ROUNDING OUT EQUITABLY POWERS OF CONGRESS

Under the power to admit new States and to regulate territory belonging to the United States Congress now has the power to admit to representation in Congress and the electoral college the people of all the territory belonging to the United States except the District constituting the seat of government of the United States.

The constitutional provision giving Congress the power of exclusive legislation in the seat of government deprives Congress of the power to admit the seat of government to representation in Congress and the electoral college through the statehood gate, since full statehood for the District would destroy the exclusive power of legislation in the District bestowed upon Congress by the Constitution. The courts have held that Congress may not even delegate this constitutional power; much less can Congress destroy it or surrender it completely. The problem is to find a way to give the people of the District the representation to which they are entitled as national Americans in Congress and the electoral college, with access to the Federal courts, without depriving Congress of the exclusive legislative control of the District, which the Constitution imposes upon it and which, the courts say, it may not surrender without specific constitutional amendment.

HARMONIZING TWO VITAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLES.

The pending resolution (S. J. Res. 133) solves this problem by empowering Congress not to admit the District to statehood, which would destroy its power of exclusive legislation, but to grant to District residents representation like that of citizens of a State in Congress and the electoral college (with access to the Federal courts) and no other powers and attributes of statehood than those specifically enumerated. This solution of the problem harmonizes two great American principles: First, that in our representative Republic, subject to limitations and conditions uniformly applied, all national Americans ought to have the opportunity to participate in their National Government, and second, the principle laid down by the forefathers as a national necessity that the Nation through Congress should have exclusive control of the Nation's Capital.

No reason appears why Congress should not approve the proposition to grant itself this new, wholesome power, logically and equitably rounding out the existing corresponding constitutional power which it now possesses in respect to every foot of territory belonging to the United States except the District constituting the seat of government of the United States, the District of Columbia.

CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED, NOT DIRECTED.

Adoption of the constitutional amendment while it arms Congress with a new power does not commit Congress as to when it shall exercise this power, and the amendment may thus be favored both by those who urge immediate exercise of the power as soon as the constitutional amendment is ratified and also by those who wish to relieve Congress from the shame of this peculiar impotency but desire to postpone exercise of the power until the District is better fitted, in their opinion, to enjoy national representation.

Adoption of the amendment is thus urged (1) from the viewpoint of justice to the people of the District on the ground they are now fitted to enjoy and to meet the responsibilities of this right and power, and (2) solely from the national viewpoint as a cure of national impotency, irrespective of the time when for the District's benefit the new constitutional power shall be exercised.

The advocates of S.J. Res. 133 vigorously contend that the residents of the District are now entitled in population, in resources, in literacy, in public spirit, and in loyal Americanism to receive this right and power, and since they can not enjoy it except as the result of constitutional amendment making the exclusive legislation clause of the Constitution consistent with the enjoyment of this right and power, the Constitution should be at once amended as proposed in the joint resolution, in order that prompt justice may be done to the Americans of the District. The Constitution should be quickly amended as proposed, and the power granted to Congress should, they urge, be exercised at once.

RELIEVE THE SHAME OF NATIONAL IMPOTENCY

Your committee are convinced that, irrespective of the present fitness or unfitness of District residents to enjoy the American right to be granted by Congress when it exercises its new constitutional power, this joint resolution should be promptly passed by two-thirds of Congress and the proposed constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the States, in order to relieve the Nation of the shame of impotency to cure, when it pleases, the evil of un-American totally nonrepresentative government, at the very heart of the Nation, the seat of the National Government. Conviction of present lack of fitness of District residents for national representation, or despair of such fitness in the near future, logically affects only the future date to be fixed, when Congress shall wisely and justly exercise this power. It has no logical tendency to delay the ratification of the amendment itself. Congress should not lack the power to Americanize the District, no matter how long it judgment may impel it to delay the actual exercise of this power when secured.

National honor is touched by impotency of the National Government to grant national representation to any well-populated, intelligent, resourceful, American community. Congress should by constitutional amendment have this power, for reasons affecting solely the national prestige and irrespective of any immediate obligation to the people of the District. While proof of present fitness of the District in population and resources for national representation is, it thus appears, not an indispensable prerequisite of adoption and ratification of the proposed amendment, the demonstration of that fitness naturally invigorates and strengthens amendment advocacy.

DISTRICT NOW FITTED FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATION

At the hearing in support of the amendment a great wealth of facts and figures was presented on the point of the District's present fitness which impressed your committee and which in substance we submit for your consideration.

That the District of Columbia is entitled at the present time to participate in the councils of the Nation through its chosen representatives is suggested by the following facts:

POPULATION.

The census for the year 1910 gives the population of the District of Columbia as 331,069, which exceeded that of six States, namely:

Nevada__
Wyoming

Delaware_.

91, 375 Arizona_.

145, 965 Idaho_.

202, 322 | New Mexico-

204, 354

325, 994

327, 301

The same census showed the population rapidly approaching three other States, namely, Vermont with 355,956, Montana 376,053, and New Hampshire 430,572. The census for the year 1920 shows a healthy growth in population for the District, and at that time it had reached 437,571. This population was greater than that of any one of seven States, namely:

It also shows that two other States of the Union had but a slightly larger population, namely: New Hampshire, 443,083; and Utah, 449,446.

A comparison, therefore, of the census of 1910 and 1920 shows that the ratio of increase of population has been maintained with the exception that the District has advanced ahead of vermont and is rapidly approaching the population of Utah and New Hampshire.

FEDERAL TAXES.

The impression still exists among some that the citizens of the District are subject to the bounty of Congress and that they contribute little or nothing to the maintenance of the Federal Government. The same impression is sometimes evidenced in the discussions in the halls of Congress.

The official records of the Treasury Department show that there was paid by the citizens of the District to the Federal Government by way of internal revenue, customs and miscellaneous payments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1916, the

sum of $1,506,699.27, which was greater than similar taxes paid to the Government by any one of 20 States of the Union.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, the same records disclose the fact that the citizens of the District paid to the Federal Government through the same sources the sum of $2,666,204.40, which was greater than similar payments made by any one of 19 States of the Union, including the great States of Georgia and Iowa. It also appears 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 any one of 8 States of the Union.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, the same records disclose the fact that the citizens of the District paid in Federal taxes to the Government through the same sources, the sum of $12,862,474.08.

The records for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, disclose that the citizens of the District paid to the Government in satisfaction of like taxes the sum of $18,645,053, which was made up of $8,928,755.77 of income and excess-profit taxes and $9,716,298.20 miscellaneous 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. The same records show taht the payment made by the district through these internal revenue, customs, and miscellaneous taxes for this year were in excess of any one of 15 States.

The following tabulation shows the taxes paid by each of these States, with the number of electoral votes to which they are respectively entitled:

It is remarkable that although the people of the District of Columbia have been denied those rights of participating in the affairs of the Government through the franchise which are conducive to patriotism, the fact remains that when the United States has found itself involved in war, the people of the District have taken second place to those of none of the States in offering their sons to fight for its cause.

Civil War. It is significant that the District of Columbia in each of the controversies in which our people have been called to arms contributed a larger number of its sons than its quota. In the Civil War they sent 16,534 men to the front. According to Government statistics, the District's proportion of man power was thirty-five one-hundredths of 1 percent of the estimated loyal population of the country as determined by the census of 1860, whereas it actually sent into service sixty-two one-hundredths of 1 per cent, or a proportion of about four-fifths greater than its share.

Spanish War.-An examination of the census of 1900 discloses that the proportion of men which should properly come from the District was thirty-seven one-hundredths of 1 per cent, whereas it actually sent about one-fourth greater than the proportion properly chargeable, or forty-six one-hundredths of 1 per cent.

World War.-An enviable record was made by the District of Columbia in the War with Germany. The total voluntary enlistments in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps for the District was 8,314, which was a larger number than in any one of seven States, namely, Nevada, Delaware, Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and only a trifle less than in three other States. Under the first and second registrations, 9,631 were inducted into the service of the Government, making a total of voluntary enlistments and conscriptions into the service of the United States of 17,954.

The voluntary enlistments were 46.33 per cent of the total inductions into the service. The percentage which these voluntary enlistments bear to the total number of enlistments and inductions by way of registration was greater for the District of Columbia than for any State of the Union except Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, California, and Maine, and more than one-third greater than the percentage of the country as a whole.

LIBERTY LOANS

The showing made by the people of the District of Columbia in the financial support of the Government through the purchase of Liberty bonds is one of which they may well feel proud. The support thus afforded the Government in each of the loans has been largely in excess of that given by very many of the States of the Union, and in each of the five loans it far exceeded its quota.

Of the first Liberty loan, the quota for the District of Columbia was $10,000,000, while the amount actually subscribed was $19,261,400, or a per capita subscription of $52.20, which was nearly four-fifths greater than for the country as a whole, which was only $29.29. This per capita exceeded the subscriptions of each of the 12 Federal reserve districts except the second, which includes the State of New York.

Of the second Liberty loan, the quota assigned for the District of Columbia was $20,000,000, whereas the subscriptions amounted to $22,857,050, or a per capita subscription of $57.73, whereas for the United States at large it was only $44.55. Again the per capita subscriptions for the District were in excess of 10 of the Federal reserve districts and only less than that in the first and second districts, covering Boston and New York.

On the third Liberty loan, the quota for the District of Columbia was $12,870,000, while the subscriptions of its people amounted to $25,992,250, or a per capita subscription of $64.98 as against $40.13 for the United States at large. Again 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.

The subscriptions through the citizens of the District of Columbia in the third Liberty loan were greater than in 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 Carolna, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The number of subscribers to this loan was also greater in the District than in any one of the 18 States just named except Arkansas, but including in its place Tennessee. The proportion of the population who subscribed to this loan was greater in the District of Columbia than in 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 for Iowa to 3.3 for North Carolina.

The quota of the fourth Liberty loan assigned to the District of Columbia was $27,608,000, whereas the subscriptions amounted to $51,262,100, or a per capita subscription of $127.61, which was nearly twice the per capita subscription for the United States as a whole, which was only $65.94. This per capita subscription for the District of Columiba was again largely in excess of that of every Federal reserve district except the second, which includes the State of New York.

The aggregate subscriptions from the citizens of the District of Columbia of the fourth Liberty loan were greater in amount than those of 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, Wyoming.

The number of subscribers to this loan in the District was greater than that in any one of 25 States, while the proportion of the population of the Distric subscribing to this loan, according to the Treasury Department, was 65.8 percent, which was much larger than in any one of the 48 States of the Union and about three times as great as the corresponding percentage for the entire United States, which was only 21.98 percent.

Of the fifth or Victory loan, the quota assigned to the District of Columbia was $20,307,000, while the actual subscriptions were $28,307,000, secured from 132,159 subscribers.

POSTAL REVENUES

While the revenue derived by the Government from the Postal Service in the District of Columbia is perhaps not a criterion as to the amount of business transacted, still it affords some indication certainly for comparison. Ignoring entirely the fact that at least three-fourths of the postal matter handled by the local post office officials is governmental matter from which no revenue is derived, the records disclose the fact that the receipts of the local post office ending June 30, 1918, were $3,085,193.12, which was greater than the receipts of all of the post offices in any one 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, Wyoming.

It also appears that these receipts exceeded the aggregate receipts of all of the post offices in Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming combined, which amounted to the sum of $2,987,047.05.

INTELLIGENCE

The census for the year 1910 shows that the average percentage of illiteracy for all classes of its population combined was 7.7 for the United States, while for the District of Columbia it was 4.9. The District's percentage of illiterates as shown by this census was less than any one of the following 25 States: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.

Of the native whites of native parentage, the percentage was six-tenths of 1 per cent, for the District, while the average percentage for the United States was 3.7. A comparison of the District in this respect with the individual States shows that its percentage of illiteracy of this class of people was less than half of any one of the following 33 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, Arizona.

The same census shows that in the District of Columbia the illiteracy among the colored population was 13.5, or less than one-half the corresponding figures for the United States, which was 30.4, and less than the same percentage for any one of the following 19 States: Indiana, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mexico.

A comparison of the 1910 census with that of 1870, as well as the successive decennial censuses, shows a remarkable increase in school attendance and decrease in illiteracy among the colored population. The percentage of illiteracy 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 one-fifth as great as the former.

A DEMONSTRATION OF FITNESS

The foregoing statistics constitute an unanswerable argument in support of the legislation which we now recommend. They show that 437,000 people, to whom the elective franchise is entirely denied, have been and are now supporting the United States with a remarkable spirit of loyalty and devotion. In peace and in war they have always acquitted themselves commendably. The percentage of illiteracy among them is but six-tenths of 1 per cent, and intellectually the District of Columbia, holds a place above 33 States of the Union. The people of the District are, therefore, both morally and mentally fit to exercise the right which they so earnestly seek as American citizens. Your committee believe that their appeal should no longer remain unheeded, and that now is the time to provide a means to enable them to participate in the councils of the Nation through their chosen representatives.