referendum; after this committee has gotten something through Congress, to go back to the people of Washington a third time seems to me to be completely unnecessary and can serve only the purpose of delaying the home rule in the District of Columbia.

There has been no expression by anyone testifying before the District Committee, Mr. Chairman, so far as I know, that this should be a referendum on the sales tax in the District of Columbia. Well, certainly the people are very much concerned about the sales tax, and why there should be this insistence on a referendum on home rule, and not on the sales tax, is beyond me, particularly as I said since the people of Washington have twice voted for home rule in referenda, and also since the right to vote is more than just a right.

The necessity for home rule is a duty in a democracy and one that we should not just assume that there is any doubt but what the people of Washington would want.

Then there is a very bad provision that I think is in both of these drafts that I certainly should object to, and that is the new kind of numbers system which apparently is put in there with the idea of avoiding democracy as much as possible. This idea that you have got to run for a number in the Board of Education and run for another number in the City Council seems to me definitely to be contrary to the whole spirit of the United States Constitution and designed to prevent minorities from having any voice whatsoever in the city government. Senator KEFAUVER. What do you recommend?

Dr. FOREMAN. I think very strongly that it should be proportional representation and that the whole city vote on the basis of choices just as is done in a number of cities and done very successfully. That insures minorities full representation and at the same time insures majority control, which is what I should think we would want in any kind of model set-up for a democracy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very bad provision that requires Congress to do over again what the city council has done. That seems to me to avoid home rule and at the same time avoid any savings to Congress.

One of the certain advantages of having home rule is to take all of this local legislation out of Congress, but as the present emasculated Auchincloss bill points out or recommends, you would have to have the thing go through a city council and then come through Congress and do it all over again, which would be, in my opinion, absurd.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put in the record this statement about the present situation in Washington, from this pamphlet "Segregation in Washington." There is a paragraph that seems to me to be extremely significant in talking about democracy here in America or anywhere. It says:

It is not in the field of spontaneous human relationships that trouble occurs in Washington but on a high policy level where the segregation of the Negro is planned as a matter of good business, and investments are made in the denial of his equal rights to own property. It is not the poor whites who set the pattern, but men of acknowledged culture and refinement, the leaders of the community. Allied against the Negro in this doubtful enterprise, in spite of contrary ideals and professions, is the full majesty of the United States Government.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very disgraceful situation, accurately described by this committee on segregation in the Nation's Capital, a committee with which, incidentally, I had no connection, so I can express a detached viewpoint of it.

I - ink it is extremely important in any provisions for home rule that 4 democracy be guaranteed in terms of no discrimination against any Part of the population.

That is my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Dr. Foreman. May I have this report?

Dr. FOREMAN. Yes. There are letters throughout that report made by foreigners who come to Washington, thinking that Washington is the headquarters of democracy in the world, and become very sadly disillusioned.

(Dr. Foreman's prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CLARK FOREMAN, CHAI MAN OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

At a time when the United States is offering itself as a model of democracy for the rest of the world, the Nation's Capital should be an example of democracy in practice. Yet in Washington there is no democracy. The people of this city have little more to say about their government than do the animals in the Zoo.

The District of Columbia has a greater population than 13 of the States. The average eduction of the District's population is higher than that of any State in the Union. Yet we are treated with less regard than the people of any State or Territory.

The Progressive Party is for any bill that will give democracy to the people of the Nation's Capital. We are most heartily in favor of the bill which we think will give the greatest amount of home rule, H. R. 2050.

We think the principles of this bill should be incorporated into law because they :

1. Give the most adequate representation of all points of view through the system of proportional representation. Other suggestions seem calculated to override minority opinions in a spirit quite contrary to that of the Constitution. 2. Provide that legislative action taken by the elected city council becomes law unless within 40 days after its passage Congress or the President takes specific action to countermand it. Suggestions in other bills that the city council merely recommended will not bring either more democracy or a saving of time for the Congress.

3. Provide that the age for voting correspond with the age for military service, namely 18.

4. Establish a coordinated and efficient city government. 5. Provide for real civil rights in the Nation's Capital. All three parties are on record for fair treatment to all minority groups. The Nation's Capital should be a model of fair treatment for the whole world. Instead, segregation and discrimination in Washington are a national disgrace and dispute all our protestations of fairness on this subject.

6. Give the people the right through initiative and recall to function democratically. The action by the people of Michigan in repealing the discriminatory margarine tax by intiative and referendum is an example of how important this provision can be.

7. Offer a way by which the public services of the city can be financed without the sales tax which bears down so unfairily on the low-income groups. Allowing the local government to float bond issues to finance captial improvements, the indebtedness not to exceed 10 percent of the value of taxable property, is one desirable step in this direction. Another is a Federal contribution to the District government that would correspond with the taxes which Federal and diplomatic properties should pay, if they were not tax-exempt.

Under the Constitution the Congress has full responsibility for the District of Columbia. All the slums, discrimination, and appalling death rates in this city lie at your door. The best proof of our people and to those of the rest of the world that America's way is the best way would be a fair, healthy, and democratic Washington.

Senator KEFAUVER. Miss Evans or Mr. Kelenson, Washington Industrial Union Council, Congress of Industrial Workers. Is either Miss Evans or Mr. Kelenson here?

Mrs. EVANS. I am, for the Washington Industrial Council.
Senator KEFAUVER. Will you come around here?

STATEMENT OF MRS. GERTRUDE EVANS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, CIO

Mrs. EVANS. I am Mrs. Gertrude Evans, executive secretary of the Washington Industrial Council, CIO. The Washington Council is a delegate of the CIO unions in the District of Columbia.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will be very glad to have your statement. Mrs. EVANS. I have copies here for the committee and I will summarize my statement briefly.

Senator KEFAUVER. Is your name Evans?
Mrs. EVANS. Yes. Mrs. Gertrude Evans.

Senator KEFAUVER. It is listed here as "Miss."

Mrs. EVANS. No, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. I am sorry. All right, Mrs. Evans.

Mrs. EVANS. We are very glad to have this opportunity to appear. before the committee and are gratified that the committee is holding these hearings.

The Washington CIO has, ever since its inception, been on the record for suffrage, has actively worked for suffrage, for home rule, and national representation. We have participated in all the hearings.

We testified last year before the Eightieth Congress on the hearings at some length, so that our statements of course are very similar today to those that were given at the hearing before the Auchincloss committee, the joint committee.

We feel that suffrage home rule for the District of Columbia is paramount. It is of great importance. We feel that the District government is inefficient and wasteful. The efficiency of the government has been pointed out today by other witnesses.

We feel that this is due to the fact that they are not responsible to the people. The people do not vote, and they have no responsibility toward the citizens.

There is great discrimination and segregation in the District, and the Negro people particularly feel this. We see the ills of all this in the schools, the health facilities, the welfare, recreation, and all the other problems of the District, including civil rights, which is particularly denied the Negro population.

We would like to see a bill that would establish as democratic a form of government for the District of Columbia as possible.

We of course favor national representation, but we feel at this time that the issue should not be elouded, that we should take our position, and that all the citizens should work unitedly for home rule at this time.

As I said before, we want to have the most democratic form of government in the Nation's Capital, in the District of Columbia, as possible, so we would like to make a statement on a few of the points that we think should be included in such a bill that the committee will. consider after these hearings and their study on the various bills. We favor the election of the city councilmen and the Board of Educa tion the 12 councilmen with a city manager to be elected by them. We are opposed to the proposals in some of the bills on the election. We are in favor of proportional representation as the most democratic,

form of election. By this method, people who are active and promi nent in the community and who have the welfare of the citizens at heart, would be elected. This would be particularly true in regard to minority groups.

We further feel that any bill for home rule should give the council, as far as possible, legislative functions that they could perform as a council without being unconstitutional.

We feel that a joint committee should be set up in the Congress, and that acts passed by the council should receive attention by them if not vetoed by the committee or rejected by Congress or the President, and should become law within a limited time, perhaps 40 days.

We are concerned that some Congressmen have stated very frequently, and particularly last year-which was the result of the extensive hearings-that they wished to be relieved of their duties and spend their time with their own constituents, so we feel in this way that time would be saved for the Congressmen.

We are in favor of all citizens of the District over 18 years of age qualified to vote registered and voting. We feel that there should be no other restrictions.

We also feel that in order to have capable councilmen, their salaries should be at least $5,000 a year. They would be obliged to devote much time to the duties of the council; and therefore we think they should have an adequate remuneration.

We are in favor of the reorganization of the District government. We feel that the District government is very inefficient in many ways. Under reorganization we would have greater efficiency, economy, and better service to the people: One of the great evils, as has been pointed out by other witnesses, is this pattern of segregation and discrimination that exists in the Nation's Capital here in the District of Columbia.

We feel that it is paramount to have specific provisions in any bill for home rule which will be the basic charter for the District of Columbia-to have specific provisions in such a bill that this existing pattern of segregation and discrimination be eliminated in any of the services performed by the District government.

This would apply to the schools, the so-called dual school system, and thereby we would, of course, want provisions for the tenure of the teachers and employees, in recreation, in all the facilities, in housing, and so forth.

In recreation I would like to pass my comment on what was said this morning, that the chairman of the Recreation Board believes in the democratic processes and reflects the sentiments of the people.

I would like to take very serious issue with that. I believe it was in the year 1944 that the Recreation Board passed a bylaw definitely segregating recreational facilities. At that time a hearing was held through pressure of organizations. About 200 people attended this hearing.

I cannot definitely remember the number, but there must have been at least 25 representatives of organizations who opposed this bylaw, and as I understand it, as we all understand it in the organization, this bylaw has not basis in law, but it still continues; and if the Recreation Board, as well as other officials, were elected by the people, we feel that such conditions would not obtain in the District of Columbia.

In connection with this matter of discrimination, we advocate and think very important that in the home rule bill there should be

set up a fair employment practice commission so as to prevent discrimination in employment in the District government.

In regard to financial affairs, we are in favor of the District government having the power to float negotiable bonds. This would provide the means for the long-needed construction of schools, roads, hospitals, improvements, and so forth.

We also feel that the Federal contribution should be increased. The Federal contribution should be equal to the tax-exempt property of the Federal Government and also of the embassies which are now taxexempt.

In this connection, we think that the District government then would have no need of going to the people and asking for a sales tax, passing such a bill which we feel very strongly is an unnecessary burden, particularly on the low-income-group people.

We are in favor of a Delegate to Congress. We think that perhaps would be a step in the right direction toward national representation. I would also like to say that we feel that it is not necessary to have any referendum if a bill is passed by Congress. We have had two unofficial plebiscites in the District of Columbia and the people showed that they wanted home rule.

I also would like to mention that we, of course, believe in the initiative referendum and recall. We think by that method that representatives of the people elected, if they do not respond to the will of the people, should be subject to those measures by vote.

I am very glad that Dr. Foreman brought this in. I was going to quote from it, but I will not take time. But I hope you will give it consideration. It brings up many of the points that I think are very important in connection with home rule.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. I have no questions.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Evans.

Mr. Paul Matthews, representing the junior board of commerce. We are glad to have you, Mr. Matthews.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MATTHEWS, VICE PRESIDENT, JUNIOR BOARD OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KEFAUVER. Is the junior board of commerce the same as the junior board of trade?

Mr. MATTHEWS. The organization which you spoke of before is the junior board of commerce.

My name is Paul Matthews. I am the first vice president of the Junior Board of Commerce of Washington, D. C., representing approximately 800 local young men between the ages of 21 and 36. We are affiliated with the National Chamber of Commerce, which has a membership of approximately 180,000 young men. I might state at this time that I am not an attorney, and I am a certified accountant, which might be unusual.

Senator KEFAUVER. How old are you, Mr. Matthews?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Thirty-three. The first point we would like to bring out is on the charter referendum. The Junior Board of Commerce believes that any home-rule bill shall provide that a charter