USA > Washington > Standard history of the city of Washington from a study of the original sources > Part 27
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50
In all these matters the Commissioners advocated model laws for the District of Columbia, not only in its interest but for the sake of the rest of the country. Among their recommenda-
305
History of the City of Washington.
tions of that period were two, namely, for the creation of a Public Utilities Commission for the regulation of public utility corporations, and that for the reformation of the excise law and reduction of the number of saloons, which were approved by Congress in legislation in 1913. Other recommendations made then which Congress has not yet approved were for a civil ser- vice law to govern the District of Columbia offices; (meantime kept on a merit system by Commissioners' action) ; for the further improvement of sanitary conditions through the health department and otherwise; and the elimination of alley slums; for the further improvement of the charity system; for the regulation of assessment life insurance and the enactment of a model insurance law, and for the regulation of loan concerns in similar fashion to the regulation of savings banks and build- ing associations.
During the decade from 1900 to 1910, in addition to what was repaid the United States Treasury on advances, ten million dollars was added to the sinking fund for the payment of the old bonded debt of the period preceding 1878.
The taxation of real estate, personal property, corporation franchises and licenses and other minor sources of revenue yielded about six million dollars a year. It meant that the inhabitants paid in round numbers sixteen dollars per capita per annum while all the rest of the United States pay in round numbers six cents per capita per annum for the maintenance and development of the common National Capital.
The Commissioners have for many years advocated a civil service law for the offices of the District government; thus far in vain. However, the Commissioners without express authority of law have maintained a civil service system on the principles of the United States law insofar as this has been possible. By arrangement with the civil service commission, affirmed by the court when it was attacked, examinations have been conducted by that Commission for all applicants for the fire and police departments and for all medical and auditing places under the District government. This has been all that could be done with- out securing special authority and appropriations from Congress.
306
History of the City of Washington.
This review of the recent advancement in the affairs of the District would be incomplete without some recognition of the interest shown by Congress and an acknowledgment of the ser- vices rendered by the members of the committees on the District of Columbia and of the sub-committees on appropriations. The committees an Public Buildings and Grounds, at the urgent request of the District Commissioners, provided the legislative authority for the erection of the District of Columbia govern- ment building, including the purchase of the site, costing in all nearly two and a half million dollars. The building was con- structed under a commission composed of the District Commissioners and the Secretary of the Treasury, with Captain Chester Harding, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, afterwards Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, as the executive and supervising engineer. This building was formally opened on the Fourth of July, 1908, by appropriate exercises celebrating Independence Day, as well as the consummation of the hopes and efforts of years, and the beginnings of the "safe and sane" celebration of the Fourth of July.
The officers detailed from the Engineer Corps to assist the Engineer Commissioner are required by the Act of Congress of December 24, 1890 (26 Stat. 1113) to perform the duties of the Engineer Commissioner in the event of his absence from the District, or his disability, and many of them have so acted.
The officers who have been so detailed are Capt. Richard L. Hoxie, July 21, 1878 to August 1, 1884; Capt. Francis V. Greene, May 2, 1879 to March 3, 1885; Lieut. C. McD. Townsend, August 1, 1884 to March 6, 1886; Capt. F. A. Mahan, March 25, 1885 to May 27, 1886; Capt. Eugene Griffin, May 27, 1886 to March 6, 1888; Capt. Thos. W. Symons, June 5, 1886 to November 1, 1889; Capt. S. S. Leach, March 6, 1888 to June 2, 1888; Capt. James L. Lusk, June 2, 1888 to March 1, 1893; Capt. Wm. T. Rossell, November 1, 1889 until detailed as a Commissioner, District of Columbia, October 15, 1891 ; Capt. Gustav J. Fiebeger, October 31, 1891 to May 27, 1896; Capt. George McC. Derby, March 1, 1893 to October 8, 1894; Capt. Edward Burr, October 9, 1894 to April 28, 1898; Capt. Lansing H. Beach, October 30,
307
History of the City of Washington.
1894 until detailed as a Commissioner, District of Columbia, June 1, 1898; Capt. William E. Craighill, February 28, 1899 to September 15, 1899; Capt. David Du B. Gaillard, July 21, 1899 to March 6, 1901; Capt. H. C. Newcomer, December 27, 1899 to December 23, 1903; Capt. Chester Harding, April 16, 1901 to October 1, 1906; Capt. Jay J. Morrow, January 4, 1904, until sworn as a Commissioner, District of Columbia, May 2, 1907; Capt. William Kelly, September 29, 1906 to July 2, 1910; Capt. Edward M. Markham, August 14, 1907 to August 28, 1912; Capt. Mark Brooke, June 15, 1910, to ;
Capt. Julian L. Schley, October 8, 1912, to ..
Capt. Roger G. Powell, October 15, 1913, to
It is a peculiarity of that law that it only vests the senior and junior officers so detailed with the duty to act as an alter- nate Commissioner; so that when three assistants are detailed for that duty the one of intermediate rank does not become an acting Commissioner in such event but may be subordinate to his junior in rank. The concurrent detail of three assistants has only occurred twice; the first time from 1894 to 1896, when Captains Fieberger, Burr and Beach were in that position, and the second time in 1913 when Captains Brooke, Schley and Powell were on that detail.
Five of the persons who have been nominated by the Pres- ident of the United States for the office of Commissioner of the District of Columbia were not confirmed by the Senate. These nominees were John F. Olmstead, who was nominated by Pres- ident Arthur on the 18th of December, 1882, and his name withdrawn January 13, 1883; William B. Webb who had been Commissioner for one term, was nominated for re-appointment by President Cleveland on January 14, 1889, but he was contin- ued in office until May 21, 1889, when President Harrison issued a recess commission to John W. Douglass as Mr. Webb's success- or, and on December 4, 1889, sent Mr. Douglass' nomination to the Senate; Francis P. B. Sands, was nominated by President' Cleveland on February 16, 1897, in place of John W. Ross whose term had then expired. Mr. Sands was not confirmed and Mr. Ross was re-appointed by President Mckinley. Cuno
308
History of the City of Washington.
H. Rudolph and James F. Oyster, who were nominated by President Taft on January 21, 1913.
The omission to confirm the latter two was not based on any personal objections but was due to the sentiment that the incoming President Woodrow Wilson was entitled to the oppor- tunity to select the principal authorities to administer the municipal affairs of the National Capital during his term of office.
CHAPTER X.
Municipal Suffrage
The right to vote in the District of Columbia for President of the United States and other national offices existed at the time the territory embraced in the District was ceded to Congress, and was exercised by the qualified voters in the District in the Presi- dential election of November, 1800, and remained in force until the first Monday in December, 1800, when the exclusive jurisdic- tion of Congress over the District took effect.
The qualified voters in the portion derived from Maryland were at that time,
"All free men above 21 years of age having a freehold of 50 acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote, and residing therein, and all free men having property in this State above the value of £30 current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election, shall have a right of suffrage, etc." (Constitution of Maryland).
When the District ceased to be a part of Maryland, its residents, no longer being residents of any county of Maryland, consequently lost the right to vote in the elections of that State.
The qualification of voters in the portion of the District derived from Virginia at the time of the cession was the possession of a certain amount of real property in the county in which the vote was cast. (Vol. 8, p. 306, Hening's Statutes at Large of Virginia). When that part of the District ceased to be under the jurisdiction of any county of Virginia, that right of suffrage in the District accordingly expired.
The citizens of the District of Columbia were subsequently vested with the right of suffrage in municipal matters, as herein- after shown: but the residents of the portion of the District of
310
History of the City of Washington.
Columbia, outside of the city of Washington and of Georgetown, had no right of suffrage, except at the special election to adopt a code of laws in 1858, from the first Monday of December, 1800, when the Jurisdiction of the United States over the District took effect, until the 20th of April, 1871, when they were vested with that function under the territorial Act of February 21, 1871, and possessed it until June 20, 1874, when the territorial form of government for the District was abolished.
With respect to the purpose of the Constitution in regard to local suffrage at the Seat of Government, the following opinions are of interest.
On a motion in the House of Representatives on December 31, 1800, to recommit a bill concerning the District of Columbia, Mr. Harper, in reply to an observation that the people of the District had continued for one hundred years to live happily under their respective State governments, and therefore it was not necessary for Congress to legislate at all on the subject, said :
"But the provision of the Constitution on this subject had not been made with this view. It was made to bestow dignity and independence on the Government of the Union. It was to protect it from such outrages as had occurred when it was differently situated, when it was without competent legislative, executive, and judicial power to insure to itself respect. While the government was under the guardianship of State laws, those laws might be inadequate to its protec- tion, or there might exist a spirit hostile to the General Government, or, at any rate, indisposed to give it proper protection. This was one reason, among others, for the pro- visions of the Constitution confirmed and carried into effect by the acts of Maryland and Virginia, and by the act of Congress."
Mr. Madison stated in the Federalist that :
"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. With- out it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the General Government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national
311
History of the City of Washington.
councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonor- able to the Government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improve- ments at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the Government as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this Federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. 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 interest 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 allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part 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."
The first grant of municipal suffrage in the City of Wash- ington was conferred by the Act of Congress approved May 3, 1802, which provided for "The city council to be elected annually, by ballot, in a general ticket, by the free white male inhabitants of full age, who have resided twelve months in the city, and paid taxes therein the year preceding the election being held." (2 Stat. 196.) The Mayor was appointable by the President of the United States.
An Act of Congress, approved May 4, 1812, qualified the suffrage by conferring it on "every free white male citizen of lawful age, who shall have resided in the city of Washington for the space of one year next preceding the day of election, and shall be a resident of the ward in which he shall offer to vote, and who shall have been assessed on the books of the corporation not less than two months prior to the day of election." These suffragists were entitled to vote for a board of aldermen of eight members, and a board of common council 12 members, who
312
History of the City of Washington.
elected the Mayor by joint ballot, on the 2nd Monday of June. (ib. 723).
The election of the Mayor by the qualified voters, instead of by the Councils, was next brought within the right of suffrage, and the right restricted to citizens of the United States, and to those assessed "for the year ending on the 31st day of December next preceding the election," and who "shall have paid all taxes legally assessed and due on personal property." Act approved May 15, 1820.
A property qualification was a prerequisite to the right to vote until the election held on the first Monday in June, 1848, under the Act of Congress approved May 17, 1848. Section 5 of that act modified the right of suffrage, by defining the age of the voter as 21 years, who should be subject to and have paid a school tax, and not be a person non compos mentis, a vagrant, a pauper, or have been convicted of any infamous crime.
At the special election in the adoption of a Code of Laws for the District, "Every free white male citizen of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in the District of Columbia for one year next preceding the said fifteenth day of February, 1858," was allowed to vote, pur- suant to a proclamation of the President of the United States, dated December 24, 1857.
An Act of May 16, 1856, provides that "Whereas native- born citizens, resident of the city of Washington, who arrive at the age of twenty-one years between the thirtieth day of Decem- ber next preceding the election and the day of election are not allowed to vote at such election. That no person, being natur- alized between said day of December and the day of the succeeding election shall be entitled to vote at such preceding election." (11 Stat. 15).
All voters in Washington and Georgetown were required by the Act approved May 20, 1862, to take and subscribe an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States.
An Act of Congress, approved June 1, 1864, seems to be the first statute mentioning the registration of voters; but that was
313
History of the City of Washington.
a registration simultaneous with the offer to vote, where the person offering to vote had not been registered; and prescribes an oath as to residence. Publicity of lists of voters by posting and newspaper publication prior to elections was first required by an Act of Congress of February 5, 1867.
On November 6, 1865, the feeling against the proposition to grant municipal suffrage to negroes in the District of Columbia, found expression in the Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, by the introduction of a resolution which passed that body on the 13th of that month and the Board of Aldermen on the 20th of the same month and became a law as follows:
CHAP. 203.
"Joint Resolution providing for a special elec- tion to ascertain the sentiments of the people of Wash- ington on the question of negro suffrage.
"Resolved by the Board of Aldermen and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, That in the event that any bill be introduced in Congress for the ad- mission of the colored man by this city to the right of suffrage, that the Mayor be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to call the Councils together within two days' notice, for the purpose of taking into consideration meas- ures for holding a special election to ascertain the sentiments of the people on the subject.
"Approved November 23, 1865."
On December 11 the Mayor, in consonance with the spirit of that resolution, reported to the Common Council that a bill had been introduced in both houses of Congress to extend to colored persons the right of suffrage in the District. This report was referred to a special committee of the Common Council which on the 14th of that month reported a joint resolution which resulted in the passage of the following ordinance in which the Board of Aldermen concurred on the same date :
CHAP. 218.
"An Act authorizing a Special Election to ascertain the opinion of the people of Washington on the question of Negro Suffrage.
"Whereas, Several bills have been introduced in Congress having in view the extension of the elective franchise, in this city, so as to confer its privileges upon the negro popu-
314
History of the City of Washington.
lation; and, whereas, the members of the National Legislature, to whom is committed the protection of the interests of the people of the National Metropolis, should be correctly informed of the sentiments of this community on a question so materially affecting their present and future interests, as well as the interests of the country generally : Therefore,
"Be it enacted by the Board of Aldermen and Board of Common Council of the City of Washington, That the Mayor be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to cause a special election to be held on Thursday, the 21st day of December, 1865, and cause polls to be opened on that day, and to be kept open from eight o'clock in the morning till six o'clock in the evening, to enable the legal voters of the City of Washington to give expression, in a formal manner, to their opinions on the propriety of extending the elective franchise to the negro population, now residents, or hereafter to become residents, within the limits of this Corporation.
* *
"Sec. 3. The Mayor shall transmit a copy of the returns to the presiding officer of each House of Congress to be laid before those bodies, and cause the same to be published in the newspapers of this city .* * *
"Approved December 16, 1865."
In pursuance of this ordinance a special election was held on the 21st day of December, 1865, the result of which is set forth in the following letter from the Mayor to the President of the Senate of the United States :
"Washington City, Mayor's Office,
January 6, 1866.
Hon. L. F. S. Foster,
President of the Senate of the United States. Sir :
"I have the honor in compliance with an act of the Coun- cils of this city, approved December 16, 1865, to transmit through you to the Senate of the United States the result of an election held on Thursday, 21st of December, to ascertain the opinion of the people of Washington on the question of negro suffrage, at which the vote was 6,626, segregated as follows :
Against negro suffrage 6,591
For negro suffrage 35
Majority against negro suffrage ..... 6,556
315
History of the City of Washington.
"This vote, the largest, with but two exceptions, ever polled in this city, conclusively shows the unanimity of sentiment of the people of Washington in opposition to the extension of the right of suffrage to that class, and that its integrity may be properly appreciated by the Senate, I give the aggregate of the vote cast at the five elections immedi- ately preceding, for Mayor.
"Approved December 22, 1865.
"1856, 5,840; 1858, 6,813; 1860, 6,975; 1862, 4,816; 1864, 5,720.
"No others, in addition to this minority of thirty-five, are to be found in this community who favor the existence of the right of suffrage to the class, and in the manner pro- posed, excepting those who have already memorialized the Senate in its favor, and who, with but little association, less sympathy, and no community of interest or affinity with the citizens of Washington, receive here from the general government temporary employment, and having, at the National Capital, a residence, limited only to the duration of a presidential term, claim, and invariably exercise the elective franchise elsewhere.
"The people of this city, claiming an independence of thought, and the right to express it, have thus given a grave and deliberate utterance, in an unexaggerated way, to their opinion and feeling on this subject.
"This unparalleled unanimity of sentiment which per- vades all classes of this community in opposition to the extension of the right of suffrage to that class engenders an earnest hope that Congress, in according to this expression of their wishes, the respect and consideration they would, as individual members, yield to those whom they immediately represent, would abstain from the exercise of its absolute power, and so avert an impending future, apparently so objectionable to those over whom, by the fundamental law of the land, they have 'exclusive jurisdiction.'
With much respect, I am, sir,
Your own and the Senate's
Obedient servant,
RICHARD WALLACE, Mayor."
A similar election was held in Georgetown on the 28th day of December, 1865, in pursuance of the following resolution :
A resolution in regard to Negro Suffrage.
"Whereas it is proposed in the Congress of the United States so to amend the charter of Georgetown as to extend
316
History of the City of Washington.
the elective franchise to persons of color in said town; and whereas such legislation, in the opinion of this Corporation, is wholly uncalled for, and would be an act of grievous oppression, against which a helpless community have no defence, except by an appeal to the sense of justice of Congress; and whereas it may tend to avert this evil to have an expression of opinion from the voters of the town: Therefore,
"Resolved, That the polls be opened on the twenty-eighth day of December inst., and be kept open on said day between the hours of 9 o'clock a. m. and 6 p. m., at the several pre- cincts of the town, under the direction of the Commissioners of Election, for a special balloting by the qualified voters of the town upon the question whether they are in favor of the extension of the right of suffrage by law to the colored inhabitants of said town or not-those in favor of said extension to vote 'Yes,' and those opposed thereto to vote 'No.' "
The result of that election was 712 against negro suffrage and one vote in favor of it.
An Act of Congress, adopted January 8, 1867, which was passed over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, abolished all racial distinctions respecting suffrage in the District, and provided for registration of voters prior to election, and limited the right of voting to those whose names were on the list of registered voters. This law is the first enactment which omits the word "white" as a voter's qualification. But all "distinc- tion of race color or previous condition of servitude" as a qualification of suffrage in the District of Columbia was abolished in terms, by an Act of May 31, 1870. (16 Stat. 14).
The latest right of suffrage in the District of Columbia was granted by an Act of Congress of February 21, 1871, (16 Stat. 421), as follows :
"Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all male citi- zens of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been actual residents of said District for three months prior to the passage of this act, except such as are non-compos mentis and persons convicted of infamous crimes, shall be entitled to vote at said election, in the election district or precinct in which he shall then reside, and shall have so resided for thirty days immediately pre- ceding said election and shall be eligible to any office within
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.