Senator KEFAUVER. Is there anything else pertinent in the State Aid to Local Governments that you think would be of use to the committee that you could have printed as part of your statement?

Mrs. MUNROE. Frankly, I had the idea, and then I had to go find the materials, and I had to do some chasing. I used the materials that were most readily available, appearing in a statistical abstract of the United States; and there were various other reference materials in the library which I was not able to take out.

The statistics were the problem, and I had to use the ones I could find.

Senator KEFAUVER. Is there anything else, Dr. Galloway?
Dr. GALLOWAY. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Munroe.
Mrs. MUNROE. Thank you.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mrs. Dunn, do you have any other statement? Mrs. DUNN. No; I just want to thank you for the consideration of our opinion, and we hope that this bill may pass very soon.

Senator KEFAUVER. I may say to you and the other witnesses here that the substance of your statements made prior to the drafting of the bill, and your statements now, will be included in the final record.

We may have two volumes, but they will both be available to the Members of the Senate. We appreciate the benefit of your testimony. Thank you.

Mrs. Adams?

Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Pierce has covered everything in his statement that I wished to say.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you, Mrs. Adams, for being here. Do you join in his statement?

Mrs. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. IS Mr. Elwood Davis, president of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, here?

(There was no response.)

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Ganson Purcell and someone else representing the Washington Home Rule Committee?

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Warner is here this morning.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right. Come around, Mr. Warner. Mr. Purcell, we are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF GANSON PURCELL, WASHINGTON HOME RULE

COMMITTEE

Mr. PURCELL. As you have said, I represent the Washington Home Rule Committee, which, as I described on our previous appearance, is an informal organization of about 70 men and women, residents of the District, who are interested in securing home rule. We were organized in December 1947, and I believe the record of the last hearings included the names of our membership.

Addressing myself to the bill, S. 1365, in the very brief time that we have had available it has hardly been possible to give it the kind of examination which such important legislation deserves. However, we believe we understand the general outlines of the bill.

To a considerable extent, the bill is similar to the committee print of February 15 and to a draft of a home rule bill which we submitted

in the previous hearings. Both of those were derived largely from the previous Auchincloss bill.

We are glad to note that it has been possible to adopt a considerably shorter form of bill, and we are also glad to see that the changes have been made with respect to the method of electing members of the District Council. We regard that as a marked improvement over the previous proposal.

In general, we want to make it clear that we would regard the passage of this bill as a welcome step toward the ultimate goal which should some day be reached, that of giving the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to govern themselves, the right which other citizens in America have.

We regret, however, on what we regard as the most important issue involved in this legislation, namely, the scope of legislative authority which is to be granted to the District Council, that S. 1365 represents what we feel is a retreat from the provisions of the committee print of February 15.

As in the case of the bill submitted by our committee, your committee print provided for the delegation of the elected District Council of full legislative authority over the District of Columbia, subject only, of course, to the qualifications which are commonly included in the organic acts of the various Territories of the United States.

S. 1365, on the other hand, reverts to provisions which we included in the first Auchincloss bill, H. D. 4902, of the Eightieth Congress. These provisions establish a distinction between ordinances and other legislation. While ordinances might under that approach be passed by the District Council, other legislation could be enacted only through a procedure under which so-called legislative proposals, which are adopted by the District Council, must lie before the Congress for a stated period before becoming law, and were subject to veto by a resolution of a single House as well as subject to the veto power of the President.

We regret this retreat because in our opinion it is not justified by questions either of constitutional law or of policy.

So far as constitutional questions are concerned, the overwhelming body of opinion upholds the proposal t delegate the same full scope of legislative authority to a District government as that which has been delegated to Territorial governments in the past. Among those who have taken this position are such eminent men as Dr. Edward S. Corwin, Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt, Mr. E. F. Colladay, general counsel of the Washington Board of Trade, the legislative counsel of the House of Representatives, and others.

On the other hand, serious questions have been raised as to the one-House veto arrangement embodied in H. R. 4902 of the last Congress and repeated in this bill.

It will be remembered that former United States Attorney General William D. Mitchell in the opinion which he rendered to the Auchincloss committee on H. R. 4902 says this provision was, and I quote: Subject to serious attack as unconstitutional.

Presumably it was as a result of the doubts created by Mr. Mitchell's opinion that the Auchincloss committee eventually reported a bill, H. R. 6227, which substituted for the one-House veto a requirement of positive enactment of District legislation by the Congress.

While our committee does not share in all due deference Mr. Mitchell's view as to the constitutionality of a one-House veto, we believe that these doubts will make it far more difficult to secure the passage of home rule legislation by the Congress and favorable action in the popular referendum provided for.

As I have indicated, it is our opinion that Congress can, as a matter of policy, delegate to an elected District Council less than the full scope of legislative authority which it has delegated to Territorial governments. It is difficult, however, for us to understand why Congress should choose to do so.

Under the provisions of the committee print of February 15, the right of Congress to override District Council legislation by regular enactment is explicitly reserved, as indeed it would be reserved in any case under the Constitution.

This reserved power seems to us entirely adequate to protect Congress against the remote possibility that the District Council might adopt legislation adversely affecting the national interest in the District of Columbia. On the other hand, the one-House veto procedure of S. 1365 may cause considerable delay in the enactment of needed District legislation since Congress must be in continuous session during the entire 60-day period during which a legislative proposal must lie under the bill before it.

Furthermore, this procedure involves Congress much more intimately in the responsibility for District legislation than it would be if the Territorial form of delegation of authority were adopted. Presumably, for instance, the staff of the District Committees of the two Houses will be required to investigate and report on every legislative proposal laid before Congress.

The kind of legislation which we are anxious the District Council should be free to enact has, in most instances, no relation to the national interest in the seat of government. We cannot understand why Congress should wish to retain any more than the irreducible measure of control prescribed by the Constitution over such questions as the law of dissent or distribution, conveyance of real property, the conditions of granting of divorce, the laws of incorporation, procedure for probate of wills, and so forth.

It may, on the other hand, be replied that the District Council's legislative proposals on such matters will, if there is no national interest in them, become effective through lapse of time without veto. If this is true, the provision of the veto as well as the lapse of time seem to us unnecessary.

Most of the problems which come before Congress for veto under S. 1365 will probably be of even far less importance than those which I have mentioned. S. 1365 gives to the District Council as ordinance-making authority only the present authority of the District Commissioners.

As a result, if the present conservative interpretation of the powers of the Commissioners is followed, Congress can expect to have on District Committee calendars legislative proposals similar to the bills which now appear there.

I might call to the attention of the committee its own legislative calendar as of March 5, 1949, which includes bills of such pressing