
State in the Union must act upon if you adopt the constitutional amendment. Con¬
gress can not pass the Jones bill to become effective until three-.fourths of the
States act favorably upon it; therefore this is a national matter, and no matter
where you come from or who you represent you have a right to come here and
express your views.
Senator Jones. I agree absolutely with the chairman. What I wanted to get
at was whether he was representing some one or coming in an individual
capacity.
Mr. Ayees. I am here as an individual, simply because, as I stated a few
moments ago, it is difficult to get those to come out and take an active part in
a matter who are merely negative in their attitude.
Now, I want to say, so there will be no prejudice, no misunderstanding, that
it should be understood that I was born north of Mason and Dixon’s line;
that my father fought four years and a half in the Civil War, and did not ask
for a pension or a bonus; that I have usually paid my taxes wherever I have
been located; that I have been a sociological and political worker for the
last 25 years; that I was in Oklahoma in 1890 and saw that Territory or¬
ganized ; that I was back there again around 1900 and helped in its reorganiza¬
tion ; that I have been familiar for 25 years at least with the city councils
of the principal cities in the United States, so I pretty well know how our
Government is run, I think.
Now, we here in the United States have been accused of not having an inter¬
national vision of things; that our vision has been national only. I think
that same idea in a smaller way may be applied to the District of Columbia,
that our vision is not national, but local. It is very human to feel that way,
very human, indeed. And so(l would like)right nowfto say to those who are
in favor of suffrage for the District, let us be big hearted and broad visioned
and look to the good of the national welfare, rather than the little things we
want locally. J
Now,p might call this talk “ The policy of accommodation,” and I am going
to apply it particularly to expediency and efficiency in government, not a ques¬
tion of ethical rights. ^ I think* we can dismiss that by saying that the Declara¬
tion of Independence is an ideal paper, and just as soon as we got into practical
politics of writing a Constitution we very quickly forgot the Declaration of
Independence.
What was the very first thing we did ? Only males should vote, forgetting
one-half of the population, which were women; saying that slaves should not
vote; saying that those who were not freemen should not vote; saying that
the Indian not taxed should not vote, and to-day he does not vote anywhere
in the United States. In Mr. Capper’s State I think there are several and
they do not vote.
It is also true that in the majority of the States prior to the formation of
our country and our Constitution, there was always in all of those colonies or
local governments, whatever they might have been, a qualification for the
elector—£20 or £50 or 500 acres of land, some land and some money, some
educational qualifications, some religious qualifications.
Now, sir, I don’t think that up to the time of the signing of the Declaration
of Independence there was any idea among the colonists that everybody was
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 57
born free and equal, because history does not carry out that fact. You may
talk it as you will, but history does not mention that at all.
The speakers who have preceded me have mentioned the names of men and
women in support of their contention for suffrage in the District, quoted
Abraham Lincoln, quoted some lady in the District, Mrs. Mussey, I believe it
was. So if I should mention names, either for or against, it is not personal.
If I should mention a racial matter, it is in no wise personal. It is simply
the statement of a fact that I am trying to bring out, so this committee may
have the information that apparently those in favor of suffrage absolutely re¬
fuse to give. They did not in the House, and they do not seem to have done it
here. I have not heard any of them present anything constructive, so far as a
better form of government is concerned, than we now have. They have made
their requests, but have presented no constructive form of government that
would be better than we now have. And so I shall deal with politics only from
a historical point, as applied to the District of Columbia.
Plato—I think most of us have read Plato—says an ideal government could
be formed only of honest men. I think we have a lot of them in this country,
but I say they are not all so. That would be the ideal form, and therefore, any
form, if they were not all honest, must be a compromise.
Now, the Federalist, I do not think even by inference, in any of those papers
I have seen, ever said that all men were born equal. I never read it anywhere
in the Federalist. I may have missed a few papers. The Declaration of In¬
dependence says all men were born equal, but the Constitution by implication
certainly says no.
Our friends, Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin, a couple of hun¬
dred years ago, had some quite definite ideas on both religious and political
government. I don’t care to go into that in detail here.
So I will just dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a great ideal that is
impracticable and get down to the Constitution of the United States, fl am going
to try to establish one point—that suffrage is not a natural, but an acquired
right; that suffrage is not a panacea for all social, political, and economic
ills; that the present form of government in the District of Columbia approxi¬
mates what is best for the Government as a whole, for the District of Columbia
is merely the workshop of the General Government and might as well be called
a military reservation for all purposes.
It was not intended by the fathers—at least, I am going to make that con¬
tention, because others have made it otherwise—it was not intended that the Dis¬
trict of Columbia was to be in any^ capacity whatsoever similar to any State or
any Territory, formed or forming.^In Bryant’s History, which was handed you
the other day, and the lady said you would get all the history of the District
in it, you will find in the first 25 or 30 pages—and I think it is a thoroughly
concise history of the District—that it appears from all I can find (the author
says) that the fathers did not intend the District of Columbia to have suffrage.
Now,|the North rather harshly compelled the South to accept the kind of
government the majority thought best for the Nation as a whole, irrespective
of what Hie South wanted as its local form of governmeiTt. Now, that was for
the Nation as a whole. It is true of the. District of Columbia as‘ a whole, as
applied to the United States Government4-nothing less, nothing more.
North Dakota in its recent election turned out the Nonpartisan League,
and North Dakota was governed very much like Russia is now under the
Lenin form of government in some respects. I think so, anyway.
At the time we wrote the Constitution and voted on it Rhode Island held out
to the last. That was the opinion of a certain number of people. It merely
went to show that not all the States were united and agreed that the Consti¬
tution was exactly what each one wanted. It was a compromise.
I was in Oklahoma when that country was formed into a Territory. I was
almost a “ sooner ” down there—punched cattle, was United States deputy
marshal, chased horse thieves and cattle rustlers and counterfeiters, and so
on and so forth—saw a lot of that, had a lot of fun. I was back there
a few years ago and ran country newspapers and small-town daily news¬
papers. I believe that Oklahoma, when it formed its constitution, was called
radical—altogether different from any one of the other 40 State constitutions
that we had at that time—but it still works under the Constitution of the United
States.
Now,/so long as white men have fought for supremacy among themselves
there is little prospect that any colored race may expect any consideration of
equality—economically, politically, or socially^-with all due respect to Presi-
58
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
dent Harding; and I am a good Republican, fit is at best only a truce—noth¬
ing more. Economics is tlie basis of all civilization; politics merely follow.
Social equality is tlm ultimate desire of all men, and when they have not that
they are not satisfied.) That is my opinion.
Now I wish to go back a little bit and see if I can find out whether or not
the fathers of the Constitution really thought that all men were born equal.
In The Constitutional History of the American People, by F. N. Thorpe,,
under the significant subtitle of “Assumption of the responsibilities of citizen¬
ship ” and similar page titles, the qualifications necessary to be an elector are
dealt with.
To glance here and there we find that—
“ New Hampshire 50 years before the Revolutionary War refused to allow
any person to vote who was not a freeholder, owning land of the value of £20.”
“ In Massachusetts in 1696 a man had to be a church member in full com¬
munion, a householder, 24 years old, with an income of not less than 10
shillings.” In 1692 they raised the ante to £20. That is not in the book. That
is due to my early Oklahoma training.
“ In Rhode Island about this time a man had to have real estate worth £40
or that rented for 40 shillings. But a freeman’s son could vote, ‘ being the son
of his father.’ Rhode Island retained that in her constitution until 1842. At
the present writing there are qualifications in the Massachusetts constitution
differing from those of a good many other States, holdovers from those early
days.
“ The man who lived in New York City around 1750 and was not to the
manner born paid a various price for his political estate, depending on whether
he was a merchant, trader, or shopkeeper. If lie had served an apprenticeship
and was native born, he only paid £1. In addition, each paid sundry little fees,
called tips in our day—6 shillings to the mayor and 6 to the recorder, 7 and 6
to the clerk, and 9 pence to the bell ringer and crier ‘ for wild riot ’ ”—I don’t
know what that means—“ and yet some people in New England said New York
was a wicked town.” Now, much of this was about 10 years or a dozen years
before the Declaration of Independence.
“ In New .Jersey a man had to own 100 acres of land or real and personal
property to the value of £50.” In 1776 the State constitution changed this a
little.
In Pennsylvania in the seventeenth century it took 50 acres or £50 to be a
voter. A taxable was a voter, but not all taxables were granted the right to
vote, for the franchise was granted only to free white males.
In Maryland about the same time 50 acres or £30 would give the suffrage,
but to freemen only.
The colonies of the South bordering on the Atlantic Ocean were even more
exclusive and careful in granting the franchise, especially with reference to
religion and color.
Yet in the North, immediately prior to the Revolutionary War, the religious
qualification was a prime necessity unofficially.
The New England Staffes and New Jersey limited officeholders to Protestants.
Jews were practically excluded from office anywhere, and Roman Catholics
also, except in New York and Maryland.
In 1800 there were 108,000 free persons of color and 890,000 slaves. The
free Negroes were politically a people without a country. In 10 years their
number had nearly doubled. To-day the population of the United States is
100,000,000, of which 15,000,000 are Negroes. We have a foreign population
of at least 20,000,000. Add the 15,000,000 Negroes and the 20,000,000 foreign
born and we have left 65,000,000 natives, of which possibly 40,000,000 are two
or more generations old. Thus we can s^e the increase of the native whites is
nothing in proportion to the increase of foreigners and Negroes.
Mr. Kelly Miller (colored). Mr. Chairman, he said there were 15,000,000
Negroes in the United States. The Fourteenth Census, which has just been
issued by the bureau, states there are 10,463,000, and I do not remember the
exact number of hundreds.
The Chairman. Any questions you desire to ask or statements you desire
to make the ruling was that you should write them out and send them up to
the chairman.
Mr. Miller. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Ayers. fin the District of Columbia we now have 375,000 white people
and 125,000 Negroes, approximately 450,000 altogether. ^
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
59
\ In 1787 the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in May. The
work of that convention was made possible by three great compromises, and
they were really only in the interest of expediency and efficiency. They are as
follows, briefly stated:
1. The Connecticut compromise of large and small States giving equal repre¬
sentation in the Senate.
2. The compromise between the North and South, providing that slaves for
representation and taxation should be counted at the ratio of five.blacks to
three whites.
3. The commerce compromise, which gave to Congress the power of regulat¬
ing commerce, provided the slave trade was permitted to exist until 1808.
Those were the three compromises that made the getting together possible
and the final formation of the Constitution of the United States, j
In the State of Ohio in 1903, Article V of the Elective Franchise, section 1,
provided that only a white male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
has the qualifications of an elector. Since then, of course, it has been changed.
President Harding was born in that State.
The Chairman. In what year was Ohio admitted as a State?
Mr. Ayers. 1802,. Of course, that was changed later, as many others have
been, the same as Kansas and Delaware and other States.
President Taft, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was
also born in that State, and I shall take great pleasure in quoting from this
little book a speech by Justice Stafford, of the local district court, and the
then President Taft of the United States, with reference to suffrage in the
District of Columbia, Justice Stafford being for it and the then President of
the United States being against it.
The Constitution of the United States in the fourteenth amendment says that
all men over 21 years of age shall have the right of suffrage. I wonder why
we said 21 years instead of 25 or 18. It appears to me it was a question of com¬
promise, and a question of efficiency and expediency only. And all these facts
and arguments I make I hope will gradually apply to the suffrage of the District.
Harvard College up until 1872 listed all its students in the order of their social
rank, and nothing else, and Harvard College became so radical that a few years
afterwards Yale College was organized. It does not seem to me that Harvard
College is very radical, but that was the history of it.
In one work I have in my library, and down at the foot of the Constitution, is
this little statement: “ Omissions of the Constitution: 1, annexation of terri¬
tory; 2, need of extended civil service; 3, rise of political parties; 4, possibility
of attempts of States to secede.” There was another left out. That was suf¬
frage in the District of Columbia. It is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Now, we have in this Government, under this Constitution, a good many differ¬
ent forms of government, all operating under this Constitution, this rigid Con¬
stitution that we have, this Constitution which says that we shall have suffrage
for males only, inferentially whites only, Negroes not, slaves not, Indians not.
And we are now operating seven or eight forms of government under this Con¬
stitution. I shall enumerate them:
First. Forty-eight States with governors and legislatures elected by the peo¬
ple of those States.
Second. Territorial forms of government, such as Alaska, Porto Rico, the
Philippine Islands, and Hawaii. That, as I remember, is covered by an amend¬
ment to the Constitution, a provision for the government of Territories to be
carved out of the great West, but was not in the original Constitution.
We have a third form of government in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Samoa.
The Virgin Islands are under the immediate control of the Secretary of the
Navy.
Fourth is the Canal Zone, a different form from the others. They did not
give us the control, but we took it.
Fifth. Haiti and San Domingo. We control the Governments there. We
put the President out, and we have run them, and we have had several scandals.
Sixth. Cuba. We run Cuba. Cuba can not make a treaty or borrow money
unless we say so. That is an assumption of power under our Constitution,
whether we have the right or not.
Seventh. Another form of government, the Indians, not taxed, can not vote.
We ran them out of Georgia into the Indian Territory and located some of them
on some very rich oil lands.
Then we have another form of government, which is the District of Columbia,
making eight forms of government under this Constitution, enacted by a Con-
60
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
gress, signed by a President, duly elected by the electors of the different States,
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now, I am going to come down to the practical situation in the District of
Columbia. I have merely tried to give you a foundation for our forms of gov¬
ernment and the pyschology of the situation at the time the Constitution was
written and at the time it was argued for adoption. (At no time will I say any¬
thing with reference to the ethics of the right to vote in the District of Colum¬
bia, because I concede that every American has that right, as far as I under¬
stand if. But for the sake of patriotism and lqyalty)which we are talking about,
And the broad vision which we should have,|and which most of you have,p;
rhink the present form of government is better than anything we have had in
the past in the District of Columbia.^)
Ex-Commissioner Macfarland, who died recently, was before the House Judi¬
ciary Committee reading a paper two or three hours in length. In that state¬
ment the only thing he had to say as to why the District government was
changed from that of a mayor and common council to a Territorial form of
government, and then to a commission form of government, was contained in
one sentence, so far as enlightening the Judiciary Committee was concerned,
and this is the one sentence:
“ Circumstances that had nothing to do with the question of national repre¬
sentation of the District of Columbia brought about the abolition of that Ter¬
ritorial government and the substitution of the commission form of govern¬
ment, without any kind of representation in Congress, or in the electoral college,
or in the municipal government.”
In a three-hour statement that is the only thing the gentlemen said with
reference to why that form of government was changed. *It will be my pleasure
this afternoon to give you some reasons why it was changed.
An editorial in the Star of October 27, 1921, will shed some light on that
question. In reference to the laying of the cornerstone of the City Club Build¬
ing, the editorial says:
“ In hi§ fine address at the laying of the cornerstone of the new City Club
Building yesterday Vice President Coolidge made a remark that should be
considered thoughtfully not only by the residents of Washington, but by all
who have to do with its administration and with legislation affecting it. He
said:
“ * This building typifies the great change that has come to the city of Wash¬
ington. Laid out with the thought that it would be only the seat of the Federal
Government, the home of the Executive, the Congress, and the Supreme Court,
which decides what is law, it has since gathered around it a metropolitan and
cosmopolitan life composed of those not in the service of the Government—
men of affairs, leaders in the industrial and business life of the great city
fast approaching a million population.’ ”
The Star goes on to say:
“ The evolution of Washington as a community has not been even in its
degrees. It has advanced by impulses, chiefly imparted by great events affect¬
ing the national life. The Civil War added very greatly to the city’s popula¬
tion. The Spanish-American War made another contribution. The Great War
brought about the most marked change in the size and character of the Capital
city of any in its history.”
It has very much more to say, but I will not read it. There has gradually
been a great change in the city of Washington, psychologically, geographically,
.and socially.
In the Star of November 2, 1921, is an editorial entitled' “ Washington, the
Capital,” which reads as follows:
“ President Harding, in his Thanksgiving proclamation, strikes a medium of
designation in the final clause: ‘ Done at the Capital of the United States this
31st day of October, etc.’ He does not say ‘ District of Columbia,’ as did his
predecessor, or ‘ Washington,’ as did earlier occupants of the White House.
Assuredly this is the Capital of the United States whether the official designa¬
tion of the seat of government is Washington or District of Columbia. There
is but one ‘ city ’ in the District of Columbia, and that is Washington, and the
boundaries of the District are the city limits. Washington Is coterminous
within the District. Statutes have been written which definitely mention
Washington as the Capital, and it would be a complete return to ‘ normalcy ’
for the Executive style to be brought clear back to the old question of dating
state papers at ‘ Washington.’ ”
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 61
S of this is not jest a little community, it is the Capital of the United States^
I wish you would all try to remember that.
In the new paper, the Washington News, the first copy, the leading editorial
says:
“What is this Washington of ours?
It isn t the ‘ hill ’ nor the White House, nor the Monument, nor indeed any
of those things which bulk so large in the eye of privilege seekers, job hunters,
tourists, and society people.
. “ Tt is rather, the home of some 80,000 public servants with their families. Its
lifeblood is the four of five millions of dollars that come out of the Treasury
twice a month to meet the Federal pay roll in the District of Columbia.”
And I think that right there is the reason for the quotation of statistics
made awhile ago in regard to the comparatively small number of failures in
business in the District, because we have nothing to close down. The Govern¬
ment goes along all the time and usually increases its expenditures every
month of the year with each succeeding year. We are very fortunate indeed,
I would say.
It goes on:
“ This pay roll provides a revolving fund that keeps the wheels going round.
“ These civil servants, these Federal employees in tum employ the merchants,
doctors, lawyers, bankers, the street car companies, and the other public utili¬
ties.
“ These civil servants drawn from every State, almost every township in the
country, constitutes a cross section of the American people.”
Bear that in mind, a cross section of the American people, not just a lot of
local people.
“They represent the flower of the learned professions and the experts of
most of the useful crafts and trades.
“ This is the Washington to which the News comes. It comes to stay. It
comes with the ambition to become known as a useful citizen and a good
neighbor.”
Here is something even more practical. Right there is a picture on the wall
of this room of Senator McMillan, of Michigan, who lived here many years,
was chairman of the District Committee for many years. I remember Dr. Gal-
linger, who was chairman. I remember Senator Hale, who was chairman,
if I am not mistaken. If I am wrong in these matters any man here may
correct me. When those men passed out, the Star and the Post—usually the
Star, and other papers too—had long eulogies on the services these men
had rendered the District and the efficient manner in which they did it. There
was never any criticism of those men; always a eulogy.
That is true of the retiring engineer commissioner, Col. Kutz. The engi¬
neer commissioner must be 15 years a captain in the Army, must have gradu¬
ated from West Point and must be an engineer. He is far removed from poli¬
tics. He has been divorced from politics all his official life. He is here under
the eye of his superior officers, the Secretary of War, the General Staff!, and
his immediate superior officers. He has a salary that continues through his
natural life, whole pay while in service and three-fourths pay when retired.
So there is very little inducement that politics or business could offer him to
do anything other than be honest while in office.
In the Star of October 8, 1920, is an article entitled “ George Washington’s
dream of America’s Capital City,” from which I wish to read this paragraph:
“As was said by Senator McMillan at the time: ‘ The keynote of the centen¬
nial celebration was the improvement of the District of Columbia in manner
and extent commensurate with the dignity and resources of the American
people. eSnators and Congressmen vied with governor after governor in com¬
mendation of the idea put forth by the local committee that the time had come
for the systematic improvement of the District of Columbia.’ (McMillan’s re¬
port, Jan. 15, 1902.)”
{Very few city governments have as large a vision as Congress has in its
vision for the District of Columbia. )
Here is an editorial of October 4, 1921, eulogizing Col. Keller, the new com¬
missioner, who had been a subordinate to Col. Kutz. It is a whole half-column
editorial, not a news item.
Here is an editorial in the Star on Senator Curtis, a Member of the House
for many years from Kansas, and also many years in the Senate. It says
he has always been a friend to the District of Columbia.
62
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Politics in the District 50 years ago, as reported by the Star. I have a dozen
of these reports, and they are screams. July 10, 1921, 50 years after that
date, is reprinted this article in the Star:
“ Speedily following up the plan of the Territorial board of public works 50
years ago, the house of deputies passed a bill providing means for a general and
systematic improvement of the city. Opposition naturally developed. The Star
said of this in its issue of June 29, 1871:
“ ‘ The opposition is mainly political and appears to be inspired partly by the
disposition to cripple the new government as a piece of party tactics and partly
because the disbursement may not be made in a way to help the “ outs ” to the
ascendancy.
“ ‘ The organ of that party here has labored quite assiduously to get up a
public meeting in opposition to the improvement plan, and a well-known lawyer
of the same party, who figured lately as a Democratic candidate for Congress
in New York, has within a few days appeared here and given much zealous
labor to the task of working up this “ spontaneous demonstration ” against the
measure. A call for a meeting of the property holders to consider the improve¬
ment loan bill appears to-day and bears the signatures of some 20 citizens of high
respectability, but on the rule that all is fair in politics the names of several
of these gentlemen appear without any authority, and probably this may be
the case with the majority of them. One of the gentlemen is in Europe, another
in the far West, and several now in the city assure us that they not only
never authorized the use of their names but that they are heartily in favor of
the improvement measures.’ ”
The next article from the same issue reads as follows:
“ The meeting was held, and the Star in its issue of June 30 thus discussed it:
“ ‘ The meeting, called by Col. Philip, was very respectably attended, but, as
was shown by the only test vote of the evening, was about evenly divided,
standing 27 in favor of the bill to 34 against it. The speeches made by Messrs.
Philip and Riddle in opposition to the bill are very good specimens of lawyerlike
pleading, but no better than the arguments they made some months ago on the
other side of the question and in favor of a District government empowered
to carry out just such a comprehensive system of improvements as it now
proposed. Mr. Durant, being new here, shot rather wild and peppered-some of
Mr. Philip’s favorite ideas after the most cruel fashion, quite unwittingly.’
“As regards the meeting, we think it well that it has been held, as affording
an opportunity for the presentation of all possible objections to the bill and
in the strongest light possible. These objections have now been made, but if
they have any weight we have no resort but to fall back upon our old
profligate, systemless, municipal style of expenditure and patchwork improve¬
ment. Under the old order of things the four or five millions of dollars asked
in this bill will be frittered away without appreciable results. The board of
public works present a general plan of improvements, accompanied by an esti¬
mate. It is safe to say that under the old municipal rule a comprehensive
system of this kind would have cost ten times the amount of these estimates.”
Politics in the District of Columbia 50 years ago, as reported by the Star
in 1871:
“ The report of the police court made by the committee of the house of dele¬
gates (municipal government) yesterday, was to have been expected from the
evidence before it, and while courteous in its tone, it is trenchant in dealing
with the flagrant abuses proved to be incorporated in the management of affairs
by the subordinates of the court. The committee also, while exonerating
Judge Snell and Clerk Grey from any wrongdoing, censure them for not
giving due supervision to the conduct of the subordinates.
“ It is natural that the disclosure of this rotten state of affairs should cause
great prejudice against the court, and the cry comes up from various quarters
for its entire abolition and the return to the system of police magistracy.”
There is a lot more along the same line, which I will not take the time of
the committee to read.
Here is another editorial from the Star of 50 years ago. This was July, 1871:
“ The spontaneous grand mass meeting of citizens which was to have been
held on Capitol Hill Monday night to protest against the improvement bill
did not come off. Somebody had been at the pains to erect a large stand,
with ample accommodations for a crowd larger than could be accommodated
within walls, but at the time appointed for the meeting less than a dozen were
present, including the knights of the pencil. Col. Philip did not come forward*
but ‘ Gen.’ A. Grant appeared and went through the characteristic performance
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
63
of calling the meeting to order, nominating a chairman, vice presidents, and
secretaries, and appointing committees, after the Bentonian and Philippian
style of setting the ball in motion, “ solitary and alone.’
“As stated by us on Monday, the live men of that part of the city who signed
the call did so upon the representation to them that the meeting was to be
held to secure a fair share of improvements for that part of the city, but when
they found that the demonstration was to be used as capital by the opponents
of the District government and against the improvement bill they concluded
to let it alone severely.”
There is a lot more of that along the same line, which I will not take the time
to read.
In a later issue, of July 8, 1871: “ Reasons for opposition:
“ The Tammany organ, unsuccessful in its attempt to cripple the District
government and defeat the improvement loan bill, now carries its partisanship
to the extraordinary length of seeking to break down the financial credit of
the District and make it impossible to raise the money to carry out the pro¬
posed improvements. Let the people understand this fact: Gov. Cooke can
readily raise the money needed to carry on the District government at 6 per
cent. If the taxpayers have to bear the burden of a higher rate of interest it
will be solely due to the mischievous partisan efforts of the Tammany patriot
crowd, who, in their rule-or-ruin policy, care little how much they damage
business interests and the interests of taxpayers so that they make a point
politically. They would prevent the expenditure of a single dollar for improve¬
ment or the employment of a single mechanic or laborer, because they can not
secure the handling of the money or the selection of the men for the further¬
ance of their own selfish political purposes. The mass of the people, who see
bus'ness and improvements of all kinds at a standstill through the hindrances
made by these Tammany politicians, are thoroughly disgusted at being made
to suffer in this way from the miserable pettifogging tactics of two or three
political lawyers and a hungry Tammany newspaper.”
You all know what it means when we speak of the Tammany organization.
Then we have this from the Star of November 6, 1921, taken from the Star of
50 years ago:
“New York can make more noise and accomplish less and take more time
to do it in than any other American city East or West. For months past whole
pages of the newspapers have been filled with the details of immense frauds
upon the city government; the guilty parties are known; they have been lam¬
pooned and caricatured, forgery and robbery of millions of dollars of the
peoples’ money has been laid at their doors, and yet in all this time not one
of them has been punished for his misdeeds, not one dollar of plunder wrested
from them. On the contrary, they are allowed ample time to transfer their
ill-gotten gains, and one man, the ringleader, the ‘ boss,” while busy placing
millions of dollars plundered from the taxpayers into the hands of his friends
apd accomplices for safe-keeping, is actually put up as the regular Democratic*
cand'date for the State senate and has the cheek to come before an outraged
people for their votes. Mayor Hall mounts his charger and rides triumphantly
to a ‘ justice shop ’ where ample apology is made for the trouble he has been
put to in complying with certain little legal forms; Tweed rolls to the tribunal
in his carriage, and after condescending to trouble himself about the matter
of bail, goes back to his palace; others of the ring plunderers are clothed in
fine linen and fare sumptuously every day, with no fear of the law, and in
the meantime poor devils are brought into court every hour for stealing a dollar
or two, convicted on one-tenth of the evidence which has accumulated against
these millionaire robbers, and sent to prison to expatiate their crimes. No.
wonder that in a community where there is such a mockery of justice as this
we find hints in the newspapers of a general wish for an execution of the
laws a little more impartial, something swifter and a great deal surer. The
Standard significantly says: ‘ We are really governed by a commune. And
our only regret is that this commune does not take hold and make their work
more thorough. There is only one way.’
“ Though the mills ground slowly, they ground exceeding fine. ‘ Boss ’
Tweed was brought to trial in 1873 on a charge of grand larceny and forgery
and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The sentence was reversed in 1875,
but being unable to furnish bail in certain civil suits, he was committed to jail.
He escaped to Spain, was arrested there, brought back on an American warship,
and died in jail in New York.”
83480—22-5
64 SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
a
When the.Star referred to the Tammany gang in the District of Columbia
that is the kind of a gang the Star meant that they had in 1871, and it is pos¬
sible to have the same kind of a gang again,)
The Chairman. How long would you like to continue?
Mr. Ayers. I would like to have at least another hour.
The Chairman. Why not yield now. You have spoken three-quarters of an
hour and you will have another three-quarters of an hour at another day.
There is an article here from Mr. Baker that I would like to have read into
the record.
Mr. Ayers. I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We have here a letter written before the beginning of this
hearing. I think this is a proper place to put it into the record. It is from
John A. Baker, who is opposed to suffrage. As we only have a few minutes
until we must adjourn, I will request that the clerk read the letter and inclo-
srrre for the record.
(The documents referred to were thereupon read by the clerk of the com¬
mittee and are here printed in full, as follows:)
Washington, D. C., November 5, 1921.
To Senator Ball,
Chairman, and the Members of the United States Senate Committee on the
District of Columbia.
Gentlemen : Fearing that the many papers presented to your committee, the
probability of the loss of the communication of which the inclosure is a copy,
I am sending you a duplicate.
The propaganda for suffrage is under the management of a few persons am¬
bitious for congressional honors and influence. The citizens of the District of
Columbia of the present generation, and many of the newer residents, know
nothing of the conditions that existed here previous to the establishment of
the present form of the District government, and it is in this field that the
propagandist is diligently working. These citizens would repudiate the scheme
if they were familiar with conditions referred to and knew the dangers in¬
volved.
The columns of the Evening Star newspaper of the seventies exhibit the evils
and show the disgraceful conditions of the then existing condition. It, I think,
applied to the then existing legislature the designation of “ Feather Duster
Legislature.”
The present editor of this newspaper, who is a leading advocate of suffrage
before your committee, may assist your deliberation by furnishing it with some
of the interesting articles referred to.
I inclose with this an excerpt from the pen of a very distinguished publicist.
The police records will doubtless indicate the source of the crime wave here
just now; what it would be with suffrage is not pleasant to contemplate.
The cause of the calling off of the inaugural ceremonies by President Harding
is not far to seek.
This is the Capital of all the people of this great country and it should not
be subject to the whims of the few here who advocate suffrage, and lose the
fostering care of the Congress. Can they secure a better legislature than the
Congress of the United States?
Yours, very respectfully,
John A. Baker.
It is historically true that Washington and L’Enfant never contemplated as
a design or an outcome that the National Capital should ever become a com¬
mercial or a manufacturing city. It was never intended to be a populous city.
It was to be essentially a political city—a city of government, with the govern¬
ment idea dominating and glorifying everything—with nothing ever to subordi¬
nate the Government anywhere in population, in commerce, in the splendors of
trade development, in the wrangles of factions, or in the clash of industry. It
was to be the “ unique city,” the “ different city,” preserving its mission through
the centuries and absorbing all splendors and all renown into the glory of the
Government.
It was in this way that it was to be the people’s city—with every citizen hold¬
ing the loyal and tender tie of part ownership in all that made it great—in
stately buildings, and in fair repute. That every citizen should feel his common
proprietorship with every other citizen in the pride of ownership in the Capital
of our common country.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
65
And so the Capital was to play the part of the heart to the Nation’s veins, puls¬
ing the rich blood of fellowship and kinship and unity from the center through
all the far-flung arteries of patriotism throughout the circumference of the cir¬
cumscribing States, inspiring the united which is strength and avoiding the divi¬
sions which make for disaster.
The spirit and the plan of this our Capital is one of the richest legacies which
the great Virginian left to his country. How noble and wise the suggestion.
fl ow infinite the civic obligation to keep it always in the national mind.
The exclusive control of the District of Columbia by the Congress insures a
dignified Capital for the Nation; and, through this control, the citizens of the
Capital enjoy peace and security freed from political and other disturbances, and
from plunderers, corrupt contractors, corrupt officials, and inefficient administra¬
tion. Such evils can not exist under the present form of local government. The
municipal affairs of the District are administered by commissioners, who are
under the direct observation of the Congress and the President, subject to re-
^aioval at any moment for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or dishonesty.
The cost of administering the existing local government is relatively small; it
has no complex machinery, no excessive pay rolls, no superfluous employees ap¬
pointed through favoritism.
Quiet reigns at the District Building, and the business of the municipality is,
in the highest sense, satisfactory to the citizens. In a word, in the view of all
thinking people, it is a model government, an example for all city governments.
It was the form of government for the District of Columbia in the beginning,
and it was a misfortune that it was ever changed.
Later, when the population was small, life simple, and the citizens knew one
another, it was thought by the Congress that under its observation a mayor,
common council, and board of aldermen could be ventured as a local government;
and in that simple period it was successfully managed by the best and most re¬
spected citizens from all walks of life working for the public good and holding
the confidence of their fellow citizens and of the Congress; but during and after
the Civil War the population was largely increased by many idle and ignorant
people from the neighboring States, and by many adventurers of doubtful char¬
acter, who easily secured the- following of the former, and with their votes took
over the local government.
Then followed all the evils that such a condition necessarily entailed; scan¬
dals, graft, riots, and disturbances prevailed until the situation became intol¬
erable.
In this condition of affairs it was thought that the remedy lay in a governor
and legislature and a Delegate in the Congress, and the Congress abolished the
old and created the new government.
It soon became apparent that the new form of government was not to
prove a solution of the grave situation. A small clique of shrewd politicasters,
seeing their opportunity, took over the active direction of the elections and
became the political bosses of the community. They caused the elections of
such legislators as they could control, and elected (appointed) a Delegate to
Congress, a man little known to our people, who had but a short residence here,
and who, having but little interest here, after the expiration of his term
took up his residence in a distant State. He was a mere cipher in the
Congress, as any successor must be.
Among the devices for securing their control they divided the District
into blocks or divisions and appointed a captain over each to take take charge
of and control the votes of the ignorant people referred to.
These captains, under pay and the hope of office, so terrified these ignorant
voters that none was free to vote as he wished. The proceedings of a legis¬
lature so elected were, of course, directed by these bosses, and, of course,
great scandals followed.
This disgraceful legislature of the seventies, on its dissolution, was known
as “The feather-duster legislature.” Its members personally appropriated
and carried off every portable thing in the legislative halls—feather dusters,
spittoons, stationery, soaps, brushes, etc.
The files of the local newspapers of the period exhibit the character of that
disgraceful body, of which its few respectable members were powerless.
The scandals of that government became so great and the conditions so
intolerable that the Congress was again appealed to by the citizens to change
the form of government, recommending the original form of government by
commissioners. The Congress then provided the present form of government,
66
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
which has worked so well for the last 40 years—a government to which no
scandals have attached, where no assembling of jobbers after contracts and
office crowd the Municipal Building, and where all is order and quiet and
efficiency.
During and since the late war the undesirable, ignorant, and vicious element
that came here during and after the Civil War has been largely increased,
and now that part of the population is dangerous because of its great number.
In any form of suffrage that element, must be reckoned with; its vote will
be so potential that, when directed by shrewd, dangerous men and small poli¬
ticians, the interests of the citizens generally will be held in subjection by it.
It is appalling to think of what the conditions here would be if the vote of
that element be increased by woman suffrage. A Representative in the Con¬
gress, in the nature of things, can not advise and inform the committees of
that body as to the needs ‘and affairs of the District which they require in
providing for them. The commissioners, who are daily and continuously occu¬
pied with District affairs, necessarily know the needs of the government and
are always prepared to give the needed information to such committees.
It may be> well to add that I do not know any of the present commissioners
nor their friends or associates.
The Chairman. We have a number of communications in favor of suffrage,
which will be placed in the record at the proper time. I think that is the
only one against suffrage.
Mr. Brandenburg. Can you give us any idea how to arrange for the pre¬
sentation of our argument in behalf of the Jones bill? We have a number
of gentlemen who are very anxious to support that bill.
The Chairman. You have your own system of presentation, of course. You
will be granted two hours’ time at the next sitting of the committee.
Mr. Brandenburg. Two hours at the next sitting of the committee?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Brandenburg. And how can we arrange that time?
The Chairman*. You must arrange that among yourselves. You still have
four hours coming to you.
Mr. Clayton. Four hours for those that support the bill?
The Chairman. Four hours for those in favor of some bill for suffrage.
The committee will stand adjourned until Friday at 2 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 4 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again on
Friday, the 18th day of November, 1921, at 2 o’clock p. m.)
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1921.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o’clock p. m. in the
committee room, Capitol, Senator L. Heisler Ball presiding.
Present: Senators Ball (chairman), Capper, Jones, Gooding, King, and
Sheppard.
Present also: Col. Winfield Jones, representing those favoring the bill pro¬
viding for a delegate in the House of Representatives.
Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, representing those favoring the adoption of the
Jones resolution, providing for a Constitutional amendment.
Mr. G. W. Ayers, representing those opposed to any form of suffrage in the
District.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES T. LLOYD.
Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, in my statement made on last Monday there
seemed to be some question as to the correctness of my estimate of the voting
population in the District. I stated that the population, as shown by the
census, was over 435.000, and that of this number 85,000 were Government
employees. I wish now to call your attention to the fact that 12,000 of these
Government employees are residents of the District and have been accredited
to it.
Many of the older of the employees of the Government have lost their legal
residence elsewhere. There is no way at present to determine the exact number
of those who have thus lost a voting residence, but I feel sure that no one who
has invstigated the matter will question that at least 20,000 of them are
deprived of their votes because they have lost their residence. If this state¬
ment is correct, then the number of Government employees who have legal resi¬
dence here and a voting residence elsewhere would be 52,000, and this would
reduce the bona fide legal residents of the District to 383,000, and would fully
bear out the correctness of my former statement.
I think I can present a more satisfactory and Convincing statement m
another way.
In 1910 the census shows that there were 103,761 males and 116,148 females
in the District above the age of 21 years, or a total of 219,909 residents. There
was an increase in population between 1910 and 1920 of approximately 30 per
cent. If there is added to the number of persons of voting age in 1910 30
per cent on account of the increase in the last decade, it would show a voting
population at the present time of 275,881. Now there are 85,000 Government
employees, as I have stated, but of this number 12,000 are accredited to the
District. This would leave 73,000 who are not accredited to the District.
There are probably 8,000 of these employees who are 21 years of age, which
would leave as the outside voting population 65,000. Of this 65,000 at least
35,000 are women, and of the women employed by the Government less than
5,000 are married. Of the 30,000 men who are employed by the Government
probably one-half are married, so that the married employees include not more
than 20,000 of these employees.
Suppose that the families of this married population would increase the vot¬
ing population by the same number, then the total number of voters in the
District would be reduced by 30,000' male voters, 35,000 female voters, and
67
68
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
20.000 voters who are members of families of employees, or a total of 85,000
voters here who are entitled to vote elsewhere. This would reduce the number
of persons of voting age in the District from 275,881 to 190,881. There are
always other deductions to be made from the number of those who are 21 years
of age on account of various kinds of qualifications that are required of voters,
but this would not reduce the number of voters in the District from those of
legal age certainly by more than 40,000, so that there would be at least 150,000
actual residents of the District who would, under any reasonable requirements,
be entitled to vote here.
The chairman stated that he was surprised to find the number who voted by
mail in the campaign of 1920, but I feel sure it is safe to say that there are
not more than 85,000 Government employees in the District, being the number
I have estimated, who are entitled to vote in the States.
I feel sure that the two methods used to reach the number of qualified voters
in the District prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there would be at least
150,000 legal voters in the District who would vote for electors and Members
of Congress if under the law they might do so.
Mr. Brandenburg. The joint citizens’ committee, advocating in the affirma¬
tive the passage of the Jones resolution, asks that Mr. Paul E. Lesh be first
heard.
The Chairman. He represents the City Club?
Mr. Brandenburg. The joint citizens’ committee and also the City Club.
STATEMENT OF PAUL E. LESH, ESQ.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, to make what I will say clear to the committee, I
want to say that I speak in favor of the Jones resolution, Senate joint resolu¬
tion 133, and against Senate resolution 14 and Senate resolution 417, the Poin¬
dexter and Capper hills.
Mr. William McK. Clayton. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt, so that we
may understand the situation? I understand they are the proponents of the
Jones bill.
Mr. Lesh, when you speak against the Capper bill are you representing the
joint committee or not?
Mr. Lesh. I am not. I wish myself to make that plain, and would have
done so.
I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that when one appears in two capaci¬
ties, as some of us do now, we should make it plain who we are speaking for,
because my own personal views might be of little importance. I happen to be
a member of the committee on brief of the joint citizens’ committee, but I am
appearing here to-day in my capacity as chairman of the suffrage group of the
City Club, and anything I say against this Delegate bill I must say in that
capacity, because the joint citizens’ committee has not taken a stand upon the
Delegate bill.
As to my authority to speak for the City Club, the chairman may be ac¬
quainted with the fact that the City Club is an organization of about 1,500
professional and business men of the city of Washington. It was chartered
just recently, in 1919, but for a purpose which included the discussion of such
measures as this; specifically, to make the clubhouse a place for the discussion
and development of that civic, literary, artistic, social, economic, and all other
matters calculated to advance the welfare of Washington and the Nation at
large.
Twenty-five or more members may organize, who are interested in a particu¬
lar subject, within the City Club. The suffrage group, so-called, is the largest
group in the club, consisting of about 290 members.
It is so easy to say “ suffrage,” and not define what you mean, that we thought
it important to define w T hat we stand for with some exactment. In August of
1920, after considerable discussion, we adopted a platform, a printed single
page document. We sent that platform to all our members in the club. We sent
it with a single letter, and no follow-up, asking for the expression of opinion
from those club members, whom I really think were representatives of the city
of Washington, upon this platform. We got 17 responses of disapproval; we
got over 500 responses of approval.
The Chairman. Disapproval of what?
Mr. Lesh. Disapproval of our platform, is all I can say.
The platform reads as follows:
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
69
PLATFORM OF THE SUFFRAGE GROUP, CITY CLUB, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The objects of the suffrage group of the City Club include the discussion and
consideration of measures proposed for the extension to the citizens of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia of the rights, privileges, and immunities of other citizens of the
United States, and the advocacy of such measures as may be approved after con¬
sideration.
After careful consideration, the group has adopted the following conclusions:
Self-government is the American ideal, and is accomplished in the United
States by the selection by the people from among their number, of the persons
who make, execute, construe, and enforce the laws of the Nation, and of their
respective States and municipalities. It is recognized as the right of the citi¬
zens of each municipality to govern its affairs, to participate in the government
of the State, and to participate also in that of the Nation. The deprivation of
the citizens of any municipality or political district of that right can be justfied
only by reasons which are compelling. The people of the District of Columbia
live in a political subdivision which is a part of the Nation, and is a munici-
pal ty, but is no part of any State.
The reasons which prompted the location of the seat of the National Govern¬
ment in a political subdivision, which should be no part of any State, are recog¬
nized, and therefore the setting up within the District of Columbia of a State
Government is not approved nor advocated.
The recognition of the principle of self-government in the affairs of the Dis¬
trict as a municipality is approved, but the practical application of the prin¬
ciple of municiple self-government to the municipality which is the seat of the
Government of the United States, presents such difficulties of detail and is op¬
posed by so many citizens upon the ground that it would constitute an interfer¬
ence with the rightful jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States over its
seat of government, that no measure of local or municipal self-government which
has been proposed is approved or advocated.
We approve, however, and advocate participation by the citizens of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia in the Government of the Nation, and the assumption by them
of all the duties and the extension to them of all the privileges of other citizens
of the Nation. Such a participation is free from all objections and particularly
from those which are urged against the making of the District of Columbia a
self-governing State or a self-governing municipality. The withholding from a
half million of citizens of such privileges and duties is a plain violation, of the
principles upon which the Nation was founded. The people of the District pay
the Federal taxes, as well as their local taxes imposed by Congress, and they
are, like all other citizens of the Nation, in other respects, subject to its laws.
In the making of these laws, however, they have no voice whatever.
The people of the United States generally participate in the National Govern¬
ment by electing the Members of Congress, and, indirectly, the President. They
may invoke the national judicial power in proper cases by suing or being sued
in the Federal courts. The grant of like privileges to the citizens of the Dis¬
trict can be accomplished only by an amendment to the Constitution. An amend¬
ment has been proposed, House joint resolution No. 11 of the Sixty-sixth Con¬
gress, which we approve.
This was a postal-card canvass, a postal card accompanying the platform
which indicated what we were after, but I must say that there was a total of
17 dissents. We sent that circular to every member of the club.
So that I think I can come before you with this platform and say that though
I am only the chairman of a group of the City Club, this represents the views
of the City Club upon this subject.
The Chairman. A question has been submitted here: “ What were you after
in the specific letter?”
I suppose he means, how was that specific letter worded.
Mr. Lesh. I can put a copy of it in the record. I loaned my only copy of
it to a newspaper man the other night and do not have one here to-day. It
was in substance that “The suffrage group has adopted the inclosed platform.
We would like to have your views upon it. Kindly indicate them upon the
inclosed postal card.”
The inclosed postal card read: “I am ”—or “ am not.” in the alternative—
“ in favor of suffrage in the District of Columbia as outlined in your platform.
You may ”—or “ may not ”—“ enroll me as a member of your group.”
When I say we received affirmative answers, I mean we received a post card
signed by a man who said, “ I am in favor of suffrage in the District of Co-
70
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
lumbia as outlined in your platform. You may enroll me as a member of youi
group.”
In order that what I say, as well as what appears in the record, may have
some continuity, I want to say that this platform considered self-government
in the District from three angles: Self-government of the municipality; self-
government of it as a State; and self-government as a part of the Nation. We
say that we recognize the reasons that dictated the location of the capital in a
place which should not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State, and that
therefore we do not advocate the setting up of a State in the District .of
Columbia. We say that municipal self-government presents so many difficulties
of detail, because of the national interest here, that we do not advocate what
is ordinarily comprehended by the term “ municipal self-government,” but we
say that every dictate of American policy and American practice is to the
effect that we should be a part of the Nation, and that we feel that the Burrows
resolution, which was the one referred to in this platform of last session, and
the Jones resolution of this session, would for all practical purposes, for all
working purposes, be satisfactory to our citizens, as making them a part of
the Nation, and therefore that is what we advocate.
Coming at this time, after we have heard from the negative to a certain
extent on the general proposition of suffrage, I think the committee might be
interested in having a brief statement of my views in the way of reply to some
of the arguments that have been presented against the general proposition of
suffrage.
The Chairman. Might I make a suggestion?
Mr. Lesh. Certainly.
The Chairman. There are, of course, several phases of this subject. I think
it would be well for the speakers discussing the proposition to discuss the
phase of the constitutional amendment providing the right to vote for Presi¬
dent and Vice President and representation in Congress, as distinguished from
statehood rights, because there is a very strong sentiment along that line.
Mr. Lesh. I may say, Mr. Chairman, any sentiment which there might be
against the granting of full Statehood rights I would sympathize with; any
sentiment which there might be against giving us representation in the House
of Representatives according to our numbers, and one or two Senators, is just
the sentiment that I come here to combat and to overcome. To that sentiment
I would like to address myself before I am through.
The chairman had read into the record at the close of the last session a very
interesting letter signed by Mr. John A. Baker, one of our respected individual
citizens of the District. I have not had an opportunity to read that letter, only
to hear it read at the last session, but Mr. Baker wrote a similar letter to the
House committee, and for that reason I feel that in discussing that letter I
am discussing his letter to this committee.
What Mr. Baker argues against is not what we are advocating. He argues
against a change in the national control of the National Capital. So far as the
Nation’s control of its capital is concerned, the suffrage group of the City Club
is in entire accord with that condition, as is also the Jones resolution. It
does not detract one iota from that provision of the Constitution which says
that Congress shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever. Any¬
thing of interest or of value that the committee may find in that letter is at
least no argument against the proposition that we bring before you.
If there is read into Mr. Baker’s argument or any similar argument, which
is based upon the experiences of the early seventies and the “ feather duster ”
legislature, any argument against the qualifications of the people of the District
of Columbia—if the argument really runs in this wise: That because we or
our fathers may have elected in the seventies some persons to represent us in
a municipal assembly who did not do us credit, that we would elect similar
men to represent us in the House and Senate, it seems to me that such an
argument need only to be stated to be answered. Every Senator on this com¬
mittee—not every Senator, because some may be rural Senators—but many
Senators on this committee come from places where there are elected in the
same election, by the same electorate that elected them, petty municipal
officers. Many men have doubtless been elected in your State to municipal or
local assemblies who would not grace the Halls of Congress. The quality
of the place has a good deal to do with the quality of the candidate, and
it is not fair to us to hold up the men, some of whom I am assuming because
of what has been said, were not fortunate selections, as any evidence that
we are not qualified to-day, as well as any other people in the United States
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
71
are, qualified, to select representatives in the House and Senate and presidential
electors, or to put it concretely and more practically, elect a President
and Vice President. The difference between the qualities of our electorate and
the qualities of the electorate of 1870 have already been developed and will be
developed by other speakers.
If any such speaker appearing in opposition means because we had an unfor¬
tunate experience with the municipal legislature, and because we were not well
governed locally then, that he would rather live under a well-governed despotism
than under a democracy, than under a government that he has anything to do
with himself, with him I personally take flat issue.
I would like in this connection to call to the attention of the committee what
Mr. Bryce said in his work on the American Commonwealth.
The Chairman. Would you like to have questions asked as you go along?
Mr. Lesh. If it does not result in taking up more time than is warranted.
The Chairman. This is not taking a position for or against any of these
propositions, because my mind is open on all of them, but I think it is well to
bring out matters that occur to me while you are talking, so that you may have
a chance to answer them.
Mr. Lesh. I would very much prefer it.
The Chairman. I do not think the conditions are exactly the same, even
though the voting population of Washington would be the same as the smaller
States, when you come to an election of Senators and Representatives, for this
reason : The District of Columbia would be the only State with voting Senators
and voting Representatives that would be governed by that Congress; there¬
fore there are local matters that would come up in this government which
would make, to my mind^some distinction between a Senator representing the
District of Columbia—as we are dealing with the Senate now—and a Senator
representing a State which is governed by a State government, over which that
Senator has absolutely no influence or in which he has no voice except his per¬
sonal influence and voice as a citizen of the State. It makes, to my mind, a dis¬
tinction which I think you should take into consideration in presenting that
phase and answering any questions that might arise.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think any person who is trying to be fair
could fail to appreciate the fact that there is that difference, but whether that
difference is an argument against our proposition is another thing. It is rather
an argument in favor of our proposition. If we have the only community that
is governed directly by Congress, so much the more we ought not to be the only
community that has no Representative in Congress. It is an anomalous condi¬
tion. I know what you have' in your mind.
The Chairman. Let me put it in a different way. I want to impress upon
you this matter as it appeals to me just now and see if you can analyze it. It
came in my mind for the first time when you made that statement.
Suppose the District of Columbia should send two Senators to the Senate and
one of those Senators should become chairman of the District Committee, which
has charge of the government of this District. He represents not much more
than one-half of the people here, as you would be pretty nearly evenly divided, I
take it. He may be elected from some particular interest, some particular
class, because Washington is not a business city. Washington differs from every
city and State in the Union in that respect. Your classes and occupations are
different. The only business interest you have here is the real estate business.
•The real estate business might elect a chairman of the District Committee,
which would run this District in the interest of that particular line of business,
to the detriment, it might be, of the people in general. That makes a distinc¬
tion between a Senator elected from any other State and a Senator elected from
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, in the first place, though I feel your reference was
half jocular to real estate, there are some other businesses in the District of
Columbia; but your statement in general that we are not a manufacturing
community, not an industrial community-
The Chairman. Not a farming community.
Mr. Lesh. Not a farming community, is certainly accurate, but I do not
follow you to your conclusion. No one can hear you, Senator Ball, make that
statement, without arriving at the conclusion that you are thinking about
specific recent rental legislation in the District.
The Chairman. No ; I was not thinking of that. The thing in my mind was
that the population, to a very large extent, might be a foreign population.
That was the thing I had in mind, but instead of bringing it out, I let it go
as originally stated. It is a cosmopolitan population.
72
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Lesh. If you mean foreign in the sense of coming from foreign countries
to the United States, I would say hardly that. There is as little of that here
as there is anywhere in the country.
The Chairman. But you have a different population from that of any State.
Mr. Lesh. I want to say, in reference to the suggestion you have made, that
I am confident the interests of all the people of the District of Columbia would
be just as safe with a Senator elected from the District, if he happened to be
in such an important position as chairman of the Committee on the District
of Columbia, as they would be in the hands of any Senator elected from else¬
where. If he was elected by any particular interest, as lias happened elsewhere,
which doubtless has occurred to you, and though the particular interest would
be a local interest, as you point out, a Senator so elected who betrayed his
trust would be removed, just as a Senator elected from any other place would
be removed, by the natural process of the resentment of the people, and I think
you would find that resentment would be just as potent in the District as any¬
where else. There may be other objections in your mind, in reference to the
character of our population, and I will come to that a little bit later.
I was about to put in the record, because it seems to me it is a thing that
should be somewhere in this record, a statement by Bryce in his work on the
American Commonwealth. It loses its force just a little, because it is somewhat
disconnected. This is what he says:
“ The District of Columbia is a piece of land set apart to contain the city
of Washington, which is the seat of the Federal Government. It is governed
by three commissioners appointed by the President, and has no local legislature
nor municipal government, the only legislative authority being Congress, in
which it is not represented. Being well administered, it is held up by un¬
friendly critics of democracy as a model of the happy results of an enlightened
depostism.”
The Chairman. I might say, on the question of local government here, that
you have a commission form of government in the city, which, in my judgment,
is probably the best form there is for a municipality. There is no idea of
changing that form of government, either advocated by you or any other speaker
I have heard. The only difference between your form and the ordinary com¬
mission form of government is that your commissioners are appointed by the
President of the United States instead of being appointed by some State official.
For that reason I do think that you certainly ought to have the.right to vote
for President and for Vice President.
Mr. Lesh. We need only take the chairman one step further and we will be
in entire accord.
Referring now to what has been said in opposition here, another speaker,
Mr. Ayers, addressed the committee quite at length with what amounted to a
plea that the District of Columbia should accept control by the Nation. As
far as the group I represent are concerned, we accept control by the Nation.
All that we ask now is that it be recognized that we are a part of the Nation.
There is no intention on the part of those who advocate the constitutional
amendment to upset the national control of the Nation’s capital.
The point was made also that although the Declaration of Independence was
an ideal document American practices had not followed it. It was pointed out
that we have many forms of government applicable to our insular possessions.
All such arguments are quite beside the mark. It may be that having become
somewhat of an empire in the last 20 years we have had to adopt somewhat
the practices of empires and govern some people without their consent- The
fact remains that the District of Columbia is the only place in Continental
United States that does not participate in the government of the Nation. There
was one class of people pointed out the other day, the Indian, and perhaps
other classes, which may have been disfranchised because of certain specific
reasons, but the only place in Continental United States where people were
disfranchised in the Nation’s affairs for geographical reasons is the District
of Columbia, and I might say, looking at it from that point of view, I see
nothing in the geography or history of the District of Columbia that justifies
that exclusion.
It was also said that we are analogous to a military reservation, and we
ought to accept the situation. Historically, that is not true. This Capital was
put here pursuant to a provision of the Constitution. That particular pro¬
vision in the Constitution has been so often read here the last few days that I
am not inclined to read it as a whole, but I do want to call attention to the
fact that this argument we are an arsenal or dockyard, or analogous to them,
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
73
to be treated likewise, arises because this District and arsenals, dockyards,
etc., are dealt with in the same section of the Constitution. Notice the differ¬
ence of the language in the first clause in relation to the District of Columbia,
which says:
“ 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 Government of the United
States.”
In the second clause of the section or paragraph it says:
“And to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of
the legislature of the State 'in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
Something to which the United States holds title.
We were concerned here in the District primarily with the cession of political
sovereignty.
And what happened after this Constitution was adopted? The cession of this
land w r as procured from the original proprietors by the exhibition to them of a
plan of a city, and the public buildings were very largely erected out of the
proceeds of sale of those parcels of the land which were dedicated to public use.
And so far from developing the city in any way analogous to a dockyard,
what the President did under authority from Congress was to advertise
lots for sale over this country and in foreign countries to induce settlers to
come here and make it what Washington by his letter expected it to be—“ the
greatest commercial emporium in the country.” Its location was put upon
the banks of the Potomac, because it was expected there might be a commercial
development here. It was not the idea that there would be a development
of forts or arsenals or dockyards or military reservations that could be fairly
compared with the administration of such a place. Any such argument as
that goes out historically, and it must go out if we are to agree with the
Supreme Court of the United States in a long line of cases.
The question of what is the status of the District of Columbia is not a new
question. I want to call your attention to a couple of quotations from deci¬
sions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The question in the first
case I refer to was a question you might be concerned with in another branch
of this argument, but I do want to call attention to a quotation from the case.
In Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey (2 Cranch, 445) the question was whether
plaintiffs who were residents of the District could sue the defendant, a resi¬
dent of Virginia, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of’
Virginia under the act giving jurisdiction in cases between the citizen of
a State in which the suit is brought and the citizens of another State. The
court said:
“ On the part of the plaintiffs it has been argued that Columbia is a distinct
political society, and is, therefore, 4 a State,’ according to the definition of
writers on general law.
. “ This is true.”
Is that a dockyard, or is it a political society, a unit?
In Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer (14 Peters, 141) the question was whether
a resident of the county of Alexandria was “ beyond the seas ” within the mean¬
ing of the Maryland act of limitations which excepted persons *“ beyond the
seas.” The court said :
“ But the county of Alexandria, in this district, can not be regarded as stand¬
ing in the same relation to the county of Washington that the States of this
Union stand in relation to one another. * * * The same principle must
apply when the county of Alexandria has become united with a portion of
Maryland, in which this act of limitation is in force, and forms with such
portion one political community, united under one government. Such is not
the condition of the counties of Washington and Alexandria, which together
constitute the Territory of Columbia, and are united under one territorial
government. They have been formed by the acts of Congress into one separate
political community; and the two counties which compose it resemble different
counties in the same State, and do not stand toward one another in the relation
of distinct and separate government.”
In the Metropolitan Railroad v. the District of Columbia (132 U. S.) the
Supreme Court dealt with another question.
The Chairman. What year was that?
Mr. Lesh. That was the One hundred and thirty-second United States.
Some of you older lawyers, how far back was that?
74
SUFFRAGE 1 1ST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Senator King. In the seventies or eighties.
Mr. Lesh. The question involved in that case was whether the District of
Columbia was such a municipal corporation as would be subject to the plea
of the statute of limitations, and the court in arriving at its conclusion that
it was such a municipal corporation said this:
“ One argument of the plaintiff’s counsel in this connection is, that the Dis¬
trict of Columbia is a separate State or sovereignty according to the definition
of writers on public law, being a distinct political society. This position is
assented to by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case
of Hepburn v. Ellzey (2 Cranch, 445, 452), where the question was whether a
citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a
citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a
State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the
word ‘ State ’ in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases
between citizens of the several ‘ States ’ refers to the States of the Union. It
is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political com¬
munity in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the
sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation jof the
District of Columbia, but in the Government of the United States. Its supreme
legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal
character which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the
District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed
in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United
States. Therefore, whilst the District may, in a sense, be called a State, it is
such in a very qualified sense.”
Now, that is the expression of the Supreme Court which is more against the
view I have presented to you. The view I am presenting is admitted by this
quotation—that is, that we are a political organization, a political community,
and are not analagous to a dockyard or military reservation.
Senator King. Is not the right of Congress coextensive with its authority
under the power of the Constitution to make any laws or regulations respect¬
ing territory belonging to the United States it may choose to, subject to the
limitations imposed upon the act of cession of that territory to the Govern¬
ment?
Mr. Lesh. In dealing with property of the United States, such as arsenals
and dockyards, the power of Congress is absolute. In dealing with the Dis¬
trict of Columbia you are dealing not with property owned, but with people,
and time and time again the Supreme Court of the United States has said
that over the District of Columbia the ordinary constitutional guarantees ex¬
tend.
Senator King. You understand that under the power to control territories
belonging to the United States the Federal Government exercised control over
them and granted organic acts, and that the power of Congress is unlimited
in dealing with its territories, except there shall be embodied in its action
the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Lesh. I am inclined to grant what you say, with this qualification: That
when we came to our insular cases and began to deal with Porto Rico, there was
a wide difference of opinion. You will remember in that first case there were
almost as many opinions as there were members of the Supreme Court. All
of them united on just one thing, however, and that was that the expression in
regard to the District of Columbia being a political community entitled to rights
under the Constitution would be adhered to. They differed widely among
themselves as to whether that expression was applicable to Porto Rico or not.
Therefore, I say there is a distinct, perhaps not material to me here to-day,
between the exclusive power of Congress over the District of Columbia and
that power of Congress over a place like Porto Rico. If it were a question of
direct taxation there might be a difference, but there is no difference that should
cause any Senator on this committee to differ from any view I present, because
my only point is that we are a politicial community and are not analogous in
any sense that we are concerned with to dockyards of which the United States
holds the fee, even though it happens to be in the same clause of the Con¬
stitution.
Senator King. I think perhaps you would not be in a materially different
position from that occupied by Territories, such as ^Wisconsin Territory, New
Mexico Territory, and Utah Territory, before they became States, except there
was a cession of territory by Maryland and Virginia, and there may be some
limitation there.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
7b
We had a treaty with Mexico during the time of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and
that imposed upon the Feneral Government certain restrictions with respect to
the nationals of Mexico who became incorporated into the territory of the
United States. There may have been some limitation or qualification of the
sovereignty of the United States in dealing with the District of Columbia in
the acts of cession by the States of Maryland and Virginia, but aside from
that, if there is no limitation or qualification there, it would seem to me that
the power of Congress to deal with the District of Columbia would be analogous
to its power to deal with its territories. I am not speaking of its insular pos¬
sessions, but the Northwest Territory, the territory it acquired from Mexico
under the treaty with Guadalupe Hidalgo. We incorporated that into Terri¬
tories, gave them organic acts, but our Supreme Court has held that even though
the citizens of those Territories are entitled to the protection of the Bill of
Rights contained in the Constitution of the United States, their legislatures
may not abolish the right of trial by jury with a unanimous verdict either in
criminal cases or civil cases.
So, if I understand your argument, I do not disagree with you, namely, that
you are a sort of political entity, and you are entitled to certain political rights,
entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States; but as to
whether you have the riglij to vote or not, it seems to me that is clearly within
the powers of Congress.
Mr. Lesh. Absolutely.
Senator King. That you do not have, by reason of the mere fact that there
was a grant of territory, the right to vote.
Mr. Lesh. I quite agree with you, and I think everyone with me agrees with
you.
Senator King. Speaking for myself, I would not waste my time discussing the
analogy between dockyards and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Lesh. I would not either, but for the fact that there was only One
speaker in opposition to our proposition, and it is very hard to shoot at nothing.
The only speaker spent a large amount of time upon this analogy, and if the
committee listened to him I want to answer it.
Senator King. I want to apologize for not having been present at the previous
sessions. I have been on other committees almost constantly and on the floor
of the Senate. I regret that I was not here to enjoy the’ benefit of your argu¬
ment and presentation, but I shall read the report of the hearings very carefully.
Mr. Lesh. There are a few other cases in this same series of cases, so that
you will have my thought completely before you.
In Geofroy n.* Riggs (133 U. S., 258) a question arose whether the District
of Columbia was one of “ the States of the Union ” within the meaning of that
term as used in article 7 of the consular convention of February 23, 1853, with
France. The court said :
“ This article is not happily drawn. It leaves in doubt what is meant by
4 States of the Union.’ Ordinarily these terms would be held to apply to those
political communities exercising various attributes of sovereignty which com¬
pose the United States, as distinguished from the organized municipalities known
as Territories and the District of Columbia. And yet separate communities, with
an independent local government, are often described as States, though the
extent of their political sovereignty be limited by relations to a more general
government or to other countries. (Halleck on Int. Law, eh. 3, pars. 5, 6, 7.)
The term is used in general jurisprudence and by writers on public law as
denoting organized political societies with an established government. Within
this definition the District of Columbia under the Government of the United
States is as much a State as any of those political communities which compose
the United States. Were there no other Territory under the Government of the
United States, it would not be questioned that the District of Columbia would
be a State within the meaning of international law; and it is not perceived that
it is any less a State within that meaning because no other States and other
Territory are also under the same government.”
I did not draw from that any inference that we have the right to vote. Some
might misunderstand me and think I meant we had a right to vote. I drew from
that only the inference I have stated from these other authorities, that we aie a
political community and we are to be dealt with as such a political community
composed of people, not a piece of property owned by the United States.
Senator King Of course, the word “ State ” is generic and, as you know, is
used by publicists as referring to any political body, even though the right of
franchise is denied, or substantially so.
76
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Lesh. Precisely.
Senator King. It is not tantamount to meaning they have the right of fran¬
chise or .the right to participate in the political affairs of their own Common¬
wealth.
Mr. Lesh. I did not submit the authority beyond the point I have referred
to—that we are in any way analogous to a military reservation. I do not
think that argument will hold.
There is another argument or suggestion of an argument that was made by
the opposition, and that is with respect to our colored population. When a
person argues against suffrage in the District of Columbia upon the broad
ground that we have a large colored population, I take it that they are not re¬
ferring to what might be called the intelligent colored population. They must
object to a man as a political unit not merely upon the ground of his color,
but upon the lamentable fact that so many persons after the Civil War, and
in a lesser degree in later years, were illiterates and shiftless, just exactly the
kind of population that you would expect of a race that was held in slavery and
recently freed. It is that type of the colored population that that argument
must be addressed to. Surely they would not come before the Senate of the
United States, which confirmed Robert R. Terrell as justice of the peace and
afterwards a judge of the municipal court of the "'District of Columbia five
times, three of which times he was nominated by a Republican President and
twice by a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson; and which confirmed other colored men
nominated for office in the District of Columbia. It is not that type of colored
voters that they are afraid of. It can not be that the Senate is afraid of them,
and it is the Senate which must take the entire responsibility, because we did
not help elect you, and we did not have anything to do with it. You confirmed
Judge Terrell, who, by the way, is an excellent judge, as a judge of our municipal
court, before whom I and other lawyers have to practice in the District of
Columbia. So it can not be any argument to you that that kind of a voter is
dangerous.
So I inquire what are the facts concerning the colored population of the
District of Columbia from the point of view of literacy and progress?
The returns as to illiteracy among the colored population in the census of
1910 show that in the District of Columbia it was 13.5, or less than half the
corresponding figure for the United States, 30.4, and less than the same per¬
centages for any one of 19 States—Indiana, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Texas, and New Mexico.
The percentage of school attendance among the District’s colored population,
59.3, is considerably above the corresponding percentage of the United States
as a whole, 47.3, and exceeds that of any one of 28 States—New Hampshire,
Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Dela¬
ware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisi¬
ana, Texas, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Oregon.
Since 1870—and it is our voting in 1870 that is always referred to, because
that is the last time we voted—as the successive decennial censuses show, there
has been a remarkable increase in school attendance and decrease in illiteracy
among the colored population. The proportion attending school increase from
about 37.5 per cent of those 5 to 19 years of age in 1870, to 50.3 per cent of
those 6 to 20 years of age in 1910. This increase being much more, propor¬
tionately, than the corresponding increase for the white population from 53.1 per
cent in 1870 to 66.2 per cent in 1910.
It is in the decline of illiteracy, however, that the most striking progress
is shown. The percentage of illiterates among colored persons of 10 years of
age and over decreased from 70.5 per cent in 1870 to 13.5 per cent in 1910,
the latter percentage being less than one-fifth as great as the former. The
proportion of improvement in white illiteracy for the same period is just about
the same, from 7.3 per cent in 1870 to 1.5 per cent in 1910.
Now, if that does not answer the argument, if there is anyone who will
come to you and say, “ I don’t care whether the colored man is educated or
not—'I don’t care what progress they are" making—a community that has a
large percentage among their population is not an acceptable voting commu¬
nity,” then I do not understand the process of reasoning that leads anyone to
that conclusion.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
77
There has been a marked decline in the proportion of the colored population
in the whole population in the District of Columbia. It was approximately a
third of the total population in 1870, 1880, and in 1890, and is now less than a
fourth of the population, and in no one of 11 precincts, according to the most
recent police census, did the colored outnumber the whites.
Senator King. Is not the objection to suffrage more strongly emphasized by
the opposition to it for these reasons: First, that the colored people and the
large number of Federal employees are without property, and that to confer
upon them the control—because together they would probably have control of
the District—of this municipality or this District would, perhaps, result in com
plications and conflicts between the government which they might set up, whether
it be municipal or of whatever character it might be, and the United States,
and, second, ought not the Government of the United States to have a place
w r here its sovereignty, not only as to unimportant things but things affecting
the welfare of the whole scope of the activities of the Government, is unchal¬
lenged? It is responsible for this District. It pays a large share of the taxes
and will be compelled to pay a large share of the taxes. If you are to have a
dual government, an emperium in emperio, it is contended that there will neces¬
sarily be conflicts, disputes, controversies, that will militate against the pro¬
gressive development of this city, not only intellectually, not only in a municipal
w T ay or governmental way, but from an artistic and esthetic standpoint.
Mr. Lesh. For myself and all those that I represent and the gentlemen who
are sitting here representing allied organizations, I agree with you absolutely.
Senator King. I express no opinion. Do not misunderstand me, I am stat¬
ing opinions that have been expressed by others.
Mr. Lesh. We agree with what you have said. We are advocating the sub¬
mission to the States of a constitutional amendment which will permit us to
elect Representatives in the House of Representatives according to our numbers
and one or two Senators, as the Congress may determine by the enabling act,
and also presidential electors.
Senator King. You want statehood?
Mr. Lesh. We want not qu te statehood, though I would have to spend quite
a while pointing out the difference—you will find it in the record—between
what we propose and statehood. We are not asking for municipal government
at all. We are asking that the District of Columbia be made part of the
Nation.
Senator King. You are not even satisfied to be a Territory?
Mr. Lesh. Not at all. We are not.
Mr. Brandenburg. I would like to say to the Senator that at the last meet¬
ing, as chairman of the brief committee of the joint citizens’ committee, I
went upon record quite fully and clearly that the great body of our citizenship
is opposed to any change in the form of the local government, and feel and
bel'eve that the best form of government is such as we have through the abso¬
lute control by the Federal Government of this municipality.
Mr. Lesh. In this discussion of our voting population and its qualifications,
this question is really further along. If Congress has the wisdom we believe
it has, it will, in the enabling act that comes after the constitutional amend¬
ment, insert either a property qualification, a property and educational quali¬
fication, or a property or educational qualification, which will eliminate the
shiftless, the wandering persons, the persons who ought not to vote. That ques¬
tion will not arise unless we are going to assume that the power of Congress
in passing the enabling act will not be wisely exercised.
We have spent a good deal of time upon conditions that are against the
granting of suffrage. How about conditions for it, conditions from the point
of view of our participation in the Government of the Nation? I think many
of you do not appreciate the s ; tuation of the voteless subjects of the Nation.
It is difficult to imagine that some of you men who enjoy voting privileges,
while you may realize in an academic sort of way that we do not participate
in the Government of the Nation, that you really appreciate how we feel about
it. Take such occasions as this: Up in the City Club we have a weekly forum.
Before that forum come men who discuss such measures as the proposed sales
tax in substitution for some of the excess profits and other petty taxes. We
listen to those men. We even have an humble thought on the subject. After
we listen and after we think, a good many of us think this: “What is the
use of a resident of the District having any opinion whatsoever upon a national
subiect’ We have no power. Why waste our time thinking about such things?
Why not just devote it to chasing the almighty dollar or some other profitable
78
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
jccupation where we can make our thought effective? We discuss before
that same forum such subjects as the future status of the Philippines, free speech
on the one hand as against the espionage legislation on the other.
National subjects concern us just as much as they concern you. They may
not in dollars and cents. So far as I can discover, they do not take a dollar
out of my pocket or put one in. The sales tax would; the Philippine Govern¬
ment might not. But I have as much right as you, in your individual capacity,
not in your representative capacity, to have a voice in tha£ and to express my
views through my representatives in a national assembly, a real voting repre¬
sentative, in the Senate and in the House. That is a deprivation that I have
to suffer which you can hardly appreciate.
Last Friday, a week ago to-day, you men of the Senate and those of the
House followed the body of an unknown soldier up the Avenue. Why did you
do it? To show respect, in order that the Representative from his district
and the Senator from his State might follow him to Arlington. We of the
District of Columbia have our unknown dead. How do you know you accom¬
plished what you set out to do? It may be that man came from this jurisdic¬
tion that has no Representative in the House nor a Senator. The thing hits
we residents of the District almost every day, because we are here in the
Nation’s Capital. We see the affairs of the Nation go on, and we feel we are
separated from them.
The gentlemen in Boston who dumped the tea in the harbor did not put
it there for practical reasons. The tax on tea was a small affair. It was the
sentiment of the thing. I feel that you men from the States, every day that
you deprive us of the right to participate in the Nation’s affairs, are doing
us an injury. You would not keep anything from ffs that belonged to us. If
you owed us a dollar you would pay it. I feel, this is just as important as
dollars. I would like, if it were in my power, to make you feel it so clearly
that when you would go out to get on a street car and see the street car con¬
ductor you would feel ashamed to look at him because you would know you
were depriving him of his right as an American citizen by not putting this
resolution on its way.
If he does not know, if he does not care or does not feel that deprivation,
you have done him a greater injury .than if he did feel it. If by reason of
the passage of years there are some residents of the District who are so dead
to the American spirit that they do not care whether they have representation
in the House or in the Senate or have anything to do with the election of
President.'those men have been done the greatest possible injury. You ought
to give that man what he is entitled to. You know it is right, and I know it
is right. You know that it is an American heritage that he ought to prize,
and if he does not prize it you should give it to him anyhow.
Our real difficulty is in getting attention, getting some one to listen to us.
You know how many members there are of this committee. You know how
many members come here. You know the members who have come here have
given a great deal more attention to this subject than will the other Members
of the Senate. Very few are going to read this entire written record. That is
our objection to these Delegates and ether voteless propositions. They are
alternative, gentlemen; you can not get away from it.
There has not been any legislation affecting the District of Columbia since
N178—43 years. What legislation you pass to-day, or rather that you report
and put on its way to be passed, is going to be legislation for to-day. If it
is to be another 43 years before we can get anything else done, gentlemen, I
will not and I am sure some of the older gentlemen here at the table will
not have any interest in it. As a practical matter, I would not feel that we
are being done any more injustice than is usually done when parties are not
attending to other person’s rights.
If any Senator concludes that “ if we give these people the Delegate that will
settle it and I can dismiss the matter from my mind for a while,” that is what
will happen. I flatly dispute the statement made here the other day that the
people of the District are willing to accept the Delegate as a compromise. I
stated rather clearly what my authority to speak at this meeting for the people
of the District is, and I must say that everyone I represent feels that is not an
acceptable compromise. It is not a compromise at all; it is a surrender. A
Delegate will not give us a vote in the House; he has only a voice. A Delegate
will not give us a vote in the Senate, not even a voice in the Senate; no control
over the selection of the judiciary, which lies between the President and the
Senate; and absolutely no access to the Federal courts. It would be really like
coming here and asking for bread and being offered a stone to be told, “ We will
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
79
give you a Delegate to represent you in the House, and see how that works for
a while.” If you give us a Delegate you are going to see how that works for
a while, and these whiles are too long.
If it be called a step toward real representation, I object to it. We are not
following the route that people follow who take those steps first. When they
gave a Territory—any western Territory—a Delegate it was considered a step
toward statehood. We are never going to arrive at statehood in the District of
Columbia. Most of us feel we never will. Statehood means that we would have
absolute local self-government. The Capital was put here to avoid being in a
State. I don’t feel we are ever going to take that step. Then what is the use of
taking a primary step to which statehood has been the second step? It is a step
that leads nowhere.
If we think of it from that point of view why were Territories given a Delegate
first and full statehood afterwards? Because at the time they were given rep¬
resentation by a Delegate they did not have the population and did not have the
resources for statehood. Every argument for a Delegate in the District of
Columbia is an argument for the immediate passage of our proposition, because
we do have the resources, we do have the population. There is no occasion for
taking two steps in the District, because the reasons that operated in favor of
two steps—lack of resources, the lack of population, the lack of preparation—do
not exist in the District of Columbia.
Thirdly, it is easy enough to say theoretically that we will have a Delegate
elected by the people of the District of Columbia, but when you come to defining
who are those people we find other difficulties, and the framers of these bills
had to define who would be the voters of the District of Columbia. The framers
of the bill had to exclude those who were voting in the States or those who
claimed residence in the States.
Suppose we have an election for Delegate in the District of Columbia, and
exclude the voters in the States—the persons who have a vote in the States—who
is going to vote at that election? What reasonable man is going to give up the
substance for the shadow? Who would surrender his residence in a State to
claim a residence here to elect only a Delegate? That means that the portion
of our population which consists of persons who either claim residence in those
State, or expect to claim one at some time in the future, will not vote in such
an election. We would have a showing of our electorate here which would be
used as an argument against an election for Senator and Representative. The
people would not be very much interested. I am sure I would not. I think,
because of my particular interest in the subject matter, I would probably vote,
but a good many people would not be enough interested in the election of a
Delegate to vote; however, they would if they were electing somebody who had
a vote somewhere, who had the power of a vote.
I say that persons who propose a Delegate as a step toward getting representa¬
tion in the House and Senate, though they are sincere, are mistaken. They are
hurting us rather than helping us. It will bring out a test of our voting
strength, which will not be our true voting strength in this community, but it
will be argued that it was.
' As far as those whom I represent are concerned, I will say to you that if you
are unfriendly to the proposition to give us representation in the House and
the Senate and a voice in electing the President through the constitutional
amendment, then do not vote for the Delegate bill, because I think there is real
danger in it. There is always a temptation to take the thing you can get—the
easy thing.
Senator Capper. There are three propositions—the Jones bill, the Poindexter
bill, and the bill introduced by myself. If those three measures were sub¬
mitted to a referendum of the eligible electors here, male and female, what, in
your opinion, would be the result? About what percentage of the vote would
be cast for the various measures?
Mr. Lesh. My opinion, based upon the expression of all organized opinion in
the District, is that they would vote overwhelmingly for the Jones resolution.
They would vote dividedly upon the Delegate proposition and upon the proposi¬
tion to elect the commissioners. I think—and I am sure I would do all in my
power to bring it about, and the wish is sometimes father to the thought—
I think that because those other two propositions would interfere with the get¬
ting of the thing that is most valuable to us, which is representation in the House
and in the Senate, that the other two should be voted down. Any referendum,
however would present the difficulty of qualified voters, voters from the States.
I feel that we should have something that is of real substance.
83480—22 -«
80
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
1 have consumed about an hour of the committee’s t : me. If I have anything
further to say, I will have to ask you to give me an opportunity on some sub¬
sequent day, as the chairman of the joint citizens’ committee desires to address
you. I do not feel that I have really consumed an entire hour, because a good
deal of the time was filled with very instructive and interesting questions.
So anything further I have to say I shall hope on some subsequent day to be
permitted to do so.
The Chairman. Very well.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN C. BRANDENBURG, ESQ.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, at a recent meeting you suggested that you
wanted something concrete, something to show the real basis for the granting
of this right of franchise to the citizens of the District of Columbia. I hope
that in the very short time that I shall take I may be able to present some con¬
crete reasons, in addition to those presented by my associate, which will justify
you in believing that the Jones bill should become a law.
In the first place, I appeal' as the spokesman of the citizens’ joint committee
on national representation for the District of Columbia, and as chairman of its
committee on brief, which is an organization supported by the Washington
Board of Trade of more than 2,300 members, the Chamber of Commerce with
1,100 members and more, the Federation of Citizens’ Associations, comprising
substantially all of the local citizens’ organizations, the Central Labor Union,
Merchants and Manufacturers’ Association, City Club, Women’s Club, and many
other organizations. I also appear as the direct representative of the Wash¬
ington Board of Trade. These organizations are all united in supporting the
Jones bill, which is in all respects similar to the Burrows bill now pending
before the House Judiciary Committee. The result is that I represent the
views of the people of the city of Washington.
We have listened with interest to each of the arguments presented in sup¬
port of the Poindexter and Capper bills. Not a word nor argument thus far
presented in the least militates against the position which we take in support
of the joint resolution of Senator Jones, but, on the contrary, is full and ample
support and justification for the enactment into law of that bill. The advo¬
cates for a Delegate are not because of choice, but what seemsi to be of
necessity.
This denial of the right of franchise raises by no means a new question.
It was agitated early in the last century, and as time passes and the country
grows the demand is revived. This deprivation of the right of franchise was
responsible for the retrocession to Virginia of that part of the District of
Columbia orginally ceded to the Federal Government. Alexandria was a
part of that territory. In 1846 the citizens of Alexandria in mass meeting
adopted the following resolutions :
“ That our citizens for a long series of years have been placed in a state of
political degradation, and virtually beyond the pale of the Constitution, in
having withheld from them the passage of needful and wholesome laws and in
being denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by our fellow citizens of the
Republic.”
And further resolved:
“ Then we cherish the highest hopes and have the utmost confidence that the
Congress of the United States will break the political shackles which have so
long bound us and again elevate us to the rights and privileges of free men by
granting retrocession with relief.”
In consequence of this unrest and dissatisfaction on the part of the citizens
of Virginia, the Federal Government consented that such part of the District
as had originally been ceded by Virginia should be returned to that State.
Georgetown, a part of the land within the 10 miles square ceded by the
State of Maryland as early as 1803, demanded retrocession of that part of the
District to the State of Maryland for the same reason. This demand was
repeated for years.
The Jones bill does not advocate statehood, nor are we contending for any
such status. The bill as framed simply asks that we be placed in substantially
the same status as a Territory, and when Congress subsequently determines
that we have reached the stage justifying the granting to us of a right of
franchise and the right to representation in Congress, Congress shall then have
the power, the same as it now has with reference to the Territories, of granting
us the right to participate in the councils of the Nation. While this places ns
SUFFBAGE IN THE DISTKICT OF COLUMBIA.
81
upon substantially the status of the Territory, it should be with this qualifica¬
tion, that the bill does not give us all of the rights of the States when repre¬
sentation is granted, but simply the right to participate in the councils of the
Nation through our chosen representatives. The Jones resolution asks for
nothing more and nothing less. It simply atnends the Constitution so that when
the time arrives Congress may, if it sees fit, grant us these rights guaranteed
under the Constitution.
The question may well be asked why we do not seek in the first instance an
amendment to the Constitution which when adopted by the States would give
us the right of franchise and representation without further action on the part
of Congress. While I personally would advocate a bill of that character, still,
I defer to the judgment of my associates, many of whom believe that Congress
is more likely to pass a resolution in the form now advocated, as it leaves for
Congress at a later date, and after the, States have acted, to confer the right
of franchise substantially in form as in the case of the admission of a
Territory.
The Chairman. I take it that it is your judgment that you should be granted
statehood.
Mr. Brandenburg. No. I say the question arises as to whether we should
ask in the first instance by this resolution that the States shall amend the
Constitution to give us the right of franchise.
The Chairman. You further say it is your personal opinion, but you differ
from the opinion of others.
Mr. Brandenburg. No ; you misunderstand me. I said the question might
well be asked why we did not seek in the first instance an amendment to the
Constitution which, when adopted by the States, would give us the right of
franchise and representation without having to wait for further action on the
part of Congress.
The Chairman. It is your judgment that the government of the District
should be taken out of the hands of Congress?
Mr. Brandenburg. Not at all.
The Chairman. It would be when you were granted statehood.
Mr. Brandenburg. I did not say “ statehood,” I said “ right of franchise.”
I mean the direct right of franchise.
The Chairman. When you have the franchise you have the right to elect your
own officers.
Mr. Brandenburg. No ; we do not want that.
The Chairman. That is the reason I wanted you to make a specific statement.
I would misconstrue your other statement.
Mr. Brandenburg. Absolutely not. That is not what we want. We are abso¬
lutely opposed to any change in the form of the local gpvernment.
Now let us see whether the District is entitled at the present time to partici¬
pate in the councils of the Nation through its chosen represenatives. We
assume that the same consideration in this respect would apply to us as when
a Territory knocks at the doors of Congress for admission to statehood
privilG^GS
While Washington thought that the Federal site might at some time in the
future become a “commercial emporium,” and possibly the greatest m the
country, we doubt whether he or his associates, with their wonderful vision as
to the future, realized that its population would reach the proportions which it
has, particularly when compared with the population of States covering a vast
tel \n examination of the census of the year 1910 discloses the fact that the pop-
nlotion of the District of Columbia was 331,069, which exceeded in number
Nevada Vitha population of 91,375; Wyoming, 145.965; Delaware, 202,322;
Arizona 204 364; Idaho, 323,994; and New Mexico, 327,301. The population of
the District, therefore, in 1910 was greater than that of any one of six States
of the Union, each being represented in the Senate of the United States with
two Senators and a representation in the House commensurate with their pop-
The Chairman. Would you reason along the same line that New York City,
with a population of 7,000,000, should have separate statehood?
Mr Brandenburg. Not at all. My argument is that when you consider the
question of the admission of any Territory into the Union you then considered
the question of its population and other qualifications, and I say that so far
as the District of Columbia is concerned, it stands m the same status as a
Territory.
82
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Chairman. I remember hearing the discussion on the question of the
admission of the last Territory, and Mr. Lloyd was also in Congress at the time.
It was not the population that was so much taken into consideration as it was
the character of that population and the possibilities of the future, the number
of square miles the Territory contained, and matters of that kind relating to
statehood. It was argued for some time against the creation of any smaller
States.
Mr. Brandenburg. That is true.
The Chairman. They objected to the smaller States and it always created
political troubles. The smaller States had political troubles.
Mr. Brandenburg. That is true.
The Chairman. Fortunately, perhaps, I come from one of those smaller
States and I know something about their political troubles. That was the line
of argument in the Senate in reference to the admission of the Territories of
Arizona and New Mexico to statehood—whether they had the territory and
the character of population. You have the population, and the character of
population, but you have not the territory for a State.
Mr. Brandenburg. That is true; but you do not for a moment contend that
the State of Delaware will ever surrender its rights under the Constitution to
full representation in Congress any more than any other small State?
The Chairman. No. Delaware was one of the original 13 States.
Mr. Brandenburg. True; but some of the other smaller States were not.
The Chairman. No; I think all the smaller States were.
Mr. Brandenburg. That is true. They all were.
The Chairman. Rhode Island and Delaware are the small States in area.
While others gre smaller in population, yet they have a larger area.
Mr. Brandenburg. That is true.
Senator Capper. What do you think we may expect in the way of increase in
population in th Diestrict during the next 25 years?
Mr. Brandenburg. I think the growth will be equal to what it has been during
the last 10 years, if not more.
A like census for the year 1920 shows that the population of the District
of Columbia had grown to 437,571, which is greater than the population of any
one of the following States, namely, Nevada, 77,407; Wyoming, 194,402; Dela¬
ware, 223,003; Arizona, 333,273; Vermont, 352,421, New Mexico, 360,247; and
Idaho, 431,826. In addition to the States named, the population of the Dis¬
trict, as shown by the same census, was within 8,000 of New Hampshire, which
had 443,083, and within 12,000 of Utah, which had a population of 449,446.
While from the very earliest we find Presidents of the United States advocating
the appointment of a delegate to represent the interests of the District in
the Halls of Congress, this recommendation was not due to a lack of apprecia¬
tion of the rights of the citizens to full voting representation, but simply that
at the times of such recommendations the population of the District was in¬
sufficient in the minds of the Chief Executives for the time being to justify
full representation. These recommendations did, however, constitute a recog¬
nition of the fact that our people were deprived of the sacred right of repre¬
sentation guaranteed to all of the people of the United States.
Senator Sheppard. What is the population per square mile of the District
at present?
Mr. Brandenburg. You would have to divide that population of 437,000 by
66 square miles.
Senator Sheppard. I just wanted to know if you had it.
Mr. Brandenburg. No; I have not it at present.
Senator Sheppard. I have just been furnished with figures showing that
the District has a population per square mile of 6,630. j
The Chairman. What is the population of New York per square mile?
Mr. Ayers. The Literary Digest of two weeks ago gave the density of popu¬
lation of every State on the first page.
Mr. Brandenburg. Now, coming to the question of Federal taxes, many peo¬
ple of the country labor under the impression that the citizens of the District
live in that happy realm where no taxes are paid but are subjects of the
bounty of Congress. Why this misconception should exist among even people
of intelligence is difficult to say. The actual facts are far different from sucn
impression. It is true that our taxes are not divided between State, county,
municipality, and for schools and improvements, but a flat assessment is levied,
based upon a two-thirds of the actual fair market value of the property, which
valuation is determined and ascertained from a personal inspection of the
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
83
property, as well as a comparison with the prices of property sold in the imme¬
diate neighborhood. While it is frequently said that the rate of taxation is less
than in some other localities, we have fully disproved that fact by actual
statistics in a hearing before, a joint committee appointed by Congress. W6
pay, therefore, not only the taxes to support the local government, but we also
pay the same character of taxes to support the Federal Government. Now, let
us consider the amount of Federal taxes paid to the Federal Government by
the citizens of the District through internal revenue, including income and
corporation taxes, as well as those upon fermented liquors, customs, and other
miscellaneous items for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918. For that year the
aggregate paid by the District was $1,506,699.27, which was greater than
similar taxes paid by any one of 20 States of the Union.
The Chairman. You do not put Delaware in that?
Mr. Brandenburg. I will come to Delaware in a moment. For the year end¬
ing June 30, 1917, the official records disclose the fact that the citizens of the
District paid through the same sources the sum of $2,666,204.40, which was
greater than any one of 19 States of the Union, including the great States of
Georgia and of Iowa. It is also a fact that for this year the citizens of the
District paid in Federal taxes twice as much as that paid by any one of 14
States and four times as much as 8 States of the Un'on. For the year ending
June 30, 1918, the citizens of the District contributed to the Federal Government,
through the same sources of taxes, the sum of $12,862,474.08. For the year
ending June 30, 1919, the District paid to the Government in satisfaction of
like taxes the sum of $18,645,053, which amount was greater than the com¬
bined aggregate of similar taxes paid by the States of North Dakota, New
Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, and Vermont. In this connection it is interesting
to note that the five States referred to have 18 votes in the upper and lower
Houses of Congress, and have the right and the power to participate in de¬
termining how these taxes shall be raised and how disbursed, while the District
of Columbia has absolutely no voice. The taxes paid to the Federal Government
during this year were greater than any one of 15 States of the Un’on. As
bearing out our claim of the injustice to the citizens of the District in denying
them the right to have a voice in the levying of these taxes and in their dis¬
bursement, we desire to specifically refer to the States paying a less amount of
taxes to the Federal Government than the District of Columbia and the num¬
ber of electoral votes which each State has. This table is as follows:
Taxes paid.
Electoral
votes.
Taxes paid.
Electrical
votes.
District of Columbia.
J18,645,053
3,338,660
Mississippi.
SI 1,786,386
12,556,192
15,623,811
6,669,794
6,770,257
9, 595,151
14,709,318
6,597, 515
10
North Dakota.
5
Arkansas.
9
New Mexico...
1 968,009
3
Florida.
6
Nevada
1,297,334
3
South Dakota.
5
Wyoming
4,225,282
6,700,148
4,963, 264
18,435,952
3
Montana.
4
Vermont
4
Utah.
4
Idaho
4
New Hampshire.
4
Alabama.
12
Arizona.
3
On the basis of taxation, therefore, we submit that the citizens of the Dis¬
trict have an undoubted right to demand a voice in the Halls of Congress.
Strange it is that although the people of the District are denied those rights
which are conducive to patriotism, the fact remains that when this great
country of ours finds itself involved in controversy and war, that our people
take a second place to none of the States in offering its sons to fight its cause.
In the Civil War the District of Columbia sent 16,534 men to the front. Ac¬
cording to Government records, the District’s proportion of man power was
0.35 per cent of the estimated loyal population of the country, as ascertained
by the census of 1860, while as a matter of fact it actually sent into the serv¬
ice 0.62 per cent of a number about four-fifths greater than its share.
In the Spanish War the same records disclose the fact that according to
the census of 1900, the proportion of the man power of the District when com¬
pared with the United States as a whole should be 0.37 per cent, whereas it
was actually credited with 0.46 per cent or a number about one-fourth greater
than the number properly chargeable against the District.
In the World War the record for the District is an enviable one. The total
voluntary enlistments in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps was 8,314, which
84
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
was greater in number than the States of Nevada, Delaware, Arizona, Wyom¬
ing, Vermont, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and only a trifle less than
three other States. The number of men inducted into the Army in the first
and second registration was 9,631, making a total number of men entering the
service of the Government 17,945.
The proportion which the voluntary enlistments bear to the total number
of enlistments and inductions by way of registration was greater for the Dis¬
trict of Columbia than for every State of the Union except Rhode Island, Ore¬
gon, Washington, California, and Maine, and more than one-third greater than
the percentage for the country as a whole.
The very idea that a demacratic government can declare war and call our
sons into the service either voluntarily or by compulsion without a voice either
in the election of the President or Vice President or in Congress is repugnant
to every sense of decency and justice. Surprising it is that the citizens of the
District have not long since rebelled against the existence of this anomalous
condition. As stated by a distinguished Senator several years ago at a public
gathering that the people of his State never for a moment would tolerate
such a condition, but in a body would have marched to the Halls of Congress
and demanded the right of representation.
The Chairman. You refer to a “ democratic government.” We do not class
this as a democratic government. We call it a Republican representative
government.
Mr. Brandenburg. Then, let me substitute the word “ Republican ” for
“ Democratic.”
The Chairman. I wish you would do that, for I think that distinction should
be made.
Mr. Brandenburg. Very good. I shall take very great pleasure in changing
that, Mr. Chairman.
Now, coming to Liberty bonds, the .District has not only contributed by its
manhood in the defense in every war in which the United States has been
involved, but has with the greatest liberality contributed in raising money
to carry on these wars.
I would like to have you give special attention to this.
The Chairman'. I am giving attention to everything you say. Before you
make that statement I want to recite one little incident that occurred. I was
in Washington on business during the war and had to stay over during the
night. I went to the theater, not being occupied that night. They raised a
large amount that night—I do not remember how many thousand dollars—
and I doubt whether any of that money was contributed by citizens of
W ashington.
Mr. Brandenburg. Why didn’t Delaware do the same thing?
The Chairman. Delaware does not have the influx of population from other
States.
Mr. Brandenburg. You do not blame us for it.
The Chairman. No ; I do not blame you for it, but it can not be argued
that it was all given by the citizens of Washington. I made a contribution.
I could not help it. Everybody did. We had to.
Mr. Brandenburg. The fact remains that we did it.
The Chairman*. You did your duty. I want you to understand that. But
those figures do not represent amounts given by the citizens of Washington.
Mr. Brandenburg. That may be true, Mr. Chairman. That may be true;
but it was the result of the work of the citizens of Washington that it was
donp.
Senator Sheppard. You are undoubtedly entitled to credit for having gotten
those subscriptions.
Mr. Brandenburg. I think so, Senator.
The Chairman. I am not taking any credit from you.
Mr. Brandenburg. Anyhow, we raised the money, and we got it, and we
feel very proud of it.
The Chairman. You spoke of Delaware not doing her part in raising money
and sending people abroad.
Mr. Brandenburg. Delaware did her part.
The Chairman. Of course, we have a number of wealthy people there. We
had four people who paid $4,000,000 in 1919.
Mr. Brandenburg. Delaware was not on the list. The amount assigned to
the District as its quota of the first Liberty loan was $10,000,000, whereas its
people actually subscribed, or raised, if you please, Mr. Chairman, $19,261,400.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
85
This makes a per capita subscription by the District of $52.50, which is nearly
four-fifths greater than for the country as a whole, which was only $29.29, and
exceeded that for each of the 12 Federal reserve districts except the second,
which includes New York*
The quota for the District on the second Liberty loan amounted to $20,000,000,
While its people actually subscribed $22,857,050, a per capita subscription of
$57.73, against $44.55 for the United States as a whole.
On the third Liberty loan the quota for the District was $12,870,000, while its
people actually subscribed $25,992,250. This makes a per capita subscription of
$64.98, against $40.13 for the United States at large. This per capita subscrip¬
tion was considerably in excess of that for each of the Federal reserve districts
except the second, which includes the State of New York. Our subscriptions
on this loan were greater than any one of 18 States—namely, Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah,
Vermont, and Wyoming. It is an interesting fact that in this loan the per¬
centage of the population of the District who subscribed was greater than any
one of the 48 States, and was about twice as great as the percentage of the
country as a whole which ranged from $29.07 from Iowa to $3.36 for North
Carolina.
On the fourth Liberty loan the quota for the District was $27,608,000, while
the subscriptions of its people amounted to $51,262,100, or a per capita subscrip¬
tion of $127.61, as against $65.94 for the United States as a whole. I guess
this is where they caught you, Mr. Chairman. In this loan the subscriptions
of the District were greater than that subscribed in any one of 23 States—
namely, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho,
Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. The number of subscribers in the District was
greater than any one of 25 States. According to the Treasury Department, the
proportion of the population who subscribed to this loan was 65.8 per cent,
which was much greater than any one of the 48 States and about three times as
great as the corresponding percentages for the entire United States, which
was 21.98.
Of the war savings, the official records at the close of the year 1918 show
that the per capita subscriptions for the District was $15.93, while West Vir¬
ginia followed with $11.35, &orth Carolina $8.66, Virginia $6.50, and Maryland
$5.98. These figures, of course, relate solely to the fifth Federal reserve dis¬
trict in which the District is located.
Now, let us consider the amount of postal revenue. Ignoring entirely the
fact that three-fourths of the matter handled by the local post-office officials
is franked, and from which no revenue is derived by the Government, we find
that the receipts for the District of Columbia for the year ending June 30,
1918, were $3,085,193.12, which was greater than the aggregate receipts from all
of the post offices in any one of the following States, namely: Arizona, Ar¬
kansas. Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine. Mississippi, Montana, New Hamp¬
shire, New Mexico, Nevada. North Dakota. Oregon. Rhode Island, South Caro-
linia. South Dakota, Utah. Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The amount
paid the local office was greater than the aggregate receipts of all of the post
offices in Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming combined, which
amounted to the sum of $2,897,047.05.
The citizens of Washington appreciate the time and attention that individual
Members of Congress have in times past given District affairs. We feel that
we have been treated fairly, but it stands to reason that with the growth of
the countrv and the increase of the constituency of the members of the House
as well as of the Senate, that they can not individually devote the considera¬
tion and attention to District affairs that the rights of nearly a half a million
people demand. The demand upon their time and to look after the. interests
of their own constituents leaves but litte or none for the interests of the
people 0 f the District. This is natural, and of which we can not complain.
Anything they may do for the District will hardly enure to their benefit with
their home people. „ _.
Every law for the regulation and government of the people of the District
must first be proposed in and adopted by Congress before it can be enforced.
Every street or alley to be widened or eliminated, every item of expense for
the maintenance of police, fire, or any other department of the local govern-
86
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
ment must be authorized by Congress. Congress must declare what is an
offense or crime. It regulates the operation of public utilities, it must
authorize the use of the streets and parks for public demonstrations. Indeed,
nothing can be done except with the approval of Congress. This being true,
it is necessary that representation be provided in both Houses, who will not
only have an intimate knowledge of the facts but able to follow up their
convietiohs by a vote. Under existing conditions when any of our civic
organizations, or others having the welfare of the community at heart, desire
to have a bridge replaced or repaired, to develop its water power, or desire the
enactment into law of some humane provision for the care of mental incom¬
petents, the construction of a school, the creation of parks or reservoirs, or
indeed anything affecting the welfare of the District, we must seek the good
offices of some Member of Congress, with no particular interest in the District,
to introduce a bill, and then by personal solicitation, an:l often at great incon¬
venience and sacrifice to the Member, endeavor to enlist his support in a matter
of no particular interest to his constituents at home. There is no Member of
Congress to whom the District may appeal as a matter of right to father any
piece of legislation for its welfare, with the result that time and again its
rights have been denied.
As early as 1880 President Andrew Jackson recognized these difficulties and
made the following recommendation to Congress, which he repeated several
times thereafter:
“ Independently of the difficulty of inducing the Representatives of distant
States to turn their attention to projects or laws which are not of the highest
interest to their constituents, they are not individually nor in Congress col¬
lect‘vely well qualified to legislate over the local concerns of this District.
Consequently its interests are much neglected and the people are almost afraid
to present their grievances lest a body in which they are not represented, and
which feels little sympathy in their local relations, would in its attempt to
make laws for them do more harm than good. * * * Is it not just to allow
them at least a Delegate to Congress, if not a local legislature to make laws
for the District, subject to the approval or rejection of Congress? I earnestly
recommend the extension to them of every political right which their interests
require and which may be compatible with the Constitution.”
If, therefore, representation in the Senate and House is provided for the
District, we submit that while in the first place it does no more than to extend
a right and privilege guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution, it will
offer relief and lighten the burden and labors of the Members of Congress and
enable them to better exercise the power of “ exclusive jurisdiction, including
taxation and the expenditure of public funds.”
Now, of course, President Jackson was referring to a condition and time
which were entirely different from to-day, and we feel very confident that the
same conditions existed at that time, in 1880', when he sent that message time
and time again to Congress, he would have recommended something along the
line wh’ch we are now advocating.
The Chairman. Do you think the affairs of the District are neglected by
Members of Congress?
Mr. Brandenburg. No. Those of us who have been more intimately con¬
nected with it think the contrary.
The. Chairman. Do you think any Member of the House or Senate refuses to
take up affairs of the District just as earnestly and conscientiously as those
of his own State?
Mr. Brandenburg. No. As I said before, we feel that Congress has been
more than fair to us; but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, when we go to
you or to anybody else to follow a piece of legislation for the District we
realize full well that you have the interests of your own constituency at home,
and that your time and attention must be devoted to their affairs, and you
have not the time to give to us that attention.
The Chairman. My dear man, get that out of your system. We are here
to legislate for the Government, which is superior, in my judgment, to any
State. The Government has control of this District. It is not a city belong¬
ing to the citizens of Washington. It is a national city. I am just as proud,
and every Member of Congress is just as proud, of the city of Washington as
any resident of Washington can be. We will do just as much for Washington;
we are just as proud when we accomplish anything good for Washington as
you are. I have just the same interest here that you have. You may have
some financial interest that I have not, but so far as civic pride is concerned,
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
87
so far as love of good government is concerned, and so far as everything that
elevates the citizenship of Washington is concerned, the members of this com¬
mittee and the Members of Congress have just as much at heart as you have.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, it is because men of your caliber and your
inclination are willing to make sacrifices that we have been as fortunate as we
have in times past. And yet, if you will permit just for a moment to speak
without any desire to reflect, here is a matter affecting an amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, directly affecting half a million people; here
is a great committee, and with only three or four of you gentlemen that have
time enough to come out and sit and listen to our arguments. So that I say
we are indebted to you for the interest which you gentlemen have/and your
willingness to give your attention to these matters.
Under the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United
States, we are to-day denied the same rights in a United States court that are
guaranteed to citizens of the States, or for that matter, even to an alien.
Under Article III of the Constitution defining the judicial powers, a citizen of
one State may sue a citizen of another State in a United States court on the
ground of diversity of citizenship, or if such nonresident is sued in a State
court, he has the right to remove the same into the Federal court. This is a
most valuable right and so recognized throughout the country. This provision
of the Constitution, however, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United
States, denied the same right to the citizens of the District. While the Supreme
Court has held that for the purpose of direct taxation the District is a State,
for other purposes it is not.
The amendment of the Constitution proposed in the Jones bill gives us the
same right in this regard as the citizens of any of the States. Is it possible
that any argument can be found to support a continuance of the present dis¬
crimination between citizens of the District and the States so far as rights
in the United States courts are concerned? As the law is now interpreted
we have even less rights than an alien, because under the Constitution an alien
may enter the United States courts. Before this right can be granted a citizen
of the District of Columbia, the Constitution must be amended as set forth in the
Jones resolution.
Why should we, the citizens of the District of Columbia, be denied the right
to vote for the President and Vice President? Why should we be denied the
right to speak through-our chosen Representatives in the House and Senate as
to the manner in which we shall be taxed and as to the disposition of those
taxes? Why should we not be permitted through our chosen Representative
in Congress and the President of the United States to say whether we should go
to war or remain at peace? Why should we not have the right to participate
in the councils of the Government to determine whether our sons shall be
taken from our homes to be offered up as a sacrifice in contests as to which
we have had no say? To none of these questions can a satisfactory answer be
given. The very theory of the Government is that we were born free and
equal. The American colonists in the Bill of Rights proclaimed to the British
Government through formal resolution “ That the foundation of English
liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in
their legislative councils.” This was followed by the Declaration of Inde¬
pendence, which declares:
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.”
While it will be observed that the declaration declares that government derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, that condition does not
exist in the District of Columbia, nor would it exist by the giving to us of a
voteless delegate. Our people have asked for bread and we are now offered a
stone.
It is a singular fact that of all. the Governments of the world the United States
is the only one which denies to the people of its Capital the same national
representation enjoyed by the people of the other cities. The three nations
who have copied out constitutional provision for a national capital in a federal
district controlled by the nation are Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Not¬
withstanding this control by the nation, they have found no difficulty in giving
full national representation to the people residing in their capitals.
88
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
In conclusion, therefore, we submit that as we ask no change in the local
form of Government, no sound objection can be advanced for refusal to enact
into law and submit to the States the Jones resolution. Our population justifies
it, the amount of taxes paid in support of the Federal Government more than
justifies it. The character and education of our people, their loyalty and
support of the Government through Liberty loans and contribution of man
power in the defense of the Nation, should constrain Congress without hesita¬
tion to enact into law the Jones resolution and grant to us the full rights of
citizenship, and with a representation in both Houses of Congress equal to that
granted to the several States. In all justice and fairness, there should be no
place in the United States, of all nations, where it can be said that any of its
people are subject to taxation without representation. Our people will no
longer remain silent, but are now demanding through every organization in this
city that our rights be recognized. In the language of the resolution adopted
by the citizens of Alexandria in 1846, at the time of the retrocession to Vir¬
ginia of the part of the District granted to the Federal Government: “We
cherish the highest hopes and have the utmost confidence, that the Congress
of the United States will break the political shackles which have so long bound
us, and again elevate us to the rights and privileges of freedom by granting ”
not retrogression with relief as requested by them in that resolution, but the
full rights guaranteed to every American citizen. .
The Chairman. On what basis do you ask for representation in the two
Houses.
Mr. Brandenburg. We feel we are entitled to the same representation in the
House, in accordance with the population, that is guaranteed to the States.
We are putting it up to the Congress of the United States as to whether they
* shall give us one Senator or two Senators. That matter was carefully debated
and considered as to whether we should ask in the first place for two Senators.
We reached the conclusion, with full knowledge of the attitude of the Senate of
the United States with reference to the small States, that that was a matter that
should be left to the Congress of the United States after the people have once
acted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to some resolutions and to read them to the
committee. I want to read first a resolution adopted by the Washington Board
of Trade on January 10, 1921. as follows:
“ To the Congress of the United States:
“ Your petitioners respectfully represent the 437,000 Americans of the District
of Columbia constituted the only community in all the expanse of the continental
United States—populous, intelligent, public spirited, of adequate resources—
which is denied representation in the National Government.
“ National representation is a distinctive basic right of the American citizen—
in a Government of the people, by the people, for the people—in a Government
which roots its justice in consent of the governed—in a representative Govern¬
ment, which inseparably couples taxation and arms bearing as a soldier with
representation.
“ Since the 437,000 Americans of the District pay national taxes, obey the
national laws, and go to war in the Nation’s refense, they are entitled on Ameri¬
can principles to be represented in the National Government which taxes them,
which makes all laws for them, and which sends them to war.
In recognition and reaffirmation of the above-stated American principle we
urge most earnestly the approval by Congress of House joint resolution No. 11,
House joint resolution No. 32, and Senate joint resolution No. 52, proposing in
identical terms a constitutional amendment empowering Congress to grant
representation in House, Senate, and Electoral College to residents of the
District of Columbia.
“ Respectfully, yours,
“Thomas Bradley, president; E„ C. Graham, first vice president;
E. F. Colladay, second vice president; J. Harry Cunningham,
secretary; Theodore W. Noyes (chairman), Frank Sprigg Perry,
Frank .T. Hogan. W. B. Westlake, M. E. Ailes, Walter A. Brown,
W. T. Galliher, Paul E. Lesh, C. J. Gockeler, Charles F. Crane,
E. C. Brandenburg, Odell S. Smith, John Joy Edson, R. L. Neu-
hauser, committee on national representation.”
I now desire to offer to the connntitee an identical resolution adopted by the
Washington Chamber of Commerce, signed by Robert N. Harper, president
Washington Chamber of Commerce; A. E. Seymour, secretary; Albert Schul-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
89
teis chairman; A. Leftwich Sinclair, E. C. Graham, Theodore W. Noyes, Robt.
N. Harper, James F. Oyster, Henry H. Glassie, Chapin Brown, Geo. C. Siebold,
representatives on joint suffrage committee.
I also wish to offer an identical resolution adopted by the Federation of
Citizens’ Associations, signed by W. B. Westlake, president; Leland T. Ather¬
ton, secretary; Jesse C. Suker, chairman committee on Federal relations and
civic betterment.
I wish to offer an identical resolution adopted by the Central Labor Union
on January 10, 1921, signed by N. A. James, president; Chas. Frazier, secre¬
tary; John B. Colpoys chairman suffrage committee.
I now desire to offer an identical resolution adopted January 11, 1921, by
the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, signed
by Theodore W. Noyes, president; Charles S. Bundy, vice president; Henry
I. Bryan, vice president; Benjamin W. Reiss, recording secretary; John B.
McCarthy, corresponding secretary; B. W. Summy, M. D., treasurer; John R.
Mahoney, financial secretary; Matthew Trimble, marshal; Geo. W. Evans,
historian; committee on national representation, Washington Topham, chair¬
man; James F. Oyster, G. W. Moses, Allen C. Clark, William Tindall, John
Clagett Proctor.
I also want to offer an identical resolution adopted by the subcommittee
in political organizations of the citizens’ joint committee, signed by W. T.
Galliher. E. H. Colladay, Robt. N. Harper, R. P. Andrews.
The next is an identical resolution adopted by the Washington section of
the Progressive Education Association, signed by May Libbey, chairman.
Then there is an identical resolution adopted by the District of Columbia
Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher Association, signed by Mrs. Giles
Scott Rafter, president.
I next wish to offer an identical resolution adopted by the Women’s Bar
Association of the District of Columbia, signed by Ida May Moyers, president.
The next resolution is an identical one adopted by the Washington Real
Estate Board on January 10, 1921, signed -by Washington Real Estate Board,
H. L. Rust, president; J. C. Weedon, vice president; John A. Petty, secretary.
Then there is an identical resolution adopted by the Twentieth Century
Club on January 3, 1921, signed by Mabel G. Swormstedt, president.
I also wish to offer an identical resolution adopted by the Women’s City
Club, signed by Mary O’Toole, president; Marie R. Saunders, recording secre¬
tary; Grace Ross Chamberlain, first vice president; Sara P. Grogan, corre¬
sponding secretary; Mrs. George W. Eastment. second vice president; Florence
F. Stiles, secretary suffrage committee; Mrs. Kate Lunholm Abrams, Ethel
M. Parks, Mrs. Frank Hiram Snell.
I also wish to read the report of a special committee of the Washington
Board of Trade on the political status of residents of the District of Columbia,
which was adopted unanimously by the Board of Trade on April 24, 1916:
“ The United States under the Constitution was, like all Gaul, divided into
three parts: (1) States; (2) territory belonging to the United States (in¬
cipient States) ; and (3) the seat of the Government of the United States.
“ (1) The Constitution itself defines indirectly the status of the citizen of
a State and suggests his privileges, immunities, and obligations.
“ (2) The Constitution gives to Congress the power to admit new States,
carved out of the territory belonging to the United States, and to make all
needful regulations respecting this territory before its people have been thus
promoted by Congress to the status of citizens of a State.
“(3) The Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8) creates a third subdivision which is
neither a State nor Territory awaiting statehood. This subdivision is ‘ such
district (not exceeding 10 miles sqaure) as may by cession of particular States
and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the Government of the
United States,’ in respect to which Congress has the power to exercise exclusive
legislation. „
“ The Constitution does not define the political status of the future popula¬
tion of 4 such district,’ and it does not explicitly and undeniably give the power
to Congress to define or change this status so that it shall approximate
gradually the status of the citizens of a State.
“ in STATUS LESS THAN ALIENS.
“ It has resulted from this unintentional omission or oversight that the resi
dents of “ such district ’ have a standing as suitors in the courts of the United
States which the Supreme Court has said is less than that of aliens, and a
90
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
relation to participation in national legislation and presidential elections which
is the same as that of aliens. .
“It was not itended that ‘such district’ should remain uninhabited. I he
United States advertised its Washington lots for sale not only in the Republic
but in Europe, and attracted settlers and lot purchasers here by glowing
assurances. George Washington predicted that the Capital’s population would
in a century be certainly exceeded only by that of London. It was not intended
that these inhabitants should be from any point of view permanently aliens.
“ It was not intended that the people of the Capital should forever remain
politically outside of the United States, no matter what the number and
character of the population. Sympathetic commiseration of the District’s lack
of national representation has been expressed in Congress and the White
House at intervals from 1800 down to the present day.
“When it had only the population and resources which entitled its people
to the nominal representation of a Territorial Delegate, a voteless legislative
agent, in the House (not contemplated by the Constitution), that representa¬
tion was vigorously urged by President Jackson, was heartily seconded by
President Johnson, and was given under President Grant.
“ DISTRICT NATIONAL REPRESENTATION.
“ The words of these Presidents and of a long series of national legislators
and other statesmen, who argued forcibly and convincingly for Territorial rep¬
resentation for the few residents of the District in their time, are to-day equally
sound and convincing arguments for full national representation for the
present District. In 1917 genuine and equitable American representation for
the residents of the seat of the government approximates their status to that
of citizens of a State and not of a Territory. A voteless, almost negligible,
Territor al Delegate is obviously inadequate.
1,1 The seat of government of the United States now has an intelligent, Ameri¬
can, public-spirited population exceeding those in 1910 (the latest national
census) of six of the States-—Nevada, Wyoming, Delaware, Arizona, Idaho, and
New Mexico. Its population then was 331,069. It is estimated now to exceed
360,000. The population represented under the latest apportionment by each
Representative in the House is 212,407.
“ The time has now come when the Nation should by constitutional amend¬
ment either give direct to the residents of the seat of government the status
of citizens of a State, for the purposes of national representation only, or
should at least give to Congress the power to declare, in its discretion, when
they shall have this status to the extent of enjoying this national representation.
“ APPROVE CHAMBERLAIN AMENDMENT.
“We heartily approve the Chamberlain amendment (S. J. Res. 32), which,
retaining full and exclusive control of the Nat'on’s city by the Nation through
Congress, for the purpose of national representation only gives the residents of
the District the status of citizens of a State and entitles them to Senators,
Representatives, and presidential electors. We urge that the District commit¬
tee of the Senate report this resolution favorably at an early day and that
Congress promptly approve it and submit it to the State legislatures.
“ If, however, this resolution is to be held in committee for further considera¬
tion and possible amendment, we suggest that the status of citizens of a State
be given to residents of the District not only for the purpose of representation
in Congress and the Electoral College, but for the purpose of suing and being
sued in the courts of the United States under the provisions of Article III,
section 2. The insertion of a very few words in the first section of the proposed
amendment would accomplish what is sought. Thus insert in Senate joint reso¬
lution No. 32, after the words ‘ Vice President,’ in section 1 the words ‘ and for
the purpose of suing and being sued in the courts of the United States under
the provisions of Article III, section 2.’
“ If Congress will submit to the State legislatures the proposed constitu¬
tional amendment giving to the District, as part of its national representa¬
tion, two Senators, we heartily favor this course. We believe that the District
is equitably entitled two Senators. But if that provision holds back the con-
situtional amendment and the Senate will grant at this time only one Senator,
then we assent to and urge such amendment of Senate joint resolution No. 32
as will harmonize it on this point with the proposed constitutional amendment
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
91
submitted by Senator Henry W. Blair in 1888, and subsequent years, which
proposed only one Senator for the District. This, representation was sug¬
gested and ably advanced in pamphlet discussion by A. B. Woodward as early
as 1800.
“ Finally, if Congress finds itself unwilling to grant at this time, directly,
through the Constitution either one or two Senators to the District, we urge
that the Constitution be amended so as to give to Congress the power to grant
this representation when in its judgment the conditions entitling the District
to this status and this representation have been met.
“ ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
“ In other words, amend the Constitution of the United States by inserting
at the end of section 3, Article IV, the following words:
“ ‘ The Congress shall have power to admit to the status of citizens of a
State the residents of the District constituting the seat of the government of
the United States created by Article I, section 8, for the purpose of representa¬
tion in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President
and for the purpose of suing and being sued in the courts of the United States
under the provisions of Article III, section 2.
“ ‘ When Congress shall exercise this power the residents of such District
shall be entitled to elect one or two Senators, as determined by the Congress,
Representatives in the House according to their numbers as determined by the
decennial enumeration, and presidential electors equal in number to their ag¬
gregate representation in the House and Senate.
“ ‘ The Congress shall provide by law the qualifications of voters and the
time and manner of choosing the Senator or Senators, the Representative or
Representatives, and the electors herein authorized.
“ * The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing power.’
“ This provision giving Congress power to grant representation to the resi-
' dents of the seat of Government (in respect to whom it has already the power
to exercise exclusive legsilation) is appropriately inserted at the end of section
3, Article IV, which gives to Congress power to admit new States and to make
all needful regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States
from which these new States are carved. It is under this section that new
Senators, Representatives, and Territorial Delegates come to the Capital. As
we have seen, the three political subdivisions of the United States under the
Constitution are States, Territories (incipient States), and the District con¬
stituting the seat of Government of the United States. When our proposed
amendment is adopted this section will be rounded out and perfected, and the
power of Congress in respect to national representation will be equitably ex¬
tended to all three of the parts into which the United States was thus in the
beginning in effect divided.
“ Our frankly avowed purpose in offering this alternative proposition is to
secure quick congressional action upon a constitutional amendment which can
at this session successfully run the gauntlet of the requirement of a two-thirds
congressional vote and at the same time constitute a practical and substantial
advance toward the goal of real national representation for the District.
“ THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT.
“ We think this is the psychological moment when the relations of the Capi¬
tal and Nation, both financial and political, are under earnest, thoughtful,
intelligent, and sympathetic consideration to provide for Amercanizing the
Americans living at the American seat of Government.
“ Our alternative amendment does not directly and immediately give to
Washingtonians national representation, but it takes that vital privilege from
inaccessibility and places it within reach. After its adoption only a majority
vote of Congress will be required to do equity in this matter, whereas now a
two-thirds vote of Congress and a three-fourths vote of the State legislatures
are necessary.
“ We emphasize the fact that the sole effect of both proposed constitutional
amendments is to remedy an acknowledged evil and to do equity by declaring
or empowering Congress to declare the political and judicial status of the
residents of the seat of Government.
92
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA.
“All of the controverted issues concerning the make-up of the local electorate,
the qualification of voters, and the form of local government upon which Wash¬
ingtonians radically differ are postponed; to be decided by the majority vote
of Congress after the great and vital question of the constitutional status of
the Washingtonian has been answered.
“ NO STRIFE-BREEDING FEATURES.
“ Our proposition is so stripped of every strife-breeding feature and so
centered upon a single principle of undeniable equity that all of Washington
can and should enthusiastically get behind it and put it to success. It is so
worded as to reduce to a minimum opposition to its immediate passage in Con¬
gress. Our legislators may reasonably be expected to favor this just enact¬
ment.
“ Strict constructionists of the Constitution should not be opposed to this
amendment. Any amendment of the Constitution is forbidden which shall de¬
prive a State, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Dela¬
ware and Rhode Island must always have in the Senate equal representation
with New York. But enlargement of the Senate by admission of a new State
with two Senators does not violate this prohibition, and the admission of one
or two Senators to represent the seat of government would not have this effect.
If the seat of government were allowed only one Senator, the disparaging in¬
equality of suffrage would exist only in respect to it and not to any State. No
State would in this event, without its consent, be deprived of equal suffrage in
the Senate. The fact that the seat of government is not a State would be
emphasized by limiting it to a single Senator. And if it were construed in
this connection and for this purpose as a State its deprivation of equal suffrage
in the Senate would be with its consent.
“APPEAL FOR UNITED ACTION.
“ The appeal for harmonious local cooperation in this connection is irresist¬
ible. It is immaterial what form of local government we prefer, or what
qualifications for voters we favor, whether we are for or against a voteless
Delegate in the House, whether we are for or against votes 'for women,
whether we are for or against the organic act of 1878—whether we are Demo¬
crats or Republicans, Progressives or Conservatives.
“ We are all for Washington and for justice to the Washingtonian.
“ Who is there in all the world who does not think that the 360,000 Ameri¬
cans in the seat of Government of the United States are entitled to representa¬
tion in the legislature which alone makes laws for them and taxes them and
may send every man of them to war, perhaps to be wounded or killed? Who
contends that these 360,000 Americans are not as intelligent, as patriotic, as
public-spirited, as American, in short, as the same number of Americans any¬
where else in the United States, or as the smaller number of Americans col¬
lected in six of the States?
“ What new State has ever been admitted to the Union which at the time
of admission had so large, so intelligent, and so thoroughly American a popu¬
lation as the District? What new State at the time of admission, measured
as to its taxable resources, was raising so much in local taxes, and contribut¬
ing so much in national taxes, as the District of Columbia? The District to¬
day is contributing in national taxes, to be disbursed by a legislature in which
it is not represented, a greater amount absolutely than 22 of the States and a
greater amount per capita than 36 of the States.
“ STATEHOOD NOT DEMANDED.
“ Though the District can make this showing of fitness for admission to the
Union as a sovereign State, no demand for such admission is presented. Our
proposed legislation confirms the national control of the Nation’s city arid the
exclusive legislation clause of the Constitution is untouched.
“ All that is asked is that the Constitution announce or empower Congress to
declare that residents of the seat of government are on the same footing as
citizens of the States in relation only to Congress, the Electoral College, and
the court of the United States.
“ This action, though it will Americanize a community, now politically alien,
which is larger than Minneapolis, and will enlarge and empower Congress to
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 93
enlarge the basis of congressional representation, does not bring into the Union
a new sovereign State.
“ Surely Congress will not quibble or delay in cooperating to secure by con¬
stitutional amendment the power to cure the evil and shame of completely non¬
representative government in the seat of Government of the great represenative
Republic. The injury to the Nation from this condition is as great as that
inflietd upon the de-Americanized community. The national shame is the
greater.
“ IS THE NATION IMPOTENT?
“ It is sometimes suggested that the Nation is impotent to cure this evil ana
this shame—that the conditions are unchangeable.
“ This suggesion is an insult to American character and capacity. No other
capital of any other nation is degraded below other cities in national representa¬
tion. No excuse is found in the fact that our capital is in a nation-controlled
district. Mexico and Brazil and Argentina have copied this feature of the Con¬
stitution. As nations they control, like the United States, Federal districts
in which their capitals are located, but they have not found themselves impotent
to give full national representation to the residents of these capitals.
“Is Washington in some wey defective or tainted and unfit to stand on the
same representative footing as Buenos Aires, Rio, or Mexico City ?
“ Is the American Republic less devoted to the principles of representative
government and less capable of enforcing them than Argentina, Brazil, or
Mexico ?
“ Who will confess permanent national impotency to free residents of the seat
of government from the class of defective and delinquent Americans? Or to rid
the National itself of a canker at the heart of the body politic, collecting alien
matter, and threatening blood poisoning?
“ Let us all, as members of the board of trade and as good Washingtonians, get
together, even at some sacrifice of personal prejudice, and make an irresistable,
because united, appeal for the correction by Congress and the Nation of this
obvious injustice and injury.”
I would like to present to the committee a copy of our brief on national repre¬
sentation and would like to have it incorporated in the record
(The document referred to is here printed in full, as follows :)
National Representation for the Residents of the National Capital in
Congress and the Electoral College With Access to the Federal
Courts.
I. The people of the District of Columbia, if qualified, as they are, by numbers,
resources, intelligence, and patriotic character, should have voting representa¬
tion in Conrgess, which taxes and legislates for them, and in the election of
the President of the United States who appoints their executive officers and
judges (and also the right to sue and be sued in the Federal courts), and this
national representation for the national capital always claimed, was omitted
from the Constitution, not denied by it, and deferred by circumstances until
the time for it should be ripe.
WHAT WE ASK AS OUR RIGHT.
We ask national representation for the people of the national capital. As
the first step necessary, under the Constitution of the United States, we ask
Congress to allow the people of the country to say whether Congress shall be
empowered, by an amendment of the Constitution, to give residents of the
District of Columbia representation in the electoral college and the Senate
and House of Representatives of the United States, and also the right to
sue and be sued in the Courts of the United States, in view of a decision of
the Supreme Court denying that right. (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445.)
No change is proposed in the absolute control of the national capital by Con¬
gress, nor in the local government of the District of Columbia.
There is general agreement among the residents of the District of Columbia
in favor of national representation, but there is no such agreement upon other
questions involving a proposed grant of the elective franchise. We urge the
adoption of the proposition upon which we are united and defer those upon
which we are not united.
94
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Tlie joint resolution embodying the proposition we advocate was introduced
at the first session of the Sixty-sixth Congress in the House of Representa¬
tives by Mr. Burroughs of New Hampshire and Mr. Olney of Massachusetts,
May 19, 1919 (H. J. Res. 11 and 32), and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary; and in the Senate by Mr. Chamberlain of Oregon, June 12, 1919
(S. J. Res. 52), and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and is as
follows:
Joint Resolution Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giv¬
ing to Congress the power to extend the right of suffrage to residents of the District of
Columbia.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled ( two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be
proposed for ratification by the legislatures of the several States, which,
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid
as a part of said Constitution, namely, insert at the end of section 3, Article
IV, the following words:
“ The Congress shall have power to admit to the status of citizens of a
State the residents of the District constituting the seat of the Government of
the United States, created by Article I, section 8, for the purpose of repre¬
sentation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice Presi¬
dent and for the purpose of suing and being sued in the courts of the United
States under the provisions of Article III, section 2.
“ When the Congress shall exercise this power the residents of such District
shall be entitled to elect one or two Senators, as determined by the Congress,
Representatives in the House according to their numbers as determined by
the decennial enumeration, and presidential electors equal in number to their
aggregate representation in the House and Senate.
“ The Congress shall provide by law the qualification of voters and the time
and manner of choosing the Senator or Senators, the Representative or Repre¬
sentatives and the electors herein authorized.
“ The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing power.”
It will be observed that the proposed amendment does not in itself grant
the representation and partial State status desired, but only empowers Con¬
gress to take such action. We ask Congress to let our fellow-countrymen say
that Congress shall have power to provide for what we desire, believing that
it will exercise that power with wise discretion, including the prescript 1 'on of
proper qualifications of voters. This would give the now voteless resMents
of the District equality in national representation with the citizens of the
States of the Union now covering all the continental and ennfio- UO ns T T nited
States territory, in which they alone are under taxation without representa¬
tion, which from the day of the Revolution has been called “ tyranny.” The
Nation which has done justice to the voteless women of the country may be
expected to do like justice to the voteless men and women of its National
Capitol, who have now no voice in making the laws, which they must obey,
or levying the taxes which they must pay. They can neither take part in the
declaration of war nor in the making of peace, although they must respond to
the demands of war, and have always done so generously, self-sacrificingly
and with patriotic devotion. It is the only capital in the world, moreover,
which has not representation in the national government like other cities,
including Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City, which 'are like the
District of Columbia, nation-controlled, Federal districts.
THE DISTRICT DOES NOT ASK STATEHOOD THOUGH IT HAS QUALIFICATIONS.
We do not ask statehood, and therefore there is no reason for asking the
preliminary status of a Territory with a voteless Delegate in the House of
Representatives—an experiment in representation which proved inadequate
when tried by Congress between 1871 and 1874, in a form of government
abolished as a failure.
Yet the District has all the qualifications of population and resources for
statehood, as well as high intelligence and public spirit in its citizenship.
The District of Columbia, with 437,571 populaton (according to the census of
1920), outnumbers each of seven of the States—Vermont, Idaho, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Arizona, Delaware and Nevada; while New Hampshire and Utah
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
95
have only slight additional population. Yet the District has no representation
in the Electoral College or the National Legislature, in which those States
are represented as follows: Vermont, 4; New Hampshire, 4; Idaho, 4; Utah,
4; New Mexico, 3; Wyoming, 3; Arizona, 3; Delaware, 3; Nevada, 3. Okla¬
homa is the only new State which at the time of its admission had a larger
population than that of the District of Columbia.
Without any voice in levying the national taxes, the District of Columbia
in the fiscal year 1919-20, paid in national taxes for national purposes $18,-
645,053, which is more than that coptributed by each of 15 States. These
States had in Congress, as in the Electoral College, these votes: Alabama, 12;
Mississippi, 10; Arkansas, 9; Florida, 6; South Dakota, 5; Montana, 4; Utah,
4; New Hampshire, 4; Idaho, 4; Vermont, 4; Arizona, 3; New Mexico, 4;
Wyoming, 3; Nevada, 3; and contributed more that five of them put together,
namely: North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, and Vermont. All
combined these States paid in national taxes $17,529,433, and were represented
by 18 Senators and Representatives in the decision as to the amount and
kind of taxes that should be paid and also how the tax revenue should be
spent. The District of Columbia had no voice in deciding any of these ques¬
tions.
Although it had nothing whatever to say as to the declaration of war in
April, 1917, the District sent 17,945 of is sons, an unusually large proportion of
volunteers, and more in numbers than were contrbuted by any one of seven
States—New Hampshire, Vermont, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, Delaware,
and Nevada—which were represented in the Congress: New Hampshire, 4;
Vermont, 4; New Mexico, 3; Wyoming, 3; Arizona, 3; Delaware, 3; and
Nevada, 3.
The immortal documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independ¬
ence, are kept by the Government in the Department of State in the District
of Columbia. Their principles of representative government of the people, by
the people, for the people, resting on the consent of the governed and thereby
justifying taxation and military service, should give the living inhabitants of
the District of Columbia the same rights of national representation as their
American brethren throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Con-
stitition, which provided for a Federal district, omitted, uninentionnaly, pro¬
vision either for giving to the Americans who might reside within that District
the right of representation in the National Government or for giving Congress
power to grant that right. The constitutional amendment which we support
supplies that omission, and is warranted by the growth of the population, by its
character, by its contributions in taxes and in men in peace and in war, under
laws which it obeys but takes no part in making.
OUR REQUEST NOT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
There is nothing in the Constitution to preclude the amendment which is pro¬
posed. Even statehood could be provided for the District of Columbia by an
amendment of the Constitution if that was desired, and there can be no ques¬
tion that there is no prohibition of an amendment looking to status of citizens
of a State in specified particulars for the residents of the District of Columbia.
The only provision of the Constitution which, it is contended, can not be
amended is that which provides that no State shall be deprived of its equal rep¬
resentation in the Senate without its consent. The proposed amendment which
we support does not affect the equal representation in the Senate of any of the
States.
As to the provision for the Federal District itself (Art. I, sec. 8), the terms
are:
“The Congress shall have power: 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-Government of the United States.” * * *
Roger B. Taney, as counsel in the celebrated case of Van Ness against the
Corporation of Washington (4 Peters, 232), gives the definition generally ac¬
cepted when he says:
“The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have
« exclusive legislation ’; but it does not require that the power shall be despotic
or unlimited. It merely excludes the States from all interfering legislation.”
But the proposed amendment does not in any way challenge the power of
“ exclusive legislation.” On the contrary, it assumes that that power will
83480—22—-7
96
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
continue, and simply provides that representatives of the District of Columbia
in the Senate and in the House shall have a vote in the exercise of that powei.
THE RIGHT ALWAYS CLAIMED, NOT DENIED, ONLY DEFERRED.
Nor is there anything in the history of the. dealings of the United States with
the District of Columbia that shows an intention or desire to exclude per¬
manently the Americans living in the Federal District from the rights of rep¬
resentation in the Government of the Nation, possessed by the Americans in all
Although at the beginning there were very few inhabitants in the District of
Columbia, there was no question that the population would steadily increase
until it became very large. George Washington, who was in every way the
founder of the city, procured the site of the city from the 19 original proprietors
partly by exhibiting a plan showing the division of the land into building lots,
after streets and parks had been taken, which were to be sold to future citizens,
between one-sixth and one-seventh of their original property being obtained by
the original proprietors for that purpose, while the Government got far more
than the amount required for erecting the public buildings from the sale of its
portion The United States Government attracted buyers and settlers by adver¬
tising these Washington lots not only in this country but in Europe \\ ash-
ington included in his city plan an unusually large area, much greater than
that of Philadelphia, because he anticipated a large growth m later years, lhe*
Year after he retired from the Presidency he made the prediction that a
century hence, if this country keeps united (and it is surely its policy and inter¬
est to do it) will produce a city, though not as large as London, yet of a magni¬
tude inferior to few others in Europe, on the, banks of the Potomac. (Sparks,
vol 1 p 237, May 16, 1798.) Washington, as is well known, thought that the
Federal city might become a “commercial emporium,” the greatest m the coun¬
try. Neither he nor any of his contemporaries planned to keep its population re¬
stricted so that there could not be sufficient to claim national representation
Inasmuch as until the census of 1870 the District of Columbia did not con¬
tain sufficient inhabitants to equal the number required in a State before it
could be admitted to the Union, the question of national representation m
Congress was practically an academic one before that year. It is true that it
was claimed from the beginning that the District should have national repre¬
sentation, for a constitutional amendment for that purpose was advocated in
1801 by Mr. A. B. Woodward, a resident of the District, and the agitation of
citizens which led to the retrocession to Virginia of that portion of the District
which she had ceded, including Alexandria, was based in part on the protest
which had been made for years against their un-American condition. Alexan¬
dria citizens in mass meeting in 1846 resolved: n n . , , .
“That our citizens for a long series of years have been placed m a state of
political degradation, and virtually • beyond the pale of the Constitution, in
having withheld from them the passage of needful and wholesome laws and m
being denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by our fellow citizens of the
Republic.”
And further resolved: _, ,. ,
“ That we cherish the highest hopes, and have the utmost confidence, that
the Congress of the United States will break the political shackles which have
so long bound us, and again elevate us to the rights and privileges of free men
by granting retrocession with relief.”
Very little had been said on the subject of the political rights of District
residents prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The most important state¬
ment was that of James Madison in the, Federalist (No. XLII) :
“As the State,” he said, “ will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights
and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as they will have had their voice
in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them; as
a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrage,
would of course be allowed; every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.”
The “ voice in the election of the Government ” was, however, confined to the
original inhabitants, but “a municipal legislature for local purposes derived
from their own suffrage ” was allowed, in the form of municipal councils, until
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
97
1871, and the lower branch of the legislature from 1871 to 1874. Madison’s
statement indicates desire to give American rights and certainly does not con¬
template political slavery, although it does not mention national representation.
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS GIVEN UNSATISFYING.
Congress actually made provision for municpal government for Washington,
Georgetown, and Alexandria, continuing former arrangements in the two older
cities and providing for Washington at different times prior to 1870 a mayor
appointed by the President, afterwards elected by the councils, and later elected
by the people, together with councils common to most American cities and al¬
ways elected here.
This did not satisfy the political desires of either Georgetown or Alexandria.
The citizens of Georgetown demanded retrocession to Maryland in 1803 ,and
had considerable support in Congress, and they repeated it for years after¬
wards, while the Alexandria effort, begun early, was finally successful in 1846,
Congress, however, knowing that there Was not a sufficient population in the
District of Columbia for State representation in Congress, affected by the agi¬
tation for a removal of the Capital west, and finally absorbed in the questions
growing out of slavery and their result—the Civil War—gave no serious con¬
sideration to the question of national representation even in the form of a
Delegate in Congress, advocated by men in Congress as well as residents of
the District.
WHAT PRESIDENTS HAVE SAID OF DISTRICT REPRESENTATION.
The first President to definitely recommend the grant to the District of a
Territorial Delegate in Congress was Andrew Jackson in 1830. In the next
year he repeated his recommendation and again in 1835. In his message of
1031, President Jackson said:
“ wa $ doubtless wise in the framers of our Constitution to place the
people of this District under the jurisdiction of the General Government.
But to accomplish the objects they had in view it is not necessary that this
people should be deprived of all the privileges of self-government. Inde¬
pendently of the difficulty of inducing the Representatives of distant States
to turn their attention to projects of laws which are not of the highest interest
to their constituents, they are not individually nor in Congress collectively well
qualified to legislate over the local concerns of this District. Consequently
its interests are much neglected and the people are almost afraid to present
their grievances lest a body in which they are not represented, and which
feels little sympathy in their local relations, should in its attempt to make
laws for them do more harm than good. * * * Is it not just to allow them
at least a Delegate to Congress, if not a local legislature, to make laws for
the District, subject to the approval or rejection of Congress? I earnestly
recommend the extension to. them of every political right which their interests
require and which may be compatible with the Constitution.”
President Monroe, in 1818, had suggested some kind of representation for
the District in Congress, or a separate legislature for the District. He said:
“ By the Constitution the power of legislation is exclusively vested in the
Congress of the United States. In the exercise of this power, in which the
people have no participation, Congress legislates in all cases directly on the
local concerns of the District. As this is a departure for a special purpose
from the general principles of our system, it may merit consideration whether
an arrrangement better adapted to the principles of our Government and to
the particular interests of the people may not be devised which will neither
infringe the Constitution nor affect the object which the provision in ques¬
tion was intended to secure.”
William Henry Harrison was another President who realized and deprecated
the political status of the people of the District, and said, in his message of
1841:
“Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of
their subjects in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be real¬
ized by any agency of mine. The people of the District of Columbia are not
the subjects of the people of the United States, bue free, American citizens.
Being in the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no words
98
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that
character. If there is anything in the great principle of inalienable rights so
emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could
neither make, nor the United States accept, a surrender of their liberty and
become the subjects—in other words, the slaves—of their former fellow citi¬
zens. If this be true—and it will scarcely be denied by any one who has a
correct idea of his own rights as an American citizen—the grant to Congress
of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be interpreted so far
as respects the aggregate people of the United States as meaning nothing
more than to allow to Congress the controlling power necessary to accord a
free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government
by the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should
be adapted to their peculiar position and wants and be conformable with
their deliberate opinions of their own interests.”
In 1866 Andrew Johnson followed Jackson’s example, saying in his message
to Congress:
“ Our fellow citizens residing in the District, whose interests are thus con¬
fided to the special guardianship of Congress, exceed in number the population
of several of our Territories, and no just reason is perceived why a Delegate
of their choice should not be admitted to a seat in the House of Representa¬
tives. No move seems so appropriate and effectual of enabling them to make
known their peculiar condition and wants and of securing the local legislation
adapted to them. I therefore recommend the passage of a law authorizing
the electors of the District of Columbia to choose a Delegate, to be allowed
the same rights and privileges as a Delegate representing a Territory.”
In view of the size of the population the recommendations of these Presi¬
dents went as far in the direction of national representation as was then possi¬
ble. But their arguments are equally applicable to national representation as
provided in the proposed constitutional amendment.
Representative Dennis, of Maryland, speaking in the House in December,
1800, said:
“ If it should be necessary the Constitution might be so altered as to give
them (the residents of the District) a Delegate to the General Legislature
when their numbers should become sufficient.”
As at that time there were no Territorial Delegates, and the title had not
been invented, Mr. Dennis meant, of course, a full representative with the
power to vote. And this was the attitude of others in Congress who believed
that the people of the District should and would be entitled to representation
in the National Legislature.
THE TERRITORIAL DELEGATE.
Therefore, it was natural that when Congress in 1870 came to consider the
National Capital more seriously than ever before, it had no hesitation in giv¬
ing it a Territorial form of government, with a legislature and with the Dele¬
gate in Congress, who, however, like other Territorial Delegates, had no vote,
and therefore no power. Circumstances that had nothing to do with the
question of national representation of the District of Columbia brought about
the abolition of that Territorial government and the substitution of the com¬
mission form of government, without any kind of representation in Congress,
or in the Electoral College, or in the municipal government.
The enactment of the organic act of June 11, 1878 (which is not affected by
our resolution), providing a permanent form of government by commission for
the District of Columbia, abolishing suffrage, and assuming for the first time
the Nation’s share of the municipal expenses, which was placed at 50 per cent
in a basic provision for a definite and regular contribution from the United
States Treasury, dealt only with the local government and ignored the question
of nat'onal representation. It utilized the power of “ exclusive legislation ” to
the full for the protection of the national interest in the Capital. But all that
it took from the citizens in respect to suffrage was the voting for a voteless
Delegate and the lower house of a legislature, which had superseded the right to
vote for mayor and councils in the cities of Washington and Georgetown.
Real representation, national representation, the birthright of the American,
had never been given, and therefore was not taken away. The question was
simply postponed. Congress now has the opportunity to answer it satisfactorily.
SUFFRAGE 11ST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
99
ADVANTAGES TO CONGRESS.
Congress itself would obtain important advantages from tlie presence of duly
elected Senators and Representatives from the District of Columbia. While
it is the general duty of all Senators and Representatives to study and promote
the interests of the National Capital, and while in every Congress there are men
in both Houses who devote a great deal of time to this duty, the primary inter¬
ests of all Senators and Representatives are in their own States and their chief
duty to the Nation at large. After they have done their duty to their constitu¬
ents and to the country generally most of them have neither the time nor
strength for District affairs, in view of the great increase in their work. Even
those who serve on the particular committees having to deal with those affairs,
many of whom have rendered important services to the National Capital, per¬
form those special duties under the handicap of their circumstances as national
legislators and as Representatives of particular constituencies.
Moreover, only a resident of the District of Columbia can have the first-hand
knowledge as to all its affairs and its public opinion, which would enable him
to speak authoritatively as a representative in the Senate or the House. And
such a District Senator or Representative would be able to give his colleagues
in committee or on the floor accurate and valuable information on all District
questions, which would lighten their labors, prevent them from making mis¬
takes, and enable them to better exercise the power of “ exclusive legislation,”
including taxation and the expenditure of the public funds.
Mr. Justice Stafford, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in
an address at the dinner given to President Taft in May, 1909, by the citizens
of Washington, well said of national representation:
“ It is not alone for the District of Columbia that I bring the proposition for¬
ward. The interests of the Nation would be served as well. They would be
served, first of all, by the increased efficiency and propriety of the laws that
would be enacted; in the next place, by the fact that the Members from the
District, being familiar with the local situation, and serving on the local com¬
mittees, would relieve the Members from other States of much of their present
burdens, leaving them freer to perform the duties for which they were specially
selected. Further, it would serve the Nation by adding to Congress men of
weight and influence in national concerns. We should have here a constituency
peculiarly rich in material for Representatives. But more, perhaps, than all
the rest, the change would serve the interests of the whole Nation by recogniz¬
ing the grand principle of representative government here, in the most conspicu¬
ous position in the country, where hitherto it has been cast aside.”
NO NEGATION, NO SURRENDER OF THE RIGHT.
The creation of the Federal District under the exclusive control of Con¬
gress was intended, as the debates in Congress and the Constitutional Con¬
vention show, to give the National Government a separate seat free from any
conflicting jurisdiction, where it could be secure from interference of any
kind. Historically it was suggested by the experience of Congress in 1783
at Philadelphia, then the Capital, with the riotous Revolutionary soldiers of
the Pennsylvania line, whom neither Philadelphia nor Pennsylvania could
control, and whose petitioning for their claims was so rough that it drove
Congress into New Jersey. In the discussions, the suggestion of a State
capital as the future seat of the National Government was treated as ob¬
jectionable because it involved a possible clash of authority. But in all the
consideration of the matter there was no declaration or decision hostile to
the thought that the future inhabitants of the National Capital would he
given at some time when their numbers justified representation in the National
Legislature and the Electoral College. . ,
There was no negation by the Nation and no surrender by the residents
of the District of the hope that such representation would some day be given.
There was no determination that the different measures of local self-govern¬
ment given the residents of the District took the place of national repre¬
sentation. No local self-government could,’with respect to the National Gov¬
ernment, afford the people of the District anything more than the right of
petition which, and which alone, they already possessed as individual American
citizens.
100
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT AS NECESSARY AS THAT TO VOTE FOR REPRE¬
SENTATIVES IN SENATE AND HOUSE.
All the arguments in favor of the right of the National Capital to repre¬
sentation in Congress apply with equal force to its right to have a vote—
a voice with power—in the election of the President and Vice President. The
President of the United States appoints the executive government of the
District of Columbia in the three commissioners, and appoints all the judges
of the courts, from the lowest to the highest, and directly or indirectly all
the other officers of the local government. This power is exercised necessarily
without any effective expression of choice by the people. Obviously it affects
vitally the life and property of every one of them.
Can any citizen of any other city in the United States imagine what it
would mean if by some marvelous transformation all the executive and judicial
officers of his city should be appointed by the President of the United States,
in whose selection he had no voice? Participation in the election of the
President and Vice President would give the people of the District of Colum¬
bia a direct influence in the selection of the local government in all its
branches.
THE GREATER ANOMALY.
It has been suggested that it would be an anomaly to have the District enjoy
State representation in Congress without being a State in fact. But that
would be a great improvement over the present anomaly of 437,000 Americans
without the fundamental American right of representation in the body which
taxes them and legislates for them. Moreover, the present anomaly includes
the fact that the District of Columbia has been held by the Supreme Court
(Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258) to be a State within the meaning of “ States
of the Union ” in the treaty with France, reciprocally providing for the holding
of real estate by the respective nationals; while the Supreme Court has also
held (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Crunch, 445) that the District is not a State within
the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing citizens of one State
to sue and be sued by citizens of another State in the courts of the United
States. Again, the Supreme Court has held (Loughborough v. Blake, 5
Wheaton, 317) that it is a State for the purpose of direct taxation, although
not for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives when provision for
both purposes is coupled in the same clause of the Constitution.
“ It is,” said Chief .Justice Marshall, in his opinion giving the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Hepburn v. Ellzey (2 Crunch, 445), “extraordinary that
the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens and to the citizens
of every State in the Union, should be closed upon them (District residents).”
This “ extraordinary ” situation the Supreme Court held resulted from a
necessary interpretation of the Constitution so that while the District was a
State in the significance of the term in international law, it was not a State
of the United States within the constitutional provision authorizing citizens
of a State to sue and be sued in the Federal courts, hence the necessity for
the proposed amendment to the Constitution that will give the people of the
District the same right enjoyed by aliens and citizens of States.
The United States fought in the great war against autocracy and for the
principles of the Declaration of Independence. The United States contended
not simply for democracy in general but for the direct representation of every
people in their government. While it was fighting for these American prin¬
ciples, it was withholding the right of representation from the Americans living
in the District of Columbia. This inconsistency was made more striking by
the fact that so large a proportion of the manhood of the District of Columbia
ivas fighting against autocracy under the banner of the Republic which denied
them the very rights they were thus claiming for others. This greater anomaly
the men and women generally of the National Capital now ask their brethren
and sisters of the country, who enjoy the American right of representation,
to remove.
II. The time is now fully ripe, as shown by the population, intelligence, and
national contributions in men and money, in war and peace, of the District of
Columbia.
POPULATION.
The census for the year 1910 gives the population of the District of Columbia
as 331,069, which surpassed in number Nevada, with 91,375; Wyoming, 145,965;
Delaware, 202,322; Arizona, 204,354; Idaho, 325,994; and New Mexico, 327,301.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
101
At that time, therefore, the population of the District was in excess of that
of six of the States of the Union, each having two Senators and Representa¬
tives in proportion to the population. The same census showed the population
of Vermont, 355,956; Montana, 376,053; and New Hampshire, 430,572.
The census for the year 1920 shows the population of the District of Colum¬
bia to be 437,571, which is larger than any one of seven States, namely, Nevada,
77,407; Wyoming, 194,402; Delaware, 223,003; Arizona, 333,273; Vermont,
352,421; New Mexico, 360,247; Idaho, 431,826. It also shows that the popula¬
tion is substantially as large as New Hampshire, with 443,083, and Utah,
449,446.
A comparison of the census of 1910 and 1920 shows that the ratio of in¬
crease of population has not decreased, but we have advanced ahead of Ver¬
mont and are rapidly approaching the population of Utah and New Hampshire.
The fact that the population of the District is larger than any one of the
seven States referred to in the light of the contribution of its people toward
the maintenance of the Government emphasizes the justice of our demands
for equal representation.
FEDERAL TAXES.
There is an erroneous conception, rather widespread, that the citizens of the
District of Columbia are dependent largely, if not wholly, upon the bounty
of the Federal Government and that in Some mysterious way they are relieved
from taxation. Not only is this not true so far as the contribution of its
citizens in taxes to the local government is concerned but it is equally untrue
so far as their relation to the Federal Government is concerned. It has been
demonstrated time and again that the taxes paid by the citizens of the District
toward the maintenance of the local city government are largely in excess of
like taxes paid by residents of cities comparable in size. The burdens im¬
posed upon them by way of taxes upon real estate, personalty, and intangibles
are much higher than in many other cities.
But the District citizens are not only giving to the support of the city, they
contribute to the support of the Federal Government largely in excess of
citizens of many of the States.
The official records show that the District’s contribution to the Federal
Government by way of internal revenue, customs, and miscellaneous payments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, was the sum of $12,862,474.08.
The records also show that for the year 1918 the citizens of the District
paid to the Government in satisfaction of like taxes the sum of $18,645,053,
made up of $8,928,755.77 of income and profit taxes and $9,716,298.20 miscel¬
laneous taxes, which amount was greater than the aggregate of similar taxes
paid by the States of North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, and
Vermont combined. In this connection it is interesting to note that the five
States referred to have 18 votes in the two houses of Congress, while the Dis¬
trict has none. The same records show that the payments made by the
District to the Government through the internal revenue, customs, and mis¬
cellaneous taxes for the year 1919 were in excess of any one of 15 States.
The following tabulation shows the taxes paid by each of these 15 States,
with the number of electoral votes to which they were entitled:
Taxes paid.
Elec¬
toral
vote.
Taxes paid.
Elec¬
toral
vote.
District nf Columbia.
$18,645,053
3,338,660
1,968,009
1,297,334
4,225,282
6,700,148
4,963,264
18,435,952
Mississippi.
$11,786,386
12,556,192
15,623,811
6,669,794
6,770,257
9,595,151
14,709,318
6,597,515
10
North Dakota. .
5
Arkansas...
9
New Mexico
3
Florida.
6
N evada
3
South Dakota.
5
Wyoming
3
Montana.
4
V ermont
4
Utah.
4
Idaho
4
New Hampshire.
4
Alabama
12
Arizona.
3
POSTAL REVENUE.
During the period when all mails leaving from the Washington Post Office
were weighed, it was determined that approximately three-fourths of the matter
handled was official, from which no revenue is derived by the Government.
102
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Had it been treated as paid matter, and assuming as the post office does, that
the postage value would be of the same ratio as for commercial mailings, the
revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, would have amounted to
$12,340,292.48, or a greater revenue than the aggregate postal receipts of 41
States of the Union.
By reference to the annual report of the Postmaster for the fiscal year end¬
ing June 30, 1918, it will <be seen that the receipts for the Washington office
were $3,085,193.12, which was greater than the aggregate receipts from all of
the post offices in any of the following States: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It also shows that the total
receipts of all post offices in Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming, com¬
bined, amounted to only $2,987,047.05, which is less than the receipts of the
Washington post office.
CONTRIBUTION OF TROOPS.
. Civil War .—The support of the United States in times of war by the Dis¬
trict is not limited to patriotic expressions, or is contribution in money, but
is evidenced more strikingly in the contribution of its sons in larger numbers
than its cpiota. Thus, in the Civil War, the District of Columbia sent 16,534
men to the front. The District’s proportion of man power according to the
Government was 35/100 of 1 per cent of the estimated loyal population of the
country as ascertained by the census of 1860, whereas it actually sent into
service 62/100 of 1 per cent, or a proportion of about four-fifths greater than
its share.
Spanish War .—In the war with Spain, the proportion of men which should
properly come from the District as represented by the population as shown by
the census for 1900 was thirty-seven one-hundredths of 1 per cent, whereas it
was actually credited with forty-six one-lnmdredths of 1 per cent of the total
for the United States, or about one-fourth greater than the proportion properly
chargeable to the District.
World War .—In the war with Germany the District of Columbia has made a
record of which the Nation should be proud. The total voluntary enlistments in
the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps for the District were 8,314, a number greater
than that in eight States, viz: Nevada, Delaware, Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont,
New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and only a trifle less than three other
States. The number of men inducted into the Army under the first and second
registration was 9,631, making a total of voluntary enlistments and inductions
into the service of the Government 17,945. In other words, the percentage of
voluntary enlistments was 46.33 per cent of the total inductions into the service.
The proportion which the voluntary enlistments bear to the total number of
enlistments and inductions by way of registration was greater for the District
of Columbia than for every State of the Union except Rhode Island, Oregon,
Washington, California, and Maine, and more than one-third greater than the
percentage for the country as a whole.
The Congress has power to declare war and with that goes the power to call
into the service of the Government either voluntarily or by way of conscription
the man power to prosecute such war. But the 437.000 citizens of the District
are denied the right to participate in the councils of the Nat on in determining
whether we shall war or be at peace, while the rest of the country may speak
through their representatives in Congress. The idea is repugnant to a liberty-
loving people. From the beginning our people have regarded as a sacred privi¬
lege the right to participate in the councils of the Nation. The American
Colonists in the Bill of Rights proclaimed to the British Government through
formal resolution “ That the foundation of English liberty and of all free
government is a right in the people to participate in their legislative councils.”
This was followed by the Declaration of Independence, which declares:
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.”
While the people of the District of Columbia are as much a part of the people
of the United States as any others, they are governed without their consent;
while they are in fact created equal they are not so treated or recognized by the
Constitution. The two instruments referred to are as sacred in the minds of the
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
103
American people as any ever issued by any government. That these two docu¬
ments were fresh in the minds of the American people at the time of the adop¬
tion of the Constitution Can not be doubted; that they proposed and intended
to treat all people as being created equal in the sight of the Government can not
be questioned. This being true, it is self-evident that when the Constitution was
framed the failure to provide the citizens of the District with the right of repre¬
sentation in the councils of the Nation was an oversight. That the people of
the District of Columbia have so long tolerated the anomalous condition is no
answer to the claim now made that they should in fact as well as in word be
made the equal of all other citizens of this country.
LIBERTY LOANS.
In addition to large contributions of its manhood in every war in which the
United States has been involved, the citizens of the District of Columbia have
uniformly and liberally supported the Government with funds. Strange as it
may seem, considering the extent of territory of the District and the anomalous
relations of its citizens to the Government, this support has been largely in
excess of that given by very many of the States of the Union. In each of the
five Liberty loans, it far exceeded its quota.
The amount assigned to the District of Columbia as its quota of the first
Liberty loan was $10,000,000, while the amount subscribed was $19,261,400.
The per capita subscription for the District was $52.20, which was nearly four-
fifths greater than for the country as a whole, which was only $29.29, and ex¬
ceeded that for each of the 12 Federal reserve districts except the second, which
includes New York.
The quota assigned for the District of Columbia of the second Liberty loan
amounted to $20,000,000, whereas the subscription amounted to $22,857,050, or
a per capita subscription of $57.78, whereas for the United States at large it
was only $44.55. . It is interesting to note that the per capita subscription for
the District was in excess of 10 of the Federal reserve districts and less than
the first and second districts covering the Boston and New York districts.
Of the third Liberty loan, the quota for the District of Columbia was
$12,870,000, whereas the subscription amounted to $25,992,250, or a per capita
subscription of $64.98, while that for the United States at large was only $40.13.
The per capita subscription was considerably in excess of that in each of the
12 Federal reserve districts except the second, which includes the State of
New York.
Of the third loan, the District subscribed a greater sum than any one of 18
States, viz.: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, while the number
of subscribers to the loan was greater in the District than in any one of the 18
States just named, excluding Arkansas but including in its place Tennessee.
The proportion of the population which subscribed to the third loan was greater
in the District of Columbia than in any of the 48 States, and was about twice
as great as the percentage of the country as a whole, which ranged from 29.07
for Iowa to 3.3 for North Carolina.
The quota assigned to the District of Columbia of the fourth Liberty loan
was $27,608,000, while the subscriptions amounted to $51,262,100, or a per capita
subscription of $127.61, whereas the per capita subscription for the TTm'ted
States as a whole was only $65.94. The per capita subscription for the District
of Columbia was again largely in excess of that of every Federal reserve
district except the second, which includes the State of New York.
In the fourth loan the District subscribed a greater sum than any one of 23
States, viz, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho,
Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. The number of subscribers in the
District was greater than in any one of 25 States, which included those just
named, with the exception of Oklahoma, but including in addition Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. The proportion of the population of the District
of Columbia subscribing to this loan according to the Treasury Department was
65.8 per cent, which was much greater than in any of the 48 States and was
about about three times as great as the corresponding percentage for the entire
United States, which was 21.98 per cent. The State percentage ranged from
28.77 for Wyoming to 6.2 for North Carolina.
104
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Similar success was achieved in the campaign for the fifth or Victory loan,
when the quota of the District of Columbia was $20,307,000, and the actual sub¬
scription was $28,307,000, and the number of local subscribers was 132,159.
WAR SAVINGS.
The District of Columbia is a part of the fifth Federal reserve district, which
comprises also Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. The official figures by the War Savings Organization at the close of
the year 1918 show that the per capita record for the District of Columbia was
$15.93. West Virginia followed with a per capita subscription of $11.35, North
Carolina $8.66, Virginia $6.50, and Maryland $5.98. Considered as a unit, there¬
fore, the District of Columbia led all of the States within the fifth Federal
reserve district in its war savings per capita record.
INTELLIGENCE.
The District’s percentage of illiteracy for all classes of its population com¬
bined, according to the United States Census of 1910, was 4.9; while the average
for the country was 7.7. The District’s percentage was less than that of any
one of twenty-five States, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Vir¬
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and Nevada.
The percentage of illiteracy in native whites of native parentage was six-
tenths of 1 per cent, while the average percentage for the United States was
3.7. Comparing the District in this respect with individual States shows that
its percentage of illiteracy in native whites of native parentage was less than
half that of any one of 23 States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode
Island. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Arizona.
The returns as to illiteracy among the colored population in the Census of
1910 show that in the District it was 13.5, or less than half the corresponding
figure for. the United States, 30.4, and less than the same percentages for any
one of 19 States: Indiana, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Vir¬
ginia,-North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.
The school attendance in the District of Columbia, according to the census
of 1910, was slightly better than the average in the United States and better
than that in 23 of the States. The proportion of its population of all classes
6 to 20 years of age that attended school for any length of time between
September 1, 1909, and April 15, 1910. was 64.2 per cent, while the average for
the United States was 62.3 per cent. The District's percentage in this respect
was better than that of any one of these States : Rhode Island, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Illinois, North Dakota, Delaware, Maryland, Vir¬
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
Nevada.
Confining the comparison to native whites of native parentage, the Dis¬
trict’s percentage, 66.7, is practically the same as that for the United States
as a whole, 66.9, and is higher than any one of 15 States: Pennsylvania, Dela¬
ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and New Mexico.
The percentage of school attendance among the District’s colored population,
59.3. is considerably above the corresponding percentage of the United States
as a whole, 47.3, and exceeds that of any one of 28 States: New Hampshire,
Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Dela¬
ware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisi¬
ana, Texas, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Oregon.
The percentage of the District’s white population in 1910 who were natives
of native parentage, 70.6, was much higher than the corresponding percent- -
age, 60.5, for the United States as a whole, and was higher than that for
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
105
any one of the 28 States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut;, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illi¬
nois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska/Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Wash¬
ington, Oregon, and California.
Since 1870, as the successive decennial censuses show, there has been a
remarkable increase in school attendance and decrease in illiteracy among
the colored population. The proportion attending school increased from about
37.5 per cent of those 5 to 19 years of age in 1870 to 59.3 per cent of those
0 to 2,0 years of age in 1910, this increase being much more, proportionately,
than the corresponding increase for the white population from 53.1 per cent
in 1870 to 66.2 per cent in 1910.
It is in the decline of illiteracy, however, that the most striking progress
is shown. The percentage of illiterates among colored persons of 10 years
of age and over decreased from 70.5 per cent in 1870 to 13.5 per cent in 1910,
the latter percentage being less than one-fifth as great as the former. The
proportion of improvement in white illiteracy for the same period is just about
the same, from 7.3 per cent in 1870 to 1.5 per cent in 1910.
There has been a marked decline in the proportion of the colored population
in the whole population in the District of Columbia. It was approximately a
third of the total population in 1870, in 1880, and in 1890, and is now less than
a fourth of the population, and in no one of its 11 precincts, according to the
most recent police census, did the colored outnumber the whites.
That the present condition exists under a Constitution framed by the people
and for all the people is contrary to the policy of this Government in its deal¬
ings with other nations. In the World War, while the President wisely in¬
sisted that the United States would only deal with Germany through a repre¬
sentative form of government, it suffered to exist in the District of Columbia
the very thing it criticized in Europe. Fully as loyal as any citizens of any
section of the country, equally as willing to contribute with their substance to
the support of the Government, and as highly intellectual, the District people
have for years been put in the same category as mental incompetents, criminals,
and aliens. That such a condition will be permitted by the Nation at large to
continue to exist when the facts are brought home to its attention we can not
believe.
III. The objections raised are baseless in law and in fact.
THE DISTRICT NOT A GOVERNMENT RESERVATION.
It must be acknowledged that there exists an impression that the District of
Columbia stands on the same footing as a fort, arsenal, dockyard, or other
place over which the Federal Government possesses a similar power of exclu¬
sive legislation; that it is but a tract of land set apart for purely governmental
purposes, where the inhabitants, if not, indeed, trespassers, are little more than
tolerated sojourners. This view has found expression even in the public
utterances of men of the highest station, one of whom said openly that if the
people here did not like the sort of government established over them, let them
go somewhere else.
This conception of the District of Columbia as a sort of Government reserva¬
tion is unsound from every point of view.
In the first place, it is thoroughly unhistorical. As long ago as 1804 Chief
Justice Marshall, while holding, with manifest reluctance, that under the pro¬
vision giving Federal courts jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of
different States, the citizens of the District could not be considered citizens of
a “ State ” in the limited and special sense in which that term was used in the
Constitution, freely conceded, on the other hand, that “ Columbia is a distinct
political society and is, therefore, a State according to the definitions of writers
on general law.” (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cr., 445, 452.)
This clear recognition of the District as “ a separate political community,”
possessing an organic, social, and political life of its own, has been reiterated
in subsequent cases in which the Supreme Court has placed the District, for
certain purposes, on the same footing as the self-governing States of the Union.
(Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258, 259; Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. District of
Columbia, 132 U. S., 1, 9.)
Nor was it the intention of the founders that the great city which they
expected to arise on the banks of the Potomac would be a mere site for Gov¬
ernment offices and a place of abode only for those who were required to work
106
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
in them. Their purpose was precisely the reverse. As Washington expressed'
it, the expectation was that the new city should not only be the political capital
but “become the greatest commercial emporium of the country.”
It was for this reason that the particular site was chosen. The determining
factor was its situation at a natural meeting point for external and internal
transportation. Its harbor, which was then regarded as one of the best in the
country, would afford access, on the one hand, to the great highway of the
sea; on the other, to that line of inland navigation and portage which Wash¬
ington's explorations had shown to be the shortest and most practicable route
over the mountains to the tributaries of the Ohio. The location of the Capital
is primarily due to his far-reaching plans for the development of the Potomac
as the most convenient highway to the West, and therefore as the main channel
for “ the extensive and valuable trade of a rising empire.” 1
In this there was a political as well as a commercial object. The purpose
was to bind the growing western settlements to the older communities along
the seaboard. But the means relied upon to accomplish the political end were
themselves economic, and such as would lead to the growth and development
of the new city as a commercial center. On this basis it was planned and laid
out. Changes, then unforeseeable, chief among them being the extraordinary
development of the railroad, have operated to disappoint in large measure the
economic expectations of the founders. But it never occurred to them to con¬
ceive that the inhabitants of the populous and busy metropolis, which they
believed would outstrip in wealth and population all of the existing towns of
the country, and ultimately rival London itself, were condemned in advance
to live forever deprived of all political rights and all participation in their
government. So far from such being the case, almost the first thing Congress
did when it took over the actual government of the District was to constitute
the inhabitants of the infant city “ a body politic and corporate,” with the
rights, powers, and privileges immemorially appertaining to municipal cor¬
porations. 2
It is true that the Constitution provided, among the other powers of Congress,
that it should “ 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 Government of the
United States.” But the vesting in a given legislature, whether national or
local, of the power of “ exclusive legislation ” is not in any sense a negation
of political rights in the people to be affected by the legislation. That such was
not the contemporary idea is demonstrated not only by the fact that the
inhabitants of the new city were constituted a body politic, but also by the fact
that the existing local governments of the towns of Alexandria and George¬
town were left with all their powers unimpaired.
The form of government which Congress then provided for the people of the
city proved an inadequate method of meeting the immense burdens cast upon
them in the maintenance of a city laid out with such large views. But that cir¬
cumstance is not to the present purpose. What we are now endeavoring to
discover is the attitude of the fathers toward the people who were being
actively solicited to settle here and take part in the upbuilding of the Nation’s
Capital. All the contemporary evidence shows that the existence of political
rights on their part was not considered incompatible with exclusive Federal
jurisdiction. Th notion that there is any incompat bility between them results
from a failure to .grasp the real motives and purposes underlying the constitu¬
tional provision for exclusive Federal legislation in the territory ceded for the
seat of government.
THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL.
The experience of Congress in towns subject to the territorial jurisdiction of
a State government had shown that such a situation offered opportunities for
disturbing conflicts of authority. Now, for the first time in history, a Federal
Government was about to be created whose laws would operate directly upon
the citizens of its several constituent States. But this system of dual sov¬
ereignty was as yet an untried experiment. Up to that time it was the States
which had been strong and Congress which had been feeble. Madison had
1 See letters quoted in Washington’s Interest in the Potomac Company, by H. B. Adams.
J. H. U. Stud. Hist. Pol. Sci., Ser. 3.
2 An act to_ incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of
Columbia, approved May 3, 1802, 2 Stat., p. 105.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
107
expressed the view in the Federalist (No. XLIV) that the balance between the
t ederal and State governments “ was much more likely to be disturbed by the
preponderancy of the latter than of the former. Manifestly, then, the way
to preclude all possibility of embarrassment from divided allegiance on the
part of the people where the Federal Capital should be located was to establish
the seat of government in a place where there would be but one political sov¬
ereignty, one law, and one authority. This was the purpose, and tbe only pur¬
pose, of the framers of the Constitution. They accomplished it by giving Con¬
gress the power of “ exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever ” over the
Federal District; in other words, by giving it “ the combined powers of a Gen¬
eral and of a State government in all cases where legislation is possible ”
(Stbutenburgh v. Hennick, 120 U. S., 141, 147; Capital-Tr. Co. v. Hof., 174
U. S., 1, 5; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., 524, 619.)
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL NOT DENIAL OF POLITICAL RIGHTS, NOT CHANGED BY NATIONAL
REPRESENTATION.
In a word, the object of the framers was unity of governmental powers, not
negation of political rights.
For it is manifest that every purpose for which the power of exclusive legisla¬
tion was conferred can be accomplished in the fullest measure without denying
political rights to the inhabitants. To insure the supremacy of a single legisla¬
tive will, obedience to a single system of law, and the total exclusion of any
possible claim to authority on the part of another sovereignty, it is not neces¬
sary in the least to shut out the citizens who are subject to that law from par¬
ticipation in the making of it.
The legislative power of Congress over the District of Columbia will be no
less exclusive, the authority of the National Government no less supreme, when
the inhabitants shall have been admitted to be heard in Congress by their
representatives, than it is now or has been at any time in the past.
THE POLITICAL STATUS OF DISTRICT RESIDENTS NECESSARILY POSTPONED.
It may perhaps be asked. Why did not the Constitution make express provi¬
sion for the political status of the inhabitants of the Federal District? The
answer is that the problem was necessarily one for the future. The Consti¬
tution did not proceed to fix their status any more than that of the inhabitants
of the Territories. The Northwest Territory had already been ceded to the
Federal Government, whereas there was no certainty that any State would be
found to cede territory for a Federal District. What the Constitution makers
were concerned with was to invest Congress with the needful power in case
the cession were made, just as they limited themselves to conferring a power
to make all rules and regulations for the government of the Territories. The
location of the District, its extent (within the limit set), the character and
dens'ty of its population were all matters wrapped in the obscurity of the future.
To the future, therefore, must be left the solution of their ultimate place in
the governmental system when their numbers, their wealth, and the surrounding
circumstances might render a solution necessary.
Let it be remembered also that there was no voice authorized to speak on
behalf of the unknown inhabitants of this conjectural domam.
Since the attitude of many minds toward the National Government was still
colored by the traditional view that it was but an agency exercising certain
powers by delegation from the sovereign States, it is hardly to be expected that
anyone in that day should propose that a territory to be thereafter created for
Federal purposes out of some existing State or States should be declared in
advance to possess the attributes of a State and to be entitled to admittance
as such on a footing of equality with the original historic Commonwealths.
But surely it is not a fatal bar to the reasonable aspirations of a populous,
intelligent, and highly civilized community in the twentieth century that the
territory it occupied was in the eighteenth century only a sparsely settled wil¬
derness. It is by no means strange that the constitutional convention of 1787
should have omitted to provide a political status for a community yet unborn.
But would it not be strange, indeed, if after a century of unparalleled national
development the Congress of 1921 should decline to provide a political status
for a community surpassing in population, in wealth, and in the magnitude of
its national contributions a number of the States whose Senators and Repre¬
sentatives have their rightful places on the floor of the two Houses?
108
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The physical situation existing at the framing of the Constitution had not
greatly changed when Congress tirst organized the government of the District
in 1802. Although planned on the most extensive scale, and expected to become
in time a great and populous center of commercial and industrial life, the
infant city then hardly rose to the dignity of a country village. ’The local
governments established and continued by Congress seemed to it, therefore, to
afford all the participation in government which the population required.
THE INADEQUACY OF THE MUNICIPAL AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.
The insufficiency of the old municipal governments having in the meantime
been fully demonstrated, Congress sought to solve its difficulties by creating,
in 1871, a territorial government for the District of Columbia, upon the legis¬
lature of which one branch, elected by popular suffrage, it conferred limited
legislative powers for local purposes. But this form of government was doomed
to failure.
The validity of this congressional legislation does not seem to have been
questioned during the life of the territorial government. After it was abolished,
however, the Supreme Court was required to pass upon the conviction of a com¬
mercial agent or drummer who was lined for soliciting sales for a firm located
outside the District without having first paid the license fee imposed by an act
of the legislative assembly upon “ every person whose business it was to offer
for sale goods, wares, or merchandise by sample, catalogue, or otherwise.”
Upon principles already settled in cases of similar license legislation by the
States, the court held that the local statute “ so far as applicable to persons
soliciting, as Hennick was, the sale of goods on behalf of firms or individuals
doing business outside the District ” was a manifest regulation of interstate
commerce and necessarily void.
The subject, said the court, was one “ which calls for uniform rules and
national legislation, and is excluded from that class which can be best regu¬
lated by rules and provisions suggested by the varying circumstances of
different localities ” ; whereas all that Congress had here attempted to do had
been to authorize the District to exercise municipal power and “ prescribe
local regulations.” (Stoutenburgli v. Hennick, 129 U. S., 141, 147, 148.)
But its establishment, like that of the municipal government, nearly seventy
years before, was a clear recognition by Congress that it did not regard the
people of this community as foreclosed, by some iron degree of fate, from the
exercise of political rights.
In Van Ryswick v. Roach (Mac A. & M., 11 D. C., 171), the reasoning of the
Supreme Court of the United States was carried still further by the Supreme
Court of the District. An act of the late legislature assembly making judg¬
ments of that court liens upon equitable interests in real estate was held void
upon the broader ground that Congress could not delegate any general legis¬
lative power to the local government. Admitting “ that the term ‘ exclusive *
had reference to the States and simply imports their exclusion from legislative
control of the District,” the court grounded its decision flatly upon the
“ fundamental rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power,” as dis¬
tinguished from authority to pass ordinances and regulations for the internal
economy of the community.
Thus the general problem for which the creation of a territorial legislature
was an attempted solution remains unsolved. The inability of Congress to
deal, unaided, not merely with all questions of local legislation, but with sub¬
stantially all details of local government, has increased in a sort of geometrical
progression with the increase, as well in complication and difficulty as in mere
mass, of the volume of national legislation. Not even the most obdurate op¬
ponent of political rights for the people here would maintain that, as a practical
matter, it is reasonable to expect Congress to continue indefinitely to act as-
the local legislature of the District of Columbia unless some instrumentality
shall be devised whereby the burden of that labor may be rendered more tolerable
and in its execution more satisfactory to those who are constrained to per¬
form it.
OUR SOLUTION SIMPLEST AND BEST.
Some solution for the problem must be found. Whatever may be its nature,
it necessarily involves some change in the Constitution. We can not but think
that the one we offer is the simplest and the best.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 109
Instead of seeking, as in 1871, to transfer the whole or some part of the
legislative function from Congress to another body, a constitutional amendment
which would work radical changes in the power and position of Congress, we
propose just the opposite. We propose to add to the present powers of Con¬
gress the further power to admit, whenever in its judgment the time therefor
shall have arrived, the representatives of the people of the District to a seat
in the National Legislature.
By this method we preserve, unimpaired, intact, the primary purpose of the
creation of a special Federal district for the seat of Government, namely, the
absolute supremacy therein of a single legislative will. All conceivable con¬
flict between local authority and Federal authority will be impossible then,
just as the framers of the Constitution intended that it should be impossible.
Then, as now, there will exist but one judiciary, local and Federal; one execu¬
tive; one legislature. The National Government will continue, as now, supreme
in every respect. But this supremacy will no longer be exercised at the cost
of a humiliating repudiation of the principles of American Government. It
will be maintained without the sacrifice of the rights of nearly half a million
of law-abiding and patriotic American citizens.
NO SOUND OBJECTIONS ON MERITS.
What, then, are the grounds upon which this act of justice is to be denied?
Is it on the score of numbers? This can hardly be, for the population of the
District to-day is greater than that of any except one of the newly admitted
States at the date of its admittance, and it is a population which is constantly
increasing. Indeed, the population of the District is almost twice the present
population of the ancient Commonwealth of Delaware; more than twice that
of the new State of Wyoming. It is larger than New Mexico with its 360,287
people, larger even than Idaho with 431,826. Its population exceeds the com¬
bined population of Nevada and Arizona.
Is it then because of the character of our population? If that be the ground,
may we not be perinitted to ask, where is the community of equal numbers
which shows a higher level of intelligence and education, or a higher general
standard of life? In truth, the existing population of the District of Columbia
represents to no small degree the results of a process of selection. It is largely
made up of people far above the average in every respect who have been
drawn from every State and district in the Union. We have no backward
counties, no congested sweat-shop districts, no untouched centers of recent and
unassimilated immigration. By whatever test it may be customary or prac¬
ticable to gauge the intellectual, moral, social, or economic level of a community,
by every such test the people of the District of Columbia will be found to rank
among the first.
Is objection made because of any failure on our part to contribute our full
share to the maintenance, protection, and upbuilding of the Nation? Here
again let any test one chooses be applied. In peace, and in war, the people of
the District of Columbia have always done more than their full share, have
invariably given, in blood and in treasure, more than was asked or expected
of them. Such being the incontestible facts of the case, we can do no less than
repeat the words of the historic address of the Virg'nia House of Burgesses to
Governor Dunmore: “ To us it appears that those who bear equally the burdens
of government, should equally participate of its benefits.”
NO STATE DEPRIVED OF EQUAL SUFFRAGE.
We are not aware of any objection to the merits of our cause which would
warrant further discussion. It has been objected, however, that one provision
of the Const!tuition presents an insuperable obstacle to an amendment admitting
the people of the District to representation in the Senate.
The point made is, that to do so would necessarily affect the guaranteed
equality of the States in that body. What is relied on, of course, is the last
clause of Article X, “ and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived
of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
But manifestly a State is not deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate by
reducing its existing aliquot proportion of the total number of Senators exer¬
cising the lawmaking power. October, it would have to be conceded that
the original States were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate by the
admission of Vermont. And so on at each succeeding admission of a State.
110
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
What, then, does equality here mean? It means that no State shall have
greater representation in the Senate than any other State. In what way, we
may ask, would the presence of one or two Senators from the District of Colum¬
bia operate to give any State greater representation than any other State?
Clearly the amendment we propose will not deprive any State- of its equal
suffrage.
This clause in Article X is the sole provision in the text of the Constitution
to which it is possible to point as offerng even an apparent bar to what we
propose.
REPRESENTATION NOT CONFINED TO “ SOVEREIGN ” STATES.
There is a somewhat vague an delusive argument, not grounded on any par¬
ticular provision of the Constitution, which is frequently met with. It usually
runs in this form: Nothing but a sovereign State can have representation in the
Senate. Representatives of the District, therefore can not he admitted there
unless, by a total repeal of the 10-miles square provision, the District is first
made a full-fledged State. In order to accomplish that result, Congress would
have to surrender its control of the Federal district.
Now, this argument, let us repeat, is not grounded upon any specific pro¬
vision of the Constitution, much less upon one that is immune from amendment.
It has its origin only in certain abstract and supposedly philosophical deduc¬
tions regarding the nature of a Federal Government. It will not bear analysis.
Nor does it express any cardinal principle of our Constitution.
To say that the Senate is now composed only of Members selected by the
States is merely to declare an obvious fact. That is simply because the Consti¬
tution as it stands provides that “ the Senate shall be composed of two Senators
from each State.” Formerly it went on to say “ chosen by the legislatures
thereof,” but that is a thing of the past. What remains, however, is no less
subject to amendment. There is no fundamental principle of our Constitution
which forbids its amendment so as to admit into the Senate any more than
into the House of Representatives Members who shall represent an integral
part of the country, such as the District of Columbia, without any necessity
of requiring that area to be for all conceivable purposes precisely like the
existing States. In fact the existing States are not all on an absolute parity
outside of their equal representation in the Senate, for the scope of the law¬
making power of several is limited by conditions in the acts by which they were
admitted.
The theory we are now discussing is plainly a survival of the exploded
notion that Senators are, in essence, ambassadors from sovereign States. This
notion was once regarded as a necessary corollary of the most extreme form
of the State rights doctrine.
There was, indeed, a certain historical excuse for it, so far as the original
13 States were concerned. But whatever warrant it once had ceased altogether
when new States began to be carved out of the western territory. In the
admission of new States, such as Wyoming or Idaho, Arizona or Oklahoma,
all basis for it vanished altogether. Especially now that Senators are elected
by the people, there is no assignable reason why the national Senate should not
include representatives of any territory occupied by an organized body of
American people whose numbers and importance qualify them to be repre¬
sented. It is not at all necessary that such a body should have the same
kind of local government as is possessed by the States.
Since Senators are now everywhere elected directly by the people the people
of the District of Columbia, to the extent of their right to do the same thing,
would stand in the same position as the people of a State. For all purposes
conneced with representation in the national Congress that is sufficient. State
legislatures no longer elect Senators. It is manifestly immaterial, then, for
the purpose that the District would have no legislature. In truth, State legis-
laturs when they elected Senators did not act as legislatures in the real sence
of law-making assemblies, but only as specially designated bodies of electors.
In performing that function the members of the two houses of each State legis¬
lature acted without regard to the extent of, and wholly apart from, their
functions as lawmakers for the local community.
The fallacy of the whole contention under consideration consists in confusing
the traditional conception of the States as a group of sovereign Common¬
wealths combining in their corporate capacities to form a limited Union, with
the essential and permanent constitutional conception of representative gov-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Ill
ernment by Houses composed of Representatives chosen by the people of de¬
fined territorial areas having such a socially organized life as constitutes them
convenient and reasonable units of political action.
The District of Columbia presents the case of just such a political unit.
Neither in the fundamental framework of the Constitution nor in the text of
any of its provisions is there anything incompatible with recognition as such.
When Burke was warring with furious fervor against the doctrines of the
French Revolution he declared, “ The rights of men in governments are their
advantages.” We have come to realize that there must be a deeper basis for
that irresistible desire of men everywhere for a voice in the governments
which mold their destinies.
SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES EXPECTED.
But since the question is one that may fairly be put to us^ it seems proper
that we should sum up in plain words what we believe to be the advantages
which will follow from granting the people of the District a voice in the
National Legislature. Those advantages we conceive in the main to be three:
In the first place, it will materially assist Congress in the dispatch of its
business. Just as the presence of accredited Representatives from each and
every State aids the general body in solving the problems which affect the
people of each State, either directly or indirectly, as a member of the Union,
so the presence of similar representatives of our people will necessarily aid in
the disposition of the questions concerning the community which more and
more press upon the attention of Congress in its capacity as the constitutional
legislature of the District. The execution of its higher functions as the
Legislature of the Nation will be just so much facilitated.
In the second place, it will assist us to a better government. Participation
in the work of legislation by men entitled by their own direct and intimate
personal knowledge, as well as authorized by the mandate of the people, to
speak and act in our behalf can not fail to insure the enactment of legislation
suited to our real needs, the correction of neglected evils in our legal system,
the due maintenance of our schools and public institutions, the passage of
enlightened social legislation, the solution of the thousand and one problems
of modern life which confront us just as insistently as they confront the people
of Maine or Oklahoma. What sort of legislation would the good people of
those States expect to get from a local legislature, however well disposed, from
which their every inhabitant was rigidly excluded?
Finally, we count upon this recognition of our rights as citizens to work a
transformation in our own spiritual life. We expect to see a new birth of
public spirit, of civic pride, of social energy, of democratic idealism, of all,
in fine, that the world, in these latter times, has come to know and love and
trust as Americanism.
Nor need anyone fear that the beauty and grandeur of the Nation’s Capital
will be marred or its prosperity retarded. We are deeply concerned with the
material upbuilding of this community. We, too, wish to see full scope given
to the energy, industry, and talent of our people. We look forward to a Capital
which in beauty and splendor shall rival the most famous cities of the ancient
and modern world. But material prosperity is not our sole preoccupation.
Neither architectural magnificence nor increase in public wealth, nor even the
widespread diffusion of material comfort is for us the real end of life. What
we hope and pray for is that our National Capital shall be one of the great
spiritual centers of the country; that it shall unite and express all that is best
and worthiest in American life; that every section and element of our vast
people shall here behold, as in a mirror, a reflection of whatever is finest and
noblest in themselves.
In what way, we ask, can this hope be fulfilled otherwise than by admitting
the inhabitants, the citizens of the National Capital to their rightful partici¬
pation in the government of their own country? For a community debarred
from the exercise of political rights, however cultivated or wealthy, can never
truly reflect the national character of the American people.
Representation in the Electoral College will yield results equally advan¬
tageous in the executive government of the Capital.
IV. Every other national capital, including the other three Federal districts,
has full representation in the national Government of its country.
83480—22-8
112
SUFFRAGE 1ST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
WASHINGTON THE ONLY NATIONAL CAPITAL WITHOUT NATIONAL REPRESENTATION,
The United States is the only country in the world that does not give the
people of its capital the same national representation which the people of its
other cities enjoy. Most of the capitals are, of course—like London and Paris—
not under the direct and specific control of the nation, as in this Federal District.
Three countries—Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico—have copied our provision for
a national capital in a federal district controlled by the nation, but they have
found no difficulty in giving full national representation to the people residing
in those nation-controlled capitals. Buenos Aires is represented by 2 senators,
and in the Chamber of Deputies by 1 representative for each 33,300 inhabi¬
tants ; Rio de Janeiro by 3 senators elected for nine years and by 10 deputies
elected for three years; Mexico by 2 senators, and in the Chamber of Deputies
by 1 representative for each 60,000 inhabitants. All these vote, like other cities,
for the executive officers of the national Government.
In each case the executive is appointed by the federal Government. These
countries have not only followed the example of the United States in establish¬
ing federal districts, but have set an example to the United States by providing
for those capitals on republican representative principles and giving, in fairness
and justice, representation in the national legislature to citizens who must obey
the laws which that legislature exacts.
We append a statement compiled from official reports and other authentic
information as to the relations of nations of the world to their capitals:
Relations of nations of the world to their capitals.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
113
*3 «
3
® O n
~ ftO
.2 s p
ft ^-2^
S,3 © d
w .2 > .ft
+3 © S,
t*> d *3
3 SP 6 ©
d - 3ft ©
2©g3
,§©•-§ .a
ftg.222
g.2 ft &8
©to fe:
«h CTO
O _. -J2 S d
© -3 ca
7v© X O ©
©•2^7?'§
g © 2 3
ft >-_-2 3
«>.c3g»
•5 & o o 2^
w —i
> o3«.
dftt
© 8
;6.aa
O AS >
-,©+3 0
J5 *-< w>
&d.2
®§g§§
•+■= © &ft §
©.3 © 2 8
£ +J S« o ©
<
llia|l-s.4pi
!»|tlg|3*.§s
^ <D 0 ) 0 ^ ^
w> ndt;
•S'sppg^p*
CO d^oO u ^O_, ©
©oft ft ft £3 w s+ft
ft Cl q © 3 3 ^ +^ -pH 3 o
.pSpa.fcg^.S
~po6°l! 5 P
v «g t^ft “ ft ©
ftft.2 d 3ft © © .2 «.2
© o -m .3 ca Mft f> +3 ca +2
**
tn co m d
3 o
o° gti
©ft^-d
fa © 3ft
© © 2 r®
'-; © opt,
Ms-.®
d-”d,oft.2®©ft
3 gSjs &i?| | ?
+h ft - j _f>>q + ^ p o
° ©ft ©ft °-2 ft
o ft -9 S 2 5 M^ ~
PtLa §
30 ©'©ftft +.
© . © ft d O ft ©
•S.'S 2 3 « M © ft 2
W o P-.rH © (D ^ CO '
Jh
M
^b”3g
R Il
j§ ca.i '
"fcS
ft ©O
35
d +J
>, . Sx
+j £?-x> ©
o’ 0 3 fe
*C >.© o
a--g|ft
ft © 3 OT
ft,—. S-. s.
d © g
3 § oft
©30.2
6 <& 3 s
§31
d M <
ft ®£ I
2-&eh.:
S3 .1
© oft (
w * O '
S®£
feb'gg
g§©
Q © ©
nB-rt
X CO •
3§-S
iSg
•gift
ft ©- W) !>>o ©
©-3.2-° ft
©ftft-8 3
^la.af2
»sia g s
d ”~ l *-. o. ••'m
8 ^33
W) .2 o
2dse>>£|
6 3 ° «
^5 © R q
8§6266
gft o&'Sft
© ©^
^2 si
g ©3^2-3.2
ift © © „ 3 © © 3
tejUsiififi
2 § § 2ft | m ^||ft
©ft © fa ®3 ^®nO°£^
sii^gjs.susa
**£&% |“d'§3©'S-
t ^ d ro 2
gg'Sft^
.gfts-fc-'-
ti X o ft o
d © > 3 OT
S3>3«.2
© p. 3 s- ft
o .ft-2 o ©
dflfl
•2-Sl©l
a?s|g
m p © ^ o
® O 2i? B1
o © ©
ftft
§ o
61
M
O d
fc
3 2 O d
©ft _ o
ft
« © O d
©.2 O.-H
ft ©ft g
•3
© © P, .
ftft_ d
wdd o
Sl§l
S® r§
©ft ©ft
© f-H © ©
ft S w
ft .2*3 d
S © 3 co
•si I a
■sp©
d s 8-
9 g ft©
©Aft 2
o d „ 3 § . ^ „.- _
ft®^3 a § §&© S3 2
.3 S?ft3'5ft3S3S8.S
> r-H ^
<3
Aft:
iiog
© 3 d ft
23gg
" dft+i
slas
D *-4-3 ^
Ass©
M 3 o.fa;
ft 3 3 8 ri
© 3 ©ft 9
fn °ft2
w f-H ^5 - tuO
2ft 2 ftd
.fa 3 © ft
M ft O s-i ft
Plfl
oil!' 4
.3
3
ffl
Relations^)/ nations of the world to their capitals —Continued.
114
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
•Erg
Crj 2
© o ^
0,0
.gSo,
O
© 03
< TT t O f j. 4-0
Ml O
CO .X r-
-w A ft
>>©ft Jj
O. 2 f 0 ©
" ©
g O §5
© ft q
ft CD ft -2
■m 7 ? 2 o3
rO Pi +H>
© O pft
ft O 03
° ffl
p *p
S 73 p ffl
rrt <r>
a © © s>
• i ~i
.q O Tj O
o" o A
M03 O
rt.S_ ©
©a.a £
_§ 8-3
M ft ft
ffl CO CO +J
■ ft ffl ± co
S Sx! S3 te
S3 0 33 o g
.2 oA
© +^ft o
.2 © bjQft *—•
^ 5 q) _,
'd « h o a
S3 5,3 Jh ©
^ £?4-> too
o -® $3 ft 33
•a >■,© i3X2
ft+3 2 03 O
A © p +j
•O r-H *-• CJ .5-*
© © a; co ©
r-i q > ft co te
goo © © §
CD +3 O pH biO p.
WTi W O) OJ iTl ' 0 ) ' O
•" 1 ^" <= Sft 2 g ® gAA- 2 $
rH U< ^ C3 p r^H ,r ^ r y ° rfl ‘ H > ^
_P T2 *p -p O PS o t* rp r CD
ffl O © ft .ft ' ^ d | -'°Si.S 0 Sfl3 !>
^ .2 o©9'g©3J= 3 !=
d ^ ^ ^ tn M CJ Ph P ^ pO
fc|| ° ^ © d^> P coftft SftcS kZ§ _
3 (w, qco'dq3fOi c 3 kT o3 ,
©•§^ ©^^^ ©ft £|.&« oftg ©i
aSAA ftAft os A>^AftA "°ft *
©
© 0+3 " 'Sr K A 0 ft © ft ' ^ j~
ls“ c ^-s|5g|||^||s
Jfs
©©OtJD®©'Saj©'g-q^ co 2 ' 0^2
^■ftpHq-g >-.2-2 ©5 © ..5
S3 ft
d ogflod-H+?d M ®^ 93<s
8i^S3S§SS^^In^
i co o
p-Rq
P O M
CJ
CD CO
ft 2=2
-J-a p p
«—< CT O
^ p To
<D*P P
"P <D X
o.2 ^
© o
0h!>_
O) >5 C3
ft S3 2
-ffl ©A
©73
S^ 2 «-H
03.13 c
© X
ft S3
o3 ffl
ft©
© o
-i_i bJC
P
P
ft
CL
o .©
o 2
oS
S <+J £
5.2 2
•rH {/J
©X2 f-. rft
S3 03-^
d'd © m
o ©
© ‘geo ©
+i o o +g
©cOoS
3 S 3 ®
§
-^S ©©
fflodHft©
>H
'©o g tC
Si * ft'
&ah
?^S|:
|sOs
s g=aA
8^H © S-^
^ ■
D
P JH <D o
ft S'©
2 ^ 2 ©
d <3 >• o3
So a
o a>
-
Tl ©
iiT ft
£ 03 X _
2ft ©
S+^ ^ be
<u m b S3
&g|3
(D *“H P P •
O q3 _ co 1
S3 *3 ©
M 6j 0 c3 ®
^ O o ^
0> « ft O
'“fl ^ft©^
.2 ©Sa 2 -
© © ^
|§»fiS£
& ffl '"H ©
AS©® >
m ©5|33
•hS m §
|*T
2 © co ‘c ©
ft £ ® 03 c3 03
« 2 h 3 ft
03 ft bh H © .3?
*g > © '
O ft fH
„,©+3o
A ^ ©3
S3
O S-h
© -»-» o^.
P, ’g-©’i fl
a; os +j a ©
A © o .2 a
+» © 2 a s
©fto^"
s3 >- S3 ©
' CJO^ ©
.2 q 2o3
C-H
1 "S &33
2.2 2 *
ft a 22 ^3
s»h .p "p P
o3 ft 5 o3
^ " C ^
2 HO +J ’
O) ^'p <D
+- 1 (D -^> Ai IN*
5 -P *pnP S
513 « «a .2
IS © © 6013
«»©.a g
a © c ft 5
.2 ft t. tn ^
w « 03 O
^ © 3^ S y;
C „ ft g ©
05 03 ft
© ft c a -ft
0.31.2 o o
Q
woiOtI
o ^ ©
2 2^1 .
©'"ft © g
CO n w p
CO rr-j C3 .© ©
^-2 “ C ^
-©©aft 10
«2 ©A o
D D k^hO Ch
w 5 h H (T) O • bX3
o 2 s»^ 8-2
g | © 5 =° ^o
© rj.H r-( , ^
ft,.d ffl !h © 03 © “
f:A G S“
S So22.:o §
£ C C q,ft 8 g C-S © ©
aft ss*. q 8 2 < s*
D — 1 -*
6 JDft' C ftft A
c--. 2 |S©gAft
- ft bo p 0 '' < A
fti
c o ft ®? a o'- a ,rH © ss
cxi3.aaftS2 „ 2 63
a 2 0 r c o ® o. ^13
sloisS=s Se
•gfflftS 3 3 a 33 ©a
°.SA£ ,H .2a ®E-t § 3
g©a2£a--p . % >
g ft ft ft ffl Pi o £0 3 <
co P .p P ^ C°^ S
ftftO-ft 3 .Sq“^I
i>>Nft ao a 33
+3> 05 (D p r_H O O
2 a ©fl ©^ r ^5' 6 w "
w+3r rH s3ft-sgffl©
m"p °So32£ffl0535
ffl ft fflftft p ©ft^4J p
•2 © © b 2
S-=>3|. 2
. bft5 ©a
ft o « ft ^ x
a n d— ° 03
ftft sop^
Ph'P d P 1 — 1
© p s-, ©.a a
ffl lo ffl ffl ■»-> P
> © © o
~ O R M'Jj
^“ 2 a 03
O 3 pj
a a © ft ft 03
p ft a a ft
ft © a © ft ©
hr P bJC a ft
rf'ft po ^ ©
3 p o © p ©
'P “ ~ p
a o 03 a
a 03 A a
’-• © __
w , ___ ^ 1 - -
© 'si
C D ffl. _ — ,D4
ft o £ 03 "
"T lp P r*
•fl w ffl a S3-©
ffl © © © © ft
ft ft O 03 ffl ft? 2
ft A © ffl 13 2+2
_ Q ft Mft ^
03 © ffl © ©ft 2
;-h s-h P P T C3 o
^ Ci) W ^ H
P >> 2 s
D D L rM Ml
1“SSgS-g
|SSb»S.g
rj 03 ft . ©
a 3 © © ft
oft--’ aooft
■Toft o a % a
2 © oft © ©
O 'ffl 03 ft pft 2
ft © ^ ft ffl ft a
.a © Soa 3a 2
2 2
^ j- © ft a.
© >
p^ffl 2 oa © ©
o ©^ ©Aft **
CLffl _ Qj ffl c/5 ©
S.2 agft
ffl ffl ffl ft ffl Oft
*S ft ffl ft ffl ffl ft
>. © o p ft
ft ft .© © g
© r" «.© ft
g- § §S'
a S -<3
p .2
°^*
-H CO -ft-' r
p P <D C3 '
.2 ■"ft 1-5,
ftp©.
s 03 a ©
52 © ft
03 *r To
4-o >c
D CO O
o 2 p ft
.^|S r
ft © §
p
^ o -
ffl J-h v.
<D P^*
13 a a
O ©ft*
p p ©
o -ffl © «ffl
•ft ffl A A $
© 60^ ,Q ffl
a 2 ® « S
co p ffl ft O
ffl o 2 03 r n
O o ©+^ ffl
ft S3 2 ! -
ffl ffl
sa © ft
© 3 +?
© o o
<0 ft S
ft; P
o flft
P r j ^ a ad
■mi*?
P Sft O r—< P
© ffl p © S3.
S3 ft a rj ©
00 ft ^ o ©
ft ft a © 03
ft3-2fl"
ft ffl ft
a o-a 2 ffl
© co fl o .S4
o
ft
ffl
ft 1
© ©
® §ft^©^'5>agft^2
pna«g- rt 8
®®ga“ ^pftco’a
S ffl r-( .. 3 /t5 (ft op
S3 2
<N . S'" 3 o A cn © O
VTd OftO ®r^
^ . P ffl ft ^ bCft
lo A o t> o 03 2 ” -ft .3 ©:
o co5 P D p P P—< rj
k.'H'd K CO Rp co p,C W S
^ > ft p r C3ft g H bC_5 ;
R ft . w 5 ^ Q C3 rJ ftTj
pco^PhcS^p So a.p ©
p r _j
© i
o
©
o
ffl 1 a ©
•sis g
^© I ffl
-w p
co a a a
p" .2 jd. va
•fflft 0 a
Ohio ft ■
©ft ® OO
Qft ffl
word in respect to itsmu-
SUFFRAGE IX THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
115
2 ft © “
3
ft £ o
M ft^
3 8s
tn
11$
CD
" g ^
S P-
ftft cj
5 gft
£ 03
'rt! ©
3-3 S
Sft.bgft i<i>§
OS Pi 03 ,Q Pi*",©
+» fto^ O “ CO
oft ft © ft
© .a ft cd jp ft ©
©< ft © C rt ,2 o
to ^ -* ft S
• 2 A . o © o
o >>t>. ft
^ g.ft.ft 2 fto b
ti^fs
”*53 .ll| 8 |
o6.®|hJs'&3h©
Pi O+iH © Wo k
O fci © .
fell!
0.2111
p> 1
Pi 03 HI
© f* °
Si as
£2:-ft 3
g * o
tfS §•
S-S^S
ai^g
rj R —h
& 05,2^
, ©,q®'3
Pi o S
n » ^
o C3 >
be ^
o
Sis
0-2
5,«3
•g ft
_ © O
03 ft'rJ
l"a
las
-O
o o Sh’
>2 . ©
ft 2^
. 0.2 g
o op A
£
.23 "g ft O "® ft P> ft
S |6-g s saa
I!aSts3•§
•gn*«S*6£
© O co* © oS-g M o
SI'S&sJ**
■g 2. 0 ©
~B»°Jgg§;§
o c-i ft ft ft t-H o o +3
(H ft © © © i*i K - CO
fe ? -gl'S5»«i2
&g«Ei*IE6
AiT3./i’3®i £ Vi.2<i)
1 3 I 2-^.S ft^§ es' d
^5 a
©ft 2 C3 © m 2 03 W>0 ©
®ft^ft^ 0 -nl||'o
^ 2 2 M 03 -©2
-ft B t. "ft P+jQj © © ft rj
SPg 3 cs 5 ft w .© 2 © §
£§£££ go’S^gtC
^-gfa^ft^S
E -1 ^.ft >»'o -2 P ”
••SoSg&I^-gS 03
8E£.2gpS«p,SS
§ © © g ©
<2 ;? fa co
fj*2S|
igp.p
fa © >>+3 £
© g © to
o3 3,0 © ft
£ !£-£ 2
Qjftlft 4 J CO
S'
tj ®p 1 gl s
s-saifSas
© b ©ft
ft <2 ff-ft
1=IJlf tlllfl!Sj!!-iH
a °3 III 11“ 8 ^ st-atil S'*
8k2|
ftP3 ” JS
co © 2
U ft+i -
S'll-S
b 503 “ 3
11 J 1
•511«
®<n 0
g^ft-
ft Si 3
ES | a
rj O 03 p
O ^
°ft2^
ftft ©
©ft ftft
© ©ft .2
^ g-a«©
5*115
“E of i
^§©||
"c2 ©S
M^O’S'rg
.2 -■£ 0 ft
>0 CP o
l^g'se*
wftri ats
.2 .2 m 2
ftiqft © bo
litas
3c
j^g
ft ft ft
ftft ^
r ©.2.
■' a
M .2
g cs -H
©ft
©ft
ft s_ ©
© O^
2 v-i ^
. ^
C fl wS
a> p o q.
> w 52 C3
°_ J S t>
W)ft ©v_.
§ s*°
_ ft © f-
ft C0I_" o
03 -3 ►>
g>‘gl.
■•gl-l.a
4J ©
© §0
ft 2
o ©
ft
©1
03 +e .
.© © co
£ .©
co
.2 «* O
IS!
&S5
o
if1-3 ft © ft
‘"ft ft 0 ©< ©
^ftft'£ OT ©
°M|®'S
„ ^ft 2 ft
- © © 2
© to 2 “ft
'■)H.
■fj!®E&a..fc
. ^ 3 op
Relations of nations of the world to their capitals —Continued.
116
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
<y a h
® o n
— P®
.2 1 =! Q,
© O c-
a§®3
M .2 f* S
32 © 3,
bA'O «?
0.JlPo °
03 Id 4^ ©
«■§ 0:5
fe o+*
P <D +L9
GO
A2°5 i
2 . 2 Q £§
j|%g§>
■3 |! ! «
p, ® tS ° .2
O H wm 3
®o~°§
>-h i> _ -e 0
® >, 03 § ”
<sS o5.S 3
w
o & 2 >
®£-&
|3-S ^
p, '§'® 2 0
ss-g§§
53 ® &'■§ a
©rd © 2 t-
£+o £ 0 ©
5? a
.3
cO
fl c ®
o 5 t*
“32 o
?f|
111
• P.
o to
Z
5U
0 o3 cl
a ® ©
o 2 o
©
gift
o P ©
S'g 3
2 2 a
2 ” a
d£ cl-4
c3^—i q
. ^ fz;___ <x>
©.23 3
>*
■g
%
II
O 03
0:0
U
03 7
3.2 £*
VBs’B
£ ®f t
g.S2 d o
■p'O l T;- p
0) t, c3 ©
-m §5 -m * c^.
ei'^i
Is^-SS
0^3®
g S 0.-25
£%%S'o
0 ®^ ° ©
l.g'.g g-s
is a
S 03
O 4-3 (
f
0
5._
c3 ©
0 ©
H 3
0 d a 2 <*> " os
S S £ c-i a cs -g
a a .230
0 (h a +a a «3
£ P 2.0 0
■§la*
w
'3.3 ©
3p
©
0 0
© 0
boo
r _ 0 © o.22
p* 2 a ^ .o
■ 5 ®-§£ 0 , 2 Sp
* II g| a® s
’g£§£tS2°“
®RnC« q.^
0 ^ oT C§ 0-^0
g .0'S 1-2-2 §
3 >^'2.2 2
® 2 £.3~.Eq ;
P O O 5 ^ © P i
O ^ t- O h q a
p, pH P,rO S O £ C
^ r-«
« X .3
dec
1 « rt u
}*C*
■0H0
3 p©
•S*SJ*!
“.§5-3^
o3-0 .da .
§a®§;s
•p o 0 0 £ ®
0 p -2 ®0 3
<D <V O « +-> » •
5 &•£« ??5 §*3
^a*g|jL9
b a » 0_S o o
c ^
3'p*
;
> ®T0p F
S 0 8
; I m
© o3 «S 5
P> <D C
l 9 0 t>.C
l O
0-3.H
03 O § 0
S'SpS
P
liSa^Slb?
'Sp'g.®© c g^3 3
T3 g' 0 ' 2 ® © 0 O
2f.5 ® ® > ^“r-. 1,3 0
•2 ^ P0 §"3
>3 ® © 0
® ^s 2 o Z , 0 3 ®-2
g,a 0 §|g||
§ 2 ®3 ©*0 2 3
g g ® °
OwSMArrt’H^
^ P^P^C
CPrK il P
3 fe: £°- 0 P^
» ^s3'30
^ £• 0S <b P'0
® © ^ 4^ 0 © ®
0 op g
. 2 |a^s-
« 0 0 O 0 £
“3SIS
l#l 1111l f 1 1 1 J f-a JS is
0 0 ®
S-S O s~
33 ©5 ® ©
C3 Mv.0 «
0 £ O 0 0
05 a © W §
(D o 2 ^ w
o a ®
q 0 2 ~
© ©
.2
-0
&l-25?|-g|
inn^i
© 0 p| 0 §
o 0P 0 CO 0 0 . 0 ;
ft
co 0'c3 0 6
0 o C (.
ShP
^.-^+3 o S'
CJ & ^ *r* ^
'-'03 C c
p 2 !
•'0 0°
:aP2i
”2 .-0 0 -0 r
03 2 c 2 0
co E» © 0 P
.a 33
§-£S
C15
(M 0
^o 1
g®
><a.
^-s 23 CO
P-
c«
O
6 a o
r®i
O 0
ro ^ g
c2 P
^ ©S |
•a;^ o
bt©t-
• Cw C *P
I—( © .0 0
^25*
© «j ® P
§-MU0
0®2£
'S > C 03
03.^— O
ilil
O'2'S rj
SUFFRAGE IU THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
117
u » •
w U .
X — o ^ o
® © £ a
> « (j to
ad- s is
a 3 do
*6 .° =
go ©«2
o +-=• 5
■ - a d a 2
6 § 8 ^
A _bc
'w'd gis
m <3 d.2d
© f> 03 -*n> 1 '-'
t*
• • cn
H Tl /T»
Sh ffl
f^s
© o ©
T3 ^
fe
>.£fd
°|a
'g ©
+2 © g
d- c
o
a
be-
m
o^ S
© 4H>
©SO
> as
■s w a
§§
sag,
©3
© o
a©
•v ^3
'3
o
. «
o a.
fc
c.
c
£
a
bfi
g a
0.2
S3
CO ^ s-s
3 t>i ©
3 a S
5 g |
© o X
fia ®
g © 03
(da d
p-- o
a —
•d o3
S 2 fl
a co 03
CD
d d © .22 rL
— © > d a
d 2 c3
>..§-^a $
0 S m d 2
d-.-d b
gee-p^®
§3 ^ fe 0
da • ^
od^.
0 03^3
^ +3 o3 ® ©
3 -* S"?
. X r 3 © d 0
86 a&§£
>*
0
o'—
-3 © ± CO
ag S3
•30 d-p
d’©' 0 --
d a eo ©
a § 58 a
o 5 ?
©
3d3S
O L a
© t>,
a .
We. „
o a ©
3-1
• 5 o d
8 8 a 2 8
>3 >H
75 o o o © © 6
2 © Sc © d
B-p *i2 >
3 o® w 03— >
o ©d •"-‘'d —
o^stitud a
2 d d-g § ®
evd co © (—1 d
3_«> w g .§
•&ga 8 g | d ®
.2 g d a © a.,2 a
d.2 03 3 J 3 „ 3 «
d d ^ m d o 3 © d
.s 2— .2 °W
,:§£©©§a .
© ? a.S a a a ©
>h !*
as
a p->
d ©
t- ©
© a
o ►>>
be,Q
dd
2 ©
d -m
o a
d ©
2 ©
d (i
O
£
» Hd 1 1 c/j
£ 6 ^a 6
a - dW^
oo bevn 6
-&a® 0 6 !>>
Sa^adn
O d 0 O OS'S
§ ©-~ © a
p 0^0 ©
a ^0 geo co
Ti .£© £-< c 3 _1 c 3
©s®ga^
3 .16 2 a
c2
w 2 d r d 5
p) M £ ° o
co © >»d ©A
© co a V. a ©
People of
ital on same
;ing as oth-
C
c
C
0
a a a
a
© © PH © ©
!S
O
m
2
i 6 2=6 2 £
3 d a 1:3 © ©
p a^- o m d
f-S 4-> <D
A >. p K
0 d *2.® a-g
© d ©d d
^ g ®-ph d
d ©d S-g- 0 '
s SO 2 dg
a) r3 © © d 0
O -*->
03
2 ^; os
26 g
a
O ® © co
©co xi da-c
6 03 a— .©
n ’ > © d 03 ^ 3 - n
d^^ Ja
_g.2 fe d - 0
a co 2 °g s £
— «3 2 ° °2 s
©$ .Sd^g
2.2 8^11
a
©
a a
©
- - a a * 1
2 3 a
g fc 3
g a sh
“ x 2
be® is
.5
d-dpq
tn x 3
® w 0}
© bA
d aS
•5 £
d °T3
03 -P ©
O'
©
&
O
m
+3 a a 03
o3 ’
P. r, 4H
© s
> d ©
> do 1
o t- —
a? = o
d-p > o
-d be & i-h
o o
ch a
O H
> d
A .2
d a
•p ©
as
OTJ
d ®
o3 (h
C ©
'§
CO
# <x>
b ’6
i’l
§s .
M •- ©
a 62
6 ’a ©"
co © .2
© ©a
> ©
© • a
co a
a.© —
6dd
d © ©
© -©
da 03
o3 co ©
©•p u
£Ab.
a ©
©a
a ©
2 d
IS C r 0
a© aa
d©
^a ^ 2
»p .20
c3
ad 2
gad
O
— 53 ^
a^.S
d S
©da -' co 1 d h
d 2 2 © a © ^q*oj 0 -d 03 2
263 aadi: 2 : cood 6
a. 2 . 2 g 8 3^ rt .S
©ggg^sdpds
Sd^Jcn^coS *s •
Q flf< P Op cj r« d rH
g^^l©^o© .©2©
s «!.6
o' a-^j m ® a —' © d
«>_ ©— 2 coo h
2 <^a ca6
--pp,d2«^d-°® 0 ©
gftd 2 fiao 22 Sfi©
.H©S 2 °®§p- 2 '“ — 6
Oh — a M O C ^ ^ 2 6 M
S 26 3 ^d aS;oa S ©‘3
>H >-
;6
O •
d 03
a*
o be i
d ©':
M p. !
d
d 6
O C^.2
o o'dp
Q
+-> <v
O bJj
& s
co. d
a> o
o a
ft
nd
4a a 5
O bjO
d °3
w .d
<D O
o o
ft
K^5
O
a
o o
a a
w ei
© 0
>>d
> i'
030c
o3
Q
d © m
§ S.2
6 a d
O ©h 3 .
co p< a d
a © d S
03 go
•d co 6 J
a© ©
®asd
U © 03 rO
• d «h
c3 O
d •
© :
■\ l
be
c n
d
3
2
'S
a co
d d
CD
•
O
«
a
o
o
a
4-5
a
o
P3
>>
a
o
c -1
Relations of nations of the world to their capitals —Continued.
118
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Jiils
• 3 " |
d
® 5 n
g
rvd © c3
w.2 fcs
43 © Q.
>> cs'd ,3
d w>o ©
d>d +a ©
S'®
2 Sfl
Jo
02
2 : g _g g « _g
*“ 33 p.S ’3 p<
52 B 03 ”3 O 1 03
® 3 o ® ® o
+» .S'*-,
£ w ©•§;=; °
rfH ® 2 © fH
5 8-8 a &s
g^-g © d §
| § ^|l©
gi'g.d © §
o'd.tl csE-<32 <s
k'gSA
33 O
d o o®
© ©id 32
P.W -fe 03
_ © P* -P>
a* 8 i
>->33 d>©
+3 § d ^
G -3 , d 2
§§:Sd •
S ao w
P i i i c§ 2 ^
Pg S Po
<!p ti ©+^
rj O r/) 03
,o>S5f
-s r<, n _0 t
OOOrQ^ld
» CO O
£gfi
° 43
© cn
33 2^
© d
-d d
c3 *-,
0. ©
1 © o
43 bo
° d-g
©•-•03
Q © b
S © a
© ’3 +J
© >>c3
33 d g
c3,S
©33
£> 03
Sdo
ai
o o
■§1
I s
O ©C^
Q> O)
^ « 2
bfl»®
d — d ft<!t m
© >■> g d ce
dp >>® . cs d
d ©_. d © © K
- 11 ||ll
©d3 © gfl ©s§
O -. <D <X> ^X
—< CO M > J-. °
^.2 So®So
03 4-i b£ £ o t>
£ © g_ °T3'43
^*33 d c 8 ^® 3
c3®dd®§
» dS 2.2A K
kH
S^©i g
08 ■S'd bf®
L J CO 05 (H
to 03 M
O © oo ©33 S3
£ 333333 . 52 ^
O >
„ ©33 o
,2 ^ o
o^f —4 3
^s® d g
.2 ©did
~©g^§
26 g£ 8
• &£-<-© <©
S ,S 8 'S
d-g p£
S3 03 cozj
w a
v, s.s's
2'233 03
£ ©-^ te
- 2 ^ 3 ®'
1 44
iiis^
i^ilS
8 Ml!
lisle
« 5 ||s
m 43
© -3. rj >h 33
O O-d o ©
ft
02
if
ts B
I'S .:
I *§
o © -U
^ o'®
73 ftd
O , 03
do 2
4-3 ^ *->
•miI HI
& d^
,-O-H
d © >.
g M
3 to d ©
32 H
alls
.lid’s
■g °'2'g
•oo-ga
c 3 < © ©
'3 tJ © t.
© <3 , ©
o g'l o
^ H rin ^
4 , 3 ®®
o M T3
a |pi
»flS®
©33 -m32
i*
id-d
d 3 q «2^3
d gfij |
.2 S d b g
-<-© fH CO ^
2
*c I- ^ 2 ©
2 ^ S'© <2
^^'33 32g
- © d
_ q dus 1- ^
^ 2 W I®
fetJ « s .S (
rj c 3
§ p4§^rt
bjo _ * *1—i
© © © (-,
o 3 &®^
^-2 ©^-2
B- 2 d
'm a-g^.©
aj 0 ft Pi 42
03
8 ©
CO
■H r—H O
3 |I
III
u S
O W)
d 2
© o
o ©
«
SW P.
>H
3 « SJbbASs
0 ©.©B g'o^s
s -g 2 § _ a
iggilgs
B
&
o
PI I
•d-d ©^j.2
q 2 2
o O O 2 ^
jS
33 to -pq
P-.2 « d
33 33 -91>
°. 2 2^
f> «3 © I
©d,
8 2 w
HS*
o o
p.d " •
cs ot: 00
W +J IO
id ■
2 d
c 3 -g
d ©
®3
d
■2
Q 3
&
•3
d
; s w
t>
pq
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
119
V. There is general agreement among the people of the District of Columbia
in favor of national representation and this opinion is fully represented by the
citizens joint committee.
The general support for the proposed amendment among the citizens of the
District of Columbia is indicated by the long list of important civic organiza¬
tions represented in the citizens joint committee.
These organizations have advocated the proposed amendment with great
earnestness. The citizens generally of the District of Columbia are not content
to remain deprived of their American birthright of representation in their
National Government. The organizations which are represented in the citi¬
zens’ effort to get national representation for the District of Columbia cover
all sections of the national capital and all sections of its population. Wash¬
ingtonians differ radically as to other questions involving the granting of the
franchise, including the form of the local government and the qualification of
voters, but the constitutional amendment commands the support of the people
generally and the controverted questions may well be postponed until after
the vital matter of the national representation of the people of the District has
been decided in their favor.
The organizations represented in the Citizens Joint Committee on National
Representation for the District of Columbia are as follows:
Board of Trade (2,100 members).
Chamber of Commerce (1,100 members).
Federation of Citizens’ Associations, representing 41 sectional citizens’ asso¬
ciations, as follows: Anacostia, Benning, Brightwood, Brookland, Cathedral
Heights, Central, Chevy Chase, Chillum Castle-Woodburn, Cleveland Park
School-Community, Columbia Heights, Conduit Road, Connecticut Avenue, Con¬
gress Heights, Georgetown, Kalorama, Kenilworth, Lincoln Park, Mid City,
Mount Pleasant, North Capitol and Eckington, North Washington, Northwest
Suburban, Park View, Petworth, Piney Branch, Rhode Island Avenue Suburban,
Randle Highlands, Sixteenth Street Highlands, Sixteenth Street Heights, South
Washington, Southeast, Stanton Park, Takoma Park, Trinidad, West End, Wash¬
ington Civic Association, Washington Society of Fine Arts, American Insti¬
tute of Fine Arts, Arts Club of Washington, District of Columbia Society of
Architects, Society of Nations. These associations cover nearly the entire Dis¬
trict, with an aggregate membership (estimated) of 20,000. Many 'of these
sectional associations have, in addition to participation through the federa¬
tion, separately indorsed District national representation through constitu¬
tional amendment and have appointed cooperating campaign committee.
Cetral Labor Union, representing 90 local unions and 7 local auxiliaries, with
aggregate membership (estimated) of 85,000.
Merchants and Manufacturers’ Association,
Monday Evening Club.
Bar Association.
The Suffrage Group of the City Club.
Association of Oldest Inhabitants.
District Delegate Association.
Citizens’ associations not represented in the federation, including East Wash¬
ington, Northeast Washington, and Southwest Citizens’ Associations.
^Washington Real Estate Board of the District of Columbia.
Advertising Club of Washington.
Woman’s Bar Association.
Manual Training Teachers’ Association.
Citizens’ Committee of Forty in Favor of Popular Government for the Dis¬
trict of Columbia.
Twentieth Century Club.
COOPERATING ASSOCIATIONS.
The local branch of the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association.
The American Federation of Labor.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
Officers citizens’ joint committee: Chairman, Theodore W. Noyes; first vice
chairman John Joy Edson; second vice chairman, A. Leftwich Sinclair; third
vice chairman, Charles S. Shreve; treasurer, Robert N. Harper; secretary, Louis.
Ottenberg; Ross P. Andrews, Joseph Berberich, George F. Bowerman, E. C.
120
SUFFRAGE IIST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Brandenburg, Chapin Brown, Walter A. Brown, William Clabaugh, Roy C.
Claflin, William McK. Clayton, E. E. Clement, E. F. Colladay, C. J. Columbus,
John F. Costello, C. F. Crane, Jesse P. Crawford, J. Harry Cunningham, Samuel
de Nedry, John B. Dickman, Hugh D. Digney, John Dolph, W. T. Galliher, H. H.
Glassie, C. J. Gockeler, Earl Godwin, William F. Gude, Harry A. Hollohan,
Joseph D. Kaufman, James Hugh Keeley, Phil King, Wilton J. Lambert, John
B. Larner, J. Wilmer Latimer, M. A. Leese, James T. Lloyd, A. T. Macdonald,
Henry B. F. Macfarland, Arthur Marks, P. T. Moran, Mrs. Ellen Spencer Mus-
sey, Roy L. Neuhauser, E. W. Oyster, James F. Oyster, Fred J. Rice, George H.
Russell, Albert Schulteis, George G. Seibold, Odell S. Smith, Jesse C. Suter,
Corcoran Thom, Washington Topham, William B. Westlake, and A. S. Worth¬
ington.
Honorary members: Ex-Senator Henry W. Blair and Justice Wendell Phil¬
lips Stafford.
This measure is presented as one of justice and equity which will make the
people of the District of Columbia American citizens in fact, as well as in name,
in rights as well as in duties.
Respectfully submitted.
Henry B. F. Macfarland,
A. S. Worthington,
Henry H. Glassie,
E. C. Brandenburg,
Chapin Brown,
Edward F. Colladay,
A. Leftwich Sinclair,
John B. Larner,
William McK. Clayton,
Theodore W. Noyes, ex officio,
Committee on Brief.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, with your permission and consent, I
would like to have Mr. Glassie heard at this time.
The Chairman. There are only eight minutes left. We all have appoint¬
ments at 4 o’clock. Do you desire to proceed for those eight minutes?
Mr. Glassie. It will not take me very long, but there are some suggestions
that have been made to which I should like to reply, and I should not feel
like galloping through in eight minutes. It would not be fair to the committee
or to myself.
The Chairman. I think it would be better for you to be the first speaker at
the next hearing on your side.
Mr. Glassie. Very good.
The Chairman. I think we will try to have a hearing on Monday at 2
o’clock. Those opposing suffrage will be heard at that time. I do not sup¬
pose you will need the full two hours.
Mr. Ayers. Not unless I have two other speakers here, but I think I will
have them here and probably will consume the entire time.
The Chairman. Those who are in favor of suffrage must divide the time
betwten yourselves. You are divided into two distinct classes. You must
divide this time to the satisfaction of both classes, because you all come
under the heading of those favoring suffrage. It is not up to the committee
to divide the time. It is up to you people to effect some sort of unanimous
agreement, as we try sometimes to do in the Senate.
Mr. Lloyd. There is a very important element of population in this city that
the committee has not heard from yet, which I think should be heard from.
Mr. Wallner is here to-day as the representative in part of that element, and
is one of the best representatives of the colored element. He wants to be
heard, and I am anxious that he shall have an opportunity to be heard at
some time during the hearings.
The Chairman. That is entirely up to the committee. I gave you 12 hours,
and I think I have been very liberal.
Mr. Lloyd. I do not think he will require a great deal of time, and I hope
the committee can give him an opportunity to be heard.
(Whereupon, at 4 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned, to meet again on
Monday, November 21, 1921, at 2 o’clock p. m.)
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF'COLUMBIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1921.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o’clock p. m., in the com¬
mittee room, Capitol, Senator L. Heisler Ball presiding.
Present: Senators Ball (chairman), Capper, Sheppard, and King.
Present also: Col. Winfield Jones, representing those favoring the bill pro¬
viding for a Delegate in the House of Representatives;
Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, representing those favoring the adoption of the Jones
resolution, providing for a Constitution amendment;
Mr. G. W. Ayers, representing those opposed to any form of suffrage in the
District.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Two hours to-day will be
given to those opposed to any representation in Congress or any suffrage for
the District.
I would like to submit a statement for the record, made by Chief Justice Taft.
Mr. Ayers. Is that the speech he made at the dedication of the City Hall?
The Chairman. In reply to Justice Stafford’s address on the same subject. It
reads as follows.
President Taft began by speaking of himself as a “ has-been ” taxpayer and
resident of Washington, had invested some money in land and had not seen a
dollar come out of it; he had sent his children to the public schools ; lie had hung
on the street car straps and he has bathed in the Potomac mud in his bathtub,
prior to the period that Congress had given us our great filtration plant; and he
claimed that he had been through the experiences that ought to give him some
of the local atmosphere and the local feeling; and yet, with all that, he pos¬
sesses the views I wish to present to you, after years of constant study on the
situation.
In reply to Justice Stafford he stated: ~"~J
“ It is a little difficult for me to realize that it was about Washington and the
citizens were the slaves that Mr. Justice Stafford spoke. This city is the
home of the Government of the Nation, and when men who are just as much
imbued with the principles of civil liberty as anyone who have come after,
Washington at the head, put into the Constitution the provisions with refer¬
ence to the government of the District of Columbia, they knew what they were
doing and spoke for a coming possible 80,000,000 of people, who should in¬
sist that the home of the government of those people should be governed by the —
representatives of that 80,000,000 people; and that if there were in that
80.000,000 people men who desire to come and share in the grandeur of that
capital and live in a city of magnificent beauty as this was, and enjoy all the
privileges, then they come with their eyes open as to the character of the
government that they were to have; and they must know that they must depend,
not upon the principles ordinarily governing in popular government, but that
they must trust in order to secure their liberty, to get their guaranties, they
must trust to the Representatives of 80,000,000 of people, selected under that
Constitution.
“ Now, I want to say, let the citizens act by right of petition, using the right
continually; and as they are not exercising that right all the time, is it not possi¬
ble to determine on the part of the committees of the House and the Senate what
the attitude of the Washington citizens is? Why, the government that we have
to-day in Washington everybody admits is a good government. Has it not been
121
122
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
brought about through the aid of those very committees in the House and Senate,,
who you say know nothing about Washington and who make their knowledge or
lack of knowledge ridiculous by showing it? We are all imperfect. We can not
expect perfect government; but what we ought to do is to pursue practical meth¬
ods and not, I submit, with deference to Justice Stafford, make it seem as if
the people of Washington were suffering from some great and tremendous load
and sorrow, when as a matter of fact they are the envy of the citizens of other
cities.
“ Washington intended this to be a Federal city, and it is a Federal city, and
it tingles down to the feet of every man, whether he comes from Washington
city or Los< Angeles or Texas, when he comes and walks these streets and starts
to feel that this ‘ is my city. I own a part of this Capital, and I envy for the
time being those who are able to spend their time here.’ I quite admit that
there are defects in the system of government by which Congress is bound to
look after the government of the District of Columbia. It could not be other¬
wise under such a system. But I submit to the judgment of history that the
results vindicate the foresight of the fathers.
“ Now, I am opposed to the franchise in the District. I am opposed, and
not because I yield to any one in my support and my belief on the principles
of self-government, but principles are applicable generally. And then, unless
you make exceptions to the applications of these principles, you will find that
they will carry you to very illogical and absurd results. This was taken out
of the application of the principle of self-government in the very Constitution,,
and was intended to put that in force in every other part of the country; and
it was done because it was intended to have the representatives of all the
people in the country control this one city and to prevent its being controlled
by the parochial spirit that would necessarily govern men who did not look be¬
yond the city to the grandeur of the Nation. And this is the representative
of that Nation.
“ I have got over being frightened by being told that I am forgetting the
principles of the fathers. The principles of the fathers are maintained by
those who maintain them with reason and according to the fitness of the thing,
and not by those who are constantly shaking them before the mass of the
voters for the purpose of misleading them. Now the question arises: What shall
we do with the government of Washington? I am strongly in fa\or of main¬
taining the municipal form, so that everything which shall affect the city of
Washington shall be done under the chief executive of that city and by that
chief executive. In other words, I would give an entity to the city of Wash¬
ington, or the District of Columbia, and take all of that entity out of the opera¬
tion of the bureaus of the General Government. That is what I understand
to be the government to-day; and the only question that has been mooted i&
really whether one man should be put at the head of that government as a
mayor, or whether you should have three. I agree that probably three men
are better where you have real legislative functions to perform. I am inclined
to think that where the legislative functions are reduced to a minimum and
consist in little more than mere executive regulation that possibly the one¬
headed form is the better for executive purposes and to fix the responsibility;
but I am only thinking out loud and only because we are here talking right
out in meeting. I am telling you the reasons as they have been brought to me.”
Right here President Taft referred to some things which have already de¬
veloped in the meantime under the supervision of these District committees,
with especial reference to the speedway, Potomac Park, Rock Creek Park, our
municipal golf links, polo grounds, etc.
“ Then, the opportunities for playgrounds that there are in Washington.
It just makes my mouth water for my poor city of Cincinnati when I look out
and can see clear down to the Potomac, see six or seven baseball matches going
on, with all the fervor of young America and nobody to say them ‘ nay ’; and
to think that we had a genius 100 years ago, almost in his way as match¬
less as-Washington, to make the plan for a great capital, like the Frenchman,
Pierre Charles E. de L’Enfant, and whose plans are hardly changed in the
new plans made by Burnham and his associates. There has been a feeling
that, perhaps, it was slipped on to us at one time and slipped in at another;
but we all know^even my dear friend, Uncle Joe* knows that we are going to
build up to that plan some day; and we ought to thank God that we have a
plan like that to build to, so that when we go on with the improvements every-
dollar that we put in goes to make Washington beautiful 100 years hence.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT O'F COLUMBIA.
123
“ It is very true that the early statutes said that no building should be put
on anything but the Maryland side of the river; and, perhaps, the people felt
that, as we were not going to use that side for building, they did not need
the Virginia side at all. I have never been able to satisfy myself that retro¬
cession was within the power of Congress to make. It was dodged by the
Supreme Court; and it might be possible by agitating the question to induce
another settlement by which we should get the only part of that that we
would really like to have, and we own now in fee the 1,100 acres of the
Arlington estate, and a great deal that is unoccupied, leaving Alexandria out
and Falls Church, and taking in only that that is inhabited, so that we may have
in the District, under our fostering control, where we can build roads and
make the District still more beautiful that bank of the Potomac on the other
side as you go up toward Cabin John Bridge. We will need it—the city will
continue to grow. It may be, as Justice Stafford said: ‘ That there will be
inaugurated a protest by the people living here that they have not political
power.’ But I think that the Justice will find, when he comes to look into the
hearts of the American people, that they will not be convinced when they
come to Washington that Washingtonians are suffering to that degree that
requires a reversement of the policy adopted with entire clearness of mind by
the framers of the Constitution. Washington, who doubtless inserted that par¬
ticular provision in the Constitution, through his influence, also had L’Enfant
draw the plans of Washington, and the plans of Washington were not adapted
to a village like Alexandria and the village that was in the District at
the time we came here; but was adapted to a city of magnificent distances and
to a city of millions of inhabitants ; and, therefore, the clause was adopted know¬
ing that just such a city we would have here and that just such a city would
have to get along relying upon the training in self-government of the Representa¬
tives of 80,000,000 people to do justice by it.
“ I am deeply interested in the welfare of the District; I am deeply inter¬
ested in securing a good government to every man, woman, and child in the
District, and to secure, so far as is possible with the original plans under the
Constitution, such voice as the people of the United States may require in their
local matters.
“ When it comes to defining how this is to be given I can not be any more
explicit than to say it must rest ultimately on the right of representation and
petition. I do not see how you can do anything else.”
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Glassie was the next speaker on our side. You re¬
member there was not quite time enough for him to address the committee
when I concluded my remarks at the last meeting. He is very anxious to be
heard this afternoon if possible.
The Chairman. How long will it take you, Mr. Glassie?
Mr. Glassie. It depends upon the number of questions that are asked me. I
should say it would take me about 20 minutes.
The Chairman. Are there any objections?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir. I gave them one hour. I would prefer to open this
myself, but if it is your judgment and desire to hear Mr. Glassie, of course
that will be satisfactory to me.
The Chairman. I will give you 20 minutes more after 4 o’clock if you will
let Mr. Glassie make his address. He is a busy man and has been here every
day.
Mr. Ayers. I will be glad to do that.
The Chairman. That will not come out of the time already granted.
STATEMENT OF HENRY H. GLASSIE, ESQ.
Mr. Glassie. Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose to make a set speech or to
consume any great length of time. If I had that desire, the patient courtesy
with which the chairman and members of the committee attending the hear¬
ings have shown toward the other speakers would restrain me, because it is
not my purpose to travel over the same ground. If I do appear to travel over
it at all I shall do it with the purpose of trying to emphasize certain points
from a different angle; also with the purpose of endeavoring, as far as I am
able, to reply to some of the important inquiries that have been raised by the
chairman and members of the committee.
The thirteenth clause of the eighth section of Article I of the Constitution
confers upon the Congress the power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all
124
SUFFRAGE I*N THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
cases whatsoever over the District, not exceeding 10 miles square, which shall
by the cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the
seat of government. Those for whom I speak do not desire or intend to im¬
pair, to alter, or to diminish that sovereign power over the District of Colum¬
bia in any particular whatsoever.
But it is not necessary, Mr. Chairman, to remind the members of a commit¬
tee composed of Senators sitting in the greatest deliberative body in the
world, that the power of legislation, the great extensive power and function of
legislation, falls into two well-known and fundamental classes:
First, is the power of legislation as applied in creating, determining, de¬
fining the laws which should govern as between man and man; the law of
property, the law of contracts, the law of master and servant, the law of land¬
lord and tenant, the law of employer and employee, the law of carriers and
persons who are being carried, and the thousand other ordinary rules that
govern the relations of men in society.
The second well-known class of legislation is that which has for its object
the enactment of law T s governing the organization and administration of the
powers of government themselves.
Now, those two classes are both found under the head of legislation, but they
are still naturally and essentially distinct, although sometimes overlapping.
The question I wish to put to the committee is this: How does the District of
Columbia stand with respect to those two great fields or spheres of legislative
activities ?
Mr. Chairman, in the District of Columbia, there is no relation of life so
small, so private, so personal, that your power as a legislator in this Congress
does not extend to it. You are called upon, your predecessors have been called
upon and your successors in all time will be called upon to mold, to frame, to
alter, to improve the laws that determine the lives, the property, the fortunes,
the domestic relations of every living soul within the District of Columbia.
You have no such function, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the States.
The Chairman. If there were no changes in the law that would be so.
Mr. Glassie. Ah, but the law grows. If it was made for our ancestors and
it did not grow, it would be a yoke upon us. If the law did not grow and de¬
velop and change in accordance with the economic necessities, then the do¬
mestic and social life of the people would not be what it is to-day.
I want to show you, if I may, from a slightly different point of view from
any I have heard here, how the object of this resolution bears upon this ques¬
tion. In your legislative capacity, sir. high, important as it is, in no other
part of the United States do you exercise this function, not even in the Terri¬
tories which have been classed with the other property of the United States,
because in those Territories it is the invariable custom, when there is any
population at all, to set up a local legislature which shall deal with the lives
and the fortunes and the customs of those people. Even in our foreign de¬
pendencies, such as Porto Rico and the Philippines, that same rule prevails.
The Chairman. The distinction is that this District was laid out for a specific
purpose.
Mr. Glassie. Yes; I am coming to that. I have paid great attention to that
specific purpose, not only for this discussion, but as counsel for the United
States in a number of cases involving the laying out of the city where I have
given some particular study to the purposes and objects, and what those objects
sought to accompish, and I shall not pass them over.
But what I am endeavoring to drive home, if I can, is this: That when you
are legislating for the District of Columbia you are legislating for a group
of human beings, bound up in a social bond, in a manner in which you do not
legislate for any other class of people.
Now, let us take the other division of your great legislative power. That is,
as I said, the power in relation to the making of laws for the organization and
administration of government itself. How does that stand with respect to
the District of Columbia? You are called upon to determine all of the
detailed life of a municipality; you are called upon to scrutinize appropria¬
tions; you are called upon to deal with new methods of taking and of using
property in respect of roads, in respect of streets, in respect of bridges; you
are called upon to deal with the charities; you are called upon to deal with
educational matters; you are called upon to deal with public utility functions,
and all of the other manifold functions of a great modern municipality.
And again I say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in performing that function
you perform a function that you do not otherwise perform in respect to any
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
125
other property or any other territory or any other part of the United States.
You are a board of directors for this municipal corporation. What other munici¬
pality do you control in this detailed and intimate relation of life? None.
So I say that in this second great division of legislative functions your legis¬
lative powers differ, not in degree only, but in kind from every other function
that you perform by virtue of your great legislative office.
Now, what is it that we ask? We ask simply that in performing this func¬
tion you shall perform it with the aid of duly accredited and legally constituted
representatives of the people affected.
Now, the question has been put to us, Mr. Chairman—and it is an important
and searching question—“Are you dissatisfied with your present local gov¬
ernment? Why do you want to vote? Are you dissatisfied with your present
local government?” I say, so far as the organization and general administra¬
tion of this local government is concerned, no. We accept the commission form
of government, and we accept for present purposes the appointment of those
commissioners in the present manner and the confirmation of the civilian
commissioners by the Senate of the United States.
But, Mr. Chairman, that does not solve the problem. While we are not
seeking to overthrow the form of our local government, we do say that in
the past, and we are therefore afraid In tbo future also, the spirit of that
local government, the mode in which it has functioned within that form, the
mode in which particularly it has failed to function, is such that we believe
that you will perform your function, your duties, far easier and far better if
you have this duly accredited voice.
The Chairman. I would like to ask a few questions as you go along to bring
out some matters suggesting the difference between your understanding and my
understanding of that government.
Mr. Glassie. Yes.
The Chairman. What was the object of laying out the District of Columbia
and making it what it is—the home of our Government and under the juris¬
diction of Congress?
Mr. Glassie. May I answer that now?
The Chairman. Yes; I shall be glad to have you do so.
Mr. Glassie. I think I have read everything that has been said on this sub¬
ject by the founders, and I have read all the cases that have dealt with it,
I think, and I answer your question this way: There was one supreme, con¬
trolling reason, and it was to have in the District of Columbia absolute legis
lative power vested in the United States, and not divided between two con¬
flicting jurisdictions—the Federal Government and a State.
The Chairman. We thoroughly agree on that.
Mr. Glassie. Yes; there was no other reason. And the idea, Mr. Chairman,
that because that was the purpose it was also the purpose to deprive the citizens
of that territory of all the ordinary status of citizens is a mere delusion, and it
is contradicted by the action of the very first Congress that ever dealt with
the question.
The Chairman. When this District was laid out as the site of our Govern¬
ment was it not intended that it should be a home for the Government and a
home for those people who were to participate in the affairs of Government and,
I might add, to take care of those who participated in the Government?
Mr. Glassie. May I answer that, now?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Glassie. I say I think I know perhaps as well as most people the history
of that in detail. The intention was to make this not only the seat of govern¬
ment, so far as legislative power and authority extend, but. in founding this
enormous Capital, this Capital of magnificent distances, with streets wider than
anybody had any use for, with miles and miles and miles of blocks—it. was the
intention of Washington in laying out the city, it was the intention of the com¬
missioners, it was the intention of everybody concerned, as I can prove by their
very words, to make a city here which should rival in wealth, in population, and
in commerce the city of London itself. Why did they select this place here?
Look at the records and maps and see what is written on the location maps of
this city.
As Ellicott said, this was the greatest harbor of that tune for sailing ships,
the greatest harbor on the Atlantic coast., and the natural exchange point, as
Washington demonstrated, between deep-sea commerce and the commerce of
the mountain region. There was no idea that this place should be a reservation
of Government officials and Government clerks when this very building that we
126
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
sit in here was built, sir, out of the money that was derived from advertising
this real estate scheme. They sent into Holland, into the Netherlands, into the
country which is now Begium—it was not Belgium then—the low countries, into
every commercial port in Europe, and advertised these lots and these squares
for the purpose of inviting merchants here, foreign merchants, to do business
and to build up a great commercial emporium. Washington used those specific
words, that it should be “ The greatest commercial emporium in the United
States.” He got on his horse and rode 600 miles through the country back of
here for the purpose of demonstrating that the Potomac with canal improve¬
ments would greatly enhance the value of all that land, and that it would be
the great avenue between the coast and what he called in his own words “ The
rising empire of the West,” the Ohio region; that the natural, proper, shortest,
best, most economical line of communication between those parts of the country
was through the Potomac River, and the Government was seated at this junc¬
tion here for that particular purpose.
The Chairman. Did those reasons finally determine that the Government
should be seated here?
Mr. Glassie. Yes, sir; they were the controlling reasons.
The Chairman. Or was it not a compromise between Hamilton and Jefferson?
Mr. Glassie. There has been talk about that, that it was the effect of the
compromise of the debt. It was not a big enough question for that.
The Chairman. It was a big question at that time.
Mr. Glassie. The location of the city was not a question comparable with the
question of a putjic debt, That was a practical political problem.
For 10 years after this city was founded there was a continuous lobby, con¬
tinuous propaganda, to prevent it being moved here at the time appointed, and
they hurried the construction of the buildings and the sale of lots for the pur¬
pose of forestalling the opposition that developed against locating it here.
The question of whether it should go north or south was the question that
affected the compromise of the debt, not the question of whether ti should be
placed at the junction of the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers. There were any
number of places offered for it, but that was the thing that determined its
location on this flat. The city of Washnigton, with the exception of Capitol
Hill, was located in an alluvial flat, because it was hoped it would be a com¬
mercial center, a great center of social and human life. It was never intended
to be a reservation inhabited by Government officials and persons deprived of
all semblance of ordinary citizenship.
The Chairman. Was not this land dedicated almost entirely to Washington?
Mr. Glassie. No ; it was not dedicated. That is another mistaken notion.
That land was “ donated ” for a price.
The Chairman. Donated for a particular purpose?
Mr. Glassie. Yes; the city, not the District. But how was it donated?
When they started out, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jefferson was Secretary of State.
His idea was to get enough land to build the public buildings, but that was not
all. They wanted more than that. Why? Because they wanted a city, not
merely a site for public buildings. They said, “ Here is a plan of a city ”—
not a public building site. It ’was to be a city bigger than any other existing
city in the country. Isn’t that a significant fact, that they planned a city
which was to be larger than any other city then in the United States?
They said, “ We want you to give us the land to build the city. You will
give all of the land. We will take half of that land and you take the other
half. We will both sell it.” No one, no people, would want to live in the coun¬
try. “ We will take the proceeds of our half and we put up the public build¬
ings ; you take the proceeds of your half and put it in your pocket.”
Why were they willing to do that? Because the location of the city, not of
a public building site, raised the price of farm lands, and they would make a
profit from their half of the unearned increment, and the United States
would make a profit from its half of the unearned increment, and out of that
this building was primarily built; not at first, because they couldn’t sell it
quite fast enough, but Maryland loaned them the money.
But that was the great cardinal fact. It was a donation for a common pur¬
pose. “ You give your land and we will put a city on it. Your land will go up.
We will get half the city and you will get the other half.” And they sold it.
As to the public buildings, the ground for the public buildings was not
donated. That is another delusion, due to the fact that many people w T ill talk
about things and not take the trouble to inquire into them. The land for this
building, the land for the public reservation, was paid for by the United
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
127
States out of the proceeds of the sale of its half of the lots at a fixed price.
Iliat is the way the city was founded. You can read the evidence found on page
after page, in letter after letter, memorandum after memorandum, of the com¬
missioners for the laying out of this city, and you can not escape the conviction
that the whole purpose was to make a great Capital; that the original idea
of simply putting up the buildings was abandoned; and that it was the inten¬
tion of everybody to make this Capital a place where people should live like
other human beings. Of course, at the outset there was only a handful here.
The Chairman. A\ hy was it necessary to have the home in the Capital?
You say it was intended to make it a big city, and not a home for the Govern¬
ment.
Mr. Glassie. Oh, no. It was intended to be a big city in which the home of
the Government should be located.
The Chairman. I want to ask you a few concrete questions.
Mr. Glassie. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Why was it necessary at all to locate the Capital in some city
over which Congress had control.
Mr. Glassie. Because they wanted control. They wanted Congress to have
control, and we want Congress to have control.
The Chairman. But were they not compelled to do it to preserve order? You
are familiar with the history of New York and the history of Philadelphia,
where there was a conflict at all times between different authorities?
Mr. Glassie. Quite true. It was because of that. Mr. Madison answered it.
The Chairman. They wanted a place where the Government would be
supreme.
Mr. Glassie. Exactly. They wanted it, Mr. Chairman, because then the
States were strong and old and the Federal Government was weak and new.
That is the point which must not be overlooked. It was the clear purpose of the
founders to have a territory in which there should not be any lawmaking power
except their own. Why? Because they did not want to have the two law¬
making powers; they did not want to be under the pressure of local legisla¬
tures, like the Pennsylvania Legislature, that was turned out by the soldiers;
they did not want a divided sovereignty; they did not want a divided legis¬
lative power. Why? Mr. Madison tells you why. He said in the Federalist,
No. 44, that the balance between the Federal and State governments “ was
much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy ” of the latter than of
the former.
Just think how that sounds to-day, gentlemen, with the power of the United
States, and what has happened in a hundred years. Yet Madison’s idea was
that the preponderancy of the States was more likely to prevail than the pre¬
ponderancy of Congress. Therefore, Congress wanted an asylum. It wanted a
place where it spoke, and nobody else spoke. That was the reason, and it was a
good reason. We still believe in it. AYe still believe it should be a place where
Congress alone speaks.
But that does not mean that a class of people shall be denied a voice in Con¬
gress and that another class shall be given a voice in Congress. The whole
thing boils right down to this point, and you are right, Mr. Chairman, in
emphasizing it, for this reason among others: This whole discussion turns back
inevitably in the minds of all here to the question of what the founders wished.
You are not naturally inclined to say to 500,000 people: “I do not think you
should have any voice in government.” That is not your natural inclination,
sir, if I may take the liberty of so expressing myself. You would say: “My
people at home, myself, we have a voice.” And so we want a voice. Every¬
body wants a voice.
The Chairman. You must remember that while the population of Washing¬
ton is about 450,000, perhaps half of that population are not bona fide residents
of Washington. It differs from any other city in the United States or in the
world.
Mr. Glassie. I am going to come to that. I think I can find something on
that point. I want to cover that point. I shall endeavor to answer that.
I trust you will believe me when I say I shall not attempt to evade anything.
If there is any reason that can be urged against me, I want to try to deal with
it. I don’t care how much it hurts. But I want to come now to the point where
I can clear the ground of this fundamental objection that everybody seems lo
have to giving these people the right to vote.
You say, “ The fathers did not give it to you, and did not intend to give it
to you. and therefore, though I believe human beings should be represented in
83480—22-0
128
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
a representative republican form of government, and you are human beings,
are intelligent, have property, lead decent lives, we feel we ought not to give
it to you for that particular reason.” That reason is the thing that is much
mentioned here. That idea that the exclusive power of legislation, which was
given to make the voice of Congress the only voice in the District, means that
the people of the District should have no part in that voice is the thing I want
to direct myself to. The fathers wanted to have one voice here, one .jurisdic¬
tion here, one everything here, and they got it; and we say they ought to have
it. But that does not imply that the people here should be a voteless people.
The Chairman. You will find in the original grant that this land was given
for a specific purpose. “ We, the subscribers, in consideration of the great
benefit we expect to derive from having the Federal city laid off upon our land,
do hereby give and bind ourselves, our executors, and administrators,” etc.
That land was given for the specific purpose of the location of the seat of our
Government.
Mr. Glassie. For the city. What kind of a city did that plan cover? A city
that was bigger than any existing city in the United States.
The Chairman. It was not for the foundation of a city, but for. the founda¬
tion of the seat of the Government of the United States.
Mr. Glassie. Exactly; but it was to be a city. The Government was not to
be in the wilderness.
The Chairman. What reason could be conceived for creating such a city in
the United States unless the specific purpose of that was for the seat of our
own Government?
Mr. Glassie. It was, of course.
The Chairman. That was the sole reason.
Mr. Glassie. It was for the seat of government, but that leaves the question
open of what kind of a seat you are going to have. When you say, “ Seat of
government,” you have not solved the problem. Of course, the whole thing was
for the seat of government, but what kind of a seat of government? Would the
seat of government be located in a village? Would the seat of government be
located in a set of public buildings in a forest? When they went to those
people to get the land, they got it on those terms. They laid down the map.
Mr. Chairman, just as I would come to you and say, “ I am going to take your
farm.” What did the map show? It showed that the purpose of the United
States was to have for its seat of government the biggest city then on the
continent. What did that mean? You can not separate the ideas, the city and
rhe seat of government. The city is the seat of government, was intended to be
the seat of government, but was intended to be a city. And you can not have a
city without people; you can not have a city with people in it unless those
people are like other American people. There was no reservation. There was
no backstairs business. It was to be a great city. That fact is too big for
anybody to get away from. When they presented their plan what was it for?
A city. What kind of a city? Why, a city bigger than New York, a city bigger
than Philadelphia, a city bigger than Charleston, a city bigger than Boston, a
city bigger than any other city in the United States. What did they mean
by that?
The Chairman. For what purpose was that city created? For what purpose
was that land laid off in the city?
Mr. Glassie. To be the Capital of this Nation.
The Chairman. To be the Capital of this Nation?
Mr. Glassie. Yes.
The Chairman. Exactly.
Mr. Glassie. That is what it ought to be.
The Chairman. To be the Capital. By whom should that Capital be con¬
trolled?
Mr. Glassie. By Congress.
The Chairman. By the people interested?
Mr. Glassie. No ; by Congress. The Constitution speaks with a voice that can
not be mistaken when it says “ Congress.” You are the government of the
District of Columbia, and you can not escape the responsibility.
The Chairman. There was no intention that it should be a home for those
who were employed by the Government in dealing with administrative duties?
Mr. Glassie. Yes; but not exclusively that. Other people had to be here to
feed and clothe them. The first thing they did was to sell out the water front
at a special price per front foot. To help the Government? No. To bring
Mr. Barry here; to bring all these other people here who were specially invited
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
129
to come and invest their fortunes, many of them soldiers of the revolution.
A\ ashington put it in these words: “ To become,” he said, “ the greatest com¬
mercial emporium of the country.” Washington was a man of sagacity, a far-
seeing man. Not only a commercial emporium, Mr. Chairman, but the greatest
commercial emporium. And when L’Enfant made his survey of this hill, and
Lllicott came here and took his observations, they studied the harbor and on
the map is written “ Here is the harbor; here is the place.”
I say we have an instinctive feeling that the fathers did not want this, but
we do not stop to consider what they said. That is the best evidence of what
they wanted, what they said, and what they did.
Now, in connection with that I want to emphasize this point: The idea of the
founders was that there should- not only be a total, complete, national sover¬
eignty here, which has always existed here, but that these people were not to
be a voteless people. What, in fact, did they do for the Virginia side of the
river and for Georgetown? They created municipal corporations, and they
elected their own officers. And they did something further than that. As soon
as the control of Maryland dropped out and Congress actually moved here the
lirst thing it did was to establish for the city of Washington a municipal cor¬
poration, governed by the people in the city.
We are not asking for a revival of that. Don’t misunderstand me. We are
not asking here for a municipal corporation, but I am putting that to you, sir, as
an evidence—in my humble opinion evidence which is as clear as day—that
they never contemplated these people here as being a voteless people; they
never contemplated them as being stripped of all political attributes and politi¬
cal powers. They didn’t take anything from the power of Congress.
What was the population of this place? It was a mere handful, Mr. Chair¬
man. As the population grew and grew we find the Presidents, one after an¬
other, saying that these people should have representation. Representation in
what? In the National Government. They already had representation in the
local government. And the Presidents, one after the other, said these people
now are numerous enough and important enough to have a voice in the National
Government.
The Chairman. There is no doubt that what the framers of the Government
had'll! mind was that the District of^ Columbia should have the best govern¬
ment that could be given it.
Mr. Glassie. Something more, sir. The best government, the best municipal
government, was the government of the German experts. Every writer on
municipal government that I have ever heard of, particularly that great and
good modern social Democrat, who was formerly commissioner of immigration
in New York, everybody who has ever written of municipal government, has
borne testimony to the fact that the best administered municipalities were the
German municipalities administered by a man appointed by the Kaiser who
knew the business of city government. We say that is not the only kind of gov¬
ernment. It may be good for sewers and streets, but it is very bad for human
beings.
The Chairman. I want to ask you whether, when you had your own municipal
officers and local government, that government was as satisfactory to the citi¬
zens as the government by Congress?
Mr. Glassie. I will answer that to the best of my ability. In comparing
things you must compare them with reference to time, place, and circumstance.
I might ask any man here, “Are you as good a man as your great-grandfather? ”
He would know a good many things his great-grandfather did not know, and
could do a good many things his great-grandfather could not do; and maybe
there were some things his great-grandfather could do that he could not do, or
that his great-grandfather knew that he does not know. The question is not
between the government by Congress to-day and the government of this little,
struggling, wretched municipality 80 years ago. But I could answer that in
more detail, Mr. Chairman.
One of the reasons why the local government was not a success when it was
a municipality-r •
The Chairman (interposing). I want to ask you a question right in that con¬
nection.
Mr. Glassie. Very well.
The Chairman. Who controlled the government of Washington from the be¬
ginning of the seat of Government up to 1870?
130
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Air. Glassie. It was to a large extent the people, the local municipal officers.
That subject is very full to anyone who has studied it. Allow me to answer it
in my own way.
The Chairman. The point is that it was not. until 1870 that you elected your
local officers.
Air. Glassie. I beg your pardon. We elected our common council 70 years
before.
The Chairman. You probably did in part, but you never had a mayor and
local officers of your government until that time.
Air. Glassie. Oh I beg your pardon, sir. We elected our mayor and common
council before then. It was a reguar municipality, established by the act of
1802, amended by the act of 1809. That was a regular municipality, established
under the law. Georgetown was a regular municipality, established under the
law, just as much a part of the District, but established under the Maryland
law like every other town in Alaryland. Alexandria was a full-fledged town
under the laws of Virginia.
The Chairman. In Washington the land was given for a specific purpose.
There was a different government for Georgetown, which had not been taken
in as a part.
Air. Glassie. Not essentially. They were essentially the same kind of gov¬
ernment. two towns in the same county.
The Chairman. Three towns.
Air. Glassie. No ; one in Virginia and two over here. There was no essential
difference between the government of the city of Washington as a local munici¬
pality and the government of Georgetown as a local municipality. Congress
and the President were over both.
You say, “Was it a good government?” I say yes, as far as the resources of
those people went. It had a wonderful set of mayors and a wonderful set of’
public-spirited officers in those years.
P>ut here was the trouble. Air. Chairman: The trouble was that, the United
States was a heavy property owner, a large property owner. It has no regular
basis for contributing to local expenses. It largely dumped onto the local mu¬
nicipality the maintenance of these magnificent broad streets, which were in¬
tended for a great city, and this little struggling municipality was swamped year
after year by a burden which it could not have maintained alone and did not
maintain alone. But it had an honest government. It had a government that
was satisfactory to its people.
And the government of Alexandria was satisfactory to its people, except in
this, that it only went to streets and sewers and sidewalks and poles and such
as that; but the great function of government, the great law-making function of
government, was still in Congress, and Congress slept on it.
We waited here, sir, for a century for a code of laws that would relieve us
from the common jest of the profession. We had a system of laws prevailing
here, coming down from the common law through Alaryland. with a few con¬
gressional statutes thrown in, and some local regulations, and the statutes of
Maryland passed from the time of its early history down to the time of
cession—a jumble of confufeion. If we had been in Delaware the Delaware
Legislature would have given us a modern system of laws. If we had been in
New York the New York Legislature would have given us a modern system of
laws. Every State in this Union had a modern code, had a modern procedure.
The older lawyers of this country pointed the finger of scorn at the District
of Columbia and said. “ If you want to find out the law of the seventeenth
century, go to the District of Columbia. If you want to know what the law is
there, you have to get the English statutes and find somebody who knows which
are in force and which are not in force; you have to look at the law of Alary¬
land. and look at the bill of rights in Alaryland, and look up the statutes be¬
tween revolution and cession, and look at every act of Congress or the index
of all its acts before you can say what is the law.”
Why did we suffer under that? Because Congress is the Congress of the
United States,•and its great legislative functions are so wide that it has no
time to deal with those things in the absence of advice and instructions from
our representative.
And that system which I have described is growing again, growing again.
Our system of laws governing man and man, our system of laws that deal
with employer and employee, that deal with landlord and tenant, that deal
with master and servant, that deal with husband and wife, and all those
thousand things needs recasting in modern terms and with modern ideas.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
131
Our landlord and tenant law, except for the changes made in the Ball Rent Act,
has many ancient threads clinging to it and coming down from the time of Lord
Coke. It has never been recast in the District of Columbia. You can’t do it if
there is nobody here to tell what we need and what we want. I mean to have
the kind of voice that you have, a voice accredited, that speaks of right, that
speaks by the mandate of the people behind it.
You ask me whether we are satisfied with our government. I say yes, we
are satisfied with the form of the local administration; we are satisfied with
the commission form of government. We are satisfied with all that, but
that is only scratching the surface of the problem. We have a very good
civil administration here. It is honest, and I think very efficient. It is
probably not as good as the administration by the German burgomasters
under the direction of the Royal Prussian Government, because it is not as
expert as that.
But there are times, Mr. Chairman, when the people of this District are
threatened with this present government, not because of the form of it, but
threatened by virtue of the fact that they are without representation here,
threatened with great injury. You may remember the great controversy that
occurred some years ago about the schools, the question of the transfer of- the
schools from the normal and American method of a board of education to a
mere department of the city government. It took the whole town to rise in
unison and in desperation to come here to the Halls of Congress and have
hearing after hearing before you and your colleagues to save the situation.
It took almost an insurrection in public opinion to save what the people be¬
lieved, and time has shown to be, the best organization, the best form of
organization.
All that would have been unnecessary if you, sir, had been elected by us, or
any other member of this committee had come from this town with the man¬
date of the people here, with the power of personal knowledge of that problem.
So I repeat that while we do not object to the form of our local government, we
are not asking any change in it, we are satisfied with the scheme of the organi¬
zation, we say that government would function better, that Congress as the
board of directors of this government would be able to function better, that
Congress, having the power that it lias over the lives and fortunes and habits
and customs of these people, would function better, if you had somebody on
your floor, sir, who had come from these people, who knew these people, was
bred among these people, and was able to say to you what these people need
authoritatively, in a legal way, through a legal channel, and not by mere
vociferation, not by lobbying, not by the thousand other agencies to which
they are necessarily driven to accomplish those purposes.
Now, it was said, and very pertinently said. “ You have a population here of
437,000 people, and you have an area of 80 square miles.” And it was asked,
and very pertinently asked, “ What is the ratio of population to the square
mile? ” Then it was argued or suggested that no other State which had been
admitted had a population so dense. Then a suggestion came, and, if I am not
mistaken, it came from the chairman, “ Would you be in favor of separating
ilie city of New York from the State of New York and creating that munici¬
pality into a State? ”
Now, Mr. Chairman, the question is a little different from that, I submit.
The city of New York is already represented in both Houses of Congress and
in the electoral college, along with the rural part of the State, and the ques¬
tion of separating the city from the rest of the State is a question of creating
two States. It is a question of giving representation to people already repre¬
sented. Allow me to put the question this way:
If by some accident the five or six million people constituting the population
of the city of New York, in an area no greater than ours, had no representation
in Congress, no representation in the House or Senate, no representation in the
electoral college, would anybody say that those five million people should not
be represented because, forsooth, there is a density of 6,000 to the mile or
10,000 to the mile?
The Chairman. I do not think anybody claimed that you should not have
representation on account of the density of population of the city, but it was
claimed that Washington is not in the same category as any other city in the
United States. You have stated in your remarks that Washington was not
created solely for the seat of the Government. It was the expression of, I
think, a member of the committee that it was created for that purpose. You
claim it was created to be a great city and incidentally the seat of government.
132
SUFFRAGE IX THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Glassie. No; not incidentally. It was created to be the seat of govern¬
ment, but what kind of a seat of government? A city seat. A s‘eat of govern¬
ment located in a city, and a great city. That is the point, and I can prove
that statement by the words of Washington, that it was intended it should be a
rival city of London, the seat of government of the Kingdom of England or
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The Chairman. It was created for that purpose.
Mr. Glassie. Paris is a seat of government. Does the fact that Faris has
5,000,000 people make it any less the sent of government? Is not the power of
the United States in the District of Columbia,- being exclusive in matters of
legislation, as great, as supreme, as paramount, as exclusive as the French
power over Paris? It is a question of exclusive legislative power that the
Constitution founders had in their minds, and no other question except that.
They had a Federal Government for the first time, Mr. Chairman, in the
history of the world whose laws operated directly upon the citizens of the
State. Every other federal government tried before from the time of the Greek
federation down were federal governments operated by the states and not
operated by the citizens. Now, we have a system of government set up for the
first time in the history of the world, Mr. Chairman; for the first time we
have a Government set up here which will operate on me as a citizen of
Maryland and a citizen of the United States, upon you as a citizen of Delaware
and a citizen of the United States. You have had a dual responsibility in
view of that fact that these people in this District owe one allegiance, are
bound by one law, which is our law. I say that is right, and that is what you
have had and that is what you will always have.
But what has that to do with the question of whether it is a big city or a
little city, or whether the people in it shall be a voteless people or a people with
votes? That is my point, sir.
The question was asked here by the Senator, “ Do you want to have an
imperium in imperio in the District of Columbia”? I say of course not. But
what would give you an imperium in imperio, an imperium of government
within an imperio of government? It would be another government. And
what the founders did, Mr. Chairman, came near to creating another govern¬
ment than what we propose, because, they kept alive that local government
which had powers and officers of its own, executives of its own, a legislature
of its own. But how could the effect of that be an imperium in imperio, how
can anybody say we are asking for an imperium in imperio, when what we
ask is not that there shall be a new government, a different government, but
only that these people, like the rest of God’s creatures in this country, shall
be represented in that same Government?
Now, I started to take up this question of population. I quite agree with
you that it is not a question of the density, of population. People form gov¬
ernments, and people are no less entitled to representation in their governments
because they live in cities than because they live in the country. The argu¬
ment that because our density of population is high compared with our area,
and that we should go forever unrepresented, is nothing but an argument
that city people are not entitled to share in government when the same people
scattered over a larger area would be entitled to share in government. We
are not asking to be a State. A State means' you have a self-government.
Every State in this Union has self-government. There are two governments
there. When a man goes to the post office to mail a letter he knows every
moment of the time he is subject to two powers—the Federal power and the
State power. We are not asking any such thing here. Therefore the question
of whether or not the States which have been admitted had more or less area
is, I think, beside the mark.
But if it was the idea of Congress that nothing should be admitted as a
State, with permission to share in the duties and responsibilities of the Senate
and House, but those bodies of organized human beings resident in territory
which would be large enough ultimately to rival the original States in popu¬
lation, Congress, I am sorry to say, has been grossly deceived by that which is
stronger then everything else, namely, time. If they thought that about
Wyoming they were deceived, sir, for under the census of 1920 Wyoming now
has a population of 194,402. If that was their idea with respect to Nevada
they were again deceived, sir, for Nevada now, after all these years of state¬
hood, by the census of 1920 has a population of 77,407. Not only that, sir,
but a great State like Vermont, for economic reasons, instead of going on has
gone down in its population until we have outstripped her, and if you look to
SUFFRAGE I FT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
133
the future and what is likely to develop we will continue to outstrip her, and
to one addition to the population of Vermont we will have two.
Now then, if the argument is that our density of population is so high that
we are not entitled to representation, then this extraordinary consequence
ensues—that the richer, the more populous we become, the less we are entitled
to have the right of human beings, because if our density of population is now
so large, what will it be when we have a million, and you have a real human
beehive of a million people, still unrepresented? The question of population in
that connection, I submit, has nothing to do with it. Cities are entitled to
representation just as the country is. Paris is entitled to representation just
like the Provinces and Departments of France are. London is entitled to rep¬
resentation, just as the people in the rural districts are entitled to representa¬
tion. I say “ London ”—I mean the human beings in London are entitled to
representation just as the people of Northumberland; but nobody would dream
of denying to those people participation in their government.
How can anybody sit down and dream about the ill effects and the terrible
consequences of it? What would they be? Here is a little handful of people
as against the United States. Instead of the States having the preponderancy,
as our great-grandfathers thought, the United States has the absolute prepon¬
derancy. Why, the thing is a dream. It is almost a joke now. Here is this
great United States of 105,000,000 or 110,000,000 people confronted with this
group of 400,000 people and saying to them: “ If we give you a voice in our
Government the Lord only knows what will happen.”
The Chairman. Mr. Glassie, you may answer this question or not, as you
choose.
Mr. Glassie. I will try to do so to the best of my humble ability.
The Chairman. The committee has not taken any position or expressed any
opinion in regard to the question of density. I do not think that has anything
to do with the question. But there is one thing that might have something to
do with the question, in reference to the population of Washington, is to
whether there are real Washingtonians, as to how many of this 450,000 are
citizens of other States. A large part of them are. Can you give me any idea
in regard to the number?
Mr. Glassie. I have lived here all my life, sir. I will give you the best in¬
formation I have on the subject and what I believe to be the absolute truth
about it.
The District of Columbia being made up, so far as its clerk population is
concerned, largely by people coming in through the civil service, and prior to
that time by appointment, drawn from the population of the entire United
States.
The Chairman. That is about 100,000.
Mr. Glassie. Not at present. The normal population in that class was 35,000
before the war. And they are not all strangers. The situation is this, Mr.
Chairman: Young people come here. Formerly old people came, but now it
is generally young people. They come here from the States, and they keep a
nominal State representation for political protection.
It reminds me of a story about Admiral Dewey, when he was in command of
the Navy, in regard to a man assigned to certain duties in the Navy who claimed
to have been appointed from Wyoming. The people in Wyoming went up to
the admiral and said. “This man never saw Wyoming. He is not a citizen of
Wyoming.” Dewey sent for him and asked him about it. He told him he was
and had lived in his early youth. Dewey said, “ How long since you have been
there? ” He said, “ I have not been there for 10 years.” Dewey said, “ I think
you had better go back now and then and take a look at the old homestead.”
That is the attitude of mind of many of these people who come here. They
feel they are bound to keep, and that it is right for them to keep, a political
foot in the State from which they come. But, Mr. Chairman, that is a very
small part of the population of the District. And as those people stay in the
Government service, and marry and have Children and send them to school,
that supposed relation to the outside State becomes thinner and thinner and
thinner. And if these people had representation, if they had a voice in the
affairs of their Government, they would give it all up. They keep that relation
to the States* because that is largely one way in which they feel they are still
American.
I will illustrate that situation by myself. I was not born here; I came here
as a child : I have lived here all my life. This was the center of my life; and
134
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I have deliberately moved my home over the State line. I never would have
done it had I had the right of a human being within the limits of the District
of Columbia. Thousands of people are in the same condition. If they had a
real right of an American citizen, they would be joined and mixed and mingled
with the great mass of the population.
This idea that the great mass of the city of Washington is made up of people
who vote elsewhere is a delusion. When an election occurs in the former
State of any of those people, and they are asked to vote, many of them will
vote, but that number is growing less all the time. It is a situation that can
not survive against the man with a home, who marries and brings up his chil¬
dren, and whose children are born here. It is all very well to talk about people
who came here, but lots of them came here when merely children. Thousands
of people were born here, have not known any other life except Washington.
This is their home. As Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said 80 years ago: “This
is a social political community just like any other.” Mr. Brandenburg calls
my attention to the fact that three or four thousand was the maximum number
of people who went back to vote in the presidential election out of a population
of 400,000.
The Chairman. I think lie must be in error in regard to that.
Mr. Glassie. I do not vouch for that, but I know from personal observation
there were very few.
The Chairman. In Iowa and New York, where they are allowed to vote
without going home, I know there were a great many. I think there Were
several thousand in Iowa.
Mr. Brandenburg. The figures we give are those who actually went back home.
The Chairman. The reason I made that statement is that I have a neighbor
who was formerly a citizen of Iowa, and he voted in that way. I asked him
how many Washingtonians voted in Iowa, and it was a surprisingly large num¬
ber to me. I should think, if the number of people here from other States reach
anything like the number from Iowa, that it would be twenty-five or thirty
thousand.
Mr. Glassie. Let us grant that. The present population is less stable in that
regard than the population has been since the Civil War. Every great war
makes a difference in the life of Washington. Men came to Washington after
the Civil War. They kept their political connections with the States when they
found they could not vote, but when they married and their children were
born and they went into their professions or businesses that all evaporated, and
it is bound to evaporate. It would evaporate more if you did not force it,
because of the very fact that you say to these people, “ You shall not be per¬
mitted to vote here.” And especially when the States will say, “ We will not
only permit you to come home and vote, but we will let you write home and
vote,” they will take that opportunity. It is no argument against the per¬
manency of the population. People who own their homes in Washington, the
people you trade with, the people you meet at church, the people you meet at
the clubs or in society, the people you meet in business—the great mass of those
people are rooted here just as you gentlemen are rooted in your homes and your
own States. Some of us are tempted to flee for the very reason that we do not
have what we can easily have by moving away.
The Chairman. If the right to vote should be granted to the people of the
District of Columbia, what provision would you make for those people who are
officers in the Army and Navy ? There are a great many officers who are here
probably six months or a year or so and are transferred from place to place.
They are disfranchised, or the majority of them are, from the fact that they
have no home. Would you make this a home at which they could vote, if they
so desired?
Mr. Glassie. I will answer that in this way, if I may: This resolution pro¬
vides that Congress shall establish the qualifications of voters. That is a ques¬
tion, when the power is granted Congress by this amendment, for the exercise
of the legislative discretion of you gentlemen of Congress, and Congress will
then have a discussion and debate and consideration of that question.
The Chairman. It is one of the contingencies that will arise.
Mr. Glassie. I should hope that Congress, in determining the qualifications of
electors, would do very much as the States did and establish tests of residence,
and also tests of intelligence and education.
The Chairman. Very few States have that now.
Mr. Glassie. No ; but let us hope something of that kind may be done. That
is a distinct legislative question. Once you have the power, of course, you will
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
135
establish such sane and safe tests of qualifications as your legislative judgment
dictates, and, of course, residence will be one of them. This floating population
you describe will be driven either to accept residence here or to retain their
allegiance to their former home, just as we treat a citizen of any foreign
country. We say, “ You may return to your own home if you so desire.” France
said after the war, “ You may continue to live in Alsace.' If the Germans want
to go back to Germany, let them go. Those who want to remain in France may
do so.” Those who want to vote in Delaware or Wyoming or Iowa will have
that privilege and m^y retain their citizenship in those States under the local
law. But you will set a standard. You will prescribe residence for a certain
period, a certain age for the voter, educational qualifications, or whatever
tests you think should be proper, and it will be automatic. It will solve the
question automatically. Army officers should have the privilege of retaining
their home residence somewhere. They can do it more easily in some States
Ilian in others. That is a question to be settled by Congress—one of the details
Congress will have to deal with once the power is granted.
I was speaking for a moment of the question regarding that portion of the
population composed of clerks and Government employees. I feel that while
that is a problem that ought to have attention, the idea of the floating character
of that population is greatly exaggerated. Of the 35,000 people who constituted
the normal civil service just before the outbreak of the war, the great mass of
those people had been taken in gradually by individual appointments and had
been merged into the great mass of population, particularly the older ones.
Now, this sudden increase which took it from 35,000 up to 100,000—it went up,
as I remember, to 105,000 or 106,000 or 107,000.
The Chairman. One hundred and forty thousand.
Mr. Glassie. At the very peak the best figures I have seen was an increase
of between 60,000 and 70,000.
The Chairman. At the peak there were 142,000 employed in the District.
Mr.- Glassie. It made an increase of approximately 100,000 people. That
increase was largely temporary. It was largely made up of young people—
young girls. That has been eliminated to a large extent. Those people who have
been appointed and have lost their places have either gone away, gone back
to their homes, or they have sought employment in civil occupations, in business
life, and have been merged into the population.
Now, of the 77,000 remaining, by far the largest bloc is composed of the
employees who were here before and are essentially a part of the ordinary
life of the city. It is a mistake, Mr. Chairman, I submit, to consider those 77,000
people as outsiders. They are largely our own boys and girls, graduated in our
own high schools, many of whom have been employed temporarily by the Gov¬
ernment. There is no man around this table who does not know that. They
come from Georgetown, from the Conduit Road, Wisconsin Avenue. I know
those people. We have people like that employed in our own offices who have
gone out of the Government service and come back into ordinary business.
Thousands and thousands of those people are Washington people.
So out of the 77,000 by far the greater majority are just as much citizens of
the city, living and dying in the city, as any other class of people. Out of the
remainder, those who keep up a political connection with the States from which
they came will keep it more under the present condition than they will under the
other condition. So you can not take the absence of voting as a test of what
would happen if we had a vote. That would not be right. You could not tell
what this room would be like if you reduced its temperature to zero when its
temperature is not zero. If you give these people a vote, of course, it is going
to be much more attractive for them to vote at home, where they can take part
in the discussion and hear the speeches in the presidential election, than it would
be to go and vote by mail a thousand miles away.
So you will have a power, you will require an election of residence, and you
will provide for that in your law. It will not be a difficult thing to do. You will
provide just as our forefathers did when they said, “ You shall have an op¬
portunity to retain your British citizenship or rather your status as a British
subject.” So you will say to these people, “ If you want to vote in Iowa you
can continue to do so, but if you want to vote here you must do what we say, you
must obey our regulations, you must surrender your vote elsewhere, you must
pay a poll tax, or whatever test we choose to give you.” And that will put an
end to that problem.
While I am on this, let me touch upon another question that is always diffi¬
cult, and that is the race question. I don’t want to blink anything. If I didn’t
136
SUFFRAGE IN THE. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
believe what I was saying I would not take the time to come here and trouble
you with it. That is a difficult question. I am a Democrat, Mr. Chairman,
and I was born in Tennessee. That has nothing to do with the discussion, of
course, except to show that I want to be frank about it.
If the question here were the question of setting up an independent govern¬
ment, if it were a question of a Territorial legislature with power to vote on
men’s affairs, or a municipality with self-governing powers, there might be some
question as to whether it would be wise in any community with a large popula¬
tion of a distinct class—and I am not casting any aspersions on that class—of a
distinct race, where it may give rise to race problems or control or balance of
power. It might be a question whether it is wise to restore a State legislature
or a Territorial legislature or a municipality under a popular vote. But that is
not the question. There is no balance of power here to be used to control prop¬
erty, to tax property out of existence either directly or by the pretense of local
improvements. All it means is that you would have a general mass of voters
entitled to cast a vote for a representative in this august body.
Now, whether it went to one party or the other is a thing that people inter¬
ested in partisan politics must look out for. Whether it means that any par¬
ticular party or some other party will, or will not have a majority is a part
of the vicissitudes of political life in America. But a question of race control,
of race domination, could not conceivably arise under a vote which is given
for Federal purposes alone. And it does not make any difference whether you
agree with Mr. Lesh as to the character of the Negro population or whether
you take the opposite view of it. Much is to be said on both sides. We have
extraordinarily fine Negro citizens here, judges and officials to some slight
extent and doctors and people of that kind who practice among their race,
people of land and property. We have another kind of population that is
worthless, but you have them everywhere. It is not here a question of a single
racial unit dominating a local situation which is a question that men fight
about in the part of the world where I was born. It might be well to take a
position against the possibility of the social and domestic life of the commu¬
nity being controlled by a racial element holding the balance of power, but
that has no more to do with this question than the question of whether Lithu¬
anians are Poles. It is a question entirely removed from this subject we are
now dealing with. Who would have the hardihood to say that the great mass
of people in this city are going to follow control by the Negro race? It has
nothing to do with local government or voting for local officers. Not even a
dogcatcher’s election would come under the control of these people. It would
not make any difference if the Negro voted along with the white man, with
the same qualifications. That is the question which you will deal with in
your wisdom at the proper time.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that I am trespassing unduly upon your limited
time and indulgence.
The Chairman. It is a very interesting discussion.
Mr. GLassie. I feel that I have talked longer than I ought to talk, but I am
talking straight from the heart and mind and mean every word I say.
The question is raised as to the past experience in the Territorial legislature.
They say, “Do you want to come back to the feather-duster legislature?” and
all that. Why, no, no, a thousand times no! The feather-duster legislature
was the result of an effort made after the Civil War, during the period of
reconstruction in the Southern States, contemporaneous with reconstruction in
South Carolina and reconstruction in Mississippi, to attempt to give a local
self-government vote to these people and to allow the newly enfranchised Negro
to participate in that vote. Washington was filled with them, who had flocked
here as refugees from the South, from Maryland and Virginia. Many of them
I have known personally, and know how they came and when they came and
why they came. Worthy Negroes, many of them, of course, but a new class
of people, never before exercising the right of suffrage, never before given
any share in the government. We came along and dumped those people in,
and Congress gave us control of local operations, or a local government.
What has that to do with our being now, even if conditions were the same,
given a vote with respect to Federal and National Government? If we had a
local government, and the balance of power was controlled by a worthless
minority, or a racial bloc, or any other kind or set of people, we would have
that problem to deal with as men and citizens. We would have to unite to
defeat it, if we could, and I am free to say the passions of the Civil War have
all evaporated, and the Negro has been put on a good deal better status, a
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
137
better plane, and men no longer are divided by the shout and sound of partisan
politics. The people of the District of Columbia would come pretty near to
handling that question if they were confronted with it, but they are not con¬
fronted with it. They do not ask to be confronted with it. And, therefore, I
say, with great respect to those who have indulged in it, that all the discussion
in regard to that is based upon a false premise. It is based upon the premise
that you are setting up a territorial, local, autonomous, self-government. You
are not doing anything of the kind, and you are not asked to do anything of
the kind.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think there are one or two points I should like to
cover, and I shall be happy to conclude and give an opportunity to somebody
else.
One point comes from a qhestion that was propounded—I don’t know that I
grasped it fully—by one of the members of the committee, perhaps the chair¬
man himself, at the last meeting. It ran this way, and I say it has to be con¬
sidered. All these questions are searching questions. They ought to be con¬
sidered and ought to be answered. But if we do answer them the answer ought
to be taken along with the question.
It was suggested that we would be in a peculiar situation here; in other
words, that we would be only “ State,” if the District is represented in Congress,
which would be directly governed by Congress. It is a very searching question.
I think it is not so much a question as it is a suggestion. It was an expression
of opinion.
It is true. There is no escaping that. It is perfectly true. There is that dis¬
tinction. But let us examine it, if I may, a little more in detail. We would be
the only State represented in Congress which is directly controlled by Congress.
There is a good deal in that word “ State.” We would not have any of the char¬
acteristics of a State, except representation in Congress. Now, that representa¬
tion. under the modern election of Senators by popular vote, comes down to say¬
ing that we would be a body of people represented in Congress, the only body of
people represented in Congress, directly controlled by Congress. Then I say, if
you state it that way, what difference does it make whether we are or not? The
more intensive the control of Congress, the more duty Congress has in a legisla¬
tive capacity with respect to that group of people, the more reason that group of
people should have a representative to leaven the mass. It is still a question of
control. Why put ourselves back in our ancestors’ position and begin to think
about something preponderating over the United States? Think of a State
preponderating over the United States. Not all the States, mind you, Mr.
Chairman, but any State. There was a time when Mr. Jay resigned the posi¬
tion of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to become
governor of the State of New York.
Men are honored now to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States after they have been President of the United States. It is not a question
of “ preponderancy,” to use Mr. Madison’s phrase. If that had anything
to do with it we might pause; but all there is to it is that there would be a
body of people casting individual votes for a Representative, or, if the popula¬
tion was sufficient, for two Representatives, and casting a vote for a Senator.
And your reasons for not granting that arise from the fact that the body—
not the Senator, not the Representatives themselves—but the great, august
body in which those people want a representative, controls those people.
So I say the fact is incontrovertible. The point is a searching point, but
when you look at it closely there is no danger, no evil consequences. And so
it is nothing except an accentuation of the dire necessities of these people
and their desire to have some little voice, a one-four hundredth in the House
or one ninety-ninth part in this great body which is compelled to directly
govern those people whereas you do not directly govern even the Territories,
because you set up other agencies, and do not directly govern the dependencies,
because you set up legislative tribunals to deal with the problems which affect
those people.
Mr. Chairman, I remember not so long ago walking down the street and meet¬
ing a noted builder in Washington and discussing the rental situation and
housing situation with him. I will not mention his name, but I will vouch for
the truth as to this little incident. He said to me, “ The great trouble in the
city of Washington is the difficulty and expense of getting the capital now to
build. It is the price of money, as much as the price of building materials.”
He turned to me a little more as we were walking along and said, “ Who raised
the legal rate of interest in the District of Columbia to 8 per cent?” I said,
138
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
“Congress.” He said, “ I don’t mean that.” He said, “Who was behind it?
I do not take a position for or against it being raised. I am' only illustrating*
it. He said, “ Did you ever hear of it before? ” I said, “ No. I will admit
that there were amendments to the code which, so far as I had seen, related
to some matters of procedure, certain more or less detailed amendments to the
code, and I never saw it myself.” He said, “ I didn’t either, and I have
never found a man in Washington who could tell me where the original
notion came from of changing the legal rate of interest from 6 to 8 per cent.”
What does that prove? I don’t say it was right or wrong; but consider the
deep consequence to this city of not knowing that it was contemplated to
make a great economic and legal alteration like that.
If we came to you now, sir, with a new code, a modern code of procedure,
and came, here with modern laws dealing with all these great relations of life,
what time would you have to deal with it, especially when you are unin¬
structed by any authorized Representative? Why should you listen to me
or these gentlemen or anybody else? We are but volunteers, after all, even
if we represent, as many of us do, large organizations. That is not the way
to create a government. That is a kind of sovietism, if you look at it from
the standpoint of political philosophy. It is an attempt to govern by groups—
so-called plural sovereignty. Every interested group comes in and says,
give us this or that or the other. American, republican, constitutional gov¬
ernment emphasizes the fact that the citizen of such a Government, irre¬
spective of what group he belongs to, what societies he belongs to, should
have a voice through a direct political channel, speaking constitutionally and
legally in the representative body.
And you want us to come here and hang on your lapels and your coat tails
and say, “ Do this and do that.” And you may be confident that I am telling
you the truth, but you do not know how far, honest as I may be, that I or
any of these gentlemen in advocating a particular thing may not have in our
minds an unconscious mental bias, deep-seated, economic, complex, which
affects our judgment. In representing and speaking for this mass of human
beings, as I said before, if there was that direct authority, that duly elected
constitutional representative to speak for these people, you would not hesitate
to say, “ Of course, I do not believe any such group of people should be in
political slavery in the twentieth century.” Go back and examine our laws
and history and tell me where there is any legal historical basis for treating
these people as a voteless people?
Now. Mr. Chairman, not only do we think it is a question primarily of
political rights, but 1 am trying to deal with it from the standpoint of govern¬
ment rather than the standpoint of the individual. All the people here—either
those for a Delegate or those for representation in the real sense of the word—
travel the same road together a little way. Then, of course, they separate into
bypaths; but they are actuated fundamentally by the same desire, the same
belief that the existing condition is not the best condition. When we come to
that point, we find those who believe that nothing will serve the purpose but
a real Representative. If you will allow me to ask you. what would it signify
to you if you were given the same power to debate, the same power to confer
that you now have, but were stripped of your vote as a Representative of the
great historical State of Delaware?
We can not help thinking, sir, that a government is something besides those
with a voice in this Senate, and that what is necessary is a man who stands on
an equality in the council chamber with everybody else; and it is only the power
to vote that makes the Senators equal, gives the Senators equal suffrage to carry
out that constitutional requirement that the States shall be entitled to equal
suffrage in the Senate. That makes a Senator. That power is essential, and
can not be exercised by the mere voice. What we mean here is to have a man
who can deal with you on terms of equality; who can, if necessary, vote against
you, sir, just as you would feel it your right and privilege to vote against
him. That great master in government, Burke, said, “All government is the
result of compromise.” He said, in effect, “ In all my political experience I do
not recall a single measure in Parliament that was not better after debate
and mutual concession and compromise than it would have been if any single
element engaged in its composition had controlled it alone.” That is recog¬
nized as a great truth, and everybody who has had any experience in politics
and business knows it.
What we want is a man who can talk to you face to face on your own footing,
whom you will know is delegated by some constitutional, legal means to speak
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
139
to you in that way and to deal with you and vote with you or against you, if it
is necessary, in that capacity. And so we all stand here for real representa¬
tion, and not the shadow of representation by a Territorial Delegate.
And a Territorial Delegate is merely a device. He has no relation to this
Government of ours here. The Territorial Delegate is an American device to
represent a people not in a permanent status. We are in a permanent status.
If it is changed, we will he in another permanent status. AVe are not in the
process of development from a Territory into a future State. The Delegate is
an invention devised to give the people in their infancy, their political incipiency,
so to speak, a chance to have some kind of voice, because it was deemed
monstrous that even people like those should he deprived of every voice in the
control of the Nation. Those people went along with a Territorial legislature,
and they took care of their temporary legal problems and social problems under,
of course, the general control of Congress. The Delegate is a part of a scheme
of government which contemplated local self-government, and, for the tenth
time, I say we are not contemplating local self-government. The Delegate is
not a part or parcel of the system of government that we are asking for. You
are now and forever the law-creating body for this mass of human beings.
You are now and forever the organic ordinance-making, government-making
power for these same people, and you can not escape that. What we want is a
voice in it—not against it, not outside of it—a voice in it. A Delegate does not
give us anything but an echo. He gives us no voice, because he gives us no
p'W e»
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that when you have sitting beside
you in committee, or when you have talking with you in the cloakroom, or
when you have voting or debating on the floor of the Senate, a man that you
•can know is the representative of the needs and necessities of those people,
or whom you can take as knowing them, at any rate, he will be a great help
to you. For whether he does or does not represent them, he must and will
come to a test. He may misrepresent them. It is possible that he will, but
you will have the right to say, “ Here is a man selected in a constitutional
manner to represent these people, and this responsibility is his primarily.”
So it will be an advantage to you. AA T e think it will be just as great an
advantage to us, just as in this body every State is represented. Every con¬
gressional district in every State has a man to represent it in this body. Yet
Congress does not directly control all of those people, only in Federal aspects.
There is no other part of the great continental United States that has not got
a man with you who knows the effect which legislation of the kind contem¬
plated would have on the industries of his own district and the people of his
own district, and you can take council with him. So we say, as this helps
every congressional district, every State, it will help 11 s.
AVe are not fighting our local government; we are not fighting Congress;
but the things that are important in this world are often unseen. You
take a strike. AVhat is the effect of a strike It is the effect of what is not
done. It is the invisible destruction of wealth that goes on while wheels stand
still.
AVe may well be proud when we consider the fine records here, but think
wliat it would have been if from the beginning we had been large and popu¬
lous enough to have had an accredited representative in this body who could
speak for us. There are thousands of things that ought to have been done,
that might have been done, that remain to-day to be done, that have not been
done because of the objections to them. AA 7 hat is the argument here about
that? It reminds me of the objections that have been made to all the great
constructive legislative acts of this generation, like the farm loan bill, em¬
ployers’ liability for carriers in interstate commerce, regulation of rent, and
a thousand other things. The moment they are suggested somebody says, “ Oh.
that is unconstitutional.” And very few of them could determine what is or¬
is not unconstitutional. They simply say the founders didnt’ do it, and there¬
fore we shouldn’t do it.
I submit that the founders would have done it if they had been confronted
with the same situation. If the founders had fixed upon New York, as they
were asked to do; if the founders had fixed upon Philadelphia, as they were
asked to do, for the seat of Government, and the State of New York or the
State of Pennsylvania could have been induced to make a cession of the terri¬
tory which would have, given Congress the same exclusive power that it lias
over the District of Columbia, would Congress then not have dealt with the
problem of the votes of those people in a different way from the way in
140
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
which they dealt with the people in this little struggling village? Our popu¬
lation to-day, if I am not wrong, is equal to if not greater than that of any one
of the original States in the beginning of this Government, with the exception
of what are known as the great States, such as New York, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, it may be well to suggest here, sir, that in the Constitutional
Convention the Virginia plan provided for the election of Senators from sena¬
torial districts, which would have been groups of population of approximate
equality, and it was voted down. Who voted it down? Delaware voted it
down; Connecticut voted it down; New Jersey voted it down; Maryland voted
it down. Why? Because they realized that while they were not as large as
these other States—I think Virginia’s population was something like seven or
eight hundred thousand at that time, if I am not mistaken, while Delaware,
Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey were smaller States—they realized
that two or three hundred thousand people or four hundred thousand people
constitute a society-^constitute a political society—and that the best brains,
the best men, in the world were well employed in dealing with the laws and
problems of those places. Here we have a similar group of people, just as in¬
telligent, just as important, and we are told, “ We did not give you the vote
when you were nobody and you shall not have it now.”
I thank you very much.
Mr. J. Milton Waldren. Mr. Chairman, I have been here for several ses¬
sions. I have asked the privilege of representing a class of people that have"
been frequently referred to, but I have not had a voice. I would be pleased if
the committee would allow me to speak before you adjourn to-day.
The Chairman. I understand you are favorable to granting the franchise.
Mr. Waldren. I am favorable in a way, but I want to express the ideas and
views of the colored people.
The Chairman. This session was reserved for those opposed to suffrage, and
while I permitted two hours to be consumed on the other side by those in
favor of suffrage I feel I must now allow those who are opposed and have
come prepared to speak to now proceed. I will promise to hear you at the
next hearing. I can not tell when it will be. If those opposed will not keep
us too late, I will hear you to-day.
Mr. Waldren. I appreciate your right and I do not want to take the rights-
of anybody else.
The Chairman. I feel I must allow the people who came here with the dis¬
tinct understanding that they should have the time to-day to proceed now
with their argument.
Mr. Waldren. I would not have arisen, but I thought they gave way to the
other speakers and I thought possibly they might give way to me.
Mr. Ayers. The chairman requested that we allow Mr. Glassie to speak.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF G. W. AYERS, ESQ.
Mr. Ayers. I would imagine, of course, that Mr. Glassie is a lawyer. I would
have answered later what I am going to answer now when I answered the
questions of Mr. Lesh, but I will take it up immediately.
I believe it is an axiom of law that the written instrument itself is the only
thing we can go by in equity law, if I am phrasing that properly. I am not
a lawyer. They say this is a question of constitutional law. From the things
that Mr. Glassie said, I don’t see how we can say the fathers intended either
one thing or the other. It simply was not done. It was left out of the Con¬
stitution and therefore has no place in the organic law and may not be read
into it under any circumstances. That answers that feature of dt./^,,. t <L‘
Now, Mr. Glassie wants{a change in the local government here?to the extent
that we may have one or more Senators, etc. That immediately, I should im¬
agine, would affect what we might call the 50-50 plan of taxation, would dis¬
turb that, and there would be one man in the Senate and a number in the House
who would have more power over the Federal Government in directing legisla¬
tion and in consequence continually inclipd to make the Government pay more
and more and more of the cost of operation of the local government,/ It would
be the most natural thing in the world to do it.
Mr. Glassie said something about the rate of interest being 8 per cent. I am
a little familiar with that myself. 4wo builders told me not long ago at the-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
141
Powhatan Hotel that Washington, D. C., and Galveston, Tex., are the two cities
to which they could come and get a square deal from the city government, and
would not have to ask anybody what they could do or pay anybody any money.
Now, mind you, these two builders were national builders, not local, as the
gentleman he referred to must have been.
I see no reason why the laws of the District of Columbia, the codes that we
now have, could not be codified and brought up to date. There is no reason
why they should not. It has been done before w T ith reference to other laws
over which the General Government has control. A commission might be
formed with local representatives by Members of Congress, by local experts,
by the bar association and local courts, and that presented to Congress for
its consideration. I think that covers that point.
Now, with reference to the getting together of certain cliques or races or in¬
terests, and not representing the city as a whole. I think the Federation of
Citizens’ Clubs here comes very near being a representative body of all the
people in the District. I just recently joined it. At least, I was asked to
join and paid my money, and I have not heard from it. For all I know it is
very representative of the citizens of the District.
[A number of Senators own property in the District, have lived here from 2
to 15 or 18 or 20 years. One of the members of this committee, I understand,
is interested in a very large financial transaction in the District of Columbia,.)
which will possibly eventuate in the near future. fX member of the District
Committee is a member of the Federation of Citizens’ Clubs here. I think sev¬
eral Members of Congress are members of the Federation of Citizens’ Clubs.
So Congress is a part of the city of Washington, perhaps as much as those of
us who live here, maybe not so much so, but they are enough so that they
catch the local spirit and the local needs.)
Mr. Glassie said that Burke said all legislation was better because of debate
and compromise. I agree with Mr. Glassie and Mr. Burke also on that. I
think Burke represented the American Colonies about as well as any man that
could have been sent to the Parliament in London. In fact, there were three
men there, Fox, the elder Pitt, if I remember rightly, and Mr. Burke, who were
good representatives of the Colonies. And soil think the men on this com¬
mittee, who have lived here from 2 to 25,,years, and those also in the House,
represent the District very satisfactorily.)
Now, when Mr. Glassie compares New York and Philadelphia to Washington,
with reference to having the seat of Federal government, I don’t think there
is any comparison whatsoever, in any way, fashion, manner, or form.
There have possibly been, if I am thoroughly informed in respect to history,
something like two or three thousand different forms of government, both local
and national. The Republic of Rome, or the Roman Republic, was not a
republic in the sense in which we now have a republic. There is no analogy
between the two. The Roman Republic had dependencies and‘local forms of
government which had no control over their own immediate neighborhood or
city, or whatever you might wish to term it. So, I do not think that should
hear any relation to the District of Columbia, unless it goes to prove a republic
can have a seat of government over which it has absolute control in every
way.
It is just possible that the form of government under which the District of
Columbia lives is an accidental discovery of a new form of government, just
as many other forms of government have been discovered in the past, possibly
by accident. Anyway, all forms of government are matters of growth, and
whether the Fathers or framers of the Constitution intended they should have
a vote or not would have little to do with it. I think the present form of local
government is a new form, and the most efficient form of government that any
c\Py can possibly have, and I believe we wish to continue it.
\So far as the schools are concerned, and the need of a man in Congress to tell
Congress what to do and what might be done and to give them information, I
doin',t think that would have amounted to a great deal, and surely could not
have done any more than was done recently when there was; no vote, where by
moral persuasion, when we had a president, of the board of education who w r as
an outsider,)whom we did not like here,fwho wanted to be a commissioner,
whom the then President would have appointed commissioner; but through
force of public opinion the President did not appoint him. I think that is as far
as anv body of voters could possibly have gone.)}
I think I have finished, so far as I care to answer what Mr. Glassie had to say.
Now. the Times speaker the other day said 90 per cent of the people of the
142
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
District wanted suffrage, and 10 per cent didn’t want it. Those were inspired
figures', and maybe that man was talking in large headlines, like the Times
always does talk. Whether it is 50 per cent or 90 per cent he does not know,
and neither do I, but from the inves^feation I have made I am inclined to believe
at least 50 per cent do not care for any form of suffrage. Others may.
I don’t know who the second speaker was, but he quoted President Lincoln as
being in favor of suffrage. He didn’t say for whom, whether for the Negro or
the white man, or for everybody, or for just the District of Columbia. Anybody
is in favor of suffrage. I am.
He also quoted Joe Folk. Joe Folk is the ex-governor of Missouri, and for¬
merly one of the attorneys of the United States Government. He quoted Joe
Folk as saying that all large cities are venal. I think Joe Folk knows. I know,
too, for I lived over there. Joe Folk was city attorney of the city of St. Louis.
This gentleman here likely knows him well. He became governor because he put
a lot of crooks out, and then they would not let him serve any longer because he
was apparently honest.
Several speakers have quoted Chief Justice Marshall in favor of suffrage for
the District of Columbia. I can’t say that he did not favor it. I have not seen
the record, and I presume it must be true. A little later I had intended to quote
Chief Justice Taft on that subject, but I understand it is to be written into the
record.
The Chairman. The address of Chief Justice Taft will be incorporated into
the record.
Mr. Ayers. I want to say I favor everything which the Chief Justice said.
Another man in this committee room asked me why I didn't take the idea of
a voteless community back to Indianapolis and Terre Haute. It might be a good
thing. Right now, if I remember correctly, several of the former public offi¬
cials of Indianapolis and Terre Haute are in the Leavenworth penitentiary.
A lady asked me how 1 knew anything about local conditions if I had not lived
here but about 10 years. I have been reading. I was relying on the Constitu¬
tion for information—I don’t think she was—but I got my information from
about the same sources, I presume, that she did.
Now, Mr. Lesh said the City Club has about 1,500 members, to whom he sent
a letter. I believe he said he got 17 replies opposing suffrage and that 500
favored suffrage of some kind; that 250 voted as a group for statehood. Am I
correct?
Mr. Lesh. No ; you are not correct.
Mr. Ayers. I have my figures to that effect.
Mr. Lesh. Do you wish me to correct you now?
Mr. Ayers. I do.
Mr. Lesh. We sent the letter to something over 500 members, accompanied by
a postal card; that out of that number, 17 opposed our platform and the balance
favored it; that in response to the second question on the postal card, 290 not
only favored our platform but joined our group.
Mr. Ayers. Well, at best that is one-third of the total membership. I think
that will come very near approximating the number in the city as a whole that
are in favor of any kind of suffrage, either one or the other kind or both.
Those men who belong to the City Club are not members of that club exclu¬
sively, but belong to other organizations in the city. Some of these gentlemen
come here and claim to represent certain organizations with such and such a
number of members, while perhaps practically the same men belong to all of
the organizations, or many of the other organizations. That may be true of the
City Club. I might call them repeaters, if they wanted to vote in every one of
these different organizations and try to show the committee how many are in
favor of suffrage. Of course I will not do it. I figured that I would divide
that number by half, and half would be for local self-government, or statehood
modified* and half against any suffrage at all.
Infc Lesh saysfa Federal city is not a reservation, nor a dock, nor a naval
base, nor a national park, nor a camp—can not be compared with those. I merely
refer him bark to the records of the city, where we have celebrations and
funerals and conferences and city riots and race riots, and see if the Federal
Government does not very nearly step in and take a hand with the soldiers and
marines. They always have done it, and very likely will continue to do it.) 1
hope so^ 0 ^
Mr. Lesh cites three South American republics whose capital cities have suf¬
frage. ) That is as far as he went.Q None of those capital cities were built as a
Federal city, and even now one of them is considering building a Federal city
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
143
away from its seat of government.; I think that is Argentina. At least I have
read so.
The Chairman. I would like to ask you how many city governments exist in
cities governed entirely by the Federal Government?
Mr. Ayers. Every one, I think, that I know of, with that one exception.
I beg your pardon if I did not get your question.
The Chairman. How many cities are there, in which is located the seat of
Government, which are governed by that Government alone?
Mr. Ayers. None that I know of.
The Chairman. None?
Mr. Ayers. None. I may be mistaken. Mr. Glassie would know, but I don't.
Mr. Lesh. Not that the matter is important, but what Mr. Ayers is referring
to came up in Mr. Brandenburg’s remarks, not mine, and he is more familiar
with the subject than I am.
We have in the brief that we filed with the House committee—and it may be
of interest for the record before this committee—a schedule of the participation
of the capitals of a number of nations in the government of those capital cities.
I have no doubt we could take that schedule from the brief and put in the
record, if you wish it.(^ y ^ ncu< tL$J
Mr. Ayers. Mr. Lesh^also says the denial of suffrage is repughani to the Con¬
stitution.^ Here is a work called the “ Constitutional History of the American
People,” by F. N. Thorpe. On page 209, under the subtitle of “ Stern functions
of the State,” the writer says, after having summed up a history of the Common¬
wealths prior to the revolution and just after our Constitution had been per¬
fected :
“ From this brief survey of one aspect of the political estate at the opening
of this new century, it appears that government, in American democracy, was
at this time in the hands of the few who were conventionally restrained from
political wrongdoing by social, religious, and property qualifications. The mass
of the population was excluded from the estate. Yet few escaped taxation. The
value of property, not the votes of electors, controlled the democracy of the
day. Property was the electoral check and balance.”
And yet, with that being true^tliere was not a colony, there was not a State,
that did not have some very drastic qualification for suffrage, very drastic;
just as the Constitution prohibited all women from voting, just as the Con¬
stitution prohibited all slaves from voting, just as the Constitution prohibited
any man from voting under 21 years of age; just as the Constitution prevented
any Indian from voting, and does even to-day,"jus I said the other day. f So it
is not altogether repugnant to the Constitution. ^It may be to-day as we have
grown up, but it was not then, imder the circumstances; and Mr. Lesh can not
cite any authority to prove it. sThe law as written in the Constitution is the
sum total of their opinions, and you can not go back of the law as written.
You may take the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, of Abraham Lincoln, of
President Madison, but after all the Constitution designated who shall votej
Now,(the makers of the Constitution deliberated many months before fney
signed it; there were many compromises before they signed it. Hamilton and
Jefferson and others went up and down the country four or five months debat¬
ing the Constitution. Never once did they say anything about not having suf¬
frage in the District of Columbia. So as long as the other side continually
harps on the idea that the fathers did intend we should have it, I have a right
to say they positively did not intend we should have it, because they did not
give it in the Constitution.
All the State legislatures deliberated before they accepted the Constitution.
Nine accepted it, and New York accepted it by a very close margin, and it was
some time before the other four States finally accepted it. Evidently they
argued every phase and condition possible before they eventually accepted it
as written. And nowhere does it say we have the right of suffrage in the District
of Columbia. In no amendments since that time has it been given the right/) So
how any lawyer can contend that the law implied we should have it I don’t
«know.
! ” 'As far as Andrew Jackson advocating suffrage in the District is concerned, I
think anyone knowing his history will believe that he was likely to advocate
most anything once and stand pat on it, whether he was right or wrong.
I am not as familiar with the local history of this plot of ground as Mr.
Glassie is. I do feeLthat I have a little knowledge of it, however, and from
some of my reading (I am inclined to believe that had this Federal Government
been strong and powerful at the time that it was laid out for a Federal District,
83480—22-10
144
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
it would have reserved to itself every foot of ground in the original District,
or at least in the city proper, so that no one could have anything to say at any
time but the Government which controls it.
In Philadelphia, where the city administration would not give the fathers any
protection, where the State of Pennsylvania would not give them any protection,
they certainly must then have felt that* they would like to have a little spot
of their own. Had they had the money, doubtless they would never have sold
one lot in the District of Columbia to anybody. They had to sell themJP
Now 7 , here is a little thing. Robert Morris, w'ho financed the Revolutionary
War, was one of the men who tried to finance the District of Columbia. He
went broke because they could not loan him any money in Holland, and they
took him over to Philadelphia and cast Robert Morris in the city jail, and he
died there after three years in a debtor’s cell.
Mr. Brandenburg gave some statistics as to how many bonds w r ere bought by
local citizens and how many soldiers volunteered from the District and how
many were drafted. I have here a book entitled “ Principles and Acts of the
Revolution,” by Hezekiah Niles, Baltimore, Md. This work is a compilation
of the acts, newspaper articles, and public speeches by different citizens of all
of the Colonies. These articles-are all arranged under each Colony. Under the
head of “ Pennsylvania ” w T e find the following:
“At a critical period of the Revolutionary War, when there was great danger
of the dissolution of the American Army for want of provisions to keep it to¬
gether, a number of patriotic gentlemen gave their bonds to the amount of about
£260.000 in gold and silver for procuring them. The provisions were provided,
the Army w as kept together, and our independence w r as finally achieved. The
amount of the bonds was never called for, but it is well to keep in remembrance
the names of those who in the times that tried men’s souls stepped forward and
pledged their all toward the support of those who were contending for our
liberty. The following is a list of some of their names, with the sums respec¬
tively subscribed by them.”
And it is headed by the name of Robert Morris for £10,000. So I think the
District of Columbia during this late war gave no more than any other like
community would have done, had it been able to do it. We had quite a few'
dollar-a-year men here. We had men here from other States who volunteered
from the District of Columbia, but should have been credited to the other States.
So the proportion here was very likely about the same as in any other State,
because there w r as a good deal of patriotism in Indiana, where I came from,
and I venture to say in California and Mississippi and a few 7 other States. So
I don’t think w 7 e should brag very much about how many volunteers we had here
or how 7 much money w 7 e gave. Other men did the same thing. My father
fought four and a half years in the Civil War on the Union side and was in
the front line all the time. He didn’t brag about it. He just went out and
did his duty and loved his country, the same as I do.
Mr. Brandenburg quoted Washington as saying this would be a very large
city some day, as also did Mr. Glassie. Well, suppose it does become a million
population. What is the difference? It is still a Federal city. It is very evident
that the Federal Government is paramount here, no matter how' large it is
or may in the future be. Down in the archives of this building are some plans
for public buildings for this immediate neighborhood. If it ever goes into
effect the space occupied wall be five times as large as it is right now 7 . We don’t
know what this Government is coming to, how large the city is going to be,
how 7 many buildings the Government itself might wish to occupy at some time
in the future. It wmuld not be very long until the business interests would
run clear to the District line, and then all you fellow's can live in Maryland,
and you will not have to have any vote here, and the Government will ow 7 n it
and run it.
Mr. Brandenburg also quoted that famous saying, “ Taxation without repre¬
sentation.” I will get to that in a few 7 minutes, but not in direct reply to Mr.
Brandenburg.
\ With reference to voteless delegates in the District, Alaska, I should imagine,
is about 90 per cent American, with a voteless Delegate. I would say Hawaii
has more Japs than natives and Americans put together, and it has a voteless
Delegate. The Philippines are about 5 per cent American, with a voteless
Delegate. Porto Rico I don’t think has over 1 per cent Americans, and it has
a voteless Delegate. Each one of them has a voteless Delegate.
We don’t consider that representation here. It is merely expediency and
efficiency.^ And that is the whole basis of my talk, no matter what l might
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
145
say. fit is a question of efficiency and expediency in the General Government,
irrespective of who might live here. } I don’t see that anybody is suffering at
all in the District of Columbia from any cause whatever with reference to
government.
I am too much of a Scotchman to want to make a change or to rock the boat
when it is already good. Will Rogers, in the Belasco Theater a week or two
ago, in speaking of the peace conference, said the English would come over
in their own sea; the Japs would come over in their own war vessels; the
Irish would have sent somebody over but they didn’t know what they wanted;
and the Scotch would have liked to have sent somebody over, but they wanted
transportation paid both ways. I think we have a pretty good form of govern¬
ment, and until some one shows me a better form I am not willing to change.
t Here r isone littlq feature not touched on very much, except Mr. Glassie
mentioned it." Tha-t-is taxes. As a concrete^ in^ance of those who have the
good fortune to live here—^andfl am going to/identify myself with the District
of Columbia, lust as Mr. Lloyd has and Mr. Glassie is now identified—ft he torch
of jewel if'Was built two weeks ago. It cost $30,000 to build. The Government
loaned us $250,000 worth of equipment to make that torch of jewels a thing
of beauty. If it had been in New York, we would have had to spend the money
from our own treasury, or in Philadelphia, or any other city the same way.
Many such instances we profit by because we live here. It does not cost us
a cent. The General Government pays that expense. The fellows in the plates
pay an equal share with you. I think we are very fortunate to live here.}
I don’t think {when it comes right down to a concrete proposition of either
having a Representative inCongress, voting or voteless, or an increase in taxes,
that theaLverage man willow ant. any representation in Congress. I don’t believe
flie will'quit means any increase in taxes, and doubtless it will mean an increase
in taxek ;There is scarcely any doubt about it at all.
(There are two factions here. One wants a modified form of State govern¬
ment and the other wants local control.') When either side gets up each speaker
talks as though he were talking for 90 per cent of the people. I don’t believe
either side has any specific figure on which to base any contentoin of that nature.
And suppose it should be true, andfsuppose we do get a local legislature as
we had in 1835. The B. & O. Railroad was built into the city then, and we had
the telegraph at that time. The B. & O. wanted to run its poles into the
streets and the local government would not let them. ') Somebody wanted to
be satisfied, probably; I don’t know. That is usually the method. (The Fed-
oral Government finally erected the telegraph polos itself and then allowed
the local city government and the railroad company to fight it out, and you
gentlemen who are familiar with local history know the controversy was about
30 years in being settled. That is just one sample of what might occur pro¬
viding we had the local form of government. I don’t know what might even¬
tuate if we had a Senator and Representative in the House.
Now as to whether or not one side or the other does represent a large ma¬
jority of the people of the District of Columbia, I will recite another concrete
instance that came under my personal observation. Immediately after the
meeting in the House before the Judiciary Committee last winter, there was
a meeting of the Mid-City Community Center at L and Thirteenth. It was
widely advertised in that community center that Mr. Burroughs would speak
in favor of District suffrage, especially in favor of his bill. I attended the
meeting to hear what he might have to say. There were 65 people present,
of which I was one, Mr. Burroughs another, five or six children, seven or eight
women; and at that time women did not vote in the community centers, I believe.
That left, I will say, 50 people who had the privilege of voting at the meet¬
ing. I When the vote was taken one man voted against suffrage in the District,
and all the rest voted for suffrage in the District. That was published in the
Star as the unanimous vote of the Mid-City Community Center, and I found
out they had 1,200 members. And yet that goes in, and people take the Star
and read that it was the unanimous’ vote, but there were only 65 persons present.
It was published over the country as the unanimous vote of that particular
community center, and that center has 1,200 members.
Mi-. Lesh. Will Mr. Ayers submit to one question? I would like to inquire
if he knows what was the usual attendance?
Mr. Ayers. I do not. I never attended before. I went up simply because Mr.
Burroughs was the speaker.
146
SUFFRAGE IN TFIE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
It seems to me(it would be a practical if we would come up to
Congress and ask the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia or the
House Committee on the District of Columbia for what we want through the
voice of our Federation of City JClubsl) then we would get Just as much as we
are entitled to. ((These SenatorsJdon’t'wear horns. They (a re elected to serve
us as well as their own particular communities, and I base my statement that
we are likely to get as much through them under the present form of govern¬
ment as we are through any local form we might have, on my e xnor^pc ;e with
a number of other cities, where it was necessary to go before Uie common
council and hang on to the tails of their coats) as Mr. Classic said (in order to
get something, far more than it has been necessary to do it here. /Not only
that, but frequently I had to pay over a few dollars or promise to swing votes
for him next time. You don’t have to vote for the chairman of this committee
at all. You will get what you come after on the basis of whether it is right or
\p-ong, that you should have it. and that is all that is necessary^
( For fear some people might think that we never again could have the kind
of local government here that existed in 1870, because times have changed,
because people are more intelligent, more honest, more virtuous, and all that—
I want to say that does not follow .) The New York Times of October 30 has
an article about former City Attorney Jerome, some 12 or 13 years retired,
and again back in the saddle lighting Hylan. the Democratic mayor of the
city of New York. This article says:
“ Campaigning in behalf of the Republican-Coalition candidates in the
Erasmus Hall High School and the Manual Training High School 167 in
Brooklyn last night, William Travers Jerome said that Mayor Hylan had
been shown to be the companion of ‘ crooks and convicts.’ He said that this
was true in the mayor’s early business training, when he associated with Alfred
Goslin, and again after he became mayor, when he had dealings with John
Hettrick, who was convicted in connection with the building-trades scandal.
“ ‘ I have hitched Hylan up in his early business career to a convict and a
crook,’ said Mr. Jerome, ‘ and Samuel Untermyer last night took up his career
since he became mayor. He hitched him up to another convict and crook,
Hettrick. He can’t seem to keep away from them. He has an attraction for
them. He had it in the old days, and he can’t break it off.’ ”
(’There is no difference in the citizenship of the District of Columbia and
the city of New York.) I can’t see much difference.
The Chairman. What connection does that have with the subject matter
before the committed?
Mr. Ayers. That (if any local form of government should be given the city ;
of Washington or the District of Columbia these conditions could again arise./
I say they can. Mr. Glassie said it would be impossible. The gentleman over
here asking for local suffrage say the same thing. I want to show that those
conditions could exist again, because they do exist in other cities. Louisville
had six murders on election day of the city administration November 2, 1921.
The mayor was taken out of a hotel, manacled, and put in a patrol wagon and
taken to the police station. Five Republicans were killed and one Democrat
wounded.
The Chairman. Do you advocate the Federal Government taking over the
control of the government of those cities?/
Mr. Ayers. No; that does not follow. (i dan’t - think there is any doubt but
what the government of the District of Columbia is ably and honestly govern¬
ing the District at this time.) My contention is that we want no change in the
form of government whatsoever. That was merely to recite the fact that those
things have occurred within two weeks. It is not a question of 1870; it is
right now. . ^
Here is another phase of this same proposition :(Some want suffrage here, but
how many men will go out and work in order that we may have the proper can¬
didates for the people to vote for? And after we do, if we have a primary,
how many will go out in the general election and vote for them?) In that con¬
nection here is an article from the Washington Star, dated New l T ork City,
November 4, 1921:
“Despite the fact that there are several hundred, thousand unemployed men
in New York, 5,000 good jobs—for one day—were going begging to-day. John
R. Voorhis, president of the board of elections, announced that for the first time
in his memory it had been found necessary to advertise for poll clerks, ballot
clerks, and canvassing inspectors for next Tuesday’s municipal election. Poll
clerks get $10 and the others $6.”
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
147
They won’t do the work, let alone vote, without being paid for it. That is
only a few days ago.
Here is an article from the Herald that. I should also like to read to the com¬
mittee :
“ But one famous institution that still survives at Tammany Hall is ‘ dough
day.’ To-day was ‘ dough day,’ and by all reports it was a prosperous ‘ dough
day,’ for Tammany Hall has been running affairs here for the last four years, and
when Tammany runs things the big chiefs are supposed to collect much wam¬
pum. On ‘dough day ’ the subordinate leaders come in from their respective
bailiwicks and receive the cash for ‘ necessary expenses ’ of election day. They
did so Monday, and there is no really certain way of checking up on the exact
nature of these ‘ necessary expenses.’ It is understood that in a prosperous
year a faithful individual voter of proven loyalty, who stands right with his
district leader, may expect a $10 bill for ‘ services ’ to the party candidate in
the campaign.”
Here is an Associated Press article in the Washington Star. The Chicago
Tribune had been sued by the city administration of Chicago for $10,000,000 for
libeling it. The case was thrown out of court. The charges made by the Chi¬
cago Tribune were these:
“Thirty-six news items or editorials, published by the Tribune between .June
15 and September 15, 1920, are cited by the city attorneys as the basis for the
suit. Many of them declared flatly that the city was ‘ broke.’ Others referred
to the use of scrip for paying city employees. In several instances it was stated
that the city treasury faced a huge deficit, and one item quoted Lieut. Gov.
Oglesby, a candidate for the gubernatorial nomination, as fixing this figure at
$16,000,000.
“ The Chicago Tribune gave out the following statement, last night in regard
to the suit against it:
“ ‘ At the time of filing this suit the city hall machine controlled the mayor’s
office of Chicago, the Chicago city council, and the newly elected governor.
“ ‘ It had made its plans, which afterwards proved successful, to elect the
speaker of the house of representatives and to control both branches of the
Illinois Legislature. It confidently expected to nominate and elect the entire
circuit court of Cook County, giving it substantial control of the nisi prius
judges, the Cook County appellate courts, and the jury commissioners. It has
already openly threatened the supreme court of Illinois.
“ ‘ The rich men and corporations of Chicago were under duress to con¬
tribute to its support and to its leaders, while various reform and civic
associations had been intimidated into inactivity. There remained but the
Tribune, fighting its complete dominance of the community.
“ ‘ To coerce, or destroy the Tribune was the immediate purpose of this suit,
the intimidation of all newspapers, and prevention of free speech, its second
objective, and as the Tribune has evidence to prove, the overturning of the
republican form of government was the ultimate goal.
“ ‘ The Tribune meets the issue in full confidence that all the constitutional
guarantees to the individual will be preserved unimpaired, and that this attack
upon our republican form of government will be overthrown as completely as
its predecessors.’ ”
The Chairman. Your argument is against all popular forms of government?
Mr. Ayers. My argument is against all popular forms of government in the
District of Columbia.
The Chairman. I do not think that is entirely pertinent to this question.
This committee is not going to hear arguments as to whether our present
government is a wise government or not. It is merely a question of whether
we shall extend our present government in its limited form to the District of
Columbia. I think you have taken up unnecessary time by those comparisons.
Mr. Ayers. Those in favor of suffrage have had many hours of time.
The Chairman. It is not a question with respect to the wisdom of popular
forms of government. While I want to give you all the time necessary to present
your case thoroughly, it seems to me that those quotations and articles from the
* papers regarding the administration of the laws of other cities are scarcely
pertinent here, because all the advocates of suffrage have admitted that the
government of Washington at present, under its present form, is good, and they
do not recommend any change in the local form of government.
Mi*. Ayers. The Capper bill does.
The Chairman. There has not been a single speaker in favor of the Capper
bill.
148
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Clayton. Our contention is that bill does not change the form of local
government. It simply changes the appointing power. We are united in favor
of that.
The Chairman. The Capper bill provides for the election of part of the com¬
missioners. I did not know anyone was advocating the Capper bill. You may
proceed in your own way, but I just called your attention to that fact.
Mr. Ayers. I think at present the government is so efficient that I must
argue broadly, because I must argue against three hills before this committee—•
two providing for a local form of government and one for national representa¬
tion. I can not confine myself, as Mr. Classic did. to one phase of the subject,
or at least one bill. He is opposed to the two, and said so while he was
speaking. Those gentlemen talked for an hour and a half the other day in favor
of the Capper bill and not against it.
Now, with reference to taxation without representation, that is very important
and is often quoted. I want to read something from “A Literary History of
America,” by Barrett Wendell. Before taking up the literary history over any
period of time, he gives a resume of the political conditions at that time, par¬
ticularly a time or a short time preceding that. It is in the chapter entitled
“The American Revolution,” at page 106:
“ To modern scholars of the critical kind, too, the Revolution is becoming
more of a puzzle than it used to he. The distortion of tradition which has
represented it rather as a war against an alien invader than as a civil war is
not our only popular error. American writings, in general, tell only one side of
the story; and we have been accustomed to accept their ex parte, though sincere,
assertions as comprehensive. So much is this the case that few remember the
origin of a phrase which from a political letter by Rufus Choate in 1856 .has
passed into idiomatic use. This phrase, ‘ glittering generality,’ is commonly
used of empty rhetoric. Mr. Choate used it of a piece of rhetoric which Ameri¬
can tradition is apt to believe the least empty in our history. His words were:
‘ The glittering and sounding generalities of natural right which make up the
Declaration of Independence'. Now, to describe the Declaration of Independ¬
ence as a tissue of glittering generalities is by no means to tell its whole story ;
but so to describe it is probably as near the truth as to accept it for a sober
statement of historic fact. Not that Jefferson, who wrote it, or his compatriots
who signed it were insincere: the chances are that they believed what they said.
But the fact that in a moment of high passion a man believes a thing does not
make it true. And when under the cool scrutiny of posterity fervid convictions
prove somewhat mistaken, the vital question is from what they arose.
“ Prof. Tyler collects and arranges as never before material which may help
one to hazard an answer to this question. , Although in pure literature the
Revolution has left no more permanent record than was left by the century and
a half which came before, it was almost as fruitful of publication hearing on
contemporary fact as were those civil wars of England which resulted in the
execution of King Charles I. and the momentary dominance of Cromwell’s
Puritanism.”
And a little further on it continues:
“Take, for example, one of the best remembered phrases of the period—‘ no
taxation without representation.’ What does this really mean? To the Ameri¬
can mind of to-day, as to the mind of the revolutionary leaders in King George’s
colonies, it means that no constituency should he taxed by a legislative body to
which it has not actually elected representatives, generally resident within its
limits.”
Here is the point I want to bring out:
“ To the English mind of 1770. more than 60 years before the first reform bill,
it meant something very different. In England to this day, indeed, the notion
that a representative should he resident in his constituency is as strange as to
any American it is familiar. Not only was this the case in eighteenth century
England but many boroughs which returned members to Parliament had hardly
any residents; while some of the chief cities in the kingdom returned no mem¬
bers at all. In King George’s England, we see, the question of representation
-had little to do with actual suffrage. What no taxation without representation*
meant there was that no British subject should be taxed by a body where there
was not somebody to represent his case. This view, the traditional one of the
English common law, was held by the loyalists of America.
“ When the revolutionists complained that America elected no representa¬
tives to Parliament the loyalists answered that neither did many of the most
populous towns in the mother country; that the interests of those towns were*
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
149
perfectly well cared for by members elected elsewhere; and that if anybody
should inquire what members of Parliament were protecting the interests of the
American colonies the answer would instantly satisfy any complaint. This
contention is really strong. Among the men who defended the American cause
in the House of Commons were the elder Pitt, Fox, and Burke. It is doubtful
whether New England or Virginia could have exported to Parliament represen¬
tatives in any respect superior.”
So taxation without representation in those days maybe did not mean the
same as we speak of it to-day and as some of the speakers here have spoken of
it. They talk about the “ crown of thorns and the cross of gold,” and Patrick
Henry’s “ Give me liberty or give me death.” People will say, “ Give me lib¬
erty or give me death,” and will come over here to blow the Capitol up because
it don’t suit them. When the speakers argue here that taxation without repre¬
sentation meant to the people years ago what it means to-day I think they are
mistaken.
\ Brian’s History of the District of Columbia, in two volumes, published in
1916, ^ believe,(gives plenty of evidence of discontent in the District against
the very incompetent local forms of government and, if my memory serves me
right, we have had approximately 20 different forms of local government since
1800. No radical changes have been made, but changes, nevertheless, in the
form of government. Maybe the one that we now have is the best we could
possibly have. It is mjVunpression that this is true.7
In 1830 Georgetown and Washington and Alexandria went bankrupt, or
nearly so. Because of these incompetent local legislatures this Government had
to pay about $15,000,000 for the canals and other things that these people one-
half completed. In 1870 a similar condition prevailed. In 1878 it was pretty
bad again. That was due to the local forms of government. Congress has not
been spending any money injudiciously in the District. Practically every cent
Congress ever appropriated for the District has been well spent in the inter¬
ests of the District. ) That is what I get from a good many authorities. Some
of the speakers who have spoken here say so and I am taking their word for
it, not my own.
In 1870 they used to import Negroes from Baltimore to vote here, and in
1870, I think it was, they had a cannon on Seventh Street, pointed south, full
of nails, shot it, crippled two people, injured a great many more.
Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Chairman. I have lived in the District of Columbia all
my life, been active in its politics since 1868. This gentleman has given me
some information that was new to me and new to every citizen of the District
of Columba, and where he gets that from I would be pleased to have him tell us.
Mr. Ayers. I can give it to you and a lot more of the same kind. (The old
tire department was a hotbed of politics and fights. J)They Rad individual com¬
panies and fire apparatus and if they happened to meet in the street they
would stop, quit the fire department apparatus, and fight. Time and again that
has come about. I can show you 40 pages of that in Bryan’s History. I will
loan you a copy. \
j( I am going to touch on the race question Jjust a minute. In the meetings
before the House Judiciary Committee 1 asked one gentleman if he believed
in suffrage for the Negro. One man said point blank, “ \\ e will not allow them
to vote.” r think that is verbatim. Another gentleman answered my question
categorically, and said, “Down in the Pacific Ocean there is an island with
5,000 Negroes and 41 white men, and when they have an election there are 41
votes cast.” That is the way he answered it. Anyone can draw his own con¬
clusions. {friiey have ideas in their own minds about suffrage in the District
f 0r everybody, and yet they would deny a certain large element the right of
suffrage, and only have given it to women recently. For that reason I think
any local form of suffrage might not result in a square deal, and these colored
men might not get a square deal. They can not get political equality, they can
not get economic equality, and there is no social equality. Social equality is
the ultimate ambition of all races of men, and it should be. Unless he has that
ambition, he certainly is not fit to exercise the right of suffrage. And so we
say he shall not have social equality, and we then almost automatically deny
Rj m all other forms of equality. I would not say he should not have it. I do
sav he should fight for it, as long as my ancestors fought for it, and then
maybe he will know what it means; but to give it to him in the course of 50
vears, when he has been for centuries without it, and then expect him to use it
intelligently—I <4+u+^ think he will/v^he individual may, a small percentage;
150
SUFFRAGE IX THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
yes. The colored man must feel lie basket to carry that burden. I think lie
should feel himself fortunate that he lives in these United States instead of
where his ancestors originally came from. That is with due respect to him.y
I think I am a good friend of the colored man, and Mr. Glassie, who is from
the South, is a good friend of the colored man. I think we are as good friends
of the colored man as any man on the face of the earth. We may disagree as
to the methods with reference to the colored man, but I am not against the
individual colored man.
I have an amendment to any bill that might be presented that I would like
to present to the committee.
The Chairman. That will be by written communication to the committee.
Send it to the chairman and it will receive consideration.
Mr. Ayers. I want to tell these gentlemen who are here what it is. It will
take only a second to read it:
“That any qualified voter within the meaning of the term as generally
understood who fails to vote, at any election provided for the District of Colum¬
bia in any act of Congress, and who can not establish the necessary proof why
he did not vote as shall be provided for in the act by appropriate legislation,
shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to not less than one year at hard labor in
the penitentiary.”
I will see whether you fellows really want suffrage or not.
The Chairman. What is the idea of presenting that amendment to this bill,
when no State in the Union has such a provision?
Mr. Ayers. There are 4S States, and in every State the qualifications for
voting are different.
The Chairman. But there is no penalty for not voting.
Mr. Ayers. I know it. I want a penalty. It is now being agitated among
those who are giving study to legislation and science of government. You will
find a good deal about it in a magazine-called “Commission form of Govern¬
ment.” Some advocate six months’ penalty and some a fine. The idea is not
new to me at all. It has been talked about for the last 10 years.
The Chairman. Along that line, if I was going to advocate a provision for
penalty for not voting, I would make that penalty apply to the primaries of
the respective parties. If you can get the best element of the parties to vote
at the primaries, you will always get good men, high-class men. But the
trouble with our primaries to-day, where you have the primary system, is that
a few politicians control the nominations.
Mr. Ayers. It has been my experience that it cost thousands of dollars to con¬
duct the primary. You have to take taxicabs to haul fellows from their jobs
down to vote. And in February and in January more than once I have been
in the back end of a barber shop or a saloon or upstairs in a dinky lawyer’s
office in a precinct or ward fixing candidates for the primary. Not only that,
but at the primary elections the average voter is not of the best class, and lie
nominates for us, the better element, you might say, the men whom we shall
vote for at the general election. I have talked to 500 men in the last three or
four months who are not in favor of District suffrage and asked them to come
to this meeting, and yet I am almost the only one to appear. Only one man
has been up here that did not want suffrage.
Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chariman, it is getting late, but I would like very much if
you would be kind enough to allow Mr. Waldron to make his statement.
The Chairman. This will be the last hearing before the regular session be¬
gins the 5th of December, but I am willing to give you continuous hearings
until all reasonable sides have been presented. I do not mean an interminable
hearing, because we have not the time for that, but so long as there is any
phase of this proposition that has not been presented in the minds of citizens
here who think it should be, I am willing to continue the hearings further.
Mr. Waldron. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity of
being heard at this time, and to thank my friend, ex-Congressman Lloyd, along
with the others, for pressing the point. Not that you were not willing to
hear me.
The Chairman. How long will it take you?
Mr. Waldron. I think I shall be through in half an hour with all the ques¬
tions you may want to ask.
The Chairman. Proceed.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
151
STATEMENT OF REV. JOHN MILTON WALDRON.
Mr. Waldron. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is John Milton Wal¬
dron. I am a resident of the District of Columbia, a clergyman by calling, and
the pastor of the Shiloh Baptist Church of this city. I represent the Alley Im¬
provement Association, the Committee of Seven, and the National Race Con¬
gress—all colored organizations. The members of the first two organizations
are all residents of the District of Columbia and most of the officers and many
of the members of the race congress are residents of the District of Columbia.
I have been instructed by these organizations to assure you that they favor
the granting by Congress of the franchise and self-government to the people
of the District of Columbia. These organizations feel that the white and col¬
ored citizens of the District are loyal Americans and have always been true
to our National Government and have*borne more than their share of the
burdens of the Nation, both in peace and in war. The organizations I repre¬
sent are in favor of both the Jones and the Capper bills now before your com¬
mittee. We don't see how you could pass one without the other, the Jones or
the Capper bill.
The Chairman. The Capper bill provides for the election of local officers, to
a very great extent.
Mr. Waldron. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It takes the local government out of the hands of Congress.
Mr. Waldron. As I understand, it does not take the control, but is simply an
expression of what they desire.
The Chairman. It takes the control from the hands of Congress.
Mr. Waldron. Of course, Congress can veto it, if they feel so disposed.
The Chairman. It undoubtedly does take the control from Congress.
Mr. Waldron. Our idea is that Congress still holds the veto power, and the
citizens are bound, of course, within certain limits.
The Chairman. They would not hold any veto power if you raised all your
own revenue.
Mi-. Waldron. We take that up as we go on further.
The Chairman. I think there can be no question about that.
Mr. Waldron. They regard the two bills as being complementary the one
to the other, and feel that they ask for the people of the District of Columbia
nothing more than what is just and right, and nothing more than the Con¬
gress of the United States ought to grant to said citizens. They believe further
that the Jones and Capper bills ask for nothing more than the Members of
Congress themselves would ask if they lived in the District of Columbia rather
than in the States from whence they come.
We do not see why the people in the District of Columbia should be required
to give ui> the most sacred right possessed by an American citizen, namely,
the franchise, because they by accident or by force of circumstances, are com¬
pelled to live at the Capital of the Nation. The people living in the State capi¬
tals are not required to make any such sacrifices.
There was a time when the District of Columbia possessed the franchise and
governed herself. During that period the welfare of the Nation was not
interfered with, nor was the safety of the Republic in any way jeopardized.
This country fought an eight-year bloody war to establish the right to
representation where there was taxation, and when we think of our con-
difon in the District of Columbia relative to the franchise, we can not help
feeling that our National Government stultifies itself in that it taxes us and at
the same time allows us no voice in our own governmental affairs and no voice
in the election of the President and Vice President and the Members of Con¬
gress.
The Chairman. Do you feel you have no voice in your own governmental
affairs?
Mr, Waldron. We do Senator; and I am in the habit of saying that we live
in a District that is run by a fuss, and we can get nothing in the District without
having some kind of a row.
The Chairman. You have three commissioners appointed, who control the
District.
Mr. Waldron. Yes.
The Chairman. Those three commissioners must have been residents of the
District of Columbia for a certain number of years before they are eligible to
appointment?
152
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Waldron. Yes.
The Chairman. They are generally appointed by the President on the recom¬
mendation of local people. I think in a measure you have some representation,
although it is not representation by a right to vote.
Mr. Waldron. That is what the American people want. That is what we
want.
The Chairman. It is hardly fair to say you have no representation.
Mr. Waldron. That is not the representation that is contemplated by the Con¬
stitution or by any of the States. We feel the time has come to either give us
what we are entitled to or say you will not give it to us. We are asking for all
we ought to have, hoping we may at least get something.
The Chairman. I do not fully agree with you. I am not taking any position,
because my mind is open, and it will remain open, but I see objections to both
sides of it. I think you are in a measure represented. I do not think the privi¬
lege of voting is a right, even in the United States. It is limited in many States.
It has but recently been granted to the women of the United States. It is only a
privilege. This is a representative form of government, and you elect representa¬
tives to carry out the laws or make the laws of your country. If we had a demo¬
cratic form of government everybody would have a voice in the administration
of those laws. It is a republican, representative form of government, and while
you have not what I know you feel you ought to have-
Mr. Waldron. And what I think you feel we ought to have.
The Chairman. Yet you should not say you have no representation, for I think
you have, in a measure.
I remember very well on last election night I came to Washington. I had to
start West early the next morning on business for the Government. The one
thing that impressed me when I came into Washington was the fact that nobody
had a vote, nobody had participated in that great national election, and they
were all feeling as though they had been deprived of something. It impressed me
more than I have ever been impressed on entering a city under such conditions.
Mr. Waldron. Mr. Chairman, may I say that if it is a privilege, it is just what
we want. You say it is not a right.
The Chairman. It is not a right; it is a privilege granted by law.
Mr. Waldron. If it is a privilege, why should we be denied it and other people
be given it?
The Chairman. I am not saying you should be.
Mr. Glassie. Will you permit me to make one observation?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Glassie. On all sides we agree that the individual right to' vote is a
privilege so far as a man is concerned, but we think it is a right so far as the
community is concerned.
The Chairman. I think you are right about that.
Mr. Waldron. What does the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment mean, if
it is not a right? Does that not confer it upon the ex-slaves?
The Chairman. It only extends it so far as race or color is concerned.
Mr. Waldron. I tin not see how you can give a thing and take it away at the
same time.
The Chairman. That is not my construction of it.
Mr. -Waldron. I can understand that construction. What we want is what
we believe we are going to get, and we believe you feel as we do. I am glad
you came to the city of Washington on election night, because you saw the situa¬
tion and felt to some extent as we felt—that we were being denied what is
justly due us.
The citizens of the District of Columb'a can not help feeling humiliated at
their position and there is always lurking suspicion in their breasts that they
are not justly treated by the Nation, and these convictions do not make for the
safety of the National Government and they may at some future time engender
such a contention and strife that may embarrass the National Government.
Further, the anomalous position occupied by the citizens of the District of
Columbia in the matter of the franchise is not conducive to the development of
usefulness, love, and loyalty to our beloved country, neither on the part of our¬
selves nor of our children. We teach our children that America is the greatest
country in the world and that the franchise is the most sacred r'ght an Ameri¬
can citizen can possess, and they learn from everyday events as well as from
history that the people living in the District of Columbia have always borne
their part of the burdens incident to national and local government and have
responded freely to every call made by the Nation for money, service, sacrifice.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
153
and men, and yet these children and their parents are not even allowed to vote
for the humblest official in the District government, and notwithstanding they
are heavily taxed, they have no representation in the Government they sustain
and love. This state of affairs argues either that the principles of the Declara¬
tion of Independence and the Constitution are a falsehood or that the citizens
of the District of Columbia are only half loyal and are therefore not to be trusted
with the franchise.
At these hearings the question has been frequently asked. “ Have you a good
government in the District of Columbia?” The answer has been usually in
the affirmative. But while we may have a good government in a way, that does
not seem to us to be an argument in favor of refusing the franchise to the citi¬
zens of the District of Columbia. We notice that the citizens everywhere else
in'this country clamor for the right to elect their own Government officials, and
when that right is taken from them or refund them they feel they have been
wronged. People learn to govern themselves by selecting their own officials
and by running their own Government, and it is a great deal better in a Re¬
public that they should do this even though they might be governed better in
some respects by a monarchical form of government. A child in the arms of its
mother might reach a certain destination quicker than it would by walking, yet
it is much better for the child that it walk. We feel that we have a fairly good
government of its kind, but we are sure that the kind of government we have
is not the best for the development of people of the District of Columbia into
responsible, loyal, and stalwart citizens of a Republic such as ours.
We have lived in the District of Columbia for nearly 15 years, and during
all that time we have heard only two real objections advanced why the people
of the District of Columbia should not be given the franchise. The first is, that
“There is a large colored population in the District: and if the franchise is
bestowed upon the people here, the colored people must be allowed to vote, and
they would invariably vote the Republican ticket and always keep the Repub¬
lican Party in control of the government of the District of Columbia.” That was
one reason why self-government was taken from the District of Columbia by the
Democratic Party. They felt that the colored people were always going to vote
with the Republican Party.
The Chairman. That is the first time I ever heard that the Democratic Party
failed to limit that vote in the States.
Mr. Waldron. They took it away from those here.
The other reason is: “If the people of the District of Columbia are given
the franchise and self-government it would increase the taxes of the citizens
of the District.”
It seems to me, in discussing tl.e matter of the vote of the colored man, that
most of us have got to come to the point where we will look at a man as a man and
not at the color of his skin, and must be willing to treat other people as we would
like them to treat us. Until we are willing to do that we will not succeed in Con¬
gress, in the disarmament conference, or anywhere else where we attempt to
deal with human beings. The Golden Rule and the new commandment of
“Love one another” are the things in my mind that we have got to come to to
solve Ibis great problem that disturbs us so much, and there is no use trying to
get any other solution, because there is none.
With regard to the colored vote, it ought to be said that of the colored adult
citizens in the District of Columbia, 90 per cent of them can read and write and
70 per cent of this number have had a common-school education ; that, as a
class, ’he colored people of the District of Columbia own more property than any
other equal number of colored citizens in this country, or perhaps in the world.
The colored citizens of the District of Columbia for 40 years or more have been
educated to take an intelligent and discriminating interest in affairs pertain¬
ing- to the welfare of our Nation, and a large part of them are in one way and
another connected with the District and National Governments. At every crisis
in our Nation during the past 50 years the colored citizens of the District of
Columbia have done more than their share in assisting and protecting the
Nation Whether literate or illiterate, whether owners of property or without
property they have always shown themselves loyal, self-sacrificing, and intelli¬
gent when the interests of the District and the National Governments were at
If that had onlv been followed we would have had the vote to-day. While I
refer to the fact that the Democrats took self-government away from the Dis¬
trict I don’t know that I have any condemnation for them, except to leel that
thev did not perhaps use all the wisdom they ought to have used in making these
154
SUFFRAGE IX THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
people see it is their duty and business to divide their vote. When we get the
vole of the colored people divided in the South, when they no longer vote as a
unit, when they divide their vote as the white man divides his vote, you will
no longer have a solid Democratic South and a black Republican vote in the
North.
The Chairman. I think it is very unwise to bring the politial aspect into this.
There is another phase of it that might affect the votes of many Members in
Congress. That would be that the administration in power would generally
have the balance of power in the District of Columbia. I think it is better to
keep the political aspect out entirely, from the effect it might have on the vote
in the Senate and the House.
Mr. Waldron. I am not trying to bring that up, but every time a demand is
made for the colored man it is sought to make it appear that he will not do the
thing that is fair and right. Even a member of the committee made the argu¬
ment, saying, of course, he did not express any opinion. I don’t believe we are
going to be able to deceive the Democrats any longer, and I don’t believe we
want to; nor do I believe we can deceive the Republicans.
The Chairman. We do not want to deceive anybody. This should be decided
upon what is the best for the government of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Waldron. That is what I am trying to do. So far as trying to bring in
politics is concerned, it is a political question, and I don't see how we can take
hold of it unless we do refer to it. Forty years have passed since the District
of Columbia governed itself.
Mr. Bradshaw. I wish to correct the speaker.
The Chairman. The rule is that the speaker shall not be interrupted. You
will have a right to speak in your own time.
Mr. Bradshaw. He is entirely wrong.
ME. Waldron. I don’t want to be corrected in this way and at this time, Mil
C hairman.
The Chairman. He has a right to his own opinion and you have a right to
your opinion, which you can state to the committee at the proper time.
Mr. Bradshaw. I am not stating my opinion. I just wanted to give him some
information.
Mr. Waldron. I will be very glad to have it when I get through.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Waldron. Forty years have passed since the District of Columbia gov¬
erned itself, and these 40 years have made wonderful changes in the life,
opinion, and conditions of the colored citizens in the District of Columbia and
of the colored citizens of the entitle country. In many places in the United
States the colored people have for years voted freely and in considerable’ num¬
bers with the Democratic Party and with coalition and independent political
parties. The colored citizens have learned that political parties are simply
means to the securing of desired ends in local, State, and National Governments,
and they have also come to the point where they divide their vote if they live
in communities where the white people divide theirs, so that the Democrats nor
any other party that may have candidates in the field need have no fear of a
solid black Republican vote in the District of Columbia. If we understand cor¬
rectly the history of self-government in the District of Columbia the franchise
and the right to govern themselves were taken from the people of the District
by the Democratic Party simply because the colored voter was at that time
always solidly Republican.
I have been informed it was not done that way, so I would like to have that
changed. I have been told by people who live here.
This bugaboo need not stand in the way of conferring the right of self-
government and the franchise upon the people of the District of Columbia, for
the colored voters can now be depended upon to vote in the same way that other
citizens vote, namely, for measures and men best fitted to carry forward the
Government for the welfare of all; the day of a solid black Republican vote in
the District of Columbia or anywhere north of the Mason and Dixon line has
passed by forever.
And, finally, the colored citizens are in favor of and prepared to submit
to any qualification of the franchise that is honest and legal and that shall be
made to apply alike to all of the citizens of the District of Columbia. It is
well to remind this committee and all others concerned that neither the colored
people of the District of Columbia nor any other part of this country have
ever used their votes, money, or numbers to in any way injure or embarrass
the National Government. The Federal Government found on one occasion.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 155
at least, that it could trust the colored citizen when it could not trust some other
citizens. 'You know when you were guarded here by colored troops at the
United States Treasury and White House until they could pick out certain people
from the Army and send certain others here they could depend upon.
The colored citizen has never used the franchise in the District of Columbia
nor anywhere else in the Nation to injure or embarrass the National Govern¬
ment, and he never will so long as our General Government believes in and
strives to live up to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
With regard to the claim that taxes will be increased in the event that self-
government is granted the District of Columbia, this need not deter anyone from
desiring the franchise and self-government for the District, for it is more than
probable that the District of Columbia under self-government would cost less
than it now costs under a commission form of government, and, further, if
all the property in the District of Columbia—that owned by individuals and
that owned by the Nation—was assessed and taxed at its fair value the United
States Government would likely have to pay considerably more toward the
support of the District government than it does now. I am only contending that
all property be taxed alike and let each side bear its own proportion.
The Chairman. It would be about 42 per cent.
Mr. Waldron. And in any event the people of the District of Columbia would
pay no more taxes under a government of their own choosing than other cities
of the same size in this country are now paying; and if the franchise and self-
government are what we claim it is, the people of the District of Columbia
ought to be willing to agree to a slight raise in taxation, if it should be neces¬
sary, in order to be blessed with the privilege of saying who shall govern them
and of having a hand in electing the President and Vice President and the
Congress of the United States.
For the reasons mentioned above your petitioners request you to urge upon
Congress the duty and necessity of granting to the citizens of the District of
Columbia the franchise and the right and privilege of governing themselves.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing me this afternoon.
The Chairman. There will be no hearing until after the regular session of
Congress begins on December 5. We will notify you through the papers. We
will then continue the hearings until all sides have presented their case. The
committee will adjourn subject to the call of the chairman.
(Whereupon, at 6 o’clock p. in., the committee adjourned, subject to the call
of the chairman.) ... ...
* '' ■ i 4. \ 1 i : ■ ' ’ -
f -' , ! ' tt ■ ■ : > •
H >• 1 l'.,;'■
« . - • 'y i
-
-v. . 1 ? ,
' K ; ■ ■' . ' 11
■*' ■■■ ' ' 1 ' ' . • -■ '
*
-
.
‘
' ■- i‘w ; w ' ■ ' ■
'i : ■ :• •? !
.
• •• i • ; ‘ * ■; • ' , ,,. f - ,,^
' < r - ■ l! ;
■ i 'i ;■■ ■ ’ ‘ - ; -
- r 't , M 'y--C~
* •
... ► n . i’< . ■ -
if; , -.
■
-
\
'i .
■
-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1921.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
- Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 o’clock a. in., in the committee room,
Capitol; Senator Wesley L. Jones presiding.
Senator Jones. The chairman of the committee. Senator Ball, could not be
present this morning and asked me to preside. I understand there are two
hours this morning to be given to those who favor either one or all of the propo¬
sitions now pending before the committee. Mr. Fairbairn has asked to be heard
first, and we will give him that opportunity.
STATEMENT OF A. D. FAIRBAIRN.
Senator Jones. Mr. Fairbairn, for whom do you appear?
Mr. Fairbairn. I appear on behalf of the District press committee on suf¬
frage. I understand I represent a number of my colleagues in the press gallery,
not officially, however, because there have been no official instructions given.
I appear for suffrage for the District of Columbia. 1 am not here to tell you
what the fathers had in their minds, because I do not know what they had in
their minds. The committee has been entertained by a lot of historical in¬
formation which it could have obtained simply by reading a history of the United
States. It has been entertained, in my judgment, by a lot of irrelevant matter.
The members of the committee have been told why the fathers of the country
laid out this city and selected it as the Capital of the Nation. All we have
to do is to admit that this is the Capital of the Nation, that there are approxi¬
mately 500,000 people living here, and that the residents are denied any voice
in the conduct of their own affairs. These are facts that can not be contro¬
verted. The only question for the committee to settle is whether we are en¬
titled to some consideration in that way and whether the committee ought to
present to the Senate legislation giving us some relief in the way of a limited
amount of suffrage, at any rate.
You have been told that this city is the Capital and that the Capitol was
built here so as to take the Government away from the influence of Phila¬
delphia. If that is true, the fathers exercised very good judgment, because
anybody who will get away from the influence of Philadelphia shows that he
is sound.
1 have read a good deal recently in the Star with reference to this question,
and, among other things, some of Mr. Noyes’s very able and very eloquent
disquisitions on the District of Columbia. Mr. Noyes takes the position that
a Delegate is wholly inadequate and he wants all or nothing. He wants the
Burroughs bill, which calls for submission of this question to the people upon
a constitutional amendment, so we may have two Senators or one Senator and
two Representatives, as the case may be. That is a long process, and it is
very questionable, in my mind, whether Congress at the present time, or at any
time in the near future, would submit such a question to the people. Then it
would mean an immensely long campaign to get the vast majority of the
States, three-fourths of the States, to ratify what Congress had done. In
the meantime we want something.
Those who demand full suffrage or the Burroughs bill or nothing remind me
of the man in San Francisco who went to a Chinese restaurant and asked the
proprietor if he you Id have something to eat. This was on Monday morning,
and the man said he was starving and needed immediate relief. The Chinaman
157
158
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
said, “ Vely well, you likee fish?” He said, “Yes; I am very fond of fish.”
The Chinaman said, “ All light, you come around Fliday.”
Now, if the committee please, we do not want something in the far and dis¬
tant future. We want something now, and if we can only get a Delegate or
two Delegates, one in the House and one in the Senate, or if we can get a
limited voice in the conduct of our affairs, we will accept that. We are not
saying that we are going to be satisfied with that. After we get something we
are going to agitate for more and we are going to keep on agitating until we
get what the majority of the citizens of this town believe is adequate represen¬
tation.
Personally, I do not believe that in the history of this Congress we have ever
had a more faithful District Committee than we have in the Senate at this
time. Senator Ball—I can say this in his absence—is about the finest man
we have ever had as chairman of this committee. He has at heart the interests
of this city. Pie has occupied his mind with some matters of the smallest de¬
tail, matters which a United States Senator, with his vast interests to take
care of, is not ordinarily expected to look into. So we have no complaint
regarding the work that the District Committee is doing, neither have we any
complaint of the action of a majority of the Members of Congress in both
branches beyond saying that they have not so far seen fit to give us any kind
of representation in this body or in the lower branch of the American Congress.
The question has been asked me on several occasions, “ What do you want a
change for? Have you not one of the finest governments on the face of the
earth?” I say truly that we have in the District of Columbia one of the finest,
most faithful of municipal governments that was ever created for the care
of the affairs of man. But that is not a full answer to the question which we
have. This does not fully answer our objections. You may give us a tax-free city
if you like, you may say to us, “Congress will take care of all your expenses;
The country, outside of the District of Columbia, will see that you do not have
a dollar to pay for the upkeep of your parks, for the care of your streets, for
the care of your lighting system, or for any other public utility that you may
have. You can have all those things, but you can not have any voice in the
conduct of your own affairs.” We would not be satisfied with that because we
are unwilling, in the first place, to live upon the charity of the country. We
are unwilling to live upon the charity of Congress. Even if you gave us a
veritable elysium in the shape of a municipality we would not be satisfied,
if you were to say to us, “ You can have this, but you can not have any right
in the selection of the men who are to rule you.”
Evidently, from what he said at a previous hearing, Senator Ball inclines to
give us a Delegate. We want more. We want the privilege of electing our
commissioners, subject, I presume, to the approval of Congress and the ap¬
proval of the President. We want a voting Delegate in the House of Repre¬
sentatives and we want one or probably two in the Senate. We want them, but
evidently we can not have them at the present time. Evidently, from the
temper of the committee and from the sentiment prevailing in Congress, it is
impossible for us to obtain the right to elect our own commissioners and to
create our own municipal government. But there must be a general inclination
in Congress to give us a Delegate without a vote. I say there must be, because
I believe there is. Mr. Noyes has said that is entirely inadequate. I quite
agree with Mr. Noyes that it is entirely inadequate, but we are not going to
refuse to accept that crumb of bread simply because we can not get a whole
loaf.
It has been said that if we get a Delegate Congress will say to us, “ Well,
you have somebody in Congress at the present time, and that is all you will
get; that is all you will require,” and that any agitation for more representa¬
tion and more complete suffrage would die out. Very well; if agitation is per¬
mitted to die out, then we of the District of Columbia must be responsible for
its death.
I do not think that argument is founded upon good logic. It does not answer
fully the statement that if we can not get all we want we will take all we
can get. I am asking the committee for the very best they are able to give us,
for the very best Congress is able to give us. There are bills pending requir¬
ing action by the various States on a proposed constitutional amendment. Very
well; I am for them. I am for the Burroughs bill, I am fcfr the .Tones bill,
I am for the Capper bill, 1 am for the Poindexter bill, I am for anything that
will get for the people of the District of Columbia some voice in matters which
directly concern them; but I am also for anything, if the committee please,
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
159
tliat your body is able and willing to give us at the present time. I would sug¬
gest that whatever you give us, you give us as quickly as is consistent with due
and proper deliberation upon a subject of such vast importance.
I think we ought to have something to say about the election of the Presi¬
dent and Vice President of the United States. We do not feel that as citizens
who are ordinarily intelligent—and I believe the standard of intelligence in
the city of Washington is about as high as it is in any city in the United
States or in any community in the United States—should be subjected to the
constant and continual humiliation of feeling conscious of the fact that we
have had no voice in putting a man in the White House or electing some one
to preside over the deliberations of your distinguished body. I have been here
long enough as a member of the press gallery to have conceived a very high
regard for the personnel of the Senate and also of the House. In my judgment,
it is a collection of men which could not be equaled anywhere in the world for
intelligence, for devotion to the interests of the country, for industry. For all
those qualities which go to make up greatness, the Congress of the United
States can not be excelled, can not be equaled, in my judgment. For that
reason, knowing that we have such a Congress and knowing that we have such
a fine collection of statesmen to deal with, I feel confident that they will try
to do us justice.
I know that in the multitude of duties which you have to perform here,
matters of small importance or comparatively small importance, such as the
deta Is of the government of a municipality, will escape your minds. The only
difficulty is that the Senate Distr ct Committee is having to give any attention
at all to the affairs of the District of Columbia. Each one of you distinguished
Senators represents a whole State, some with millions of inhabitants, and
all with diversified interests. With the people of the United States calling
upon you every day for action upon something of national or international
import, the wonder to me is that you have time at all to give any attention
to the affairs which vitally affect our intersts. That being the case, why not
give us a man or two men or three men who will devote their entire time to
the interests of the District of Columbia? Why no!; relieve yourselves of those
details? We call Senator Ball the mayor of the city of Washington and the
other members of the District Committee are the city council. Why not have
one, two, or three men devoted to the people’s interests, elected to the Senate
and to the House, men who will give their time, their entire time and their
whole attention to the affairs of the District?
Of course, some of them have brought in the color question here. I think
Congress can take care of the color question. In fact, I understand we
have three men for every colored man in the District, and I do not think an
issue of that kind will ever come up. It will be a question of good government.
It will be a question of good streets, of good sewage, good lighting, of health
and sanitation, and all those things which vitally concern a progressive city
like the city of Washington.
Then, again, the people will take a special pride in their city. When I
came here years ago I was struck with and, in fact, I wrote articles about
the total absence of a civic spirit in Washington. But that was before I began
to live here. It was the result of a superficial observation. As soon as I
lived here my mind began to change and my views have changed, but before
that I had written a series of articles upon what I called a total absence of
civic spirit. It was then my view that there was no civic pride, and I at¬
tributed that condition of mind to the fact that the people of the District
had nothing to do with their own government.
We have the most beautiful streets in the world and the most magnificent
parks. There is no building on earth, in my mind, especially when the search¬
lights are playing upon the dome at night, which appeals more to the imagina¬
tion than the building in which we are holding this hearing. There is noth ng
which appeals to the imagination and to the poetic instinct more than the
broad avenues and the magnificent parks of the city of Washington. Yet, if
you talk to the average Washingtonian he does not seem to have more than
a passing pride in all these achievements—and why ? It is because Congress
has done it all for him and he has done nothing for himself. That is the idea.
Give us a chance to do something for ourselves, give us a chance to develop
under some kind of responsible government, and not to be the mere wards
of the Nation, never to be commended for anything we do but only to be
spanked when we do not do anything.
83480—22-11
160
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
It is a marvelous thing to me that men, because they can not get all they
are seeking, will oppose a limited suffrage. Please get this into your minds,
that I am not pleading for limited suffrage. I want full suffrage. That is
my goal; but I want now what you are able to give us now and I want you
to give it to us as quickly as you possibly can. I am perfectly willing that
the Jones bill or the Burroughs bill be submitted to the people for ratification—
perfectly willing—but, in the meantime, I want a voice and I want a man
or two men or three men selected by the people of the District of Columbia
to come and advise with you, to take some of the burdens off your shoulders,
to relieve you of the onerous duties of taking care of the whole of this city.
You each have a State to take care of. You have the finances of the Nation
to look after. You have to provide for the Army and for the Navy. You
have to provide for peace treaties and for our relations with foreign nations.
You have all these gigantic tasks to take care of, so why not delegate some of
the detailed work with reference to the District to people who know exactly
the conditions in the District of Columbia?
Senator Ball, the chairman of the committee, and the other members of the
committee, have studiously investigated conditions in Washington. How you
have ever found the time to do it is a mystery to me, and it will continue a
mystery to the people of this city. It shows that your capacity for work and
your devotion to the popular interest is really sublime and great and that you
are ready to make real sacrifices for the benefit of the people of the Nation.
But why not relieve yourselves from much of this detailed work so that you
can give your whole time to matters which concern the hundred and twenty
millions of people in this country?
The grandeur of this country .appeals to me this morning more than it has
ever done, and yet the grandeur of the Senate that is able to leave the vast
international affairs, the great things of this Nation, for some time and devote
itself to mere matters of improving streets and improving our lighting system
and taking care of our parks, and little things of that kind, is something beyond
my comprehension. That appeals to me also.
However, as I said, let us have men who will advise you, men who will take
care of the affairs of the District of Columbia. I do not want any ward system.
I do not want any ward heelers. We have a commission plan of government
in the District of Columbia. I think the commission plan of government in
the District of Columbia has proved a model upon which hundreds and perhaps
thousands of cities of this country have founded and built their new forms
of city government. But let us have more to say about how that city govern¬
ment shall be created and how it shall function. Let us have personal pride in
being able to say, “ Well, we voted for the Delegate who advised this, we
voted for the President of the United States who approved this, we voted for
the Vice President of the United States who presided over your deliberations in
the Senate which finally passed the bill so vastly affecting our interests.”
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. Give us what you can, give us as
much as you can, and give it to us as quickly as you can. I thank you.
STATEMENT OF EVAN H. TUCKER.
Senator Jones. Mr. Tucker, do you appear in a representative capacity or in
your individual capcity?
Mr. Tucker. Mr. Chairman, I appear as president, of the Northeast Washing¬
ton Citizens’ Association. When I say the Northeast Washington Citizens’ Asso¬
ciation I would like not to be considered as representing a section remote from
this building. The geographical sections of the District of Columbia are
divided by the Capitol Streets, North Capitol, East Capitol, etc. The north¬
east section includes, therefore, one quarter of this building which we are in,
and includes, I may say, the room in which we now are. That is the section I
am representing here. As representing that section, I wish to extend an invita-
titon to all the members of the committee to become members of our association
and help us in the good work we are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I am here this morning with a message direct from our people.
I have here a resolution which was adopted at the November meeting of the
association indorsing the Jones bill in toto. The resolution was unanimously
adopted by the meeting.
Senator Jones. Do you desire to have that incorporated in the record?
Mr. Tucker. Yes; I do.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
161
(The resolution referred to is as follows:)
Northeast Washington Citizens’ 'Association,
Washington, D. C., November 17, 1921.
The Committee on the District of Columbia,
Senate of the United States.
Gentlemen : At the last meeting of this association the following resolution
was unanimously adopted:
u Resolved by the Northeast Washington Citizens' Association (in regular
meeting assembled this 14th day of November, 1921), That it heartily indorses
Senate joint resolution 133, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, providing for representation of the District of Columbia in the
Congress of the United States, and for other purposes, and earnestly hopes for
its.adoption by the Congress of the United States and its ratification by the sev¬
eral State legislatures.”
Respectfully,
Roscoe Jenkins, Secretary.
Attest:
Evan H. Tucker, President.
Mr. Tucker. Mr. Chairman, I have no formal address to make, and I have
not prepared any set speech.
Senator Jones. May I inquire, Mr. Tucker, how many people were present at
that meeting when this resolution was adopted?
Mr. Tucker. I did not count them, but I asked two members afterwards, one
of whom said there were 50 and the other said 35. I judge somewhere between
those two numbers would be about correct, probably 40 members being present.
It was about the usual attendance.
The people of the District of Columbia, as you know, enjoy only the right ofi'
petition. We have no voice in our Government whatever. In exercising that
right it is necessary to come to Congress, Congress'being the legislature of the
District of Columbia. We have no complaint to make of our local government.
We believe we have the best local city government in the United States. We
are not asking for the right to elect commissioners. We have had very able
commissioners appointed by the President. We would like to have a voice in
the election of the President of the United States who appoints those commis¬
sioners, and representation in the Senate which confirms them. There have
been cases where we felt that if we had had representation in the Senate prob¬
ably some of the men who had been appointed would not have been confirmed;
but generally speaking the commissioners have been entirely satisfactory to the
people of the District of Columbia.
It has been my duty, as the chairman of our committee on legislation, to
represent our association before Congress and before the committees of
Congress for nearly 30 years. My experience in that line has been very large.
I have had an opportunity to see a great deal of the way in which legislation
is worked out. I have been in a position to see things that others have not;
probably more than most citizens of the District of Columbia. It has been
my duty to come and knock at the door of Congress and ask for the legislation
that we should have and beg Members of Congress to appropriate the money
that we pay in taxes in the way that we would like to have it appropriated.
We have had to come and beseech you.
I am not a lobbyist in the sense that the term is ordinarily u$ed. I have never
been. I have come here and exercised the right of petition as I am doing here
to-day. I have appeared before the committee and made my arguments. I
have requested Senators and Members of the House to do what my association
has asked to be done, and in every legitimate way have represented our
association. I will say now, so there will be no misunderstanding as to whether
I might be a lobbyist or not, that that service has been readily given for
nearly 30 years without a single penny of compensation.
The gentleman who spoke preceding me, Mr. Fairbairn, may say there is no
public spirit in the District of Columbia, but I can assure the committee that
there is no local community in the United States that is better organized to-day
than is the District of Columbia. These civic bodies are a sufficient answer.
We have no other way than to come before you as members of the committee
and knock at your doors and beseech you to give us what we need to conduct
our city government.
162
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I do not wish to be construed in anything I may say as criticizing any Mem¬
bers of Congress, any Senator, or the Congress itself, but we have come here
asking for a certain thing. You gentlemen are considering this question.
You are anxious to do what is right for us. We believe that now, and have
always believed it. When I come here representing my organization and
always believed it. When I come here representing my organization and asking
you to do this thing it is proper for me to give you some reasons why this should
be done. It is proper to go about it in that way. You naturally want to know
why these people are so anxious to secure this representation. The query
naturally ar.ses, Have we not represented them all right in the past? As I
said, I do not wish to be considered as criticizing anybody. It is not my
intention to do so. I have had very pleasant relations with the Members of the
House and with Senators and with congressional committees, and they have
done a great deal of good work for the District. At the same time we have
reasons, very good reasons, why we would like to have representation in this
body that makes our laws, imposes our taxes, and appropriates our money.
It has been apparent to me in the past that it is very difficult for Congress
properly to represent this District. In the first place the Senators and Members
are not familiar with the details of District affairs. There is no one in the
Congress who has the time to become really intimate with the detail of
District affairs. As the years pass on, and as I said it is a matter of 30 years
with me—and I was representing another organization before this—I have
seen the growing mass of work that is imposed upon Senators and Members,
national and State, to say nothing of the little District of Columbia. The mere
fact that you, Senator Jones, are sitting here alone to-day is evidence that it is
almost impossible for the busy Senators of the United States to give the time
even to this the most important and vital question that we have, ever brought
before you.
I have been in the House of Representatives on what they call District day.
Over there they have a day that is designed to give attention to District legisla¬
tion. I have been there on some of the District days and counted as many as
seven Members of the big House of Representatives sitting there and giving
their attention to District affairs. All of these things, Mr. Chairman, make it
apparent that it is almost impossible for Congress to give proper attention to
District affairs. You need a guiding hand in the Senate and in the House to
show what is right and to help you get it through.
There is another phase of the question that appeals to me because I have been
so intimately connected with this work that I have seen all these things.
Especially in the House, and possibly in some cases in the Senate, the Members
are almost fearful of paying strict attention to District affairs for fear of
losing their seats. I can cite several instances where Members have lost their
seats because they were especially active in promoting some matter pertaining
to the District of Columbia. Let me cite just one or two.
When we had up in the District the fight for legislation involving the dollar
gas. bill many years ago, there was a gentleman from Indiana in the House who
fathered the bill and gave his attention to it. The Association of Gas Engineers
of the United States got together and flooded his district with literature against
him, saying he was here fighting a corporation in this District and asking,
“What has he done for his district in Indiana?” He was left at home,
naturally.
I remember the honorable chairman of this committee at one time had a very
big fight to retain his seat in the Senate because of his activities in behalf of
certain measures in the interest of the District of Columbia.
Members of Congress should not be placed in a position where they would
have to father these bills and jeopardize their interests in that way. We
should have a man in Congress representing the District of Columbia whose
duty it would be to father the bills and who would be responsible to us, the
people here, and not of those of any State.
I wish to call your attention to some of the acts of Congress that were con¬
sidered very unsuitable for conditions in the District of Columbia, if not detri¬
mental to the interests of the people, in which we were deprived even of the right
of petition. Just think of that. The only right given to us by the Constitution
of the United States was taken away by the way Congress manipulated this
legislation.
Tlie act of July 1, 1914, known as the Borland amendment, is the first one to
which I call your attention. The District appropriation bill had been introduced
in the House. When it came up on the floor Mr. Borland, of Missouri, got up,
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
163
and lie thought he was doing the right thing. They had this method of doing
things in Kansas City, where he came from, but Kansas City is not the District
of Columbia. There is a different situation entirely. However, he offered the /
amendment to the District appropriation bill providing that the whole cost of \f
paving the roadway or streets, in the District of Columbia should be assessed
against the abutting property owners. The bill went through the House with
that amendment on it. Where was our right of petition?
We did not have a chance to say a word. The bill passed in that way and
came to the Senate. When it came before the Committee of Appropriations of
the Senate I immediately asked for a hearing for our association, as I \vas
directed to do. There we had a hearing and we absolutely convinced the Com¬
mittee on Appropriations of the Senate that the legislation was vicious legisla¬
tion and did not suit the District of Columbia in any way and was not proper
and did not fit. It was extreme injustice here, even if it did fit in Kansas
City, Mo.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations immediately struck out that item
from the bill. The bill went into the Senate and passed without that item in it.
Then, the bill went to conference, where again we were unable to be heard
and where we had no right of petition. In that conference the Senate con-
frees stood for our rights until the last minute, but when it came to about the
last day of the session, I think Senator Gallinger told me it was the last day
of the session, in order to secure the appropriation of money to run the District
and pay the salaries of our employees and pave the streets, in order to get a
single cent appropriated, it was necessary for the Senate conferees to yield
and make a compromise on that item, which they knew was wrong and unjust
to our people, but they had to do it in order to give something to run the Dis¬
trict with and so they split the difference and made it one-half, providing that
we should pay half of the cost of paving the roadways of our streets. It is one
of the most unjust measures ever passed by the Congress against the interests
of the people of the District of Columbia. Thereby we were deprived even of
the right of petition which is guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United
States.
On June 26, 1912, an act was passed providing that in the future whenever
appropriation is made for the purchase of public parks in the District of Co¬
lumbia not less than one-third of the cost of those parks should be assessed
against abutting property. Think of the justice of that after thousands of
dollars had been appropriated for parks in the northwest section and other
sections. This item was tacked onto a bill which provided for the purchase
of two little tracts over here in East Washington. When they found that poor
section of the city, East Washington, was to get a little bit in the way of a
public park, they said, “ You must pay for it out of your pockets.” Now,
where is the justice in that? If that system had been followed in the past
when you were appropriating half a million dollars for Meridian Hill Park,
which is up on a hill, and is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold it
there, then, there would have been a little justice in saying, when the people
in East Washington wanted a park, that they should be assessed at the same
rate that was assessed against those in the northwest where the aristocrats
live.
We are not, as I said, criticizing any Member of Congress. We are only tell¬
ing you the facts and some of the reasons why we need somebody to look after
our interests in te Senate and in the House.
The next act to which I wish to call your attention is the act of July 21,
1914, in which an appropriation was made for the reclamation of the Anacostia
Flats over in east Washington 4gain. They added an amendment to the bill
cutting out our right of petition again. I think this was done probably in the
conference committee. It provided that there should be 1 an assessment of
benefits for that improvement. After they had made improvements all over the
city without any such provision whatever, then when it came to getting a little
bit in east Washington, the poor section of the city, they said, “ You shall have
the benefits assessed against your little home to pay for it”
Again, there was the act of September 1, 1916, assessing the intangible per¬
sonal property'in the District of Columbia. There is a measure which I think
Congress would not ever have passed if they had had somebody in Congress who
really knew the situation in the District of Columbia and could explain the
measure. It was put on in this case as an amendment to the District appro¬
priation bill in the Senate after the bill had passed the House without it. The
164
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
bill came to the Senate, and some Senator got up and made a motion to add
this amendment. He probably thought it was all right, but it did not fit here
and it is unjust. Let me explain why:
The man who has a mortgage on his home, for instance, is not only paying
taxes on his property but he has to pay a tax again on his mortgage on that
property. Where is the justice in that? He is paying double taxation, and the
poor man has to stand while the rich man who owns the note behind the
mortgage goes tax free on that note. There is no justice in that. I do not mean
that the Senate intended to be unjust. They were just misinformed and did
not know. They needed guidance.
There are other measures of that sort, but I shall not take your time to go
into them further. You all know these are facts, and if there is any question
about it they can be ascertained easily.
Then, of course, there have been any number of acts of omission on the part
of Congress, where they have failed to make provision for the District, that we
think should have been made. For instance, take the school situation to-day.
If Congress had been guided by the requests of the citizens in the past, the
present condition would not exist. We have been before you, knocking at your
door and requesting appropriations for the schools. Thirteen years ago I went
before the Committee on Appropriations and asked for an appropriation for a
new Eastern High School. There was a beautiful plot of ground at that time
which was locally situated exactly right for that building. It was offered for
sale at $75,000. The board of education requested its purchase, and we went
before the committee and asked for an appropriation of $75,000 for the purchase
of that site. Congress failed to make the appropriation. In the next two or
three years speculative builders bought the whole square, subdivided it, and
built it up solidly with residence property. We lost that site. About eight years
later, when Congress finally saw that they must make appropriation for a site
for a high-school building, they found it necessary to appropriate $150,000 in
order to buy a site, and then we had to go away out a great deal farther
than was really proper to accommodate the people who the school was to serve.
That school building was needed then when we asked for it 13 years ago. It
is now being built, and we hope to have it occupied in the course of a year or
so. But that incident shows the way those things go. We need that guiding
hand, somebody to explain the school situation and everything else so that Con¬
gress will be absolutely familiar with the situation. We are not blaming Con¬
gress for these things, because it is dfficult for all the Members of Congress to
understand and see just what our stuation is.
In regard to the school question further, you are probably familiar with the
fact that we have nearly $5,000,000 in the Treasury of the United States to our
credit that has never been appropriated. If we had carried on our school pro¬
gram, if we had provided for the increase in our water supply, and those other
things that have been asked and pleaded for by our citizens there would have
been no need for any surplus in the Treasury, because that $5,000,000 would have
been matched with an equal $5,000,000 by the Federal Government and we could
have used the money to carry on the necessary things in the interest of our city.
These, I think, are fair reasons why we should have District representation.
However, there is another phase of the question that appeals especially to me,
and if you will pardon me I would like to use myself in this case as an example
of how it works.
I am a native of the District of Columbia. My father was born here in 1819,
102 years ago. He was a native of the District of Columbia. As a boy when I
was growing up I felt that I was an American citizen. I was told that every
citizen of the United States had a vote and had a right to vote for President
and even to be President and to be a Member of Congress or a Senator. I sup¬
posed that I was a real American citizen, just like anybody else in the United
States. After a wh'le, when I got a little older and became able to study a little
into the conditions here, I found that I had been deprived of my birthright and
that I was not an American citizen. I did not have the rights of other American
citizens. I felt badly about it. I felt as though it. was no fault of mine that I
was born in the District, that my father was a native of the District, etc.
You gentlemen and a great many other people in Washington tvho come from
the States have a great deal of pride and reverence for your home town, for your
home State. You talk about what it is back home. I have even heard some of
them say it is God’s country, and things of that sort. You like that home.
Probably your ancestors are buried in the soil in some little churchyard or some
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
165
cemetery back there. You have reverence for that ground. You love that
ground. I have the same feeling for my home in the District of Columbia. My
ancestors are buried here. My grandfather, when he came back here from serv¬
ing the country in the War of 1812, settled in the District of Columbia. He
and my grandmother are buried in this soil. My parents are buried in this soil.
I have all of those feelings, all that reverence for home, that you people from
the States have and I have more, too, because your home town is not the Capital
of the greatest Nation on the face of the earth.
I take great pride in being a citizen of the District of Columbia, because I
am a citizen of the Capital of the greatest Nation on the face of the earth. I
take pride in that. I wish to improve it. I want to make it the most beautiful
Capital and the most healthful Capital and the _great educational center and
everything that it should be to be appropriate for the Capital of the greatest
Nation on the face of the earth. I have that pride in it.
Now, in order to enjoy the rights of other citizens of the United States I must
leave this city, my home, leave this soil, leave the home of my ancestors, leave
all my friends and all my business relations and everything else, in order to ex¬
ercise the right to vote, the right that was granted every American citizen.
Now, is that right? Is that just? Would you gentlemen feel that you ought to
leave your home town that you love so well in order that you might be American
citizens and exercise that right? I feel that that is a point that should not be
overlooked. Should there be any place in this Nation where a person born in
a town should have to go away to exercise the right of American citizenship?
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. I tliank you.
STATEMENT OF DONALD MACPHERSON.
Senator Jones. Mr. Macpherson, do you come in a representative capacity or
just as an individual?
Mr. Macpheeson. I come as an individual. I am under the impression that
I possibly represent a good many unorganized persons. I do not come here
with a finished address nor of any particular length, but I knew from the
observations of the discussion for a long time, both in the newspapers in the
District and of individuals who have verbally discussed the matter before Sen¬
ate committees, that my views might be expressed in a little different manner.
I want to call attention to the generic principles which I think the com¬
mittee will recognize and citizens who are here will recognize as being very
valid. I do not intend to go to the extent of analyzing my views or the axioms
or dogmatic statements that may seem to compose my propositions, but I
think they will all tie together and be recognized as having some considerable
validity. The statement which I have to make to you simply consists of brief
suggestions of which I have made note, without much analysis or perhaps
literary cohesion, but I think, Mr. Chairman, they will all tie together in a
way that will appeal to the hearer as being valid.
For the purpose of calling attention to a group of ideas, the first I entitle
“ Psychic influences.” For my views respecting the influence of and results
of suffrage and representation in Congress, see pages 48 to 53 in the brief of the
joint citizens’ committee before Congress, January, 1921. I refer to that in
this way to save the time and the labor of organizing my thoughts. As to that
influence and purpose it has my approval and I accept it as a part of my dis¬
cussion.
The quality of the people; that is, the citizens, of the District of Columbia
depends upon the exercise of functions, privileges, and obligations. The exer¬
cise of functions produces power. The possession of power induces effort. The
exercise of effort, produces power which may mean mental complexity and
ability which may mean culture, which means efficiency.
Progress depends on the exercise of effort and no efficient effort can be made
without due quantity and quality of power or ability.
Effort alone will not be made without the stimulus of the hope of reward.
I hope I do not need to analyze and to expend upon what reward means, not
here. What is deemed a reward depends upon the social state, that is the civi¬
lization of society or the individual.
A society or the individuals composing it will be formed or influenced by the
general conditions, heredity and environment. They are generic and cosmic.
The environment—the Congress and official life in this case—will reciprocally
be improved.
166
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The next thought is “ the law of the land.” The supreme law under cosmic
evolution is the law of survival. The evolution of society is cosmic and can
not be suppressed. It must be expressed or exhibited in some form or manner,
either by progress or by degradation, sometimes called conservatism. I would
here make reference to a remark made by Lord Roseberry. While that does
not make it, it suffices as a way of introduction. I would call attention to Lord
Roseberry’s Reflections Upon the Suppression of'Human Rights. The so-called
conservatism of society or government is the most unsafe and dangerous exer¬
cise of government or law.
The next thought is “ the fathers and the Constitution.”
Senator Jones. May I suggest, Mr. Macpherson, that there are two or three
others who desire to be heard this morning and our time is very limited? I
would suggest that you pass over the general propositions and come down to
your specific reasons.
Mr. Macpherson. I am coming right to them now.
Senator Jones. Very well. •
Mr. Macpherson. The Constitution and laws with their conceptions have
changed both by amendment and conception and through judicial decisions.
They must change and be changed. When the evolution of society is unduly
prevented evil results in some form—inferiority, degradation, and even revolu¬
tion. In some degree, for the purpose of this discussion, it is immaterial as
to what the fathers intended in all respects as to the ultimate use and des¬
tiny of the District of Columbia. I am reciting this for the purpose of show¬
ing that whatever they did was done necessarily, to use a term which I have
previously used, for the purpose of survival, for the social welfare and gen¬
eral welfare of the people of the United States. That is why they established
the District of Columbia. But I desire also to have you understand that not¬
withstanding that the results upon the citizens can not be otherwise than
prejudicial.
It must submit to cosmic social evolution that could not be known at the
time of the convention.
“ Good government ” is the next thought. A good government is a relative
matter and not easily defined or understood. In its progress or development
it will necessarily be changed and the society requires a different form and
different quality. Government, or a good government of high quality, as I
have said heretofore, involved the development and complexity of the indi¬
vidual. I tried to have you understand when I began that I did not care
to go over the ground that other people have covered, but they do neglect the
generic and cosmic principles which I think are not any too well known. It
is the effect upon the individual and characteristics that it produces in society,
in subordinated and subjugated persons who are employees of the District
especially before the enactment of the civil-service law. There is no disputing
the fact that the employees of the bureaus and of the Government were a sub¬
ordinate and impaired citizenship.
A good government can not be the result of what Mr. Herbert Spencer called
a benevolent despotism. A government under the control of either a political
or ecclesiastical despotism is a bad and an unworthy government. There must
be the struggle for the survival of the fit—moral, ethical, and physical suprem¬
acy—and the superior should survive. The right to aspiration and the reward
of variation due to aspiration and efficiency is a manifestation of good gov¬
ernment. Good government is not innocent simplicity or stupidity and a regard
under subjection, mental or more, to the laws.
In this connection I would cite a chapter by G. Archibald Reid, a distinguished
scientist and physician of London, discussing the twenty-third chapter of his
work entitled “ Heredity.” I am not presuming that the committee or anybody
else will read it, but it would give a very large amount of valuable information
if it should be read. General principles are more worthy of consideration by
this committee than details of domestic matters.
Now, I come to the question of “ a Delegate in Congress.” A Delegate in
Congress for the District of Columbia is unnecessary and would have no value.
It would not be superior to or equal our present status, for we now have a good
system of representation so far as Delegates are concerned, for we now have
three excellent Delegates, the three commissioners. That they are appointed
by the President as commissioners or Delegates is immaterial. They, as such,
had better be selected in that manner. As such, the citizens do not need to vote
for them, or the board of education; at is of no value. It would be no mani¬
festation or exercise of power. I want it to be understood, Mr. Chairman, that
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
167
I am German in this respect, perhaps, but I want the exercise of power. I want
to have Members of Congress and Senators who can be peers and exerc.se the
power. It would furnish no prestige—and I want this point particularly noted—
to the constituency, the citizens of the District of Columbia. That is not
suffrage. Parenthetically, I have heard it stated frequently by citizens of the
District of Columbia that we had suffrage here a number of years ago and they
voted for somebody for some purpose or other. That is utterly without value as
furnishing a correct precedent.
I now come to the question of “ representation in‘Congress.” Suffrage and
representation in Congress would greatly add to the efficiency and prestige of
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you and others will now begin to see that my con¬
clusions are all tied up to my axioms set forth in the beginning of my statement.
I repeat, that suffrage here and representation in Congress would greatly
add to the efficiency and prestige of the District of Columbia. Congress itself
would, in some degree, be aided or added to by its further association with equal
or competing peers or legal equals. What I have said' heretofore I need not
repeat, but I think it is necessary to say that analysis is not necessary to enforce
that proposition—not now.
They would be required to respond to the sentiment and wishes of their
constituents, the citizens of the District of Columbia. Their relation to the
District of Columbia and to the United States would be substantially or rela¬
tively the same as that of other Senators and Members of Congress in propor¬
tion to their number. Naturally and necessarily they could and would respond
to the legitimate demands and requirements of their constituents.
I come next to “ the right to a forum.” Now, the citizens have no forum or
right to a forum in the District of Columbia. What they receive now is a mat¬
ter of grace, suffrance, or permission. The newspapers and journals of the
District or elsewhere represent their owners, editors, and stockholders. When¬
ever expression is given to the citizen through the journalism of the District
it will be only as an incidental matter—that is, that it happens to meet the
approval of the owners of the corporation, the newspaper. That is perfectly
natural and likely legitimate. They must conduct the r own enterprise, and its
success in some degree depends upon conformation to public approval and
sentiment.
My next thought has to do with “ the necessities and benefits of the exercise
of suffrage.” It is immaterial whether some of the citizens of the District of
Columbia desire to vote or not, as the implication is in my previous statement,
because it becomes their duty to exercise that function. Not to desire to exer¬
cise such a function and assume responsibilities of government is to concede
individual and social inferiority and degradation. That has been referred to
in early times by Macaulay in the history of English suffrage. In certain of the
•election districts of England under the condition of intellectual and moral
depression the citizens had no desire to vote. At that time they were required
or compelled to exercise the suffrage in certain cases. The implication and
expression by Mr. Macaulay was that it was an indication of very low state of
the people of those election districts.
I next come to some concrete cases which I deem of the least importance, so
far as I am concerned, in the discussion and for the action of the committee.
Possibly almost everything can be reduced to dollars and cents, morally and
ethically.
The brief that has been referred to is worthy the consideration of the com¬
mittee. There are legislative needs in the District of Columbia—many that can
not very well be given the attention of Congress in its present form—that would
likely receive more adequate attention by the representation which I have
implied. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon that. Mr. Tucker has very
fully, and hundreds of others have likewise, given expression to the details.
Some acts of Congress probably would not have been approved if representation
in Congress were in a position to receive the desires and instructions of their
constituents and other matters might be enacted that would be beneficial that
can not be or are not considered now.
To cite one instance—there should be a snow and ice law for the removal
of snow and ice from the sidewalks. They are in winters here found in very
dangerous condition. Were an inventory taken of the damages and injuries
caused to people by falls upon the sidewalks of the District, the category would
be a long and serious one. I am a personal example of that myself. I have a
broken hip, had three months in the hospital, and have an injury for life.
0
168
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
There was also passed an act called the Borland amendment to the District
appropriation bill. It is a bad law, injurious particularly to the suburbs of the
District. It is not likely that such, a law would have been passed if their rep¬
resentations could have been made by an exponent of the District in the manner
to which I have previously referred.
The Torrens land-title system should be established in the District of Colum¬
bia. The public or the State should furnish or insure title at a nominal expense
to the applicant. The present system in the District of Columbia is exceedingly
expensive, which is entirely unnecessary. I have that by personal experience
also. The Torrens system is established in most of the States of the Union and
in other countries of the world.
Mr. Chairman, I can say in conclusion in a general way that I am in favor of
representation by not one Senator, but two Senators, a representation in Con¬
gress to pro rate the same as any other of the Commonwealths of the country.
The legislation respecting the details of the municipal or State governments I
at present am not interested in. I think that its exercise is about as good as it
can be under the present management so far as the municipal domestic exer¬
cise is concerned.
That is the limit of my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I am very much obliged
for your patience.
STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANK HIRAM SNELL.
Senator Jones. Mrs. Snell, do you appear in a representative capacity or as
an individual?
Mrs. Snell. I represent the Women’s City Club. More than a year ago a
suffrage. committee was selected from the membership of the club. We had
several meetings and various gentlemen came to the meetings to explain their
plans for suffrage and to urge us to adopt a certain course of action. The com¬
mittee evolved a resolution, and I offered it to the club at the regular monthly
business meeting. The resolution was to the effect that we approved of suffrage
and that we urged active support of the joint committee which was working
upon the constitutional amendment. So the club was by that resolution com¬
mitted to this particular form of suffrage.
Then, for reasons which it is not necessary to particularize at this time, be¬
cause they have been so very ably presented in the last hearing before this com¬
mittee, I thought that possibly that resolution was a little too limited, and in
my own private capacity, not as a member of the suffrage committee, I offered
a resolution as comprehensive as I could make it, and, of course, perfectly
simple in its language, providing that “ We favor the granting of national and
local suffrage and representation. in the Electoral College to the residents of
the District of Columbia.”
So I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Women’s City Club is committed to suffrage,
in whatever form the Senate committee produces it. This vote was not taken
at great effort; in fact, it was just taken in the ordinary course of a regular
business meeing. I rose and offered the resolution. The motion to adopt it was
seconded. There were no speeches; there were no remarks. “All those in favor
will say ‘Aye.’ ‘Aye.’ Contrary minded? Nont at all.” So that it was a unani¬
mous vote in both cases. It must represent, and does represent, the very solid
and enduring opinion of the Women’s City Club—nothing transient, nothing
temporary.
No effort was made, nobody was called up by telephone and asked to come and
support the resolution; nobody had been whipped into line by being told, “If
you do not vote for this we will not vote for you or for your plan,” or anything
of that kind. It was simply in the ordinary course of business at the regular
business meeting. Therefore I think it must be considered that it represents
the enduring and solid opinion of the membership of the Women’s City Club.
This vote was taken a year ago, and at that time the membership of the
Women’s City Club was between 2,200 and 2,300. That is a very large organi¬
zation. Our organization is most comprehensive. There is nothing else in the
city of Washington which is so comprehensive, so all embracing as our club.
For instance, there are various women’s clubs and we have many of them and
they are all splendid but all limited in scope and membership. There is the
League of American Pen Women. You know what that means. We have pen-
women in our club, but our members are not entirely penwomen. There is the
National Association of University Women. That scope is shown by its name.
We have university women in our club, but they are not entirely university
women. Then there is the College Women’s Club, still more limited in scope
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. .
169
than the University Club. We have college women in our club, but they are
not entirely college women. There is the Arts and Crafts Club, which takes in
members of both sexes, I think. We have members from that club. We have
members from the Washington Club and from the Congressional Club. We have
members, I think, from every club in the city.
Then we include what for want of a better word I call every class of women.
We have women who sing for a living, who play the piano for a living, who
lecture for a living. We have women who lecture not so much for money as
from the urge for effort which seems to be apparent among all the women now,
especially if they are connected very closely with other women who earn their
living. We have those women. We have women who work on F Street. We
have women who are in the real estate business. We have women who are in
the insurance business. We have women who are dentists, and we have women
who are in business of every kind. We have many women lawyers, of course;
that would be natural. We have many women who work in the departments of
the Government. We have women whose incomes are very large and who spend
them on what they call serious objects. Then, we have women who spend their
incomes on what we call quite frivolous objects. We have women who live on
their incomes, and those incomes are so small that they live in one room, and
their only entertainment and social life comes from our club.
I have gone into this with some particularity, Mr. Chairman, because it seems
as if it must show that the Women’s City Club is a city club not only in name
but in fact. It takes in every kind of women that come into the city of Wash¬
ington. Any woman who is 18 years of age or over and who is vouched for by
two members can become a member.
So when we say we are for suffrage it does seem to me that our influence should
be very carefully considered, since our membership is so all embracing. Not only
that, but I think I must say that many of the women are married, and I think
I may fairly infer that many of their husbands may not agree with them. I
know in the old days some people used to tell us that the wives would vote with
their husbands, and the husbands would represent their wives. We do not quite
agree to that, and I perhaps may now say that many of the wives would represent
the opinions of their husbands on the question of suffrage. That would increase
that vote of 2,200 or 2 300 by, I should think it could be fairly stated, many more
hundred.
I think I have saW all that I need say. I may repeat that I represent the
Women’s City Club. I am on the suffrage committee, and I am here to fell you
this message. We beg you, we beseech you, to give us some favorable report.
I was thinking the other day when Senator Ball sat here with what was so
aptly called his patient courtesy, how I had first met Senator Ball. I had been
up and down the Atlantic coast in charge of the actual work of organization, and
I finally found myself in that very quaint, charming town with its almost oldest
courthouse in the country, its delightful and very, very old houses, and its charm¬
ing square—Dover, Del. Senator Ball and I were there on the same errand; I
very obscurely and he in the full splendor which a United States Senator always
has in his own State. He labored very earnestly with those State legislators
and with the utmost conviction, and we were all perfectly assured, we women
who were there in numbers, that Senator Ball was doing bis very utmost to get
what we wanted. His efforts came to most splendid fruition later. We were on
opposite sides of the political fence at that time and we still are, but Senator
Ball, of course, treated me with the same intelligent and patient courtesy with
which he has treated those people who have come before him.
So now, Mr. Chairman, I hope that Senator'Ball as chairman of your committee
will really and earnestly recommend some form of suffrage for the District.
Senator Jones. May I inquire how many were present at the meeting when
these resolutions were passed?
Mrs. Snell. This was the regular business meeting of the club which comes
on Monday night. I may understate it, but there were perhaps 150 women—I
dare say there were 200. You know what the membership would be. It is
the regular monthly meeting, with no call for anything special.
STATEMENT OF FRANK SPRIGG PERRY.
Senator Jones. You may proceed, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. If the committee please, I would at the beginning in a measure
introduce myself to the committee. I have been practicing law in Washington
for 20 years. I was at one time assistant United States district attorney here.
I am at the present time an assistant professor of constitutional law at George-
170
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
town University, a member of the Cathedral Heights Citizens’ Association and
of the Cleveland Park Community Service, and also a member of the committee
of the National Representation of the Board of Trade. I am here simply in
my individual capacity and not speaking for any of these organizations.
I feel that I would be derelict in my duty in opening any remarks on District
of Columbia suffrage without paying some tribute, small though it may be,
to Mr. Henry B. F. Macfarland, who but recently passed away. Mr. Macfarland,
as we all know, was a District’commissioner for many years and labored very
earnestly as an advocate of suffrage. It is to be hoped by all those who favor
suffrage that the life and example of Mr. Macfarland may weigh strongly with
this and every other committee before which the suffrage issue of the District
is presented.
My name is not Dawes and I was not a brigadier general in the United States
Army during the war, but I served eight months in France, and I became
more or less familiar with the brand of emphasis that Gen. Dawes used before a
recent committee of the House of Representatives. When I come to consider
the relationship which the people of the District of Columbia bear to the Na¬
tional Government I can only say that it is an outrage that 437,571 citizens of
the District of Columbia are deprived of all representation in the National Gov¬
ernment or in their local affairs. It is an outrage that this great Government
of ours welcomes every year to our shores hundreds of thousands of foreign
immigrants, urges them to settle in the various States, urges them to acccept
a United States citizenship, to handle their own affairs and become voters, and
at the same time refuses that right to native-born, intelligent citizens of Wash¬
ington. I understand that during the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1920,
the number of immigrants who came into our country was 430,001, just a few
thousand less than the citizenship of Washington, and during the last fiscal
year the number exceeded 800,000.
Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the principles of each one of the several bills
which have been presented to this committee—the bill which has been presented
by yourself, Senator Jones, the bills which have been presented by Senator
Capper and Senator Poindexter. The principles of each one of those bills are
in favor of some measure of suffrage for the District of Columbia, and I am
for the principles of each and every one of them. It will be observed that the
elements of suffrage of Statehood are twofold. Statehood consists of a na¬
tional representation in the councils of the Nation and in voting for the President
and Vice President of the United States. Statehood also bears with it a local
significance—that by which each State manages its own individual affairs with¬
out reference to the other States of the Nation or without reference to the
Federal Government.
The bill providing for national representation picks out one portion of this
element of a State—that is, national representation—and lays emphasis on
that and seeks to have that passed by Congress independent of the other ele¬
ments of statehood. In like manner the Poindexter and Capper bills pick out
other elements of statehood and they attempt to have those elements of state¬
hood passed by Congress to the exclusion of the national aspects. If we take
these several bills together, it will be found that combined in their underlying
principles they simply make a State of the American Union. In other words,
if all file parties presenting suffrage before this committee were present
urging their particular choice measures, their united voice would spell but one
word, and that would be statehood.
We have all agreed in a measure that national representation is a most
desirable thing. The bill providing for a constitutional amendment by which
the District of Columbia would have some representation in Congress or in the
Senate and House has been acted upon favorably by all, or practically all, of
the civic bodies of Washington. The great difficulty with that bill is the fact
that it provides for a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds
vote in each House of Congress and the ratification by three-fourths of the
legislatures of the various States. This is a most cumbersome method. It is
respectfully suggested to the committee that statehood would be a much more
simple and direct form by which this most desirable object could be secured
and that the State of Columbia could be erected simply by an act of Congress,
with, perhaps, the consent of the Legislature of the State of Maryland.
During the course of these hearings the chairman of the committee, Senator
Ball, took occasion to refer to the element of local self-government as one
which had been peculiarly committed by the Constitution to the Congress of
the United States. He suggested that if the local self-government were urged
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
171
by the various organizations here, perhaps such an effort would defeat their
ends to secure other and more desirable methods of suffrage. I would suggest
to the committee if there was one solemn promise made to the citizens of the
District of Columbia by the founders of the Constitution, it was that they
should have local self-government.
As we all know, the series of articles which were presented and collected in
the Federalist were issued about the time that the Constitution was being con¬
sidered by the various State conventions which were called to ratify that instru¬
ment. Article 43 of the Federalist was prepared by James Madison, who sub-
sqeuently became the fourth President of the United States. He was one of
the signers of the Constitution and was in fact the man who proposed the very
clause in the Constitution by which the District of Columbia was erected. In
this article 43 of the Federalist James Madison stated specifically that local
suffrage would be granted as a matter of course to the inhabitants of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia. That, as I said, was not only an authoritative statement
coming from one of those who had presented this matter to the constitutional
convention, but it was also in a measure almost a promise to the inhabitants,
because this article was presented in order to obviate any difficulties that
might be met with in the adoption of the Constitution. So I say local self-
government was promised to the District inhabitants.
Senator Jones. That promise was not embodied in the Constitution, how¬
ever, was it?
Mr. Perry. It was not embodied fn the Constitution, if the chairman please,
but as I wish to urge upon the committee the Federalist is considered as an
exponent of the Constitution. It is the most authoritative statement outside
of the wording of the Constitution that can be found. The article in the
Federalist to which I referred, Article 43, was written by James Madison,
subsequently fourth President of the United States and one of the signers
of the Constitution. He stated in his argument for the adoption of the
Constitution that “as a municipal legislature for local purposes derived
from their own suffrages will of course be allowed them.” That was in
reference to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia. That promise was
acted upon until 1871 and there were a long line of mayors of Washington who
were elected by the local inhabitants of the city.
To come again to local self-government, what possible objection can there
be to having local self-government for the inhabitants of the District of Colum¬
bia? We speak of national representation, we speak of local self-government,
the two elements of statehood. We know that national representation receives
almost the unanimous support of the District and has met with quite favorable
response before the members of this committee and before the Members of
Congress. In other words, there is no serious objection to national representa¬
tion other than what would be developed in connection with the admission of
any new State into the Union.
In regard to local self-government, what possible interest has the Congress
of the United States in the local affairs of Washington? I brought with me
the Code of the District o'f Columbia as amended to March 4, 1911. Members
of the committee can take the code and read it from cover to cover. You can
take the table of contents and glance over that. There is not one single
article in that code which in any way affects the authority of Congress or in
which Congress is in any way interested. What difference does it make to Mem¬
bers of Congress what our laws are for the distribution and de cent of property,
whether or not if a man steals $35 or under or over he is convicted of petty
larceny or grand larceny? Those are matters merely of local concern. Conse
quently it seems to me that as a matter of local self-government there is no
good reason why Congress should not grant local self government to the District.
In fact, in the very able argument made by Mr. Glassie at a previous hearing
before this committee, Mr. Glassie referred to the fact that it was necessary
for the District to have some representative in both the Senate and the House,
preferably a representative with a vote, a representative who would be heard
and listened to. Why? Because it was necessary, as he stated, for that
representative to inform the Members of Congress, Members of the Senate and
Members of the House of Representatives, of the local needs of the people.
I carry Mr. Glassie’s argument one step further. I say that it does not appear
to me that Members of Congress hav' any interest whatsoever in these local
affairs of the District, that it is a matter purely and simply for the residents
of the District, and that they can be entrusted with and given authority to
govern these matters as they see fit.
172
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
What interest then has Congress in the District of Columbia? It would seem
to me that the only interest, the only possible interest that Congress may have
in the District of Columbia as such—that is, apart from the other portions
of the United States—is for the protection of Federal property and Federal de¬
liberations and for the distribution of public funds in the District. These are
the two objects which the Congress has in view in retaining control over the
District of Columbia,- and the only two objects that the Congress need concern
itself with so far as the District of Columbia is concerned.
That being so I would respectfully suggest to the committee that if a State
is erected out of the District of Columbia, the vital national interests can be
protected by reservations in the" enabling act creating that State, or if the
committee wishes to grant statehood to the Disrtict of Columbia in a little
different form, it can return to the State of Maryland the District of Columbia
and at the same time reserve those vital national interests. Of course, as a
resident of the District of Columbia I consider that the best method of securing
statehood for the District would be by the erection of a sovereign State, the
State of Columbia.
There can be no possible conflict of jurisdiction between the Federal Govern¬
ment and the State government if the State of Columbia were erected here. The
inhabitants or the citizens of Olympia in the State of Washington are not at
dagger’s points with the rest of the State, nor do the inhabitants of the City
of Austin in Texas have constant disputes with the balance of the State of
Texas as to their respective rights and privileges; nor indeed do the citizens
of Dover in Delaware have constant conflict with the other citizens of Dela¬
ware. There is harmony, and in the same way, if the District of Columbia
should.be erected into a State, there would be no reasonable conflict between
the two.
Congressman Welty is quoted as having given an excellent illustration of
the peculiar situation in which the District of Columbia finds itself. It ap¬
pears that a young boy of Italian extraction was brought before the juvenile
court in New York City. The father urged the judge to send the boy to the
reform school, arid stated that he was utterly unable to restrain him at home. '
The judge then took upon himself to question the youngster. “ Guiseppe,” he
said, “why is it that you do not obey your father? Why is it that whenever
your father attempts to correct you you insist upon fighting and striking him?”
“ Well, sir,” said the boy, “ it is this way. You see I was born in America and
my father was born on the other side. I am an American and I don’t like to
have any damned foreigner whip me.”
That is pretty much the situation in which the inhabitants of the District of
Columbia find themselves. They were born here, many of them ; they have
their interests in Washington; and while they have the same paternal love and
affection for the great National Government which all of the citizens of our
country have, nevertheless they do feel some local pride in their city and
they do wish to have some participation not only in the National Government
but in the local affairs of Washington.
There is a striking analogy between the fight for'District suffrage and the
fight which the women made for national suffrage. For many years the flame
of woman suffrage was kept alight by a band of a few women, just like in
the District of Columbia for many years the flame of District suffrage has been
kept alive by such of our leaders as Mr. Theodore Noyes, and Mr. Henry B. F.
Macfarland, and others.
It was said, of course, in regard to woman suffrage, just as it has been
said in regard to District suffrage, that the large majority of the women or
a large majority of the inhabitants of the District were opposed to suffrage in
any form. It was said in regard to woman suffrage, just as it has been said in
regard to District suffrage, that a small and select body of propagandists had
organized this campaign for their own purposes. Nevertheless, in spite of
force, and threats, and jails, the women secured their suffrage, and not only
suffrage for one State but full national representation. I hope and I pray
that neither the District of Columbia jail nor the workhouse at Occoquan will
ever be a gathering place for the sons and daughters of the State of Columbia,
but, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious question with us. We are dead in earnest.
Many of us are willing to go to the utmost extreme to convince the Congress
of this proposition that we do wish something done in the way of securing
American citizenship. We are tired of being wards of the Nation, and we do
wish representation in some form or other.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 173
Mr. Chairman, I have two articles here on the question of statehood which I
would like to have incorporated as a part of my remarks.
Senator Jones. Very well.
(The articles referred to are as follows:)
[Published in Washington Law Reporter of Sept. 3, 1920.]
Statehood for the District of Columbia.
Memorandum prepared by Frank Sprigg Perry, August, 1920.
The various civic organizations in the District of Columbia adopted certain
resolutions to be presented to the Democratic and Republican National Con¬
ventions in June, 1920. These resolutions set out the “ basic right ” of every
following:
“ We urge most earnestly the inclusion of a plank in the Democratic (Repub¬
lican) platform of 1920 which shall recognize and reaffirm the above-stated
American principle and shall approve a constitutional amendment granting or
empowering Congress to grant representation in House, Senate, and Electoral
College to residents of the District of Columbia.”
The resolutions were signed by James F. Oyster, president Washington Board
of Trade; Robert N. Harper, president Washington Chamber of Commerce;
Philip King, president Merchants & Manufacturers’ Association; W. B. West-
lake, president Federation of Citizens’ Associations; E. Lester Jones, chairman
Veterans’ Committee for District of Columbia Suffrage; John B. Colpoys,
chairman Labor Committee for District of Columbia Suffrage; Winfield Jones,
chairman National Press Committee for District of Columbia suffrage; Luther
C. Steward, president Federation of Federal Employees; and Theodore W.
Noyes, chairman Citizens’ Joint Committee on National Representation for the
District of Columbia.
Too great praise can not be extended to these organizations and to those de¬
voted citizens who have for years worked for suffrage in the District of
Columbia.
As a citizen of the District of Columbia and one whose interests are deeply
affected I wish earnestly to submit another method for securing the suffrage for
our people, a method which may be found to be more plain, simple, and direct
than that of a constitutional amendment.
The Congress can comply with the demand of the people for suffrage by
erecting-out of the present District of Columbia
THE STATE OF COLUMBIA.
This method will not require the adoption of an amendment to the Constitu¬
tion. An act of Congress with, perhaps, the consent of the legislature of the
State of Maryland, can form a State out of the District of Columbia. Need¬
less to say, this method would probably obtain suffrage more quickly than
through a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment would re¬
quire not only the passage of an act of Congress by a two-thirds vote of each
House, but the consent of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 48 States.
An example of the difficulties and delay in the way of securing the adoption
of an amendment to the Constitution is found in the fact that the Susan B.
Anthony amendment providing for womens’ suffrage was introduced in Con¬
gress in 1878 and adopted in 1920. Forty-two years would be a long time to
wait for suffrage in the District of Columbia if some ether method will avail
more quickly.
AUTHORITY.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the right to erect new States and
admit new States into the Union. This can be done from any Territory over
which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, and it matters not whether that
Territory has an organized Territorial government or is an unorganized terri¬
tory While many States were admitted only after they had been organized as
Territories one State, California, had no pevious territorial or State gov¬
ernment before its admission. Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, and West Virginia
were formed from parts of other States with the consent of the legislatures of
the States affected. There is no provision in the Constitution limiting or
174
SUFFRAGE IU THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
defining the territory of the United States which may be erected into a State;
nor is there any provision which prohibits Congress from erecting the State
of Columbia out of the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia is territory belonging to the United States and it
can be considered as an organized or unorganized Territory. In either case
Congress exercises exclusive jurisdiction over such Territory and has the right
to admit it into the Union as a State.
There can be no question of the authority of Congress to erect the State
of Columbia out of the District of Columbia. Uniformly, the Supreme Court of
the United States has considered the District of Columbia as a species of a
Territorial form of government. Mr. Justice Harlan, in the case of Callan v.
Wilson (127 U. S., 540), held in regard to certain personal rights:
“We can not think that the people of this District (of Columbia) have, in
that regard, less rights than those accorded to the people of the Territories of
the United States.”
In 1903 Mr. Justice Brewer said in the case of Binns v. United States (194
U. S., 486) :
“ It must be remembered that Congress in the government of the Territories
as well as of the District of Columbia has plenary power, save as controlled by
the provisions of the Constitution.”
In the opinion of the court in the Employers’ Liability Cases (207 U. S., 500),
Mr. Justice White, in 1907, said that the legislative power of Congress over the
District of Columbia and the Territories was “ plenary.”
The word “ plenary ” is defined in the Standard Dictionary as being:
“(1) Full in all respects or requisites; entire; absolute; also, complete, as
embracing all the parts or members; as, plenary authority; plenary inspira¬
tion. Plenary is opposed to partial.
“(2) Having full powers; as a plenary council.”
In the consideration of the Insular Tariff cases after the Spanish War, Mr.
Justice Brown, in writing the opinion of the court in the case of De Lima v.
Bidwell (182 U. S., 196), said:
“Under this power (to govern and control the Territories) Congress may
deal with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it
does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial gov¬
ernment ; it may admit it as a State upon an equality with other States; it
may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as home¬
steads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty it belongs to
the United States and is subject to the disposition of Congress.”
There are numerous other cases in the reports of our highest court which
emphasize the fact that Congress in general exercises over the District of
Columbia the same kind and degree of authority it exercises over other terri¬
tory subject to the disposition of Congress. In accordance with this power
Congress can erect a State out of such territory. Under the same power and
by the same means Congress can erect a State out of the District of Columbia—
the State of Columbia.
ADVANTAGES.
A constitutional amendment granting suffrage to the Distr'ct of Columbia
has no advantages over statehood and, in fact, has’ many disadvantages. Such
an amendment must provide for some sort of voting representation in Con¬
gress and in the Electoral College.' The least acceptable representation under
this scheme would be one Senator and one Representative. As a State, the State
of Columbia would have two Senators and poss bly one or two Representatives.
The practical difference, then, between a constitutional amendment and state¬
hood, so far as representation in Congress is concerned, is whether the District
of Columbia should be represented by one or by two Senators or Representa¬
tives. In local affairs a State government would have absolute control and
cou]d provide for the qualifications of its voters. In the case of a constitutional
amendment only a limited control of suffrage and of local affairs might be
granted.
It may be objected that the District of Columb ; a, having a total land area of
about 60 square miles, is too small in size to be erected into a State. The
measure of a State should be the measure of the manhood and womanhood
of that State and not the mere measure of land area Can it be sa'd that 100
people living in an apartment house are less patriotic than the same number
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
175
living in 20 houses ? Measured by population, the District of Columbia is larger
than 10 States of the Union. Measured by patriotism and Americanism and
self-devotion to the Union the District of Columbia stands second to none.
SEASONS FOR CLAUSE.
There were two reasons for the insertion of the clause in the Constitution
giving Congress exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia.
It was feared that if the very ground on which the Capital City was located
was owned by one of the States, this State might exercise a predominant
influence over the affairs of the Nation. It was also thought that such an ex¬
clusive grant would protect Congress from “ open violence or lawless in¬
trusions.”
These reasons were potent at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
It was a wise provision for the first hundred years of the Nation’s existence
that its Capital City should be free from outside influences and located on
ground the exclusive jurisdiction over which was vested in the Nation. Formed
and fashioned by our forefathers with such care, this fledgling among the
nations was very young and needed protection from misguided friends and open
enemies. The Eagle of the United States has now grown mighty and stands
supreme, and its wings cover vast States, and its talons defy all enemies.
The reasons for the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to Congress which ob¬
tained in Revolutionary days have no basis of fact at the present time.
It would be absurd to argue that the State of Columbia, the smallest State in
the Union, could exercise a predominant influence because of locality over the
deliberations and actions of Congress.
In Revolutionary days the Federal Government was largely dependent upon
the militia of the various States for its protection and for the protection of its
property. No standing army of any size was maintained by ‘the Federal
Government. At the present time “ open violence or lawless intrusions ” on
any grounds owned by the United States in the State of Columbia or elsewhere
would be met by the United States Army, a military force stronger than the
militia of any State. The Federal Government can protect its property wher¬
ever located. The mere fact that jurisdiction over the affairs of the District
is transferred from Congress to the State of Columbia would in no way affect
this power or afford less protection.
NO CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.
There should be no conflict of jurisdiction between the Federal and State
Governments in the State of Columbia. In practically all of the countries of
the world the citizens of the capital cities vote and exercise the other rights
of citizenship and conduct their municipal affairs. The citizens of Paris and
London vote for representatives in the French Chamber of Deputies and in the
English Parliament. The inhabitants of Albany, the capital of New York
State, the inhabitants of Austin, the capital of the State of Texas, and the
inhabitants of the capital cities of the other States vote as citizens of those
States and manage their local affairs. In view of these striking examples, it
can not be said that there is any reason to believe that the inhabitants of
Washington, as citizens of the State of Columbia, would be less patriotic than
they now are or that they could or would interfere with the orderly conduct of
national affairs.
It is unseemly that the inhabitants of the city of Washington, the Capital
City of the greatest democracy in the world, should have no voice in their own
or their country’s affairs. Mr. Bryce, in his great work on “ The American
Commonwealth,” strikingly illustrates this anomalous situation:
“ The District of Columbia is a piece of land set apart to contain the city of
Washington, which is the seat of the Federal Government. It is governed by
three commissioners appointed by the President, and has no local legislature
nor municipal government, the only legislative authority being Congress, in
which it is not represented. Being well administered, it is held up by un¬
friendly critics of democracy as a model of the happy results of an enlightened
despotism.”
The clause in the Constitution which gives Congress exclusive legislative au¬
thority over the District of Columbia gives like authority over forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. It would seem that the
purpose of the framers of the Constitution in erecting the District of Columbia
83480—22-12
176
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
was not to provide for some separate, independent sovereignty over which
Congress could reign supreme, but to provide needful ground for buildings and
other necessary appurtenances of the Federal Government. The independent
sovereignty was merely incidental to the desired protection of Government
propety. No one at that time contemplated that the city of Washington would
grow to be larger in population than 10 States of the Union. No one con¬
templated the total disfranchisement of over 400,000 citizens living on territory
formerly embraced within the State of Maryland. The Federal Government
should retain title to all of its public buildings and grounds in the city of
Washington, just as it does over its post office buildings, camps, and navy
yards in the States. It should have the right to secure such other land as may
be necessary at any time for public purposes. But why should it retain this
independent right of sovereignty over the balance of the District of Colum¬
bia? Why should the citizens of Washington, three-fourths of whom are not
employed by the Federal Government, be deprived of the right of suffrage,
the inestimable heritage of free men and women?
A man is employed and works in a post-office building or an arsenal or
navy yard in a State and lives outside the building or grounds. Such man is
entitled to vote as a citizen of the State where he lives. Why should a man
or woman working in the War Department or Navy Department or Post Office
Department be disfranchised if they live in Washington? Why should those
citizens of Washington who have no connection with the Federal Government
be disfranchised? In each State or city where there are buildings or grounds
owned by the Federal Government, the jurisdiction of the United States is
confined to the buildings or land actually owned by it. The same principle
could very readily be applied to the District of Columbia and there would be
no more conflict in the one case than in the other.
CONSENT OF MARYLAND.
It may be said that the State of Columbia can be formed only with the
consent of the State of Maryland. This present consent of the State of Mary¬
land may or may not be necessary according to the interpretation placed upon
the original cession from Maryland and the exercise by Congress of exclusive
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. It is apparent, however, that it will
be more satisfactory for the people of the District of Columbia, with the
consent of Congress, to go before the Legislature of Maryland with their
petition than it will be to go before the legislatures of all 48 States. Indeed,
if necessary, and the State of . Maryland is willing, Congress can return the
District of Columbia to Maryland and permit the inhabitants to petition
Congress under that clause in the Constitution providing for the erection of a
new State out of the territory of another State.
There is another method by which representation can be secured without a
Constitutional amendment. Congress can return to the State of Maryland the
District of Columbia. This, of course, would not convey title to any of the
land actually occupied by public buildings or reserved by the United States.
This method might be more satisfactory in some respects than the present
government of the District of Columbia and finds its authority in the return
of Alexandria County to the State of Virginia. The interests, however, of
the people of the District are not identical with those of the people of Mary¬
land and the most satisfactory method is an independent State—the State of
Columbia.
THE STAR OF COLUMBIA.
Such representation as is proposed by a Constitutional amendment is some¬
thing new, something entirely foreign- to our system of Government. A re¬
quest for this amendment must start out with an apology—a statement that
the people of the District of Columbia are not entitled to the full measure of
self-government of statehood and hence should be granted some inferior or
modified form of representation.
The people of the District are entitled to suffrage or they are not' so en¬
titled. If they are entitled to suffrage our Constitution provides the method—
statehood—the State of Columbia. It is not wise to go outside of the Constitu¬
tion if it can be avoided. The rights flowing from statehood are well known and
need no explanation or apology. This makes a clear-cut, definite issue. No
apology or excuse should be offered by the citizens of the District in their
demand for the right of suffrage.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
177
The method of securing statehood is by a petition to Congress from the people
of the District of Columbia. It may be necessary to secure also the consent
of the Legislature of the State of Maryland. It is needless to say that the
most glorious, political existence to-day is that of a State in our Union and
statehood is worthy of the best efforts of all of our citizens.
The people of the District of Columbia should unite and place their star in
the blue firmament of our Nation’s flag—the State of Columbia.
[Reprinted by permission from April, 1921, issue of Georgetown Law Journal, George¬
town University, Washington, D. C.]
The State of Columbia—Can a State be Erected Out of the District of
Columbia Without a Constitutional Amendment?
Frank Sprigc Perry, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law.
In the great tide of statehood which has flowed westward over continental
United States there has been left on the Atlantic seaboard a small area which
may be called a “ backwater ” of American political life. From Canada to
Mexico and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific all are sovereign States with
the single exception of the District of Columbia. The city of Washington bears
the proud title of the Capital of the greatest democracy on earth. And yet how
hollow is the sound of political liberty to the disfranchised inhabitants living in
the very shadow of the Dome of the Capitol.
This article will discuss the power of Congress without a constitutional
amendment to erect a State out of the District of Columbia,—the State of
Columbia.
The permanent seat of the Federal Government was authorized by Article I,
section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution:
“ Congress shall have power—
“ 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such Dis¬
trict (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may by'cession of particular States and
the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the Government of the United
States and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent
of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the erection of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
The land for this purpose was ceded by the States of Maryland and Virginia,
and the District of Columbia became vested in the United States in December,
1800. The land ceded by the State of Virginia comprised the county of Alexan¬
dria and was retroceded to that State by an act of Congress of July 9, 1846.
(9 Stats., 35, 1000.) The political organization of the District of Columbia em¬
braces the city of Washington and covers at the present time the land ceded by
the State of Maryland.
The people of the District of Columbia are totally disfranchised. The gov¬
ernment is in the hands of Congress, which acts as a national as well as a local
legislature. A board of commissioners appointed by the President is the execu¬
tive head. The people have no Representative or Delegate in the Senate or
House of Representatives, nor can they vote for the President or Vice President
of the United States, nor have they a voice or vote in the selection of their board
of commissioners.
The District of Columbia has a population of 437,571 by the census of 1920,
a number in excess of each of the seven States of Vermont, Idaho, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Arizona, Delaware, and Nevada, and it possesses all of the other
qualifications of statehood. It is conceded that a constitutional amendment
could give statehood or any modified form of government to the District. On
the other hand, it has been questioned whether Congress can by a legislative
act and without such amendment create the State of Columbia, even with the
consent of the State of Maryland. An amendment to the Constitution would
require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and a subsequent ratifica¬
tion by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. An act of Congress cre¬
ating a State government would require a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress and the signature of the President.
reason for exclusive authority.
There were several reasons which induced the framers of the Constitution to
provide for the power in Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over the seat
of the Federal Government. During the Revolutionary period the Federal au-
178
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
thority was feeble; and as there was no standing Army, the Continental Con¬
gress had been forced to depend for protection upon the militia of certain of the
States. On June 21, 1783, some armed and mutinous soldiers appeared before
Congress in Philadelphia, Pa., and insultingly demanded their overdue pay. The
authorities of the State were appealed to, but they made no sufficient attempt
to afford protection. Congress moved its seat to Princeton, N. J., a few days
after this incident occurred. In addition to the necessity for protection, the
Federalist, No. 43, also urged in support of this clause that the establishment of
this Federal District would free Congress from any imputation of awe or undue
influence on the part of the State authorities. 1
Needless to say, neither of these reasons has any force at the present time.
The Federal Government has grown sufficiently strong to protect its property
wherever located. There can be no imputation of awe or undue influence on
the part of a State to-day, as the United States, through the concentration of
Federal powers in Congress and in the executive branches of the Government,
has reached a position of almost supreme authority. The transfer of juris¬
diction to the State of Columbia would not prevent the Federal Government
from protecting its property, nor could the State of Columbia, of such limited
area, exercise a predominant influence over the affairs of the Nation by reason
of its locality.
In Revolutionary days the danger was that the Federal authority would be
too weak to coordinate and control the necessary functions of national life.
The danger to-day is that this Federal authority has become so powerful it
threatens to smother the separate existence of the several States. In Story’s
Constitutional Law, section 1220, reference is made to a criticism urged in 1803
against the exclusive control by Congress over the District of Columbia as
tending to foster an oligarchy and diffuse important changes through our
democratic Government. The growth of the Federal authority may be attrib¬
uted in no small degree to its separate and independent existence in the Dis¬
trict of Columbia. The creation of the State of Columbia would check further
Federal growth along these lines and would add another Commonwealth to
jealously guard State life.
POWER TO CREATE NEW STATES.
The admission of new States into the Union is provided by Article IV, sec¬
tion 3, clause 1, of the Constitution:
“ 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts
of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as
well as of the Congress.”
No limitations are placed upon the powers of Congress to admit new States
except as provided in this clause. No other clause of the Constitution limits
those powers. Nowhere is it stated that Congress can admit a new State only
after it has fulfilled certain requirements. Nowhere is it stated that Congress
can admit only States to be carved out of the then existing “ Northwest Terri¬
tory.” New States can be carved out of any territory or other property over
which the United States exercises jurisdiction or control. An independent
nation can be admitted into the Union as a new State by an act of Congress
alone, as was done in the case of Texas. (Acts of Mar. 1 and Dec. 29, 1845;
5 Stats., 797; 9 Stats., 108.)
There is no clause in the Constitution which expressly authorizes Congress
to erect a State out of the land upon which the Federal city is located. There
is, however, no clause which prohibits Congress from erecting the State of
Columbia out of this area.
It may be considered that the grant of justidiction over the District is so
absolute and unconditional as to empower Congress to erect out of the Dis¬
trict any form. of government, even a State government. The insertion of
qualifying words in this sweeping clause would destroy the power of exclusive
legislation.
It has been held by some that Congress is invested with a peculiar and
high authority over the District and that this power is inalienable. This argu¬
ment was unsuccessfully used before Congress in opposition to the retroces-
1 Fort Leavenworth R. R. v. Lowe (114 U. S., 529).
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
179
sion of Alexandria County to the State of Virginia. If this authority is in¬
alienable, no State can be erected out of the District without an amendment
to the Constitution. If, however, Congress exercises political powers over the
District similar to those which it exercises over the territory or other property
of the United States, then a legislative act can create the State of Columbia.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTIES.
The construction which the parties place upon a contract by their acts and
deeds at the time that they entered into it is always considered of vital force
in determining the meaning of the contract. The territory of the District
was ceded to the United States by the States of Maryland and Virginia in
accordance with the terms of the Constitution and contemporaneously with its
adoption.
The State of Maryland under date of December 23, 1788, offered to cede
territory for the seat of the Federal Government. In the act of the general
assembly of that State of December 19, 1791, ratifying the cession and fixing
the boundaries of the ceded area it was provided in clause 2:
“ That all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within
the limits of this State shall be, and the same is hereby, acknowledged to be
forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United
States, and full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as
of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the
eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of Government of the
United States.”
The State of Virginia on December 3, 1789, in the act of its general assembly
ceding this territory to the United States, enacted:
“ That a tract of country, not exceeding 10 miles square, or any lesser quan¬
tity, to be located within the limits of this State, and in any part thereof as
Congress may by law direct, shall be, and the same is, forever ceded and
relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, in full and
absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or
to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of the
first article of the Constitution of the Government of the United States.”
The territory so conveyed was accepted by the United States in the spirit
in which it was ceded. (Act of Congress, July 16, 1790, 1 Stats., 130.) No
limitations were attached to the cession, certainly so long as it remained the
permanent seat of the Federal Government. These States severally yielded all
the political jurisdiction they possessed over this territory to the United States
and the United States accepted this unconditional grant of sovereignty without
qualification. One of the political powers so yielded and accepted was the
right to erect a separate State out of this area.
The Representatives of both the States of Maryland and Virginia had been
most actitve in framing the Constitution, and these several grants show the
interpretation all parties placed upon clause 17, section 8, Article I. So far as
the original contemporaneous interpretation of this clause by the parties them¬
selves affords a guide, there is no prohibition upon Congress to erect a State
out of this area, particularly if the consent of the State of Maryland be secured.
COMPARISON OF CLAUSES.
Comparison has sometimes been made between the clause conferring power
on Congress of exclusive legislation over the District and the clause giving Con¬
gress power to govern the territory and other property of the United States.
This latter clause is Article IV, section 3, clause 2:
“ The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States.”
The power of Congress to erect a new State out of such territory is unques¬
tioned. It has been argued that if these two clauses were intended to convey
similar powers they would have been framed in similar terms. This argument
loses sight of the conditions under which each clause was inserted in the Con¬
stitution.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution Congress had received by ces¬
sion from all but two of the original thirteen States the unsettled lands which lay
beyond their territorial limits. This was termed the “ Northwest Territory,” and
Congress exercised the absolute right to and the exclusive legislative authority
180
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
over the Territory. Hence there was no need to insert in the Constitution a
clause conferring such exclusive authority over the Territory, as Congress was
at the tinje actually exercising this exclusive authority. In fact, the ordinance
for the government of the Northwest Territory was passed by the Continental
Congress in 1787, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. This celebrated
ordinance is regarded, after the Declaration of Independence, as the most impor¬
tant act of the Continental Congress and furnished for a long period the model
after which other Territories were organized under the Constitution. The
clause in the Constitution dealing with the territory of the United States simply
confirmed in Congress the power “ to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations ” respecting this and other territory.
In the case of the territory to be occupied as the seat of the Federal Govern¬
ment, just as in the case of forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock yards, it was
necessary for the Constitution to go further than in the case of lands actually
under the exclusive authority of Congress. The seat of the Federal Govern¬
ment was to be formed out of land limited to 10 square miles, to be ceded in the
future by the States, and which at the time was actually a part of those States
and under their, exclusive authority. It was necessary to provide that this
exclusive authority should be taken out of the States ceding such lands and
that it should become vested in the United States. A like necessity existed with
reference to the land upon which should be erected forts, magazines, arsenals,
and dock yards. The sweeping provisions of Article I, section 8, clause 17, were
adopted for these purposes.
In each of these two clauses apt and appropriate words were used to carry into
effect the intention of the framers of the Constitution. In the one case it was
deemed proper to confirm in Congress the right to made needful rules and regu¬
lations over territory and other property owned by Congress. In the case of the
district for the seat of the Federal Government, it was necessary to provide
for exclusive legislative authority over land which would be ceded by certain
States and which had, up to that time, been exclusively under State jurisdiction.
In each case the effect is the same, and Congress exercises exclusive jurisdic¬
tion over all such areas.
NO DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.
The case of Stoutenberg v. Hennick (1888) (129, U. S., 141) is sometimes
cited as an authority which would prevent the delegation of legislative authority
over the District by Congress. The erection of the State of Columbia would
involve a surrender of jurisdiction and would not be a delegation of legislative
authority. Moreover, an examination of the opinion shows that the court went
no further than to hold that Congress could not delegate the power to regulate
interstate commerce to the legislative assembly of the District (10 Fed. Stats.
Ann., 2d ed., 469).
Even if this transfer of jurisdiction to the State of Columbia could be con¬
sidered a delegation of authority, the United States Supreme Court in 1878, in
Welch v. Cook (97 U. S., 542) decided that Congress could invest the District
legislature with that power. This case was decided only 10 years before the
case of Stoutenberg v. Hennick and was not overruled in this later case. The
court said:
“ It is not open to reasonable doubt that Congress had power to invest and
did invest the District (of Columbia) government with legislative authority,
or that the act of the legislative assembly of June 26, 1873, was within that
authority/’
JURISDICTION OVER FORTS.
The clause empowering Congress to exercise exclusive legislative authority
over the seat of the Federal Government also confers a like authority over forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. The jurisdiction
which the United States must exercise over its military and naval reservations
is of necessity an exclusive one. The fact that the same clause confers a like
authority in Congress over the District is strong evidence that no limitation upon
this power was intended.
Where a State cedes certain land to the United States and reserves a rever¬
sionary interest in the property in case it is not used as a fort, the exclusive
authority of the United States ceases when the property is leased for other
purposes. The cession of such territory has been held to be of necessity tem¬
porary and to be exercised only so long as the place continues to be used for
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
181
public purposes. When it ceases to be so used the jurisdiction reverts to the
State. The right reserved by a State to tax certain property in the reservation
or to serve civil or criminal process has not been considered in violation of the
exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. 1
These illustrations make it clear that this power of “ exclusive legislation ”
is not of such a peculiar character nor of such high authority as to create
separate and independent political areas forever under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government. Territory or other property acquired by the United
States, whether by conquest, purchase, or by cession of the legislature of a
State, is subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. This ex¬
clusive legislative authority can be surrendered and the property returned to the
State which ceded it, or a new State can be erected out. of such territory. The
creation of a new State is subject to this limitation, that if erected out of
land within the jurisdiction of any other State, it must be with the consent of
the legislature of that State.
TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY.
The power granted Congress to “ exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever ” over the District, does not confer any greater political authority
than Congress can exercise over “ the territory or other property belonging to
the United States ” or over places purchased with the consent of the State
legislatures for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock yards. In
each case there exists under the Constitution that jurisdiction, absolute, exclus-
sive, unqualified, which is the sovereign authority to make, decide on, and exe¬
cute laws. (Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S., 573.)
There is no express provision of the Constitution which authorizes Congress
to enlarge the national domain or acquire new territory by annexation, cession,
conquest, or in any other manner. This power, has, however, always been con¬
sidered as one of the attributes of sovereignty and as such has been continu¬
ously exercised by Congress. As an inevitable consequence of the right to
acquire territory, there follows the power to govern the territory. (Rasmus¬
sen v. U. S. 197 U. S., 516.) The power to pass law for the Government so ac¬
quired has sometimes been asserted on the strength of Article IV, section 3,
clause 2 (supra). On whatever ground this authority to govern rests, there
can be no doubt of its existence and of the fact that under it Congress has the
right of exclusive legislation over such territory and can dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting it. This sovereign right of ex¬
clusive legislation is similar to that exercised by Congress over the District.
As has been said, if the title to property be absolute, the mode of its acquisi¬
tion is unimportant. [Petition to Congress from committee from town of
Alexandria, Va., accompanying House Report 325, 29th Congress, 1st session.]
Whether it be by gift, purchase, conquest, or cession from a State, Congress
possesses but a complete title to the area.
It might have been argued that because the Constitution authorized Con¬
gress to make “ all needful rules and regulations ” respecting the territory
of the United States, Congress could never divest itself of that power. In
other words, that Congress could never carve States out of such territory be¬
cause by so doing it would surrender the power to make the “ needful rules
and regulations.” It is a sufficient answer to say that the Constitution has not
been so construed. The admission of 34 States in the Union from such terri¬
tory is ample proof of this' fact.
The fact that the Constitution expressly confers upon Congress powers of
exclusive legislation over the District does not thereby carry with it the im¬
plication that all other powers are denied, if there are any such other powers.
A striking example of this rule of construction of the Constitution is found in
tbe Legal Tender cases (12 Wall., 457). In this case the constitutionality of
an act of Congress making paper money legal tender for the payment of debts
was attacked because there was no express authority for such law.
It was contended that the clause of the Constitution which conferred upon
Congress power “ to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign
coin,” contained an implication that nothing but that which is the subject of
coinage, namely, precious metals, could ever be declared by law to be money
or legal tender. This argument was pecious and persuasive. The fallacy of
1 Story Constitution Law, Sec. 1127: Palmer v. Barrett (162 U. S. 299) ; Fort Leaven¬
worth R. R. Co. v. Lowe (114 U. S. 525) ; 10 Federal Statutes, Ann., 2d ed. 841-845.
182
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
the contention, as the court observed, was that the Constitution has never been
construed that way. The court held that the enumeration of certain govern¬
mental powers, did not thereby exclude the existence of other governmental
powers not enrmerated. The court said:
“ * * * It is not claimed that any express prohibition exists, but it is
insisted that the spirit of the Constitution was violated by the enactment.
Here those who assert the unconstitutionality of the acts mainly rest their
argument. They claim that the clause which conferred upon Congress power
‘to coin money; regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,’ contains an
implication that nothing but that which is the subject of coinage, nothing but
the precious metals can ever be declared by law to be money, or to have the
uses of money. If by this is meant that because certain powers over the cur¬
rency are expressly given to Congress, all other powers relating to the same
subject are impliedly forbidden, we need only remark that such is not the
manner in which the Constitution has always been construed.
“ * * * In most cases, if not in all, when it was intended that govern¬
mental powers, commonly acknowledged as such should cease to exist, both in
the States and in the Federal Government, it was expressly denied to both, as
well to the United States as to the individual States. And generally when one
of such powers was expressly denied to the States only, it was for the purpose
of rendering the Federal power more complete and exclusive.”
In like manner, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain powers con¬
ferred on Congress with reference to the District of Columbia, does not by im¬
plication take away other governmental powers. One of the governmental
powers which Congress exercises over all territory of land of the United States
is the right to admit such area in the Union as a State. This power not having
been expressly or by implication taken away with reference to the District of
Columbia still exists in Congress.
In the case of the First National Bank v. Yankton County (101 U. S., 129),
the court discussed the power of Congress to legislate for the Territories. It
was said:
“ In other words it (i. e. Congress) has full and complete legislative authority
over the people of the Territories and all the departments of the territorial
governments.”
In discussing the relationship which Congress bears to the Territory of
Alaska and to the District Columbia, the Court of Appeals of the District in
United States ex. rel. Humboldt S. S. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
(37 App. D, C., 274), held:
“ Congress, in the government of the Territories, has plenary power, except
as limited by the Constitution. The particular form of government it shall
establish is not prescribed. It has, for example, prescribed one form of govern¬
ment for New Mexico, another for the District of Columbia, and still another for
Alaska. * * * While Congress in the government of the District of Colum¬
bia is limited by the provisions of the Constitution not applicable to other terri¬
tory of the United States, the same power exists of establishing local govern¬
ments.”
In the case of the Corporation of Latter Day Saints v. United States (136 U. S.,
32, 42), it was held:
“ The power of Congress over the Territories of the United States is general
and plenary.”
While there may be some fundamental guarantees of life, liberty, and property
under the Constitution which are applicable to the District of Columbia and not
to the Territories nevertheless in political matters Congress exercises “ plenary ”
power over both. 1
In the case of Callan v. Wilson (127 U. S., 540), the court held with reference
to a trial by jury:
“ We can not think that the people of this District (of Columbia) have in that
regard less rights than those accorded to the people of the Territories of the
United States.”
The extent of the authority which Congress exercises over the District and
over the Territories was clearly discussed in the case of Binns v. United States
(194 U. S., 486). The court held that Congress exercised plenary power, and
Mr. Justice Brewer, in writing the opinion of the court, said:
“ * * * It must be remembered that Congress, in the government of the
Territories as well as of the District Columbia, has plenary power, save as
1 Employers Liability cases (207 U. S., 500) ; Barnes v. D. C. (91 U. S., 540).
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
183
MWm by the provisions of the Constitution; that the form of government
it shall establish is not prescribed and may not necessarily be the same in all
the Territories. We are accustomed to that generally adopted for the Terri¬
tories, of a quasi State government, with executive, legislative, and judicial
olhcers, and a legislative endowed with the power of local taxation and local
expenditures; but Congress is not limited to this form. In the District of Co-
lumbia it has adopted a different mode of government, and in Alaska still an¬
other. It may legislate directly in respect to the local aifairs of a Territory
or transfer the power of such legislation to a legislature elected by the citizens
of the Territory. It has provided in the District of Columbia for a board of
three commissioners, who are the controlling officers of the District. It may
intrust to them a large volume of legislative power, or it may, by direct legis¬
lation create the whole statutory law applicable thereto. For Alaska Congress
has established a government of a different form. It has provided no legis¬
lative body, but only executive and judicial officers.”
In the insular-tariff cases after the Spanish War Mr. Justice Brown, in
writing the opinion of the court in the case of De Lima v. Bidwell (182 u’ S
196), said:
“ Under this power (to govern and control the Territories) Congress may deal
with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does
that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local Territorial government;
it may admit it as a State upon an equality with other States; it may sell its
public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual
settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty it belongs to the United States
and is subject to the disposition of Congress.”
Compare also Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S., 244).
In the great case of Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheat, 265) there was involved
the validity of a lottery law enacted by Congress with reference to the District.
Daniel Webster was one of the counsel, and argued (page 435) that the clause
of the Constitution relative to the District conveyed powers so peculiar and
specific that no other city in the Union could be given such a charter by Con¬
gress, and if every Federal power granted in the Constitution were destroyed
this power over the District of Columbia would remain. But Chief Justice Mar¬
shall held that the power of exclusive legislation over the District was con¬
ferred on Congress as the Legislature of the Union, and that feuch powers could
be exercised in no other way:
“ In the enumeration of the powers of Congress which is made in the eighth
section of the first article we find that of exercising exclusive legislation over
such district as shall become the seat of government. This power, like all others
which are specified, is conferred on Congress as the Legislature of the Union;
for strip them of that character and they would not possess it. In no other
character can it be exercised. In legislating for the district they necessarily
preserve the character of the Legislature of the Union, for it is in that charac¬
ter alone that the Constitution confers on them this power of exclusive legis¬
lation.”
These decisions of our highest court plainly show that the political power
which Congress exercises over the District is plenary; that it is full and
absolute, and is similar to that exercised over the territory or other property
of the United States. Congress may in each case create a State out of such
area.
RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA COUNTY, VA.
The land secured from the State of Virginia was retroceded to that State by
the act of Congress of July 9, 1846. If Congress had the right to divert itself
of the power of exclusive legislation over a portion of the District by this retro¬
cession Congress can erect the State of Columbia out of the remaining area.
It wits argued that this act was unconstitutional and that the exclusive juris¬
diction over the seat of the Federal Government could not be surrendered. The
act was passed in spite of this objection, and the retrocession has stood without
successful challenge for a period of 75 years. As this is essentially a political
question, it is very doubtful whether this act of retrocession can ever be con¬
sidered by the courts. In the case of Phillip v. Payne (1875) (92 U. S., 130)
an attempt to raise this question was refused. 1
In like manner the erection by Congress, with the consent of the State of
Maryland, of the State of Columbia would be a purely political question, and
the courts would have no jurisdiction to consider it.
1 Wilson v. Shaw (204 U. S., 24) ; Luther v. Borden (7 How., 1, 42).
184
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
From a study of the wording of the Constitution and of the original grants
of this territory from the States of Maryland and Virginia, from an examination
of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and from the action
of the political branch of the Government in retroceding a portion of this area to
the State of Virginia, it must be consided that the weight of precedent and
authority is in favor of the proposition that Congress has authority, with the
consent of the State of Maryland and without a constitutional amendment, to
erect out of the District of Columbia a sovereign State—the State of Columbia.
STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY WRIGHT JOHNSON.
Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the civic committee of the
Women’s Club of the District of Columbia. I am speaking this morning for
the housekeepers’ alliance in behalf of that organization and by direction of
the president, Mrs. F. L. Ransom. I am also speaking for the Anthony League,
as chairman of the civic committee of that organization.
These organizations merely wish it to appear on the records of this committee
that they favor this moyement for suffrage for citizens of the District of
Columbia.
FURTHER STATEMENT OF PAUL E. LESH.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, the citizens joint committee have been listened to
very patiently by the committee, but we thought before we asked for more
time that it was proper for us to stand aside for the moment and let others
occupy a part of the affirmative time. We do wish, however, about an hour and
a quarter more time as we estimated. Mr. Noyes, whose name, has been men¬
tioned several times in the proceedings this morning, wishes to be heard, and
one other speaker wishes to be heard briefly before we close our case. We had
not expected to have an opportunity to speak to-day, because there were so
many independent persons favoring suffrage, who wished to be heard, that we
thought we had better not intrude upon the committee at this session. I
inferred from what Senator Ball said, as the previous meeting adjourned,
that additional time would be granted if it was needed.
Senator Jones. I do not know what action the committee will take in
reference to this request, and I do not know what the plans are for the future.
The request will be called to the attention of the committee, however. The
committee will now stand adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. #
(Whereupon at 11.50 o’clock a. m. on Tuesday, December 13, 1921, the com¬
mittee adjourned subject to call of chairman.)
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1922.
United States Senate,
Committee on the District of Columbia,
Washington , D. C.
The committee met in the committee room, Capitol, Senator L. Heisler Ball (chair¬
man) presiding, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.
Present: Senators Ball, Jones, and Sheppard.
Present also: Col. Winfield Jones, chairman of the National Press Committee,
representing those favoring the bills pending before the committee providing for
suffrage for the District of Columbia.
Present also: Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, chairman of the Brief Committee of the
Citizens’ Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia,
representing those favoring only the Senate joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment empowering Congress to grant national representation to the District.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We want to finish the hearings
to-day. We will give you practically all day, if it is necessary to do it. Of course,
we may be interrupted some by being required to go into the Senate to vote or answer
a roll call.
We would like for you to divide your time in proportion to the people here desiring
to testify. I do not think it wise to have all the morning devoted to one side and all
the afternoon to the other. I think it is better of you would interlace, although it
makes no difference to me. Of course, they are all printed, but it gives one side a
chance to reply to the other if necessary.
Is there anybody here opposed to suffrage of any kind in the District? There appear
to be none present. We will go on with those in favor.
Mr. Brandenburg. Mr. Chairman, those of us in favor of the constitutional amend¬
ment would like to have Mr. Lesh close his argument. He was interrupted some
time ago before he had an opportunity to conclude. He will probably take 20 minutes.
The Chairman. I had promised Mr. Oyster the privilege of speaking first. He has
been here at several hearings and asked to be heard, and for various reasons has been
denied that privilege each time, and we promised to hear him as the first speaker
to-day.
Mr. Brandenburg. Very good.
The Chairman. I would like to have the summing up as concise as possible to-day.
It is more of a summing up than anything else, unless you have some new material
to present. Then, of course, we would like to have all of it.
We will now hear from Mr. Oyster.
STATEMENT OF MR. E. W. OYSTER.
Mr. Oyster. Mr. Chairman, my Washington address is No.. 727 Quebec Place NW.
My legal residence is Sunbury, Northumberland County, Pa., where I have voted at
every congressional and presidential election since I became of voting age.
I have been a resident of the District of Columbia for 55 years, and have taken a
prominent part in many of the movements for its welfare and betterment—the wiping
out of its saloons and slums, for free textbooks for the public schools, for equitable and
just taxation, for a reduction in the hours of labor and better conditions for working
men, women, and children, for the establishment of an American form of government,
including representation in Congress and a vote in the electoral college, and a fair
share in the administration of the District’s municipal affairs, etc.
Therefore, it will probably be conceded that I know at least a little something
about affairs here, and how they have been administered by men appointed by
Presidents to rule over the people since 1870.
185
186
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT. OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Chairman, you have been told many times that there is no local government
like ours in operation in the capital of any other nation, but, so far as I know, you
have not been reminded that there is one nation where an effort was once made to
adopt a similar form. In Canada, on January 7, 1907, a vote by the people of Ottawa,
was taken on a proposition to adopt a form of government similar to the present form
in this District. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed form was supported
by the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, and numerous clubs composed
of “best citizens,” and by all the newspapers of Ottawa, except the Evening Journal,
the proposed “federal plan” was defeated by a large majority. Commissioner Mac-
farland of Washington accepted two invitations from the “best citizens” of Ottawa
to visit that city and speak in favor of the proposed plan, and he made a number of
speeches there in its favor.
On December 29, 1906, commenting editorially on the issues of the campaign, the-
Evening Journal said:
“While the only vital issue to the Journal’s mind in the federal district question
is the volunteering to barter the franchise for government pottage, an unsolicited
offer to sell ourselves which we imagine ought to bring a blush to the cheek of every
rightly constituted man the inheritor of freedom from his fathers. * * * No claim
has been more frequently or arrogantly made here than that Washington has a civic
administration beside which we in Ottawa ought to hang our heads in shame. Nothing
could be more untrue or more disloyal to this city. If the Washington newspapers
are to be trusted, few cities in the United States can have much less satisfactory
municipal conditions than Washington. As for Canada., there seems to be less public
growling in the average city in a month about the municipal administration than
there is in Washington in a week. * * * Let us cite a few things from Washington
newspapers. In the first place Washington appears to be full of citizens’ associations
which keep hollering for reforms which as a rule they either don’t get or get only after
deplorable delays.”
The Journal then quoted several columns of complaints made in citizens’ associa¬
tions as printed in the Star, the Post, the Times, and the Herald, in regard to our
school conditions, the police force, our slums, our inequitable and unjust assessments,
etc.
On January 8, 1907, the day after the election, commenting editorially on the result,,
the Journal said:
“A black eye for a bad principle. To many people in Ottawa the overwhelming
defeat yesterday of the federal district proposition must be a surprise. The question
was put on the ballot paper in the most advantageous way to the proposition. It
simply asked the people here whether they were in favor of a district to be governed
by commission. There was no word of the sacrifice of the franchise; there was no
indication that the proposition was not one offered to Ottawa by the Government,
but was simply an attempt to get Ottawa to voluntarily offer itself for sale; there
was no word of any alternative proposition which would combine the advantage of
a district with the retention of the franchise. That a large majority should be recorded
against so ingenious an invitation as the one placed on the ballot paper is a gratifying
illustration of both the intelligence and independence of the electors. * * * It
is a gratification to find that the Journal voiced justly the determined opposition of
a majority of the people of this city to barter their votes and rights as freemen for a
dubious gain in Government money, the price of administration of our affairs by a
politically appointed board of petty tyrants.
“There is every just reason why the Dominion Government should contribute here
fairly to civic revenue. Similarly there is every reason why in that case the Govern¬
ment should be represented in the administration of the city. ‘ No taxation without
representation ’ is as good a principle for the Government as for the people of Ottawa,
and the administration, of this city by a commission, composed for instance of two
men elected for the people, two men appointed by the Government, and an elective
mayor, constituting a governing board of five, with the corollary that the Government
should contribute to civic revenue an amount proportionate to the value of its property
here, would, we believe, be the best and most equitable principle of administration
of the Capital. But any proposition which involves the sale by Ottawa of its fran¬
chise is rotten no matter how speciously the idea may be gilded.”
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in my letter requesting an oppor¬
tunity to be heard I stated that I favored the joint resolution introduced by the Senator
from Washington, Mr. Jones, the bill introduced by Senator Poindexter, and that I
would also favor the bill introduced by Senator Capper, if radically amended, so as
to give the people of the United States representation in the local government, and
the election of fewer officials.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
187
In view of the fact that the interests of the United States in the District of Columbia
are paramount, and that they will continue to become more and more so as the years
go by, I do not have the least idea that Congress will turn the municipal government
of Washington over to the people who alone claim residence here, and unless the people
■of the United States are to take par tin it by representatives of their own appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate, there ought not, in my judgment, be
any change in the local government at present. I am opposed to the election of the
school board, the public utilities commission, or any other part of the local government.
The Chairman. You would have three elected by the people?
Mr. Oyster. I would have three elected by the people and three appointed by
the President. About twelve years ago I prepared a proposed plan, which was adopted
by the citizens’ associations in convention assembled, that the people should elect
five and the President appoint five and the people elect the mayor or governor. It
is immaterial what you call him.
The Chairman. That "would give you the local government control.
Mr. Oyster. That would; but since that time, in view of the fact that the inter¬
ests of the Government, are evidently so paramount, I have changed my views in
that regard .
However, should a proper change in the local government be contemplated—and I
favor that—I suggest that the people who claim residence here be given the right to
elect three commissioners, who shall have been residents of the District of Columbia
not less than three years, and the President be given authority to appoint three,
regardless of residence, to represent the people of the United States, and that the
President also be given authority to appoint a governor, who should exercise all the
executive power now exercised by the board of commissioners and such other power
as Congress may delegate to him, and preside over the meetings of the commission,
with the right to vote when necessary to break a tie or to make a quorum. The com¬
mission should exercise all the legislative power now excerised by the board of com¬
missioners and such other powers as Congress may delegate to it.
The Chairman. Your present plan takes the control of the government out of the
hands of the residents of the District of Columbia. The President appoints three
who are not residents of the District, and the District elects three who are. I want to
be sure I understand you.
Mr. Oyster. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The President also appoints a fourth man, who is the mayor or
governor and is not a resident. That gives the control to the Government entirely,
places it entirely in the hands of nonresidents, while now the President is compelled
to appoint commissioners from among the citizens of the District, who have at least
a certain number of years’ standing as such.
Mr. Oyster. Yes, sir; but he often appoints men who are not recommended by all
of the people. The people really have no say as to who shall be appointed as com¬
missioners. I will get to that a little later, when I quote from Mr. Macfarland.
Some years ago I drew up a similar plan, which was adopted by a considerable
number of citizens’ associations by delegates in convention assembled. At that time
a similar plan was also unanimously approved by the Central Labor Union.
Mr. Chairman, it has been iterated and reiterated many times since the beginning
of these hearings that it was not intended by the framers of the Constitution of the
United States that the people of the District of Columbia, the seat of Government,
should ever have any part in the municipality or ever have representation in Congress.
In other words, would never be permitted to vote, because that privilege is not granted
by, and as Mr. Ayres claims, can not be written into the Constitution.
I will not attempt to make a constitutional argument, for the reason that I shall
ask permission to quote from others much better able to interpret that great document,
in my judgment, than any of the gentlemen who have spoken here during these
hearings.
Suffice it to say that as early as 1802, under certain restrictions, the people were
granted suffrage, which was extended from time to time for nearly three-quarters of
a century, and given the opportunity to vote for a board of aldermen and for members
of the common council, and that from 1812 to 1870 they were also permitted to elect
the mayors of Washington, who, from 1802 to 1811, were appointed by the President.
On February 28, 1871, Henry D. Cooke, of Georgetown, became governor of the
District, by appointment of President Grant, under the Territorial form of govern¬
ment, which had just then started on its stormy career. We have had a superabund¬
ance of talk, some of it wise, but very much of it foolish and stupid, in regard to that
particular form and its “feather duster” legislature, out of which a labored effort has
for many years been made to build up a very large mountain out of a very small
molehill. That ‘ * feather duster ” scarecrow can no longer be used to frighten intelligent
188
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
persons, for they have long since learned that the people had very little, if any *
power or influence in that form of government under which the President appointed
the governor, the hoard of public works, the board of health, and the council or upper
branch of the legislative assembly, comprising 11 members. The citizens were given
the privilege to elect the lower branch—-the house of delegates—'Composed of 22
members.
The people were not ruled by the house of delegates, but by the bosses appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Gov. Alexander It. Shepherd was
a perfect boss. I say this in no offensive sense, for I greatly admired him in many
ways. I always believed that he was personally honest, and I know that he was
courageous. No doubt many things were done which ought not to have been done,
and many done in the wrong and most expensive way, but the Congress that passed
the law and the men appointed by the President to administer it, not the people,
were responsible for all things done under the territorial form of government from 1871
to 1874.
Under the form of government created by Congress in 1874 it was evidently not the
intention to forever deprive the people of the District of Columbia of their rights as
freemen, as will be seen by reference to House Report No. 647, Forty-third Congress,
first session, pages 28 and 29. The report, in conclusion, reads as follows:
“The testimony discloses that the District treasury is practically exhausted in all
its departments.
“Your committee, therefore, recommend the abolition of the executive, the secre¬
tary of the District, the legislative assembly, the board of public works, and the office
of Delegate in Congress. They do not mean, by recommending the abolition of the
legislative assembly, to preclude the idea that there should not be some representative
body in the District of Columbia, but they believe the one now existing, with the
powers conferred, is not such a one as is contemplated by the Constitution or as the
wants of the District require. * * *
“The committee recommends the appointment of a commission to manage the
affairs of the District, under limited and restrained powers, because there is not
sufficient time to prepare a proper system of framework for the government of the
District, and have it fully discussed and passed upon at the present session of Con
gress. * * *
“Your committee have unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the existing
form of government of the District is a failure; that it is too cumbrous and too ex¬
pensive; that the powers and relations of its several departments are so ill-defined
that limitations intended by Congress to apply to the whole government are construed
to limit but one of its departments; that it is wanting in sufficient safeguard against
maladministration and the creation of indebtedness; that the system of taxation it
allows opens a door to great inequality and injustice and is wholly insufficient to secure
the prompt collection of taxes; and that no remedy short of its abolition and the sub¬
stitution of a simpler, more restricted, and economical government will suffice. Your
committee have, therefore, reported a bill for a temporary government, until Congress
shall have time to mature and adopt a permanent form.”
It was clearly not the intention of that committee to entirely overthrow every
representative body in the District, but to allow “some” representative body and
permit the people to elect the commissioners. This was the opinion held by Senator
Sherman of Ohio, Senator Morton of Indiana, Senator Wright of Iowa, and many others.
The Chairman. What year was that report?
Mr. Oyster. 1874.
The Chairman. The other government was only in vogue for three years?
Mr. Oyster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Theodore W. Noyes. Had that report reference to the so-called temporary
government of 1874, or the so-called permanent form of government of 1878?
The Chairman. I understand that is a report on the failure of that local government.
Mr. Oyster. On the territorial form of government.
The Chairman. I want to know how long the territorial form of government was
in vogue before they declared it a failure.
Mr. Noyes. As Mr. Oyster knows, as well as anybody else, there was a temporary
government substituted in 1874.
Mr. Oyster. That is what this committee says.
Mr. Noyes. I had in mind the same thought which is in the mind of the chairman,
to ascertain whether what is said in that report had reference to that District tempo¬
rary form of government or to the form of government which was known as the so-called
permanent form.
The Chairman. As I understand you, that government was in vogue from 1871 to
1874, when it was declared a failure and a temporary form of government took its
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 189
place until the government of 1878 was substituted, which was practically the gov¬
ernment, in a measure at least, that we still have.
Mr. Oyster. Mr. Chairman, the territorial form of government was not established
as a temporary form of government. That was as much permanent at that time as
any other.
The Chairman. I understand that, but the temporary government replaced that
in 1874.
Mr. Oyster. Yes.
Mr. Noyes. The report refers to the temporary government and not to the so-called
permanent government of 1878.
Mr. Oyster. The criticism of the committee does not refer to the temporary form of
government. It refers to the territorial form of government, which was not adopted
as a temporary form, but was abolished, as this committee recommended.
Mr. Noyes. I don’t want to take up the time, but I understood that the report
referred to something they recommended in place of the territorial government.
Mr. Oyster. Yes.
Mr. Noyes. Which was temporary.
Mr. Oyster. The territorial form.
The Chairman. You mean the government that was to replace the territorial form
of government, because it had proved a complete failure and they substituted a tem¬
porary form, which was considered only temporary?
Mr. Noyes. Yes; which was referred to as only temporary in that report.
Mr. Oyster. Yes. The committee’s report from which I have quoted referred to
the territorial form, which was abolished by Congress in 1874.
Mr. Noyes. I wanted to ascertain whether that comment upon the form of govern¬
ment that was presented as temporary referred to the 1874 government, which was
treated as temporary, or to the so-called permanent government of 1878?
Mr. Oyster. That 1874 government had not yet been established. It could not
refer to anything else but the territorial form of government. I have stated that
clearly.
Mr. Noyes. There is no difference of opinion as'to the reference. The date itself
will show which form of government was referred to.
Mr. Oyster. Indeed, it was believed that President Grant would veto the bill,
and that-he approved it only when assured that a municipal government in harmony
with the spirit of our institutions would be reestablished in the Nation’s Capital
when Congress had more time during its next session to consider the subject. It was
currently rumored at that time that the bill would be vetoed by President Grant.
There were strenuous efforts made by both sides to induce the President to veto it,
and it was a general belief and talk about the Capitol on the Senate side that the bill
would be vetoed.
The Chairman. Then there was a strong feeling that, notwithstanding that local
government had been very expensive, it was not a failure?
Mr. Oyster. No; that was not it. The objection then was that it was to overthrow
by striking down suffrage the very principle upon which this Government was founded.
That was the reason. They were not objecting to a change in the form of government,
but were objecting to a change as it was made.
Mr. Chairman, in considering any change from our present local government, we
should carefully consider what kind of a government we are now living under, and
whether it is as good, as excellent, as so many thousands of persons seem to think it is,
so perfect that it is sacrilege to even criticize it. Yet there are few cities in the United
States where the local authorities have been more freely, and, in very many cases,
justly criticized. Our schools, our street lighting, our street railroads, our assess¬
ments, garbage and ash collections, our slums, which enormously increased our death
rate for many years to the extent that only two cities in the United States had a
higher death rate than Washington, have all been severely criticized and have
deserved, in most cases, all of the criticism and censure they have received in Con¬
gress and in the newspapers and the many citizens’ associations throughout the
District.
Now, what kind of a local government is it under which we have been living for
nearly 50 years? Let me call on one who, for many years, aided in its administration
to properly describe it.
“The present form of government,” said Henry B. F. Macfarland, president of the
Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia for many years, in Everybody’s
Magazine for August, 1901, “is an absolute autocracy.”
‘ ‘ In form the present government of the District of Columbia is an absolute autoc¬
racy, not legally responsible to the people” said Commissioner Macfarland. “Nor
have the citizens of the District of Columbia the legal right to say who shall exercise
190
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
the power of a commissioner, nor how he shall do it, nor for what object. Theoreti¬
cally, they have no voice in the selection of their servants or of their tasks, and no
power to reward or punish them.
“Can the self-government of the District of Columbia, thus roughly outlined, be
adapted to other municipalities in the United States? At first blush it would seem
that such a form of government would be impracticable outside of the Federal Dis :
trict, with its peculiar status and conditions. But it may be worth while to consider
carefully, in view of the success of the District system and the failure of municipal
government elsewhere in the United States, whether government by a commission
on a similar plan could not be profitably established in our large cities. It would,
perhaps, not be so difficult as itseems. The main obstacle would be the average man’s
pride in possessing the right to vote, even though he knows it is useless and half the
time is not even exercised.”
Commissioner Macfarland in his address on “District Day” at the Buffalo Exposi¬
tion on September 3, 1901, said:
“Twenty-three years’ experience has proved that this is the ideal form of govern¬
ment for the District of Columbia. * * * The fact that it is an exception to all
other governments in the United States is that it provides for taxation without repre¬
sentation and is autocratic in form, grieves some good people in the District who care
more for sentiment [principle] than for substance. * * * Self-government of the
most direct and effective character is the possession of the people of the District of
Columbia. * * * The government of the District of Columbia is, therefore,
admittedly the best in the United States, because it is a government by the best
citizens.”
Webster’s definition of autocracy is “supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited authority;
a despotism.”
Aristocracy he defines as “government by the best citizens; a privileged class.”
The Chairman. Do you think it is autocratic?
Mr. Oyster. Do I? Yes; as I will demonstrate a little later on.
A democratic or republican form of government Webster defines as “a government
by the people: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and
directly exercised by the people; * * * a State in which the sovereign power
resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected
by them; a Commonwealth.”
Mr. Chairman, which of these forms of government would be most becoming or
desirable or beneficial or consistent in the Capital of a free people? There can be but
one reply to this question from those who sincerely love republican institutions—a
republican form of government; “a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people,” for the establishment and preservation of which tens of thousands of
brave and patriotic Americans sacrificed their lives on the battle fields of the Republic,
and on the sanguinary fields of France to make this country and the world safe for
democracy.
The Chairman. The whole principle of this Government, upon which it is founded,
is that it is a republican form of government, and not a democratic form of government.
It is a representative government, and not a government by the masses of the people.
Mr. Oyster. Yes, I understand the distinction between the two, and Webster says
“a democratic or republican form of government.”
The Chairman. Whether Webster defines it that way or not, it is not so taken.
There is certainly that distinction between a republican form of government, which
is a representative form of government, and a democratic form, one in which all the
people meet to transact all of the business, which is impracticable in any large city
or large country.
Mr. Oyster. I recognize that distinction.
The Chairman. They used to have it in Greece and Rome at one time, but our
Government is administered purely by those people elected to represent the masses.
Mr. Oyster. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The President represents them. The legislatures of the States
and the National Legislature are elected to represent and transact the business for the
people, instead of the masses meeting to pass their laws. Now, the District is con¬
ducted to-day by that representative form of government. I am not arguing for or
against the election, but you must make the distinction between a democratic gov¬
ernment and a republican government.
Mr. Oyster. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. I fully understand the distinction,
and I know it is almost impossible, certaintly impracticable, to have a pure democracy
where the people in convention assembled pass their laws, and so whenever I have
advocated a change in the form of government I have advocated a change to a repub-
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 191
lican form of government, because this country is a republic, and is the greatest and
best Nation on the face of the earth to-day.
Therefore, it would seem that in the Capital of the greatest Republic on this earth we
should not only have a republican form of government but a model form of such
government, and thus set a good example to all other cities of the world.
Abraham Lincoln said from the steps of the White House in November, 1864, “ We
can not have free government without elections. ’ ’ He was then and is now absolutely
right. They had elections in Washington at that time.
In 1907 President Roosevelt called to Washington a Mr. Reynolds, for the purpose
of making an investigation of the District government, as his agent, and report to him
direct what changes, if any, should be made in it. After an investigation covering
several months, among the changes he recommended was that one man be placed at
its head, and that he alone should be held responsible for its success or failure.
In regard to Mr. Reynolds’s recommendations, the Washington Herald asked this
question:
“Is anything really the matter with the District’s form of government, which the
President’s agent, Mr. Reynolds, is seeking to change?” and requested its readers to
answer the question. I accepted the invitation, and under date of August 3, 1907, in
the Trade Unionist, of this city, in a lengthy article, I answered the Herald’s question.
The following is taken from the said article:
“Yes. In the judgment of a majority of the disfranchised, there are many things
really the matter with the District’s ‘autocratic ’ form of government, but the strongest
objection to it can be condensed to three words—unrepublican, undemocratic,
un-American.
“When republican government was overthrown here in 1870 the great mass of the
people were not consulted—were not given the opportunity to express their opinion
through the ballot box.”
After giving many reasons which, in my judgment, warranted a change, I concluded
as follows:
“Why is it that the defenders of our un-American form of government are con¬
tinually straining their eyes to discover the motes in the eyes of other municipalities,
but, with all their keeness for the faults of others, fail to detect the beams, some of
them as big as sawlogs, in their own municipal eyes? ‘ Why beholdest thou the mote
that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not thq beam that is in thine own eye? ’
“Yes, there is really something radically and fundamentally wrong with the Dis¬
trict’s form of government, but when a change is made it should not be from one
‘autocracy not legally responsible to the people’ to another of the same kind. The
change should be made rather in the direction of the form of municipal government
recently adopted by the city of Des Moines, Iowa, which provides for the election of
a mayor and four councilmen, with the initiative, referendum, and recall in the hands
of the people. Of course, the people of the United States, as owners of one-half of the
property in the District of Columbia, must be represented in any government estab¬
lished here, and it is suggested that five commissioners appointed by the President
and responsible to him, and five commissioners elected by the people of the District
and directly responsible to them, would be a proper body to govern the District,
under a charter to be granted by Congress. ”
After further consideration, since the above article was written, I have come to the
conclusion that a smaller body would answer every need and render better service.
Under the heading of “Commissioner Macfarland answered,” 1 ask to insert without
reading some quotations from Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, John Randolph, Seward,
and Choate.
On the constitutional question, which I said I would not pretend to argue, I quote
from Madison, Stry, Chief Justice Woodward, of Pennsylvania; Samuel J. Randall,
Senator Morton of Indiana, Senator Logan of Illinois, Senator Edmonds of Vermont,
and Senator Wright of Iowa, who discuss the constitutional questions relative to the
District.
Under the head of “Opposed to destruction of suffrage,” I submit quotations from
Senator Sherman of Ohio, Senator Morton of Indiana, and Senator Spencer, who was
a member of the joint select committee to frame a permanent form of government for
the District of Columbia.
I ask that these quotations be incorporated in the record.
The Chairman. They may be so incorporated.
(The data referred to by the witness is here printed in full, as follows:)
COMMISSIONER MACFARLAND ANSWERED.
Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government; that, and that only, is
self-government. * * * Finally, I insist that if there is anything that it is the
83480—22-13
192
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
duty of the whole people to never intrust to hands other than their own, that thing
is the preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions. (Abraham
Lincoln, Howell’s Life, p. 284.)
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they
gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain; that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people
shall not perish from the earth. (President Lincoln’s memorial address at Gettysburg,
Nov. 19, 1863.)
We can not have free Government without elections. (President Lincoln’s response
to a serenade at the White House, Nov. 10, 1864.)
President Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, urged his countrymen to exercise
“a jealous care of the right.of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of
abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are
unprovided.”
The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental articles of republican gov¬
ernment, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual
abridgment of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built
on the ruins of popular forms. (Madison, Elliott’s Debates.)
A ruler independent of the people over whom he presides is abhorrent to the prin¬
ciples of free government. (Joseph Warren, Josiah Quincy, and others.)
Who are a free people? Not those who do not suffer actual oppression, but those
who have a constitutional check upon the power to oppress. (James Lovell, Apr. 2,
1772, Principles and Acts of the Revolution.)
Political slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any com¬
munity is divested of the power of self-government and regulated by laws to which its
assent is not required and may not be given. (John Randolph, of Virginia, in House
of Representatives, Feb. 9, 1803.)
In accordance with the opinion adopted as early as any political opinions I ever
had, and cherished as long, I maintain that the right of suffrage is not a mere con¬
ventional right, but an inherent natural right, of which no government can rightly
deprive any adult man who is subject to its authority and obligated to its support.
(William H. Seward.)
On November 16, 1901, Joseph Choate, ambassador to England, was the guest of
the Lotus Club, in New York City, at a reception and dinner given in his honor. On
that occasion, among other things, he said:
“After all that I have seen of other countries, it seems to me absolutely clear that
the cardinal principles upon which American institutions rest—the absolute political
equality of all citizens, with universal suffrage—is the secret of American success.
Aided by that comprehensive system of education which enables every citizen to
pursue his calling and exercise the franchise, it puts that county on that plane of
success which it has reached. It passes my comprehen ion how any American can
go abroad and not return a warmer lover of the institutions of his native land.”
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
Madison’s opinion of the meaning of the “exclusive legislation ” clause of the Con¬
stitution is found in the Federalist, No. 43:
* And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it;
as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of
the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of inter¬
est to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the
election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal
legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be
a lowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State and the inhabitants
of the ceded p'art of it to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people
of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems
to be obviated.”
Of the local governments established by Congress in the District of Columbia prior
to 1871, Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, section 1223,
says:
“In point of fact, the corporations of the three cities (Washington, Georgetown,
and Alexandria) within its limits possess and exercise a delegated power of legislation
under their charters, granted by Congress, to the full extent of their municipal wants,
without any constitutional scruple or surmise or doubt.”
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
193
Chief Justice Woodward, of Pennsylvania:
“Exclusive legislation—exclusive of what? Exclusive of the legislation of the
States. That is the plain meaning of that portion of the Constitution.” (Cong.
Globe, 4l£t Cong., pt. 1, p. 644.)
Hon. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania:
“I am inclined to believe, judging from the rules of common sense, that this is
correct, especially in view of the citation from Judge Story, which clearly establishes
the right of Congress to delegate the legislative power in reference to this District.
* * * Nothing can be feared, in my judgment, from delegating this power to the
people.” (Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., p. 645.)
Senator Morton, of Indiana:
1 ‘ The word ‘ exclusive ’ there means that it shall be entirely taken from the States
which cede it; that the States ceding it shall lose all control over it; that it shall be
exclusively in Congress, so far as the States ceding it are concerned; but it never
meant that all legislative power or all government should be directly exercised by
Congress.” (Cong. Record, 43d Cong., vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 121.)
Senator Edmunds, of Vermont:
‘ ‘ That is what I think.’ ’
Senator Logan, of Illinois:
‘ ‘ I maintain that the same principle applies as to the question of the rights of citi¬
zens in the regulation of their municipal affairs in the city of Washington that applies
to all other cities. * * * The rights of the citizens here are the same as the rights
of citizens everywhere else in cities.” (Cong. Record, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 123.)
On February 11, 1875, the Senate having under consideration a bill (S. 963) for the
better government of the District of Columbia, Senator Wright, of Iowa, said:
“Mr. President, the amendment pending is that of the Senator from Indiana, which
asserts the principle that it is both constitutional and expedient to give the people of
this District the election of their local officers. Much that I shall say will be in sup¬
port of this proposition, more especially of the power to thus legislate. * * *
‘ ‘ Some things have been said in this discussion, and on other topics bearing thereon
during the present session, which have a significance and importance beyond any pos¬
sible vote upon these propositions, to which I propose to allude, with the indulgence
of the Senate, before I take my seat.
“In a very elaborate speech, prepared evidently with great care, my esteemed
friend, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Merrimon), when this subject heretofore
engaged the attention of the Senate, maintained, as will be remembered, that to author¬
ize the people of this District to elect any of their officers would be outside of and
beyond the power of Congress under the Constitution. * * *
“He further proceeds to argue that Congress may create an office, that of mayor, or
regent, or commissioner, any office it may see fit for the District, but can not elect
that officer nor empower the people to elect him.
“Stripping these propositions of all verbiage and reducing them to their logical
elements, they mean that the people of this District can not be given the ballot, for
no power can confer it but Congress. Congress, as the Senator says, can not; therefore,
it can not be given in any form or for any purpose.
“Mr. President, if these propositions and this argument to the extent stated be
sound, then I confess that I have read the Constitution to but little purpose, and the
fathers of the Republic and the wisest and best men of the succeeding years have been
woefully ignorant of its provisions, unmindful of their sacred obligations, and have
been stumbling along in thick darkness without a light to their feet or a glimpse of
that radiance now shed upon the Constitution by my distinguished and esteemed
friend from North Carolina. * * *
“Referring now to the Senator from North Carolina and entertaining, as I do, the
most profound respect for his opinions and judgment, and especially upon legal and
constitutional questions, I beg to refer him for a moment, before reaching an examina¬
tion of the Constitution itself, to what has been enacted in a few [numerous] instances
under its provisions; and it is remarkably strange, 1 may be allowed to say in advance,
with this history and these instances before us, dating from the very existence of the
Government—acts by Congress after Congress, approved by Executives of every
conceivable political opinion almost—I say it is most remarkable that just now we
are to be told that the people can not elect their municipal officers in this District,
but that it rests with the President alone to appQint. ” * * *
Senator Wright, after referring to the acts of 1802, 1804, and 1805, establishing and
extending self-government in the District of Columbia, said:
“I only remark, in passing, to my friends from North Carolina and Nevada, who
insist upon their strict construction of the Constitution, that all of these acts were
194
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
approved by Mr. Jefferson, who, they will pardon me for suggesting, is presumed to
have known something of the meaning of that instrument and the powers of Congress
under it. ”
Senator Wright also referred to acts of 1820, 1843, 1848, 1855, 1862, 1864, 1866, 1867,
and 1869, extending the right of suffrage in the District, and said:
“And now, Mr. President, if anything can be established by the uniform current
of legislative action, then th ese acts—and others on all fours with these might be cited—
show conclusively that the Senator must be mistaken in his construction of the Con¬
stitution, and that its provisions are not violated when we give to the people of this
District the power to select their own officers. It has been done, as I have said,
under almost every President, by almost every Congress, by those of almost every
shade of political opinion. ”
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form
of government.” (Constitution.)
Mr. Chairman, can this wise provision be interpreted to mean that the United States
is to guarantee to every State a republican form of government, but that Congress
is empowered to strike down and annihilate every vestige of such government in the
Capital of the Republic—the political heart of the Nation?
No. Such an inconsistent interpretation can not be maintained. The fact that
self-government was established in the District of Columbia as soon as possible after
it became the “seat of government, ” and that such government was maintained and
extended from time to time for 70 years, is proof positive that the framers of the Con¬
stitution did not intend that the people in the Capital of the Nation should be de¬
spoiled of their inalienable right to take part in their government.
OPPOSED TO DESTRUCTION OF SUFFRAGE.
On February 10, 1875, the Senate having under consideration a bill for the better
government of the District of Columbia, Senator Sherman, of Ohio, said:
“ Although I do not believe it is wise in our system of Government to confer all the
powers in a municipal government upon persons appointed by executive authority,
yet I prefer to vote for this bill rather than defeat all measures on the subject. At the
next session of Congress I have no doubt whatever, if Congress has the time, * * *
it will take away from the President of the United States the power of appointing
these commissioners and trust their election to the people who are to be affected by
their authority.”
Senator Morton, of Indiana, said:
“Mr. President, as I offered this amendment providing for suffrage in the District,
before the vote is taken I desire to call the attention of the Senate to its importance
and to the great principle that is involved. In a bill which passed Congress at the
close of the last session suffrage in this District was stricken down, and the government
committed to three commissioners to be appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate. That bill passed hastily, without much consideration, and under what
seemed to be an apparent necessity at the time; but it was understood to be temporary;
that it was simply to bridge over the interregnum until this session of Congress, when
another form of government would be considered and devised. If it had been under¬
stood then that suffrage in the District was to be permanently destroyed, I do not
believe the bill could have been passed with all the pressure and the apparent necessity
for its passage. That bill has been made a stepping-stone, and we now have the
proposition permanently, for a long series of years, to destroy the right of suffrage both
of white and black people. I am opposed to this upon principle; I am opposed to it
upon the ground of expediency; I believe it is wrong in every way; and, if it should
become a law, it is a precedent that will come back to plague us. * * *
“ As I said before, this is against the very spirit of our institutions. It is contrary to
the theory upon which our Government is based. * * *
“There is no safety in that form of Government. The principle of it is wrong.
There is no occasion for its application. I reject it utterly except where it may be an
absolute necessity, and I know of no such necessity here. ' * * *
“Therefore I beg those who do not wish to concur in the effectf and the policy of
this example to consider well before they vote for this bill.”
NO RIGHTS WHATEVER EXCEPT TO BE TAXED.
On January 11, 1877, Senator Spencer, from the Joint Select Committee to Frame
a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia, submitted a minority
report (S. No. 572), from which the following extracts are taken:
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
195
“The bill reported from the majority of the committee proposes that the District
of Columbia and the property and persons that may be therein shall be subject to
the government of three persons, styled ‘commissioners.’ * * *
“The people retire from legal consideration, but not from legal responsibility.
The commissioners constitute the municipality, less its obligations. The people are
no part of the municipality; they only bear its burdens and continue accountable
for its liabilities. The people retain under this bill no rights whatever, except the
right to be taxed.
“This plan of government is repugnant to American principles of administration.
It substitutes executive for republican forms. It is a retrogression to monarchic
theories.. It is a return to the system of plenary powers which the advanced nations
of mankind have forever rejected. It is dangerous to public and private rights;
it is inimical to the local institutions of the country. * * *
“The people of the District of Columbia, equally with other citizens of the United
States, must be held to possess certain inalienable rights, which have never been
delegated, and never can be delegated, either by themselves or by anybodv else
for them, neither to Congress nor to any authority or power whatever. What is
inalienable can not be alienated. Among these rights is that of a common partici¬
pation in common affairs. It is the right of local self-government.
“It is further, a part of the American common law that ‘overnments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed.’ The people of the District have never
consented that the right to manage their local affairs should be taken from them.
The - people of the several States could not give that consent. It was not theirs to
give. The consent has not been given. * * *
“That Congress i : authorized to erect over the District of Columbia a system of
government and a line of abuses which the American colonies rose in arms to over¬
throw is not, in the opinion of the minority, a tenable proposition. * * *
“ It is the opinion of the minority that the highest duty of Congress is to preserve
to the people of this country their free institutions in entirety and in perpetuity,
and that in this regard the people of the United States can not afford to have an
unrepublican system of government established in the District of Columbia. * * *
“The danger to republican institutions arises from power over the people, not from
power in the people. The whole people are honest; they have no interest in de¬
frauding themselves. The whole people are solvent; they have no motive in their
own bankruptcy. It is individual greed only which seeks to defraud the public.
Individuals only would bankrupt the community to aggrandize themselves. Power
in the hands of the people is always safe so long as they themselves do not relinquish
it or permit themselves to be despoiled of it. Power over the people is always dan¬
gerous, however achieved or however derived.
“It is the conclusion of the minority that the people of the District of Columbia
have a clear, incontrovertible right to a local government derived from their own
free suffrages; that no inhibition against the exercise of such right is contained in
the Constitution of the United States, neither in the intendment nor in the letter
of that instrument; but, on the contrary, that Congress is itself inhibited by its con¬
stitutional restrictions and public obligations from denying or abridging that right,
or from providing for the District any form of local government other than a govern¬
ment republican in form and in harmony with the customary municipal institutions
of the country.”
On March 28, 1878, the House having under consideration a bill (H. R. No. 3259)
providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia, Hon. Jacob
D. Cox, of Ohio, said:
“I insist on it, we shall be held before the country to have declared the utter failure
of republican institutions as applied to municipal organizations if we pass at this time
such a bill as this. * * *
“What ought to be the municipal government of a city of some 200,000 inhabitants,
made up of the mixed population we have here?” Such a government the citizens
of Washington have a right to. The fact that Congress may, if it will, play the petty
part of a city council does not make it either necessary or right to do so. The fact
that it may, if it will, disfranchise the people is no justification for doing so. They
have an inalienable right to the freest, the most popular form of municipal organiza¬
tion which is compatible with the safety of life and property, with the preservation of
good order, and the security of the national property which is here. For us to give
them less will be to be false to the most fundamental principles of American liberty.”
Taxation and representation ought to go together. (Chief Justice Ellsworth.)
196
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
In 1890 representation in Congress and the Electoral College was advocated by com¬
mittees of one hundred. “Your memorialists,” said these committees, “believe that
a great majority of the citizens of the District are dissatisfied with the present local
government.”
On September 17, 1890, the Senate having under consideration joint resolutions pro¬
posing an amendment to the Constitution to give representation to the District of
Columbia in the two Houses of Congress and the Electoral College, Senator Blair, of
New Hampshire, said:
“* * * It would be difficult to imagine a more striking evidence of the real
political inconsequence of the manhood of the District of Columbia than is furnished
by the treatment which this measure has received, supported as it is by the committee
of one hundred and the great mass of the people of the District. * * *
“It would be supposed that the Government of the.United States would be admin¬
istered in the republican form; that the capital of the foremost republic on the face
of the earth, that one spot exclusively under its control, would itself be a model
republic, without the trace of despotism or of aristocracy; that in such locality as
might contain the seat and creative arena of government activity the people them¬
selves would be free; that such a community would illustrate in the highest possible
form the practical workings and the superior blessings of a democratic and repre¬
sentative form of government; that in such a specific locality, if nowhere else, govern¬
ment of the people would be by the people and for the people; that it would be
founded upon the consent of the governed; that life, liberty, and property would be
protected and secured by laws founded upon the principles of that Constitution
which applies to the country generally; that there would be no taxation without
representation; that the executive power would be derived, if not immediately, at
least remotely, from those upon whom the law is executed, and that an enthusiastic
admirer of free institutions from lands ridden by tyranny might come to the capital
of free America to behold the great object lesson of liberty in its practical operation
among the masses of the people. * * *
“Our fathers who declared their independence, who achieved it by arms, who
established the Government upon the principles which they had vindicated in battle
and consecrated in blood, never dreamed that by the establishment of the Federal
District, in order that the National Government might have a secure, unfettered field
for its operations, they were laying the foundation of a vast community of political
slaves. They understood that the people of the District of Columbia would possess
all the rights and liberties which belonged to other American citizens, and that resi¬
dence here would be a political blessing, not a political curse.
“In advocating the adoption of the Constitution, Madison and Hamilton asserted
that the people of the District would, as a matter of course, be entitled to the functions
and advantages of local self-government; and, as a matter of fact, until the year 1871,
the District of Columbia possessed a republican form of government in all local affairs.
It was the home, to that extent, of a free people. * * *
“It seems to me incomprehensible that after nearly a century of actual local self-
government, such as it was, that the American Congress as late as the year 1878 should
have proceeded to subvert whatsoever there was of republicanism and democracy
actually existing in a community which then had attained to the number of at least
160,000 souls—more than that of many of the States at the time of their admission
into the Union—and to remand the whole community for its present, and apparently
for its future, to a condition of political vassalage.
“I venture to say that no act of more stupendous and dangerous inconsistency has
ever been perpetrated by the legislative power of any free people in violation of the
principle of their own form of government since the foundation of the world; that,
considering the political enlightenment of the age in which this was done, no such
example of incomprehensible and fatal violation of the first truth of governmental
theory laid down by Montesquieu as of universal application has ever been known.
“If this state of things has been protracted, lo, now these 12 years, against the
unheard and, to a great extent, the suppressed remonstrances of the masses of the
people of this city, and if daily the control of this community is becoming more and
more absolute in the possession of leaders of factions and combinations and rings and
syndicates which derive their strength from unholy or indifferent relations to and
with the representatives of national power who are intrusted with the government
of the District, or if there is danger that this may now be or may become so, then it
is high time, indeed, at once to call a halt, to seek the hospital and attack this cancer¬
ous growth at once with medicines, or, they failing, with the knife. * * *
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
197
‘‘This is no trifling matter, and I verily believe that it constitutes a drop of poison
in the heart of the Republic, which, if left without its antidote, will spread virus
through that circulation which is the life of our liberties.
“As suggested in beginning, I am sorry, although not surprised, that the committee
to whom this proposed resolution of amendment to the Constitution was submitted
in the last Congress and in the present, and before whom large number of the people
of the District desired to be heard, exhausted the subject so easily and reported back
the resolution with such celerity, without hearing or notice to anybody after its
introduction and reference to them by the Senate. It is safe to say that a community
of voters would not have been thus summarily disposed of.
“In future Congresses, I doubt not,” said Senator Blair, in conclusion, “the sub¬
ject will be heard in committee and in both the Houses, and its agitation will not
cease, but will increase both in Congress and in the country, as well as in the District
itself, until the hundreds of thousands who may yet become millions in this already
magnificent and yet to be stupendous and glorious city shall be endowed with all
the rights and liberties of Americans.”
Mr. Oyster. Senator Blair was a farseeing statesman as well as a true patriot, for in
every succeeding Congress the voice of the people demanding their rights and their
liberties has been growing louder and louder, and will no doubt continue to increase
in volume until their just demands are complied with. Mr. Chairman, the select
committee to inquire into affairs of the District of Columbia, in its reports on June
16, 1874, recommending the abolition of the territorial form of government, said:
“Your committee have unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the existing
form of government is a failure, * * * that the system of taxation it allows opens
a door to great inequality and injustice, and is wholly insufficient to secure the prompt
collection of taxes,” which was no doubt absolutely true.
But if complaints and criticisms in regard to the inequality and injustice in assess¬
ments of real estate and personal property by residents and by Congress had any founda¬
tion, and I personally know that thousands of them were absolutely justified, there
can have been little, if any, improvement made in this regard since the present form
of government for the District of Columbia was established, at least until recent
years.
I want to say that at the present time the District of Columbia has the best assessor
it has ever had, the only really expert man who has ever occupied that position, who
understands his business and is honestly endeavoring to assess the property of the
District according to law. The criticism has been made that ve do not have any
inheritance tax or income tax in the District. With that the assessor and the District
Commissioners have nothing to do. Congress is the lawmaking body. If they want
an inheritance tax or income tax, it is up to Congress. Congress has no right to
criticize the District for not having those laws, for that body alone has authority to
enact such a law.
I discovered by personal inspection of a large amount of property—land and improve¬
ments—in the District, and also by inspection of official assessment records, covering
a period of many years, that very much of it was inequitably assessed and taxed;
that nearly all of the mansions of the rich were assessed much lower in proportion to
value than the humble homes of the poor; that land was assessed very much lower in
proportion to the value than improvements, and that vacant land held out of use for
speculation was assessed very much lower in proportion to \alue than improved
land.
In the same manner I discovered that all of the breweries in the District were
outrageously underassessed; that most of our large hotels, and many of our large
apartment houses and business houses and the ground on which they stand were
greatly underassessed.
It gives me great pleasure to inform the committee that, as a member of the board
of assistant assessors from August, 1913, to October, 1918, I aided in the correction of
many, if not all, of the most glaring inequalities Which I had discovered and publicly
pointed out prior to the time I became a member of the board. It also gives me
pleasure to say it, because it is true, that the board of assistant assessors had the very
valuable assistance of Mr. William P. Richards, the best and most efficient assessor the
District of Columbia has ever had, in bringing about the good results accomplished
during the above period and that he is now honestly, without fear or favor, endeavoring
to carry out the law of Congress in regard to taxation of all kinds of property in the
District.
The incompetent and unlawful assessment of property for nearly 40 years under the
present form of government deprived the District of many millions of dollars justly
due as taxes. It may not have been considered dishonest, it may not have been
198
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
considered “graft,” as that odious word seems to be interpreted these days, but the
effect on the District, so far as I can see, by wrongfully holding that large sum out of
its treasury, is about the same as if it had been wrongfully extracted after it had been
paid in. In one case about $75,000, which had been paid in as special improvement
taxes, was stolen by a clerk, who had been permitted to deposit District funds in bank
in his own name. The loss to the District would not have been any greater had it
been lawfully withheld from its treasury by underassessments. “A rather peculiar
manner of conducting business in‘the best-governed city in the United States,’ ” I
have heard many people remark.
Mr. Brandenburg. May I interrupt just a moment? There are one or two other
gentlemen here who want to be heard. This is a matter which is not relevant or
germane to the question before the committee. The gentleman has already spoken
55 minutes, and it seems to us this might be omitted, if agreeable to the chairman, so
these other gentlemen might be heard. I understand you want to conclude these
hearings to-day.
The Chairman. We are going to give you all day.
Mr. Brandenburg. I see he has a good many papers to present yet.
Mr. Oyster. They all bear on this question.
The Chairman. How much longer will it take?
Mr. Oyster. I think it will take but a short time for me to conclude.
The Chairman. Proceed and complete your argument as soon as possible.
Mr. Oyster. On January 11, 1902, Senator McMillan, then chairman of the District
Committee, in a statement printed in the Washington Post said:
“Wealthy residents will not be driven from Washington by a tax on personal prop¬
erty. When their property is taxed in other cities, it will not he the purpose, as far
as I have anything to do with a tax law, to tax them again on the same property here
in Washington. Such people will continue to come to Washington and reside here.
It is only fair that they should pay their just share of taxes, as other citizens are
supposed to do.”
This was Senator McMillan’s statement yesterdav about some criticisms of his effort
to secure a fairer system of taxation in the District of Columbia, said the Post.
“There has been some.misunderstanding of my attitude,” declared the Senator.
“I am not seeking to oppress the people of the District. We all know the strong
sentiment that has been developed in Congress from time to time for equitable taxes
of personal property here, such as prevail elsewhere in the country. I am seeking
to investigate this subject that we may take fair and timely action lest eventually
Congress, once aroused ovqr the question, imposes upon the District tax legislation
really severe in its character. I am rather striving to protect the people here by
securing equitable taxation sufficient to raise money for the local government.
“It is very plain that there ought to be a common basis of valuation for taxing
purposes for all realty here. That is not the case now. I believe that property in
the eastern section of the city is taxed up to its full valuation. The same is true
to a considerable extent of the residence property in the western part of the city.
But in the business section property is undervalued and pays taxes in far smaller
amounts than ought, to be the case. Different arguments have been used to justify
this. Often it is said that the owner is using the property in his business. Never¬
theless, there is no reason why this property should not, like the rest of the property
in Washington, be assessed for its reasonable valuation. There is no difficulty in
ascertaining this. There are transactions almost daily that fix a basis of the value
of property in all parts of the city. Then city property should not be assessed as
agricultural property.”
Mr. Oyster. I will state that at one time the land outside of the city proper was
assessed as agricultural property, large, masses of it being held for purely speculative
purposes by land grabbers.
Mr. Noyes. Might ask the date of that last matter?
Mr. Oyster. January 11, 1902.
Mr. Noyes. What you said doe3 not refer to assessments at the present time?
Mr. Oyster. No. I stated that.
“Senator McMillan,” said the Post, “was asked about the provisions of the bill
drawn by Assessor Darneille and what program he proposed to follow, but he answered
that he had not gone into that measure very thoroughly yet, proposing to give it further
study.”
“The Senate District Committee, of which Mr. McMillan is chairman,” said the
Post, “has in its files numerous instances of the manner in which local property is
assessed. There is a land company owning about 540 acres adjoining the city, the
total assessment of which is $112,000, averaging about $200 per acre. Last November
7.46 acres of this property, which is assessed for $1,492, was sold for $25,000.”
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
199
Mr. Oyster. This is only one example out of hundreds of such flagrant under¬
assessments which continued many years after the date of Senator McMillan’s criticism.
These flagrant violations of law in the assessment of property in the District of
Columbia covering a period of so many years reminds me that some years ago I read an
address delivered by ex-President Harrison on the 22d of February, 1898, before the
Union League Club in Chicago, Ill., in which, among other things he said:
“The great bulk of our people are lovers of justice. They do not believe that pov¬
erty is a virtue or property a crime. They believe in an equality of opportunity and
not of dollars.
’ “The men who have wealth must not hide it from the tax gatherers and flaunt it on
the street. Such things breed a great discontent. All other men are hurt. Thev
bear a disproportionate burden. A strong soldier will carry the knapsack of a crippled
comrade, but he will not permit a robust shirk to add so much as his tin cup to the
burden.
“The special purpose of my address to-day is to press home this thought upon the
prosperous, well-to-do people of our communities and especially of our great cities,
that one of the conditions of the security of wealth is a proportionate and full contribu¬
tion to the expenses of the State and local governments. It is not only wrong but it is
unsafe to make a show in our homes and on the street that is not made in the tax returns.
“It is a part of our individual covenant as citizens with the State that we will,
honestly and fully, in the rate of proportion fixed from time to time by law, contribute
our just share to all public expenses. A frill and conscientious discharge of that duty
by the citizen is one of the tests of good citizenship. To evade that duty is a moral
delinquency, an unpatriotic act * * *. I want to emphasize, if I can, the thought
that the preservation of this principle of a proportionate contribution, according to the
true value of what each man has, to the public expenditures, is essential to the main¬
tenance of our free institutions and of peace and good order in our communities.
“Mr. Lincoln’s startling declaration that this country could not continue to exist
half slave and half free may be paraphrased to-day by saying that this country can
not continue to exist half taxed and half free.
“We have too much treated the matter of a man’s tax return as a personal matter.
“We have put his transactions with the State on much the Same level with his trans¬
actions with his banker, but that is not the true basis. Each citizen has a personal
interest, a pecuniary interest, in the tax return of his neighbor. We are members of
a great partnership, and it is the right of each to know what every other member is
contributing to the partnership and what he is taking from it.”
[Congressional Record, Vol. 4, pt. 3, p. 2716, Apr. 24, 1876.]
The House of Representatives having under consideration a bill (H. R. 2676) to
regulate the assessment and collection of taxes for the support of the government of
the District of Columbia—
Mr. Neal, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in offering this bill as a substitute for the one
presented by the majority of the committee, I am actuated by no spirit of hostility
to them, but by a simple desire to distribute more equally than they propose the bur¬
den of taxation in this District. * * *
Equality in the imposition of taxes is one of the cardinal principles of every just
system of taxation. * * *
If the bill of the committee had been drawn in the special interest of the capitalists
of this District it could not have been made to answer their purposes more completely
than it now does. It seems to be based upon and is clearly an attempt to enforce and
carry out by law the idea so prevalent here, that this Capital must be made the
grandest and most beautiful city upon the continent, and that in furtherance of this
project men of wealth from all parts of the country must be induced to come and take
up their residence here by exempting their moneys, credits, and personal property of
almost every kind from taxation. I desire to enter my emphatic protest against
any such legislation. * * * I will resist to the utmost of my feeble powers all
efforts to ingraft upon our statute books any law which, under any pretext whatever,
strikes from the tax lists property in the hands of those who receive the greatest benefit
from the protection of the Government. * * *
An objection put forward by the gentleman from Missouri to my substitute is that
the people of the District are opposed to the taxation of personal property. I ask that
gentleman who are the people of this District?
Mr. Buckner. The taxpayers.
Mr. Neal. The taxpayers?
Mr. Buckner. On real estate.
Mr. Neal. If a few wealthy gentlemen who claim to carry in their breeches pockets
the entire city of Washington and District of Columbia are the only taxpayers, then
200
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
I will assent to the proposition of the gentleman that the people are opposed to this
system of taxation, but otherwise I will not. * * *
This substitute of mine proposes that all moneys, credits, personal property of
every kind, tangible and intangible, belonging to those who are residents of this
District shall be taxed; that all, rich and poor, shall be required to contribute accord¬
ing to the value of their property for the support of the District government; while
the bill of the committee declares that property of this kind, with the exceptions I
have named, shall be entirely exempt. * * *
Mr. Speaker, I will only say in conclusion that if there is any discrimination to be made
in this matter of taxation it ought to be made in favor of the poorer class of citizens,
not in favor of those who are rolling in wealth and luxury and are best able, and are
most bound by every rule of common honesty and justice to contribute of their wealth
to the support of the government which protects them.
[Congressional Record, vol. 4, pt. 5, p. 4122, June 24, 1876.]
The Senate having under consideration a bill (H. R. 2676) to regulate the assess¬
ment and collection of taxes for the support of the government of the District of Colum¬
bia and for other purposes—
Mr. Hamlin of Maine. Mr. President, I am very glad that there was at least one
member of the committee from which this bill came to us who did not agree to it.
I have had a little experience in legislation here, and of all things that ever came
into this body asking for a favorable consideration I think this exceeds anything I
ever saw. I have no command of language to characterize the thing as I think it
deserves. * * *
Now, sir, a bill which does not impose a tax upon the personal property of the
citizens of this District I hold to be unjust and outrageous.
Mr. Spencer. The commissioners inform me that it is utterly impossible to collect
a personal tax.
Mr. Hamlin. Then let us appoint another board of commissioners who will not tell
us that.
Mr. Sherman. If my friend will allow me, I desire to say that the greater body
of the personal property of this District, especially the bonds, are held by corpora¬
tions and parties who can not move out of the District; and, therefore, there is no
difficulty in collecting the tax here just as we do in Ohio; and the failure to collect
this tax one year ago was a palpable and shameless repudiation of a law of the United
States. * * * The nullification of an act of Congress by the assessors in this
District was one of the most indefensible and outrageous acts I have ever seen in the
course of my public life. Congress deliberately, after full investigation, declared
that personal property in this District should be taxable as it is in nearly all the States
of the Union; that those wealthy people who own property and those large corpora¬
tions who administer property in the District should pay taxes just like the humble
poor or the middle class who own real estate. That was the deliberate judgment of
Congress, and Congress is the lawmaking power of this District. * * * The law
was plain and expressly declared that there should be levied a tax of 1^ per cent on
certain real estate in this District and on all personal property. That law was openly,
flagrantly, and without excuse violated and entirely nullified and made void. * * *
That these assessors should disregard it seemed to me a pretty high-handed proceed¬
ing, and, therefore, I think we ought to try these assessors again; we ought to make
it the express and bounden duty of the commissioners to see that this law is executed;
and if an assessor fails for a single day to perform his duty, we should require the com¬
missioners on their responsibility to remove him promptly and to see that the law is
enforced.
The District assessor, Mr. H. H. Darneille, in his report for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1900, said:
“Being well satisfied that an equitable enforcement of the law relating to personal
property is absolutely impossible, I deem it my duty to make recommendation for
its repeal. I claim that this law is wrong in principle, that it invites perjury, and is
calculated to demoralize the standard of public morality.”
" [From the Washington Times, Jan. 8, 1902.]
SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS ON PROPOSED PERSONAL-PROPERTY TAX MEASURE.
Bank presidents, real estate brokers, merchants, lawyers, and business men gen¬
erally expressed themselves yesterday in positive and caustic terms against the
proposed personal property law. They charge that—
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 201
It would be inequitable, meddlesome, vicious, unjust, and impracticable.
It would be inequitable because it would tax some classes of the community more
than others, and impose taxes that some would pay or could be forced to pay and
that others could evade.
It would put a tax on honesty and a premium on trickery and evasion.
It would destroy one of the chief advantages of the Capital City—the providing of
homes for millionaires from other parts of the country who come to Washington to
escape inquisitorial and meddlesome laws in their own States and cities.
It would be such a drain on the incomes of the capitalist class that in order to live
on their incomes they would increase their rents and interest rates, and thus indirectly
tax the classes that would be least able to bear further taxation.
It would be a blow at progressiveness and expansion of business by making the
merchants pay taxes on the amount of their stock in trade.
It would be such a severe tax on building associations that properly conducted
organizations of this character would be forced out of business.
In such organizations it would tax the savings of the poor and tend to prevent
saving and frugality.
It would be unjust to the people of the District, who already pay as high taxes as
other communities, although they have no voice in the government of the District.
It would add another burden to the business men of Washington, who already are
handicapped because the wealthy residents remain here only while Congress is in
session.
It is defective and could not be enforced.
Mr. Oyster. Mr. Chairman, reference might be made to a number of other mu¬
nicipal problems, the handling of which by the District executives in the past 40
years do not by any means reach that high state of business perfection claimed by the
admirers and worshipers of our un-American form of government; but I shall refer
only to a few of them at this time—our street railways, which have been incompe¬
tently handled, to the detriment of the people, financially and otherwise: the saloons,
those hell holes which were reduced from 500 to 300 by the Jones-Works bill, with
little help from the District authorities, and which several years later were wiped out
entirely by the Sheppard prohibition bill, one of the best pieces of legislation ever
passed by Congress for the benefit of the National Capital, and I take this occasion to
say that the Senator deserves the thanks of every man, woman, and child who wishes
to see Washington not only become the most beautiful city in the world, but also the
most moral city, neither of which results could take palce had the saloons remained
in operation.
Mr. Chairman, there is a live question now before the people of the District, and
that is our alley condition. I think efforts are being made by certain parties to have
the alleys vacated.
The Chairman. That has reference to the housing proposition. There is going to
be a separate hearing on that. If you are going to take up the question of providing
for the alleys, I would suggest that you withhold that portion of your remarks and let
it be presented in the hearing covering that subject. A request has been made for a
hearing on that subject, and I would suggest this matter be brought up at that time.
Mr. Oyster. Very well; I will take it up at that time.
In the Senate, on December 2, 1902, Senator Gallinger introduced a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, giving the people
of the District of Columbia representation in Congress and a vote in the Electoral
College.
The joint resolution above referred to was indorsed by the American Federation of
Labor, representing 1,500,000 workingmen at that time, now 4,000,000; by the Union
Veterans’ Union, a national organization of soldiers of the Civil War; by the Central
Labor Union, representing the organized workingmen of the District, and by a large
number of the most prominent men of Washington, and there is no doubt in my mind
that a large majority of the people of the District would have voted for the proposed
amendment had they been given the opportunity, and I have no doubt whatever
that a very large majority of them are in favor of the joint resolution introduced by
Senator Jones, now being under consideration by your committee.
Mr. Chairman, on March 11, 1903, a memorial which I had the honor to write was
taken to the Vdiite House and presented to President Roosevelt with the request that
he recommend the approval of the Gallinger amendment by Congress and the States.
He received the delegation courteously, and said he would be pleased to give the
subject consideration, but no action was taken by him or by Congress. I trust the
Jones resolution will meet with better success.
202
SUFFRAGE IUST THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
“The fight must go on. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the
end of one or even one hundred defeats/ ’ said Abraham Lincoln.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the fight must go on, will go on, until the efforts of those who
are struggling for the reestablishment of an American form of government in the capital
of the American Republic are crowned with success, as- they surely will be in the end*
For Freedom’s battle once begun,
Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.
Mr. Oyster subsequently said:
Mr. Chairman, when I was before the committee yesterday I had tables, prepared
by the District assessor, which I intended to present on the question of taxation, as
Congress seems to be so badly informed in regard to our taxes and how they are raised.
These tables show clearly just what the taxes are and how enormously they have
increased in late years, both the real estate and personal property taxes, tangible
and intangible. These are statements prepared by the District assessor and they are
official. I thought it would be well to insert them in connection with my statement
in regard to taxes which I previously made before the committee.
Senator Sheppard. Why do you say that Congress seems to be badly informed?
Mr. Oyster. When the tax bill was discussed recently in the Senate, some Senators
did not know that we were taxing intangible personal property. That statement
was made on the floor of the Senate. I do not think, therefore, that some Senators
and many Representatives are aware of the immense increase which has been made
in the assessment on property in the District. The tables which I present show
clearly the increase from year to year, and I think they will be very valuable.
The Chairman. The tables will be inserted in the record at this point.
(The tables referred to are as follows:)
[By Mr. William P. Richards, assessor.]
Collections and expenditures, District of Columbia , 1920-21.
Penalties and reimbursable tax. $61, 912. 00
Miscellaneous sources. 99, 958. 71
Rents and tax on Highway Bridge. 79, 697. 55
Sales of garbage and old material. 120, 983. 67
Insurance taxes and licenses. 207, 798. 24
Assessment and permit work. 296, 551. 98
Police court fines and juvenile court. 322, 906. 96
Licenses, motor vehicles, etc. 442, 360. 17
Miscellaneous receipts to United States. 515, 010. 55
Water fund (rents, assessments, etc.)..,. 1, 070, 339. 49
Personal property:
Tangible... 2, 843,091. 98
Intangible. 916, 583. 41
Real estate. 8, 024, 344. 80
Total revenue.,. 15, 001, 549. 51
Public-service enterprise. 7, 287.18
Interest and debt. 975, 408. 00
Water department. 1, 027, 660. 58
Miscellaneous. 1, 756, 507. 34
Recreation. 1, 921, 524.12
General government. 1, 928, 888. 83
Health and sanitation. 2, 219, 691. 89
Highways. 2, 736,118. 76
Charities and corrections. 2, 999,127. 92
Protection to life and property. 3, 532, 489. 23
Education. 5, 676, 454. 74
Total expenditure. 22, 961,160 14
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
203
[Compiled by Mr. Wm. P. Richards, assessor.]
Assessment on real estate in the District of Columbia from 1883 to 1922.
Assessment.
1883 . $ 92 , 533,665
1884 . 90 , 848 , 674
1885 . 93 , 502 , 464
1886 . 96 , 053,329
1887 . 108 , 302,101
1888 . 111 , 744,830
1889 . 115 , 485,353
1890 . 137 , 626,419
1891 . 141 , 609,891
1892 . 145 , 481,278
1893 . 147 , 024,276
1894 . 191 , 417,804
1895 . 192 . 555,046
1896 . 188 ; 922 , 343
1897 . 180 , 376,908
1898 . 181 , 256,284
1899 . 183 , 156,371
1900 . 176 , 567,549
1901 . 180 . 334.641
1902 . 182 ', 525 ', 608
Taxation in the
Assessment.
1903 .$ 208 , 519 , 436
1904 . 213 , 250,418
1905 . 217 , 608,296
1906 . 239 , 461,985
1907 . 247 , 306,494
1908 . 255 , 324,834
1909 . 277 , 570,952
1910 . 285 , 153,771
1911 . 294 , 767,547
1912 . 330 , 322,487
1913 . 339 , 198,990
1914 . 345 , 124,144
1915 . 390 , 309,278
1916 . 394 , 209,904
1917 . 402 , 099,232
1918 . 410 , 173.609
1919 . 414 , 610,691
1920 . 426 , 498,370
1921 . 434 , 796,786
1922 . 472 , 945,805
ict of Columbia.
[Compiled by Mr. E. W. Oyster.]
Year.
Land and improvements.
Year.
Land and improvements.
Assessment.
Amount of
tax.
Assessment.
Amount of
tax.
1875.
$98,875,041
93,502,624
145,481,278
147,024,276
191,417,804
192,555,046
188,922,343
180,376,908
181,256,284
183,156,371
$1,468,126
1,392,539
2,182,219
2,205,364
2,871,267
2,888,325
2,833,835
2,705,654
2,718,844
2,747,346
1900.
$176,567,549
180,334,641
182,525,608
217,608,296
255,324,834
294,767,547
345,124,144
402,099,232
426,623,630
434,794,786
$2,648,503
2,705,020
2,737,884
3,264,124
3.829.862
4,421,513
5.176.862
6,031,488
6,399,354
8,478,498
1885.
1901.
1892.
1902.
1893.
1905.
1894.
1908.
1895.
1911.
1896.
1914.
1897.
1917.
1898.
1920.
1899.
1921.
[Compiled by Mr. E. W. Oyster.]
Taxation in the District of Columbia.
Year.
Assessment.
Tax.
Tangible personal property:
1877.
$15,429,873
9,028,812
12,795,934
9,532,851
14,391,438
25,192,361
34,530,823
43,140,336 .
66,821,047
1883.
1885.
1897...
1900..
1910.
1915. .
1918 . . . .
1920.
$1,002,316
i 1,634,974
i 1,472,027
969,094
i 971,849
1921... . . .
1921 (in lieu of tangibe gross earnings of banks, trust companies,
and pnhlin sorviro norporatinnsl ....
*
Intangible personal property (at $0.30 per $100):
1920. .
323,031,277
1921. .
Total tangible and intanpiti’o 1920.
3,089,799
4,078,849
Total tanvihip. and intanaihle 1921.
1 Assessor’s report for 1921, p. 7
204
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
STATEMENT OF PAUL E. LESH, CHAIRMAN SUFFRAGE GROUP OF
THE CITY CLUB, AND MEMBER, BRIEF COMMITTEE, CITIZENS
JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Mr. Lesh. Mr. Chairman, I think I stated my name and my connection when you
heard me briefly the other day. My name is Paul E. Lesh, a lawyer by profession.
Mr. Winfield Jones. Mr. Lesh was heard once before. We have four speakers who
would like to be heard. I think he took an hour and a half or two hours before.
Mr. Lesh. You are mistaken. I was heard briefly, but I was stopped long before I
had completed what I had planned to say. I spoke a bare half hour, as I remember it.
I have been here every day waiting an opportunity to complete my statement.
The Chairman. How long will you require?
Mr. Lesh. Twenty-four minutes is my estimate.
The Chairman. Twenty-four minutes are granted you.
Mr. Lesh. We came here several weeks ago advocating a constitutional amendment
to enable the residents of the District of Columbia to participate in the election of
President, of one or two Senators and of representatives according to population, and
access to the Federal courts. The Chairman several times in the course of the hearings
intimated that he would favor our proposal if it included only participation iH the
election of President and did not go to the extent of including the election of Repre¬
sentatives and Senators. We hope that the committee is by now prepared to accept
our proposition as a whole, but it may be thought by some that it would be good
policy for us to modify our proposal to include only the election of the President in
order to enlist the powerful aid of those who would go this far and no further with us.
But it would be impossible for us, as we see it, to accept or advocate any such
modification of our proposal, for the following reasons:
Whatever relief we get at this time, whether it be by simple legislation within the
present constitutional powers of Congress or the submission by Congress of a proposed
constitutional amendment, such relief as we get is likely to be the only legislation
affecting the form of our government for years to come. It was 1878—43 years ago—■■
that Congress last made any change in the form of government of the District. The-
time of Congress is certainly as much taken up, in fact it is much more taken up, by
other affairs to-day than it has been during most of the past 43 years. I expect that
whatever we get as a result of our present propaganda will be ali that we will get for,,
say, 40 years to come, even if what we get is simple legislation such as is advocated
by some of the persons who appear here.
If, however, what we get is any sort of a proposal to amend the Constitution and
such a proposal to amend is passed by both Houses of Congress, it must be submitted
to the States for adoption and we must advocate its adoption there; and when it is
finally adopted, I think that you must agree with me that we would be practically
precluded within the lifetime of any of us and perhaps forever from going to the States
with an additional or further amendment. If therefore we modify our proposal and
gain support by doing so, what we would accomplish would not be progress toward
anything more, but would be a practical finality by way of change by constitutional
amendment in the political status of the citizens of the District. We are compelled
therefore to think about the suggestion that we ask for power to participate in the-
election of the President only as a substitute for our proposal, not as a step toward it.
If I correctly understand what was at first in the mind of the chairman, it was this:
That the President appoints our commissioners, who, in common parlance and some¬
what inaccurately are said to ‘ ‘ rule ’ ’ the District of Columbia. The Presiden t appoints
our judges and other local officials. The President therefore has so direct and intimate
a relation with the affairs of the District that it is particularly fitting that we should
have some voice in his selection, and if we did, it could not be said that we are wholly
without power in our own government.
As against these considerations I submit the following: .
Such a line of thought overlooks entirely our claim to a right to participate in national
affairs. In saying this, I am not overlooking the fact that the President is a national
official. I mean that the reasons that have been suggested for selecting the
President as the one national officer we should elect, are local reasons. It is because
of his peculiar relatipn to the local government of the District of Columbia. On the
other hand, what we want is not only a share in the government of the District of
Columbia, which, as the chairman has several times properly pointed out, is an affair
of national concern, but also a share in all of the other affairs of the Nation.
When the committee was good enough to allow me time to talk the other day, every¬
thing that I had to say bore upon this single point: That we of the District are a part
of the Nation and entitled to our share of its powers and responsibilities. The time
that the committee has put at our disposal is too short to indulge in the luxury of
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
205
repetition, but I want to remind the committee that if Congress should decide to
substitute a sales tax for an excess-profits tax, that decision would affect the citizens
of the District and their bank accounts and pocketbooks just as truly and just as
much as it would affect the citizens elsewhere in the Nation—if Congress should de¬
cide that the time has arrived for the Philippines to have a greater measure of inde¬
pendence, that decision is one in which we of the District have as much right to
participate as any other citizens of the Nation—in the deliberations of the Senate about
to be had upon the recently proposed treaties, we should be heard through our Senator
or Senators and have as much right to be heard because we are as much affected by the
result as any other citizens of the Nation. If the result is a prevention of war, it is the
young men of the District as well as the young men of the rest of the Nation who will
be saved from going. It is the people of the District as well as the people of the rest
of the Nation who will be called upon to foot the bill of a war in higher Federal taxation.
We are not placing our proposal for a constitutional amendment solely, or so far as I
personally am concerned, even principally, upon a demand to be allowed to participate
in the local affairs of the District of Columbia, but upon the ground that we want to be
heard upon the affairs of the Nation .
If our claim is a just one, then surely no member of the Congress and certainly no
committee of the Senate should say to us that it is sufficient that we should help to
elect the President. We have seen and deplored a growing tendency on the part of
Congress to place in the Executive or in tribunals or commissions selected by him, a
portion of the powers of Congress, but surely no one here is ready to accept the propo¬
sition that the Congress or the Senate is a comparatively unimportant branch of our
Government.
You might think that what I have just said by way of parenthesis of a tendency
of legislation in recent years has no place in such an argument as this. I think you
might go further, so long as the existing status of citizens of the District remains; you
might say that it is an impertinence for any man born in the District and always a
resident here to have any views whatever about what Congress has done or is doing
with national problems. We ought to realize perhaps that we are outsiders, strangers,
almost foreigners to the American Government and that our thoughts about it are
unimportant. Certainly anything that is impotent is unimportant, and the fact that
we have no way to make our views or thoughts on national affairs of any effect is
almost a discouragement to have any thoughts at all.
But even considered from the local point of view, it is not sound to say that our
desire to participate in our local government would be fairly satisfied by allowing
us to participate in the election of the President.
It is true that the President nominates our commissioners, but it is not true that
the commissioners rule the District of Columbia. Congress is our local legislature.
This is true to-day and will always be true, if for no other reason, for the single one
that Congress has and will continue to have the power to hold the purse—the power
of taxation and appropriation. Even if it could constitutionally be done, no one who
hears this or reads it and gives consideration to the matter can imagine Congress
delegating to the commissioners or to anyone else the power of appropriating what
must come out of both the local revenues and the National Treasury, the money for
the conduct of our local affairs. If you have an imagination wild enough to conceive
of Congress permitting the commissioners or any local tribunal to determine a rate
of taxation to be levied on Government buildings and upon industries of the Gov¬
ernment carried on here, or to determine the rate of contribution from the National
Treasury to our local government, then you might conceive of the power of taxation
being delegated, but I can not. And the same considerations apply to the power
of appropriation, and certainly you gentlemen with practical experience in the
affairs of the Government know that whoever determines how much money shall
be spent by any governmental agency determines, or ultimately controls, what shall
be done by that governmental agency.
Aside from the matter of taxation and appropriation, Congress is our local legis¬
lature for all purposes and in all vital local matters.
As has been mentioned by one of the speakers who preceded me, Congress deter¬
mines the local rate of interest for the District of Columbia. It determines such
intimate and local matters as marriage and divorce, the employment of child labor,
the public instruction in the public schools—even such matters as the periods of
limitation of legal actions and other matters of procedure in our local courts. We
have an ancient and barbarous method of handling our lunacy cases. We have no
modern and enlightened statute permitting the conservation of the affairs of old and
infirm persons excepting by the finding of a jury that the person is insane. We can
get a change in any of these matters only by congressional action.
206
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Now, then, except by a participation in the election of the House and Senate, can
we get any real share in the government of the District of Columbia?
In Coughlin against the District of Columbia, reported in 25 Appeals D. C., 251, a
question rose as to the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Commissioners of
the District of Columbia in 1905 as a police regulation regarding the removal by citi¬
zens of snow and ice from the sidewalks of the city of Washington. The regulation
was held void because not within the power of the commissioners, but only within
the power of Congress itself. The court said:
£ ( That varions municipalities may have exercised such power as appears from various
municipal ordinances collated in the brief on behalf of the appellee is not to the point.
Municipalities are usually vested with quasi legislative powers, among them the
sovereign power of taxations and assessment, and from the fact that municipal ordi¬
nances are elsewhere to be found, analogous to the so-called regulation here in ques¬
tion, it is not to be inferred that similar powers exist in the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia. The commissioners are not the municipality, but only the
executive organs of it; and Congress has reserved to itself not only the power of legis¬
lation in the strict sense of the term, which it can not constitutionally delegate to
anyone or to any body of men, but even the power of enacting municipal ordinances,
such as are within the ordinary scope of the authority of incorporated municipalities.
It has delegated to the commissioners simply the power of making ‘ police regulations,’
and only such police regulations as are usual and commonly known by that designa¬
tion.^’
In this connection we call attention to the fact that it was decided in a case arising
soon after we had a legislative assembly here that Congress could not constitutionally
delegate to such a legislative assembly its power to legislate for the District of Colum¬
bia. I refer to the case of Roach v. Van Riswick, reported in McArthur and Mackey,
at page 171, decided by the general term of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia in 1879. The court found that it was the intention of Congress by the act
of February 21, 1871, to delegate to the legislative assembly for the District an ab¬
solute and final power of legislation, but that that intent was inoperative because
unconstitutional. The court said:
The Chairman. The acts of that legislature, the house of delegates and governor,
and so forth—the house of delegates being elected by the people and the other house
appointed by the President—were declared by the Supreme Court unconstitutional?
Mr. Lesh. Not by the Supreme Court of the United States, but in the only case in
which their acts were questioned, in the general term of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia in 1879, after the government had been abolished which only
existed for a brief period. In that case it was held that legislation by that so-called
Territorial legislature was unconstitutional, or was void because unconstituticnal.
Mr. Noyes. That is general legislation?
Mr. Lesh. General legislation.
Mr. Noyes, As distinguished from municipal legislation.
The Chairman. -They could not pass any general legislation. It would only be
general legislation for the District.
Mr. Lesh. For the District.
The Chairman. They had no power to legislate outside the District.
Mr. Noyes. That was a license case and affected salesmen from Baltimore.
Mr. Lesh. No. You have in mind the Stoutenburgh case in the One hundred and
twenty-ninth United States. There the distinction you have indicated was the true
distinction, but this case before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in
general term was a case in which the local legislature had declared judgments to be
liens on equitable interests in real estate. It was legislation for the District of Colum¬
bia, and it was held in that case that it was void because unconstitutional.
The Chairman. What court was that?
Mr. Lesh. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in general term, which
was the court corresponding to our present court of appeals. It was the court of last
resort in the District of Columbia, from which an appeal lay only to the Supreme Court
of the United States.
The Chairman. According to that decision the District of Columbia could not have
a local government.
Mr. Lesh. If that decision is correct, sir, that is true.
The Chairman. And it was the intention of the Constitution, whether explicitly
expressed or not, that the government of the District of Columbia should be absolutely
under the control of Congress.
Mr. Lesh. That it was a part of the legislative powers of Congress, and that there¬
fore it could not be delegated to another body.
Mr. Noyes. Are you going to discuss the Stoutenburgh case?
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 207
Mr. Lesh. I was going to mention it.
What the court said in the case I have mentioned was:
“Our conclusion, on the whole, is that the act of the District legislature declaring
judgments rendered by this court to be liens on equitable interests in land, was an
act of legislation which it was only competent for the Congress of the United States
to pass, and was in itself totally inoperative and void, and the decree rendered by
the court below must be reversed.”
In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I want you to realize that the court,
in the formal portion of that opinion which I have not quoted here, held flatly that
it was not the intention of Congress by the act of 1871 to delegate to the legislative
assembly for the District the absolute and final power of legislation.
The Chairman. I am not a lawyer, but I take it from that that it would require a
constitutional amendment to delegate that power.
Mr. Lesh. To delegate general legislative power for the District.
The Chairman. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Lesh. That is correct. I would be very glad if the lawyers on the committee
would look at that case. It is the only decision on this subject.
A decision by the United States Supreme Court which bears upon the same question
and is not inconsistent with this conclusion is that of Stoutenburgh against Hennick
(129U. S., 141), decided January 14,1889. The question arose in a criminal case con¬
cerning the validity of an act of the legislative assembly of the District of August 23,
1871, amended June 30, 1872, providing that persons in certain trades should be
required to obtain a license including commercial agents who offered for sale goods,
wares, merchandise, by sample or catalogue.
The court held through Mr. Chief Justice Fuller:
“This provision was manifestly regarded as a regulation of a purely municipal
character, as is perfectly obvious, upon the principle of noscitur a sociis, if the clause
be taken as it should be, in connection with the other clauses and parts of the act.
But it is indistinguishable from that held void in Robbies v. Shelby Taxing District
(120 U. S., 489), and Asher v. Texas (128 U. S., 129), as being a regulation of interstate
commerce, so far as applicable to persons soliciting, as Hennick was, the sale of goods
on behalf of individuals or firms doing business outside the District.
*******
“ In our judgment Congress, forthereasons given, could not have delegated the power
to enact the third clause of the twenty-first section of the act of assembly, construed to
include business agents such as Hennick, and there is nothing in this record to justify
the assumption that it endeavored to do so, for the powers granted to the District
were municipal merely, and although by several acts Congress repealed or modified
parts of this particular by-law, these parts were separably operative and such as were
within the scope of municipal action, so that this congressional legislation can not
be resorted to as ratifying the objectionable clause, irrespective of the inability to
ratify that which could not originally have been authorized.”
It is significant that in the several proposals that are before this committee, some
of which are brought forward as measures for local self-government, there is no pro¬
posal to take away from Congress any of its legislative powers. It is proposed by one
measure, Senate 417, known as the Capper bill, to elect the commissioners of the Dis¬
trict and the school board by the residents of the District, but it is not proposed by any
bill to enlarge the powers of the commissioners or those of the school board. If,
therefore, we are correct in our assertion that legislative power is in Congress only and
not in these municipal boards, and will there remain, then the only method by which
we can secure any participation in this legislative power is by our constitutional
amendment proposing the election of such Members of the House as our number
justifies and one or two Senators.
In connection with the power of the President to appoint our commissioners and
our judges and other local officials, there is a consideration which occurs most strongly
to us because of our experience in the past and must occur to Members of the House'
and Senate who have had a wider experience in such matters. It is true that the
power to nominate these local officials is vested in the President, and it is true that
his nominations are almost invariably confirmed by the Senate. But the power of
confirmation or rejection rests in the Senate. That power is reckoned with by the
President before the nomination is made. You know, as we do, that in determining
whom to nominate for such a position, for example, as a judge of the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia, the President consults or is consulted by members of
the Senate. That court is our principal court of original jurisdiction. Of the six
judges of that bench, one is from New Jersey, one is from Vermont, two are from
Maryland, one is from Tennessee, and one is from the District of Columbia. Of the
83480—22-14★
208
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
three judges of the court of appeals, all are from the States; not one from the District
of Columbia.
The Chairman. In your local courts they are from the District of Columbia?
Mr. Lesh. Our court of appeals is our local court of last resort. The Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia is the only court of local jurisdiction. We have our minor
local courts, in which the jurisdiction is limited in amount, corresponding to a magis¬
trate.
The Chairman. I refer to those courts that are limited to District matters.
Mr. Lesh. There are no such courts. Our Supreme Court of the District of Colum¬
bia handles District and national matters indiscriminately. If you sue me in the
District of Columbia for any respectable amount on a promissory note, or anything
else, you sue me in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, to which I have
just referred. It is our court of original jurisdiction.
Mr. Brandenburg. And on that bench we only have one judge from the District.
Mr. Lesh. On that bench we only have one judge from the District, and we have
none on the court of appeals, to which appeals go from the Supreme Court of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia. You must have had in mind the municipal court and police court.
The municipal court is limited in amount, and the police court handles only petty
offenses, being a committing magistrate binding over to the grand jury. Appeals
from those courts go to the court of appeals, on which we have three splendid gentle¬
men all from the States.
Mr. Brandenburg. Even on the police court one of the judges is not from the
District.
Mr. Lesh. Even on the police court one of the judges is not from the District. We
never heard of him until he came here.
The Chairman. I wanted to know whether these judges appointed outside of the
District have Federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Lesh. They do, sir. The District of Columbia is peculiar in that it is a part of
no other Federal district. Our Supreme .Court of the District of Columbia is also our
United States Court.
The Chairman. It is a district in itself?
Mr. Lesh. It is a district in itself.
The Chairman. That answers my question.
Mr. Lesh. It is our United States court for this District, and the bar of this District
is very poorly represented upon that court. In other words, when we say they are
taken from outside the District, we mean they are taken from outside the Federal
district as well as outside the local District.
Senator Sheppard. What circuit is the District a part of? What Supreme Court
circuit is it a part of?
Mr. Lesh. It is not a part of either.
Mr. Brandenburg. It is not a part of any circuit.
Senator Sheppard. Not a part of any circuit of the United States?
Mr. Brandenburg. No; it is not.
Mr. Lesh. It corresponds to other circuits, other districts, but is of itself a district.
The Chairman. It is a district of itself?
Mr. Lesh. It is a district of itself.
Mr. Brandenburg. We would really be a part of the fourth circuit, if we were
assigned to any circuit, because Maryland is part of the fourth circuit.
Senator Sheppard. You are not assigned to any circuit?
Mr. Brandenburg. We are not.
Mr. Lesh. We would be a part of the fourth circuit, if we were assigned to any
circuit, because of our geographical location.
Mr. Brandenburg. Maryland and Virginia and North Carolina are in the fourth
circuit.
Senator Sheppard. You are a circuit of your own?
Mr. Lesh. Yes, sir.
Mr. William McK. Clayton. I think the speaker should refer to the court of
appeals in making that statement. It does consider patent cases, and they are essen¬
tially more national than local.
Mr. Lesh. And the court of appeals is trying to get rid of them.
Mr. Clayton. I understand.
Mr. Lesh. I am glad that was called to my attention, because I want to be fair.
It is true that after our judges have been in office for some years, though they retain
a political connection, I believe, with their home States, they become, some of them,
real residents of the District of Columbia. In fact, one of them is one of the strongest
advocates of our proposal.
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
209
I want to meet fairly any possible argument to the contrary, and I want to suggest
to the committee that some one may say that our local courts have so often to do with
national questions that the Nation as well as the local community should be repre¬
sented on its bench. But who will say that the proportion of national questions in
our local courts justifies the proportion of eight out of nine of our principal judges.
And if it is true the cases of national importance are frequently in our local courts,
it is true also that our local bar is one particularly trained for the handling of just such
questions. Why then would it not be more logical to appoint the members of the
bench from the members of the local bar rather than practically exclusively from bars
which have no such national outlook.
There is no logical justification for this method of appointing our local judges.
It is, as perhaps you gentlemen know from experience, a matter of practical politics.
A Senator from a State wants to get something for his State. One of the offices at
the disposal of the President is appointment to the bench of the District of Columbia.
The Senator requests the appointment of his candidate and the President nomi¬
nates him and the nomination is confirmed. The few nominations of residents of
the District of Columbia are the result of personal acquaintances or of tremendous
effort on the part of our citizens.
It is not true to say that if we had a share in the election of the President we would
have our rightful share or control of these nominations. We will get our rightful
share only when we have our delegtion in Congress and in the Senate who can de¬
mand it for us with the same authority that the members of the Senate now demand
it for their constituents.
The proposal to elect our commissioners by the people of the District has not been
much advocated in these hearings, but since it is before the committee I think we
should let the committee have our views upon it. We are primarily concerned in
advocating the constitutional amendment and are interested in this other proposal
principally as it affects our proposal. I would therefore first put the matter in this
way: That if we citizens of the District can get the power to participate in the elec¬
tion of the President and Members of the House and Senate, then, since we would
be truly a part of the Nation and the commissioners are the Nation’s agents in ad¬
ministering its capital, it would be more logical to ha\e the commissioners appointed
by the Nation as they are to-day; that is, appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate. I am confident that our local interest in their selection would be
looked out for by the President, who would then be our President as well as the
States’, and by our delegation in Congress. The existing law requires the District
Commissioners to have been for three years prior to their nomination residents of
the District of Columbia. A number of our people do not believe that this law has
always been observed but with a voting representation in Congress from the District
I am confident that it would be. And I am confident that we would by reason of
our proximity to the Capital and by reason of the greater familiarity of our own Repre¬
sentatives and Senators, with local conditions, get our full share in the control of
local affairs.
But the election of the commissioners is advocated by some persons who believe
that our proposal is the ideal, but is difficult to obtain, and will not be obtained for
years to come, if ever, and such persons feel that pending the adoption of a constitu¬
tional amendment it would be well to give the citizens of the District this much
participation in the affairs of the city. Personally, I think that most persons who
advocate the election of the commissioners do it under the delusion that it means
self-government, which it does not at all. In the more substantial matters of govern¬
ment the commissioners are only the persons who lay requests and recommendations
before those who have the real power.
Those who have the real power here are the President and Congress. Under exist¬
ing law the President and the Senate select these commissioners and have, or should
have, a certain loyalty to their administration. Personally I believe that a com¬
missioner appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate will have the
confidence of the President and the Senate to a greater degree, and is able to influence
their action to a greater degree, than a commissioner not so selected. In regard to our
commissioners, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to interrupt with a question, I
would like to say that most bills introduced in Congress are referred to the commis¬
sioners for hearing and report before any action is taken on them. Congress is anxious
to know the opinion of the commissioners.
Mr. Wm. McK. Clayton. If we elected our commissioners, would not the report
of the commissioners on those bills be based more on what they believed the people
of the District of Columbia thought of them than they are now?
Mr. Lesh. Presumably, yes. Their report would come more authoritatively as a
report of the people of the District.
210
SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Chairman. I may differ from both you gentlemen in respect to that. Any
person serving in public life must come to this conclusion: They are there in a
representative capacity, to do what they believe to be right and fair and just to the
people, irrespective of the demands from their constituents. Never was that im¬
pressed more on my mind than in some legislation we have had, as far as treaties are
concerned, within the last two years. The commissioners are in a better position to
know what is best for this District. They look at it with an unbiased mind. Inter¬
ested individuals can come to them and say do this or do that, or in case of propaganda
four or five hundred people can go out and get signatures to letters and send to those
commissioners to influence them. A man in public life has the responsibility for
his acts, and he is held responsible for them. The man who has no responsibility
will do things he would not think of doing if he did not have to answer for them after¬
wards. So I think your commissioners, if they are the proper commissioners for the
District, would act on their judgment after, of course, hearing all sides, as they do
now; but they must take the responsibility for those acts themselves and stand for it.
It is very easy to say do this or do that, by a person who has no responsibility, but
the man who has to cast that vote or render that decision must answer for it after¬
wards, and if he is an honest man he will make up his mind what is right and best for
all before he does that. Your commissioners would be acting purely in a representa¬
tive capacity on their own judgment.
Mr. Clayton. What I had in mind was instances in the District where there could
be no question but what the people had reached a conclusion on certain matters,
everybody being for or against it; yet, notwithstanding that fact, the commissioners
undertook to oppose the whole District of Columbia and come to Congress in opposition.
The Chairman. I never found the District unanimous on anything.
Mr. Clayton. That was the idea I had in mind.
Mr. Lesh. I may say, so far as I agree with you, I agree with you only because
their functions are executive. There is merit in what you say, because they are
executives after all, and not legislators. .
The Chairman. The responsibility is just as great on a legislator as on an executive.
Mr. Lesh. There is a different sort of function, But I can not pursue that without
taking more than my 24 minutes.
But this last is only a personal view and is therefore less important. The funda¬
mental objections that we have to the bill for the election of the commissioners are
the same as those already mentioned with regard to the bill to elect a Territorial Dele¬
gate. The danger is that the bill will be regarded, if not by the committee then by
Congress as a whole, as an alternative to our proposal. Congress will feel, if it should
enact such a bill, that it had done something for the citizens of the District of Colum¬
bia and that it is entitled to turn its attention to other matters for, perhaps, another
period of 43 years. Also, there is the same objection or difficulty with regard to the
voting electorate as has been mentioned in connection with the