possessed by the inhabitants for its improvement. In accomplishing their object the Union undertook the guardianship of the District, deprived its inhabitants of the right of self government and the elective franchise, and made them dependent upon the will of the representatives of the States, to whom alone they can look for relief.

That is the end of the quota.

The historical references cited in my comments up to this point are to provide for the record authentic material from earlier days describing the extraordinary creative basis for Washington's concept and origin which is, I believe, essential to a full understanding of the National Capital community and a clear appreciation of significant factors bearing on the nature of changes which may be under consideration. Now I will quickly comment on D.C. forms of government. This special purpose community has had experience with two of the forms of government proposed in bills under consideration here.

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON

The first government of the City of Washington-then only the central portion of the District-was established after its incorporation by an Act of Congress in 1802. The government consisted of a Mayor appointed by the President and a 12-member City Council elected by the people of the city. The Council, by vote of its members, was divided into an upper house of seven members and a lower house of five. The right to vote for Federal office-holders ceased in December 1800.

In 1812 Congress amended the charter of Washington by providing for an elected Board of Aldermen of eight members and an elected Board of Common Council of 12 members. The Mayor was elected by joint vote of the two Boards.

Eight years later, in 1820, the Charter was changed again. This time it provided for the same Board of Alderman and Board of Common Council but with a Mayor elected by the qualified voters for a term of two years. This form of city government continued for 50 years.

Local history abounds in references to the shortcomings of the Mayor and Council governments between 1802 and 1870, though it was not until the Civil War period that the Congress and most local residents concluded that a better local government structure was necessary.

By an Act of Congress of February 21, 1871, a territorial form of government was provided for the District consisting of a Governor, a Board of Public Works, a Board of Health, and a Legislative Assembly consisting of an 11-member Council and a 22-member House of Delegates. The Board of Public Works consisted of the Governor and four persons, one of whom was a civil engineer. The Governor, the Council members and the Board of Public Works were appointed by the President. The members of the House of Delegates were elected by the qualified voters. There was also an elected delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States with a right ot speak but not vote. This form of government, which closely resembles one of those advocated again today, lasted only three years.

The Congress then established a temporary Commissioner form of government and appointed a committee of two Senators and two Rep

resentatives to draft "a suitable frame of government for the District of Columbia."

Apparently in Congress and among residents there were then, as there are today, differing viewpoints about the best way to govern the District of Columbia, as is demonstrated in this editorial which appeared in The Star January 19, 1878.

EDITORIAL

A MISCHIEVOUS MOVEMENT

It seems that an effort is being made to induce Congress to pass a bill restoring the right of suffrage to this District. Some of the parties concerned in this effort are of the demagogue or speculative stripe who enjoyed some rich pickings under the last elective form of government, and hope to renew them if they can have the control of the ballot box again. Others are citizens who have an honest but mistaken belief that the ballot is the sovereign panacea for all the ills that District flesh is heir to; but the number of this class of suffragists is very small. Thee great body of our citizens have come to the conclusion from dear bought experience that whatever may be the advantages of suffrage for communities who exercise some real power in voting, its only effect here is to fasten upon the taxpayers the direct responsibility for burdens of debt incurred by our elective government, for expenses connected with the National City that should be shared by the general government. Congress has in various ways recognized the justice of the claim that the government should pay its fair its fair proportion of these expenses, and what is now needed is a united effort by our citizens to have a bill passed-the Hendee bill or any other that will settle definitely what that proportion shall be. The passage of such a measuree would do more to revive confidence and set business in motion than any other possible thing, and it would be very unfortunate if its adoption should be hindered by the injection of this suffrage question into the discussion. The ballot is a meaningless bauble in this District, over which Congress has exclusive control, and it would be the height of folly for us to lose the present favorable opportunity for getting legislation from Congress vitally important for every citizen, by clamoring for something that we don't want and would work only mischief to us if we got it.

The Congressional Committee rendered its report and the Act of June 11, 1878, created the three-commissioner form of government which lasted 90 years until the present appointed-Commissioner and Council system was adopted in 1968.

During this period, Washington grew into one of the major cities of the country and developed into the beautiful National Capital admired by people the world over.

The three-commissioner government was on the whole a highly satisfactory system for the people and for the United States. It was until after World War II a non-partisan operation since the civilian commissioners were normally a Democrat and a Republican and the

third commissioner was an officer of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. The Board of Commissioners after the late 1950's, when both civilians were from the party in power, were not able to retain the fine relationship with Congress which had been customary before that. Excuse me, that should be after the late 1940's.

This experience raises the question respecting the effective working relationship which a locally elected government of the opposite party to that of the Administration and that in control of the Congress would experience.

As Mr. Theodore M. Noyes, former President of the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants states, "If the city's government is ever debased into a mere political machine, a death blow will be given to the interests of the District. The capital is the ward, not of a party, but of a nation; it requires the friendly legislation of both parties; and to obtain such legislation its government must be non-partisan."

PENDING BILLS

The Association of the Oldest Inhabitants has not studied and acted upon each of the bills now before the Committee. Its established policies, however, clearly register disapproval of the Senate-passed Mayor and Council bill, S. 2652, and the House Mayor and Council bills sponsored by a number of members.

Clearly, our policies place use in opposition to H.R. 12543 by Mr. Broyhill of Virginia. At the same time, I feel that I am authorized to say that if the Congress in its wisdom wishes to give residents of the District a voice in the selection of the Mayor and Council-or Board of Governors then we prefer this proposal to the several generally termed "Home Rule" ones. It would retain for the United States majority control by appointees of the President and the Congress and, therefore, promise reasonable fiscal stability for the District.

We must also oppose H.R. 8579 and H.R. 12973 bills, providing for self-government through a charter referendum. But in doing so, we again say that if the Congress in its wisdom decides to give D.C. residents a voice in selecting governing officials then the charter procedure provided in S. 8579 certainly insures that the final form of government adopted has the support of both our residents and the Congress.

Quite clearly, our policies are in opposition to the Statehood proposals of H.R. 9197 and H.R. 9599, and the retrocession proposals of H.R. 355, H.R. 9881, H.R. 12823, and H.R. 12922, since we strongly suport the concept of the Federal City.

RECOMMENDATIONS

But these bills would satisfy our objective of securing for D.C. residents full voting representation in the Congress. Accordingly, the proposals to reduce the size of the National Capital and retrocede most of the District's residential areas to Maryland need to be very seriously considered if the Congress decides to make significant changes in the D.C. form of government.

As I have indicated, we are of the firm opinion that the critical requirement for meaningful participation in our government is the full voting representation in the Congress which is enjoyed by and marks the real privileges of democratic participation in their government by all other Americans.

Permit me to conclude this statement by urging this Committee to abandon all the proposals now before it and to unite in seeking passage of the proposed constitutional amendment to give the District full representation in the Congress. This resolution, as you know, has been reported out by the Judiciary Committee and has encountered barriers in the Rules Committee. We urge you distinguished members of the District of Columbia Committee to focus your interest in giving us a greater voice in our government on the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment giving us voting members of both Houses of the Congress.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to present the views of the Association of Oldest Inhabitants.

Mr. MCMILLIAN. We appreciate your taking time to give us the opinion of your group.

Mr. Broyhill, do you have any questions?

Mr. BROYHILL. I couldn't add anything. I commend you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Link?

Mr. LINK. No questions.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. McKinney?

Mr. MCKINNEY. No questions.
Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Fauntroy?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question.

Are you aware that the statement which you quote, Mr. Press, in the period from 1820 to 1871, during which the Association was formed, was made at a time when we had elected Mayor and City Council? Mr. PRESS. Yes.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Would you say that the position of the Association then, as now, was and is opposition to self-government?

Mr. PRESS. No, because the Association believes voting representation is needed in self-government, although it is not extremely important. The only way we can participate in Government, in the Government, which, after all, levies taxes, makes decisions and tells us how to live, is by voting representatives in the Congress of the United States. Mr. FAUNTROY. Apparently, at the outset it was militant and rather aggressive in the pursuits of its goals in 1871?

Mr. PRESS. I am not sure. The organization was founded in 1865. I have been around a long time, but I wasn't here then. I can't speak about them, as to what they just did or what inferences they might have, or whether they did have to seek those changes.

Mr. FAUNTROY. The statement seems to be consistent that they haven't changed in a period of time.

Mr. PRESS. Apparently not.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Press, we certainly appreciate your statement. I would like to have some copies made and sent to my high schools, because some high schools and colleges, and so forth, have been requesting information about the District of Columbia Government, and I don't think you would mind if we had some reprints made.

Mr. PRESS. I would have to feel very honored that part of my statement would be sent to the schools in South Carolina.

Mr. FAUNTROY. There is also a little history in the statement I presented to the committee.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Well, I will stick yours in also.

Mr. PRESS. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much.

Our next witness will be William A. Albaugh, and we will be glad to hear your statement, Mr. Albaugh.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. ALBAUGH, ESQUIRE, MT. RAINIER, MD.

Mr. ALBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, my name is William A. Albaugh and my home address is 3368 Chillum Road, No. 201, Mt. Rainer, Maryland, 20822. I appreciate this opportunity to present my views on the D.C. Home Rule Bills now before this Committee.

All of the D.C. Home Rule Bills presently under consideration start with the assumption that the District of Columbia has been legally removed from the State of Maryland and not made part of some other State. The problem these bills try to solve is one of restoring State citizenship status to some or all D.C. citizens without sacrificing Congressional control over the local D.C. Police Force.

I start with the opposite assumption that the District of Columbia has never been legally removed from the State of Maryland. Starting from this assumption, the problem is not how to give D.C. citizens State citizenship status but rather how to enforce their present Maryland State citizenship status.

In 1800, the Maryland Redistricting Laws clearly made the District of Columbia part of the Maryland Second and Third Congressional Districts. If one examines the evolution of these Maryland Redistricting Laws in the light of the one-man/one-vote rule, one is very hard pressed to find any Redistricting Law, much less a valid one, which specifies that the District of Columbia be removed from the State of Maryland for congressional redistricting purposes.

If the District of Columbia was ever legally removed from the State of Maryland, the one man/one vote rule should require D.C. to be immediately made part of some other State. Both Congress and the Supreme Court have avoided a public examination of this point.

The Constitution vests Congress with overriding legislative authority to enact Maryland Congressional Redistricting Laws at any time. If Congress cannot find a valid law removing the District of Columbia from Maryland, it is a simple matter to declare that D.C. is still part of Maryland and will henceforth constitute Maryland's 9th and 10th Congressional Districts. Or Congress could proceed to remove D.C. legally by declaring it a new independent State.

If Congress wishes to treat D.C. as a Federal Territory in the State of Maryland, a totally different type of D.C. Home Rule bill is required to effect a republican form of government at the local level. To protect the Federal interest, it should be sufficient to make the D.C. Police Department and Fire Department subdivisions of some Federal agency like the U. S. Department of Interior and to direct their