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 that 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 per cent of the estimated loyal population of the country as determined by the census of 1860, whereas it actually sent into service sixty-two one-hundrdths 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, Neveda, 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 Carolina, 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 Columbia 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 District subscribing to this loan, according to the Treasury Department, was 65.8 per cent, 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 per cent.

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 Daokta, 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 percent, 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 de

cennial 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 percent in 1870 to 13.5 percent 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 percent, 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.

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SUE IN THE
UNITED STATES COURTS

By Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, it is provided that the judicial power of the United States "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority * ** to controversies between two or more States; between a State and the citizen of another State; between citizens of different States; *** between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects."

The judiciary act of 1790 creating the United States courts and providing for their jurisdiction, recognized and conferred jurisdiction upon the Federal courts in cases where diversity of citizenship existed. This is a most important branch of Federal jurisdiction and has consistently been maintained.

Although there can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution never intended to discriminate in this respect between the citizens of the District and those of the States, the fact remains that the District of Columbia 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 (Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452; Geofrey v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258, 269), although it has been held by the Supreme Court to be a State for the purpose of direct taxation (Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheaton, 317).

Attention was called to this anomaly by Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion delivered in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey just referred to, in which he stated: "It is extraordinary that the courts of the United States, which are open to aliens and to the citizens of other States in the Union, should be closed upon them (District residents). But this is a subject for legislative, not for judicial consideration."

No sound argument can be presented for the existing discrimination between citizens of the District and those of the States when it comes to the question of affording relief so far as suits in United States courts are concerned. This right is even granted an alien, but denied under the Constitution to a citizen of the District. The right is a valuable one and has been consistently so recognized since the adoption of the judiciary act in 1790. It is time that this discrimination should cease, and the people of the District given the same rights in all respects as citizens of the States, through adoption of a constitutional amendment, such as provided in the present resolution.

NO CHANGE IN FORM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

By section 8, Article I, of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases over the District of Columbia. The amendment to the Constitution proposed by the joint resolution under consideration in no way affects this absolute control and jurisdiction, but Congress will have the sole power to legislate as heretofore. Your committee feels strongly that there

should be no change in respect to this relation between the Federal Government and the local municipality. The present commission form of government has worked well and satisfactorily, and so long as the power rests in the President to appoint the municipal executives of the District, the direct control and supervision of local affairs is maintained.

AMERICAN PRINCIPLES AND INTENT OF FOREFATHERS

Study of the making, construing, and expanding of the Constitution discloses that there was no intent on the part of the makers of the Constitution and of those who construed and applied it to violate the American principle that couples representation with taxation by excluding residents of the District forever from voting participation in the national councils.

Representation by the people in the legislature by delegates of their own election is the corner stone of American political institutions. Having deep roots in the constitutional history of England, this fundamental principle of free government received its full and perfect recognition in the struggle which resulted in the independence of the Colonies and the establishment of the United States. The Bill of Rights presented by the colonists to the British Parliament declared

"That the foundation of English liberty and of all civil government is a right in the people to participate in their legislative councils."

Accepted by our ancestors as a self-evident truth, and so proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed has since spread around the world.

DE-AMERICANIZATION OF DISTRICT

Yet in the District of Columbia, the seat of the Government of the United States, 437,571 Americans, performing justly and honorably all the duties of peace and war, remain without any representation whatever in the Government which rules and taxes them, makes the laws they must obey, and sends their sons to battle.

What is there in our scheme of government that requires that the Capital of the United States should be the one capital among the civilized nations, the inhabitants of which are excluded, deliberately and of set purpose, from all participation in their government? A vague notion prevails that this exclusion from participation in the government is the necessary consequence of the exclusive control of the Federal district vested in Congress. Such is by no means the case. The Constitution (Art. I, clause 8) confers upon Congress the "power of exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district, not exceeding ten miles square, which shall by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of Government of the United States." Manifestly the purpose of this provision is to insure absolute unity of legislative power at the seat of government.

NATIONAL REPRESENTATION AND EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL CONTROL

What was excluded was that dual sovereignty which by reason of the Federal character of our Government necessarily prevailed everywhere else. As stated by Madison in the Federalist, complete authority at the seat of the Government was designed to eliminate the "dependence of the Members of the General Government on the State comprehending the seat of Government for protection in the exercise of their duty." (Federalist, XLII.)

At that time friends of the new Constitution feared and believed that the balance between the Federal and State governments was "much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale." (Federalist, XLIV.) Hence they provided that the supremacy of Congress in the Federal district should be absolute and exclusive of all State action whatsoever,

There, sovereignty was to be single and plenary-not divided as elsewhere between two powers, one Federal and the other State. In other words: The object of this clause was to give Congress "the combined powers of a general and of a State government in all cases where legislation is possible." (Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S., 141, 147; Capital Tr. Co. v. Hof. 174 U.S., 1, 5; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., 524, 619.)