Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.
This is part 3 in a series on the legislative history of the 1973 Home Rule Act. See previous parts on the act’s bipartisan support and nonpartisan elections.
Some members of Congress were really concerned in 1973 about letting DC have power over its own criminal justice system. During the debate over the Home Rule Act, there were a few proposals to limit DC’s authority; one would have kept the mayor from appointing the chief of police.
Why? Some worried that giving up the police power to local officials would let them blockade the Capitol and force Congress to submit to the will of local residents. Others, amazingly, feared that a popularly elected leader representing the people of DC might not actually be in favor of law and order.
Control of the police is, in fact, the reason there is a District of Columbia in the first place. In the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, 400 soldiers of the Continental Army briefly besieged the delegates of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, demanding payment for services during the Revolutionary War.
The Pennsylvania Executive Council, then the executive branch of the Pennsylvania state government, refused to guarantee it would protect the Congress from the protest, so the delegates moved the capital out of Philadelphia. That experience was the reason the Constitution’s authors provided for a federal district, to which the federal capital eventually moved in 1800.
Members worry the Mayor would not want order
In 1973, memories of the 1968 riots were still very fresh. The President had used the National Guard to keep peace, and members of Congress worried that without federal control, this might not happen. But why? At least a few members actually worried that the Mayor would actually be unwilling to act.
Congressman Delbert “Del” Latta (R-OH) said,
Another matter that concerns me about this bill is the matter of who is going to take over this police force in times of revolt or revolution or riot, whatever you have, like we had in the city a couple of years ago.
If we have an elected Mayor who is going to be looking to his constituency in the District of Columbia to reelect him the next election, is he going to respond when the city is burning such as we saw from the Capitol steps a few years ago, as readily as if the President of the United States had the authority right now to sign an order and take over the police department of the city? (p.1764)
Rep. Charles “Charlie” Rangel (D-NY, and still in Congress today) said, “One ... rationale, commonly used by persons against home rule is that home rule will result in a drastic increase in the crime rate for the District. ... Opponents of self-determination for the District are implying that the local government of the city, specifically the Mayor and City Council, would act in bad faith. (1723-1724)
Then-Police Chief Jerry Wilson wrote a letter to Congress addressing some of the concerns:
I recognize, as I am sure you do also, that some of the concerns over home rule for the District of Columbia directly relate to fear that local control of the police may result in misuse or nonuse of the police power in a manner adverse to the interests of the city, either as a local community or as the national capital. ...
Personally, I feel that apprehension over local control of police power in the District is misplaced. My own sense of this community is the overwhelming majority are responsible citizens who want effective law enforcement just as much as residents do in any other city. If the city of Washington is to be treated substantially as a local community, albeit a special one, rather than a federal enclave, then there is no reason to deprive local citizens of control over that fundamental local service, the police force. (1699)
The bill’s authors and other members of Congress also noted that the President would have the authority to take over the police in a true emergency. Rep. Charles Diggs (D-MI) replied to critics, saying, “The committee felt that the President has inherent power to invoke whatever police power is required in case of an emergency. We are prepared to put this in more explicit language.” (1764)
A provision specifically emphasizing this power was then part of the committee print of the bill which went to the House floor.
Amendments try to take the police chief appointment away from the Mayor
Some Congressmen were still not satisfied. Ancher Nelsen (R-MN) tried to introduce amendments that would have given other people besides the mayor the power to appoint the police chief.
His first proposal was to set up a Board of Police Commissioners with 3 members: the head of the US Secret Service, the head of the FBI, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. They would submit 3 candidates for police chief to the President, who would pick among them. (2406)
Nelsen notes there was a Police Board in the 1860s, DC’s previous episode of home rule, but it was abolished when Congress took control of the District back.
Rep. Brock Adams (D-WA) pointed out that there are lots of federal police forces to protect the federal interest, such as the Capitol Police, Park Police, Secret Service, FBI and more. This was not the case in 1783, when the Continental Congress did not even control the military during peacetime and depended entirely on state militias.
Stewart McKinney (R-CT) also disagreed with Nelsen, saying, “With regard to the problems we have been having in urban centers a police chief has to be one of the strongest and most compatible figures in the community’s relationship.” (2409)
This was also not something the White House had asked for, and the House defeated Nelsen’s amendment, 132-275 with 27 not voting.
Nelson tried again, this time having the board of 3 commissioners nominate individuals to the Mayor. (2424)
Diggs said, “I would just like to understand from the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee [Nelsen] just what is his rationale behind wanting to have this kind of insulation with respect to the Police Commissioner or Chief of Police for this community.” (2425) The House rejected this amendment on a voice vote, and that was the end of the matter. (2426)
However, Congress did limit the District’s power over its criminal justice system in other ways, which we’ll discuss in coming installments of this series.
All numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Home Rule for the District of Columbia, 1973-1974, Background and Legislative History of H.R. 9056, H.R. 9682, and Related Bills Culminating in the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198), Serial No, S-4, US Government Printing Office, December 31, 1974.