Page images
PDF
EPUB

as we do not often see, in standing to recognize your going out or coming in, Senator Smith, during the hearings. That is the kind of consideration and deference for individuals we certainly admire, not only for our womanhood but for our manhood as well, and for the citizens of the District of Columbia who want representation and constitutional rights that they should have like other citizens. Senator KEFAUVER. Any question?

Senator SMITH. No questions.

Senator KEFAUVER. I think, on behalf of Mrs. Smith and myself, we want to thank you. If you want to file any additional statement, you may make it in about 3 days.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith.
Senator KEFAUVER. Will you identify yourself?

STATEMENT OF DAVID WHATLEY, MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA BAR

Mr. WHATLEY. David Whatley, member of the District of Columbia bar, engaged as a real-estate broker.

I would just like to comment briefly on two provisions of the Auchincloss bill. I would like to endorse heartily the recommendation on page 13 of the Auchincloss subcommittee report, and also suggest that a simple manner of selecting qualified electors would be that they certify at the time of the election that they have not voted and will not vote for local and State officials in any State primary or general election that year, enabling them to continue to vote for national officials— Federal officials elected in the State elections, until Congress provides the right to vote for Federal officials as residents of the District. I would like further to suggest that the elections be held upon Sunday, so as to encourage the largest possible turn-out.

My reason for appearing before this committee is to propose a manner of national representation which is novel and might seem to you at first glance radical, since it has never been proposed by anyone else, to my knowledge. May I preface this proposal by pointing out that, if the portion of Virginia that was originally included in the 10-milessquare area of the District of Columbia is eventually returned to the District jurisdiction by Congress, there is no necessity for depriving the residents of this area of their present right of national representation and the right to vote for Virginia presidential electors; they could under the Constitution continue to vote for two Senators, and Presidential electors, in the general elections, so long as Virginia did not disqualify them as voters under its power to prescribe the qualifications of its voters.

If that same procedure had obtained when the District of Columbia was established, I think it would have proved most satisfactory, and would not have been inconsistent with any provision or intention of the Constitution founders.

In a casual perusal of the Constitution debates, I find no mention of any intention to deprive the citizens of the area, which was at that time part of Maryland and Virginia, of their right to vote for Members of the House of Representatives. Of course, as you recall, they had no right to vote directly for Senators or for President, but it is my impression that for a few years after the establishment of the

District of Columbia in 1801, they did continue to vote for members of the Maryland and Virginia delegations to Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. You recommendation is to fix the old lines of demarcation so they would vote in whatever State they would have been in before the District was set aside separately?

Mr. WHATLEY. That is right. Until that area of Virginia is returned to the District of Columbia, it would apply only to Maryland, and it would require the concurrence and acquiescence of the Maryland Legislature.

I specifically recommend that this committee ask Dr. Galloway and the Legislative Reference Service to investigate the practicability and constitutionality of this proposal, and to consult with the members of the Maryland Legislature, which is now in session, as to its feasibility. I believe a simple act of Congress is all that would be necessary. It would simply be carrying out the mandate of the Constitution that all States shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. It does not say that there shall be an exception in those areas that the Federal Government shall take over, whether it be the District of Columbia, Fort Meade, or any other particular area subsequently placed under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Obviously the State of Maryland would, under the Constitution, retain the right to establish the qualification for all voters, whether they resided in Maryland proper or the District, but that would be a very simple procedure. The elections of Federal officials could be administered by Maryland officials here as in Maryland proper, and could be simply a part of the regular Maryland elections for Federal officials.

I feel very strongly on the point, because I am deeply convinced that that is the only way we can ever, in the District of Columbia, get full national representation.

I am not satisfied with a half loaf of a delegate in one house. I believe the Congress will never pass a constitutional amendment giving to the District of Columbia area the same rights as other States-two Senators and several Representatives-and that the Maryland Legisla ture certainly should not object, since it would simply increase their representative in the House.

I appreciate your time.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much. What is your opinion. about home rule?

Mr. WHATLEY. I am very ardently in favor of most of the provisions of the Auchincloss bill and all the provisions of the Central Democratic Committee bill which you have before you.

I see no real hope now that local self-government will be passed at this Congress, but if at the same time you could see fit to take the first step toward national representation along the line of my proposal, it would serve to cut from under the opposition that exists in so many business circles here their objections to home rule because they do not wish to have local self-government without national representation. It can be had, both in the same bill even, or at least both in this session of Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. Any questions?

Senator SMITH. No questions.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much. We are going to reces the hearing at this time. If there is nothing further, the committee will now stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 4:45 p. m., the committee adjourned.) (The following matter was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

(NOTE. This letter, sent to every new Member of the 81st Cong. on the opening day of the 81st Cong., amply sets forth the views of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, and I wish to submit it as our statement at the home-rule hearing, on February 17 with the footnote attached :)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS,

Washington, D. C., December 31, 1948.

DEAR MEMBERS OF THE SIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS: I write to apprise you of the stand my organization, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, took February 23, 1948, toward the Auchincloss bill (H. R. 4902, 80th Cong., 2d sess.) to provide home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia.

We, the members of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, most of whom have lived in this city for most of our lives, have long stood for the principle of national representation in the District of Columbia. We have worked for that principal year after year. In the Seventy-ninth Congress the bill to give the District of Columbia national representation, by means of an amend-, ment to the Constitution, reached its highest point.

In the Eightieth Congress when Representative James C. Auchincloss, of New Jersey, worked for months perfecting his bill for home rule here, which can be passed by a majority vote in each House, our organization, after careful study, went on record on February 23, 1948, for the measure and the federation also endorsed its former stand, on November 22, 1948, when it authorized the department of legislation to send letters to the new Members of the Eighty-first Congress, advising them of our stand on home rule for the District of Columbia.

The Auchincloss bill (originally H. R. 4902, later revised as H. R. 6227) provides for:

1. A 15-member joint committee of Congress, for the present Senate and House District Committees and appropriation subcommittees composed of 52 members. 2. Grants suffrage for election of municipal officers only, based upon 1 year local residence, regardless of State residence.

3. Proposes a 12-member District Council elected at large by qualified voters of the District, as the District legislative body; 1 member elected by the Council as mayor.

4. Proposes an eight-member Board of Public Education, elected in the same manner as the District Council, to be in charge of public education and libraries. 5. Establishes a four-member Board of Elections, appointed by the President in the first instance and subsequently appointed by the mayor with the approval of the Council.

6. Concentrates administrative functions under a District Manager appointed by the Council as the chief executive officer of the District government.

7. Consolidates more than 60 District agencies of government into 12 departments.

These are the main provisions. There are of course many others.

The District of Columbia Federated Club women do not believe that standing for the provisions of the Auchincloss home-rule bill in any way repudiates their long endorsement for national representation for the District of Columbia. Moreover the passage of the Auchincloss bill, or a bill similar to it, does not in any way preclude the securing of national representation by a constitutional amendment later on.

We are informed that during the summer the House Committee for the District of Columbia shortened and clarified the Auchincloss bill, omitting some of the provisions on reorganization of the District government, leaving that to be done by the newly created District of Columbia Council.

We urge you to carefully study the new Home Rule bill for the District of Columbia when it is introduced and bespeak your interest in and approval of of the measure.

Sincerely yours,

ANNA KELTON WILEY,
(Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley),
Chairman, Department of Legislation,

District of Columbia Federation of Women's Club.

FOOTNOTE

FEBRUARY 17, 1949.

(By Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley, chairman of legislation)

It is the opinion of many club women that separate reorganization of the District of Columbia government at this time may complicate matters. It may be too great a change in the very beginning, after passage of the home rule bill. It may be better to elect the Council now and let the members of the Council gradually effect the needed reorganization. That will not be such a complete upset in the District of Columbia. The office of the Commissioners would go, after the passage of the bill. That would be the greatest change effected at this time.

We are not particularly concerned about the omission of the nonvoting Representative in the House of Representatives. We are not like Alaska or Hawaii. We have 500 people here in the District of Columbia to speak for us at any time to Members of Congress or to the press. That provision does not amount to a great deal. Rather the members of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs would like to begin at once urging the passage of the constitutional amendment to secure national representation for the residents of the District of Columbia, for which we have worked for years. If we prove in the District that the people are capable of governing themselves, it is our opinion that we stand a better chance of finally securing for ourselves the right to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States and of having adequate representation in the Congress.

A. K. W.

WASHINGTON 19, D. C., February 14, 1949.

Mr. A. L. WHEELER,

Chief Clerk, Senate District Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. WHEELER: It is publicly apparent that the District Committee is extending a sincere interest to provide a feasible and practical municipal government for the city of Washington.

In this connection I wish to offer this brief to secure consideration of thought in this development. As a native Washingtonian and one of the 146,000 persons in the District who support the general fund, it is felt that the following comments are in order:

First. Any provisional formation of home rule not having an equitable system of taxation by all those who benefit therefrom is but shallow economics, and its course would be less clear, less functional, and less desirable than the present commission government without representation.

(a) Congress must enact legislation to include the following, if a representative city government is to be successful in Washington:

Federal Government to pay its share of municipal expenses, estimated receipts, $12,886,000.

All incomes derived within the District to be taxed at present conformity schedules, whether a resident or not, estimated receipts, $87,000,000.

Revaluate land use with specific rights to tax such holdings of nonprofit institutions, organizations, and the like, which are not currently required for the operation of its affairs for the benefit of the public, estimated receipts, $2,400,000. Second. The taxes from the above sources is estimated to total $102,286,000, which is over and above the current sources of nearly $68,000,000. Accordingly, the total revenue would eliminate the need for a sales tax and the present incumbent personal-property tax which only 37,111 persons pay out of population of 983,000 people. Under a program of municipal improvements and operation which is imperative in planning, a revenue of $140,000,000 a year is necessary.

It is impossible for the District Commissioners to carry out an intelligent longrange development program under the present restrictions applied by Congress. For example, the water department as self-supporting with its assessments of $3,650,000 when approximately $53,000,000 should have been made available before this to keep abreast of rising population needs. The highway department is another example that is to operate from motor-vehicle assessments and use taxes which accrue about $8,600,000 per year. Of this amount, 15 percent is used to operate the traffic department, a police function.

It is interesting to note that the Federal Government has a revenue in income tax from the District of about $370,000,000, of which Congress favors a contribution between, six to nine million to offset administrative costs in return. The Commissioners, their staff, and departments should be complimented for their endeavor to perform public service when ways and means are not in evidence.

Third. If Congress is sincere in its proposal for representative government in Washington, the bill enacted must be comparable to the charter rights extended to the Territories with restrictions to assure protection of Federal interests.

This may be retained by keeping a three-man commission; one appointed by the President, one by the Chief of Corps of Engineers, both of which shall be approved by the Senate. One commissioner shall be elected by the residents

of Washington.

A Representative to Congress shall be elected by the people of the District. The City Council should not consist of more than nine members and one of which shall be full-time city manager. This would provide two council members from each section of the city.

Under no circumstance should the city be designated into ward areas.

The three main departments under the city manager would be Public Enforcement, Public Works, and Public Welfare with the respective divisions which normally operate under these departments.

In conclusion of this brief, I may add that the numerous proposals being pushed by left-wing groups are the concern of a majority of those who only come to Washington on organized expense accounts. If home rule is to be successful and stands for what it means let the people here decide for themselves as to what regulations we should be governed by; otherwise the Senate District Committee should drop the entire matter.

These views and comments are my own and not those of any group, organization, or party, but purely as a native resident with a sincere interest of a community matter.

Respectfully,

HOWARD P. BEACH, Jr.

HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(Statement by John Ihlder)

I am speaking as a resident of the District of Columbia. The basic proposition is that residents of the District of Columbia are American citizens and, therefore, have a right to take an equal part with other American citizens in electing their government.

The method of exercising this right by residents of the District of Columbia is affected by two facts:

1. The District is the seat of the National Government, which inescapably has concern in the government and the development of the District.

2. Because of this, and on the basis of experience when the National Government was located in other cities, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over the District.

Therefore District suffrage must ultimately include participation in the election of Members of Congress, which is its local governing body as well as being the legislative body for the Nation. Obviously District suffrage must also include participation in the election of President and Vice President because District residents are as much concerned as are residents of any other section of the country in the conduct of our national affairs.

While such an extension of the suffrage is not now under consideration, it must be mentioned because nothing less will be adequate. Until full suffrage is granted efforts to secure it will continue. Consequently anything less can be considered only an advance toward the ultimate objective.

With recognition of these facts, partial suffrage may be extended to the residents of the District if it is extended in a way that will not impede progress toward the granting of full suffrage. There must, of course, be recognition of of the fact that a partial suffrage has comparatively little appeal and, therefore, may be only partially availed of.

So long as plenary power resides in a Congress in which the residents of the District are not adequately represented, home rule is a term with comparatively

« PreviousContinue »