ord your letter of February 16 to the chairman of the subcommittee and also the memorandum on the constitutionality?

Mr. PURCELL. I would, very much, if that is acceptable to the committee.

Senator KEFAUVER. They will be made part of the record. Your statement will appear in the record as given to us. If you want to read it, all right. If you want to state it, you will have an opportunity of correcting your remarks.

Mr. PURCELL. If it would save any of the committee's time, I would like to have the statement put in. I would be very glad to answer any questions which you may have.

Senator KEFAUVER. Suppose we put the statement in and you tell us extemporaneously what your ideas are, and then we will ask you questions.

(The statement of Mr. Purcell and other material above described is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF GANSON PURCELL, WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOME RULE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

My name is Ganson Purcell. I am an attorney in Washington, D. C., and I appear here representing the Washington Home Rule Committee to present before your subcommittees our suggestions with respect to a bill to provide home rule for the District of Columbia. I wish to thank the committee, on behalf of our group, for granting us the privilege of appearing here this morning in order to address ourselves to this all-important subject.

The Washington Home Rule Committee is an informal group of some 70 men and women who are residents of Washington and who are interested in providing for the people of Washington a form of elected representative government in and for the District of Columbia. The organization of our committee was initiated in December of 1947, and it has worked actively since that time in the furtherance of this objective. Its membership is composed of businessmen, lawyers, newspapermen, and Government employees, who are taxpaying residents of the District of Columbia. Our names appear at the end of this statement.

We have a form of proposed bill here today which we should like to hand to the committee for its consideration. This bill is based largely on the so-called Auchincloss bill (H. R. 28, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). In the later stages of its preparation, our committee had the benefit of consultation with representatives of the District Democratic Central Committee. Actually the bill presented by the Democratic Central Committee which is now the Senate committee print, and the draft which we are submitting are largely identical as a consequence of this collaboration. Our bill is exactly the same as the Senate committee print which you now have before you as to at least 95 percent of its language. Our bill and the Senate committee print differ, however, in certain important respects which I shall discuss a little later. We are presenting a separate draft only for purposes of convenience to your committees. Although our diffeernces while fundamental, are simple, their presentation in bill form requires minor technical alterations at a great many points in the committee print.

I should first like to discuss the differences between our bill and the Auchincloss bill, and then take up the differences between our bill and the Senate committee print.

Our committee's proposed bill follows the general plan of the Auchincloss bill by providing for an elected District council to exercise legislative powers, and a District manager, appointed by the District council, to act as chief executive of the District government. It also, like the Auchincloss bill, provides for an elected board of education, a delegate from the District to the Congress, and a referendum to be held among the voters of the District to determine whether the provisions of the bill shall take effect.

The chief differences between the Auchincloss bill and our bill are two in number:

(1) Our proposal is based on the same theory as were the organic acts provided by Congress for the various Territorial governments and, hence, provides for the usual Territorial delegation of local legislative authority to the District council, as opposed to the legislative proposal machinery incorporated in the Auchincloss bill.

(2) The bill omits the rather exhaustive provisions of the Auchincloss bill which provide for a broad reorganization of the District government.

I should like to discuss briefly these two points.

First, in effect, our proposal would grant to the District council complete legislative authority with respect to the District, subject to certain specific limitations. These are that the council may not enact laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or which are inconsistent with general laws of the United States which are applicable to the District, such as, for example, the Federal income-tax laws. Furthermore, the council may not enact laws which purport to amend or repeal the provisions of the bill itself or which would constitute steps usually forbidden to Territorial legislatures, such as taxing United States Government property or establishing a lottery.

In addition, the bill expressly reserves the constitutional authority of Congress to legislate at any time for the District of Columbia, whether or not a law so enacted would be in conflict with a law enacted by the District council. In this connection, the bill would further provide that the District council may not pass any law which would be in conflict with a statute enacted by Congress under its reserved authority after home rule goes into effect. On the other hand, of course, the council would have authority under this proposal to repeal or amend congressional statutes relating to the District which were enacted before home rule became effective.

The authority proposed to be given by our form of bill to the District council is to be contrasted with the more limited authority given the council by the Auchincloss bill, under which all proposed legislation other than mere "ordinances" must also go before the Congress for its affirmative action before enactment into law.

The constitutionality of such a delegation of legislative authority as that proposed is fully supported by the memorandum of the Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives which was printed for the Auchincloss committee during the Eightieth Congress and by a memorandum prepared by the Washington Home Rule Committee in support of the first Auchincloss bill (H. R. 4902, 80th Cong.). In fact, none of the distinguished counsel who submitted opinions on last year's Auchincloss bill questioned the validity of giving the District council legislative powers equivalent to those of a Territory. The counsel for the board of trade was among those who specifically upheld the validity of such a delegation. The constitutional objections which some of those gentlemen had to the Auchincloss bill were directed at the legislative proposal features of that bill which have been eliminated in our bill. A special memorandum in support of the constitutionality of the provisions of the bill which we are now proposing has also been prepared by our committee and is attached to the bill being submitted to you today.

Turning now to the second point of difference between the Auchincloss bill and the bill which we are proposing-the omission of detailed reorganization provisions—our bill proposes to give complete authority to the District council to reorganize the District executive agencies which are transferred by the bill to the executive office of the District manager. Those transferred constitute all but a half dozen of the agencies now exercising local governmental authority with respect to the District. The bill also provides for a commission to study the whole problem of the organization of the District government and to report its findings to the District council and to the Congress not later than January 1, 1952. However, the District council is not required to await this report before taking action, but may take such steps toward the reorganization of the existing governmental units, prior to its submission, as may seem desirable or necessary. We of the Washington Home Rule Committee believe, for a variety of reasons, that it would be a mistake to include the reorganization provisions of the Auchincloss bill in any bill providing for home rule. Not that our committee is cpposed to reorganization-in fact, we favor it. Nevertheless, it seems important to us that a home-rule bill should present as few and as simple issues as possible. In other words, such a bill should provide solely for the restoration to the residents of the National Capital of a democratic form of self-government. Neither

the Members of Congress nor the citizens of Washington who will participate in the later referendum on adoption of a home-rule plan should be asked to pass upon the details of governmental organization for a great city such as this. Some of these details involve very debatable questions, such as whether the city auditor should be under the department of finance whose books he is to audit, as the committee print provides.

In our opinion, the manner in which the District government is to be reorganized should be left to the District council which we are going to elect to run our affairs. We think that is the businesslike way for Congress and for the people of the District to handle the matter. After all, it is one of the basic objectives of any home-rule measure to relieve the Congress of just such troublesome local chores and permit it to devote its energies entirely to the problems of the Nation as a whole. If there are any details of reorganization which involve Federal agencies beyond the power of the District council, they can be carried out by the President or the Congress after appropriate consideration. It is on this subject that our bill chiefly differs from the committee print based on the bill submitted by the District Democratic Central Committee, which reinstates the reorganization provisions of the Auchincloss bill.

One further difference between our bill and the committee print should be mentioned. The Democratic Central Committee omits from its bill the provisions contained in ours which provide for a nonvoting Delegate to the Congress. We think that such a Delegate would be of great assistance in bringing before the Congress for its action, matters affecting the District which will continue to call for congressional consideration after home rule is adopted, such as the annual Federal appropriation. Here again, we are endeavoring to draw on the lessons and experience of the Territorial governments. A Delegate should be of great assistance to both the District council and to the Members of Congress.

The Washington Home Rule Committee believes that the essential objective is home rule for the District, and not any particular bill. We hope and expect to cooperate with all groups in the District similarly minded. We believe that the bill we have submitted represents the most effective method of achieving that end. Our committee is prepared, however, to support any bill drafted by the Senate and House committees which has as its major objective the restoration to the people of the District the right to run their own civic affairs through their own elected public servants.

MEMBERS OF WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE

John W. Andrews, 2913 Glover Driveway NW.
William P. Bundy, 4431 Klingle Street NW.
W. Graham Claytor, Jr., Union Trust Building
Lloyd N. Cutler, 1210 Eighteenth Street NW.

Mrs. Lloyd N. Cutler, 3616 Prospect Avenue NW.

Mrs. A. Peter Dewey, 3125 O Street NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Eicholz, 1327 Thirty-third Street NW.
John Ferguson, Barr Building

Mrs. John Ferguson, 3405 O Street NW.

William J. Flather 3d, 1508 H Street NW.

Mrs. William J. Flather 3d, 4360 Van Ness Street NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Richard Friedman, 1344 Twenty-ninth Street NW.

Gerhard A. Gesell, Union Trust Building

Mrs. Gerhard A. Gesell, 3304 N Street NW.

Charles C. Glover 3d, 1210 Eighteenth Street NW.

Mrs. Charles C. Glover 3d, 35 Duvall Drive NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Grand, Jr., 4408 Edmunds Street NW.

Philip L. Graham, 1337 E Street NW.

Mrs. Philip L. Graham, 1647 Thirtieth Street NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Najeeb E. Halaby, Jr., 1211 Thirty-fifth Street NW.
Alexander B. Hawes, 1703 K Street NW.

Mrs. Alexander B. Hawes, 3204 Reservoir Road NW.

Marshall Hornblower, 1411 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Mrs. Marshall Hornblower, 4800 U Street NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Fisher Howe, 4611 Q Street NW.
Malcolm S. Langford, 1210 Eighteenth Street NW.
Mrs. Malcolm S. Langford, 3754 Jenifer Street NW.
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Mitchell, 30122 R Street NW.
John A. Nevius, 1639 Nineteenth Street NW.

Newbold Noyes, Jr., Eleventh and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Mrs. Newbold Noyes, Jr., 3 West Lenox Street, Chevy Chase, Md.
Louis F. Oberdorfer, 1614 I Street NW.

John H. Pickering, Transportation Building

Mrs. John H. Pickering, 4708 Forty-eighth Street NW.

Ganson Purcell, Barr Building

Mrs. Ganson Purcell, 3501 Macomb Street NW.

Benjamin Rathbun, 2126 Connecticut Avenue NW.
Howard Rea, 1614 I Street NW.

Mrs. Howard Rea, Highlands Apartment House
Gordon S. Reid, 1341 Twenty-seventh Street NW.
Gerard Reilly, 1435 K Street NW.

Mrs. Gerard Reilly, 1615 Thirty-fourth Street NW.

James B. Reston, Albee Building

Mrs. James B. Reston, 3340 Dent Place NW.

Chalmers M. Roberts, Eleventh and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Charles Rogers, 2501 Foxhall Road NW.

Mrs. Edward F. Ryan, 4840 Reservoir Road NW.

Samuel Spencer, 1712 H Street NW.

Mrs. Samuel Spencer, 4814 Dexter Street NW.

Ezekiel G. Stoddard, 1210 Eighteenth Street NW.
Mrs. Ezekiel G. Stoddard, 4420 Hadfield Lane NW.
Lloyd Symington, 1703 K Street NW.

Mrs. Lloyd Symington, 3030 Chain Bridge Road NW.
Merle Thorpe, Jr., Colorado Building.

Lewis H. Ulman, 815 Connecticut Avenue NW.

Mrs. Lewis H. Ulman, 2242 Forty-ninth Street NW.
Sturgis Warner, 1435 K Street NW.

Ms. Sturgis Warner, 3320 Dent Place NW.
Philip H. Watts, 1906 Florida Avenue NW.

Mrs. Philip H. Watts, 1513 Twenty-eighth Street NW.
George Y. Wheeler 2d, 724 Fourteenth Street NW.
Mrs. George Y. Wheeler 2d, 2510 Foxhall Road NW.
Glen Wilkinson, 744 Jackson Place NW.

Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Young, Jr., 3318 Dent Place NW.

FEBRUARY 16, 1949.

Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Home Rule,

Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: The Washington home rule committee respectfully submits herewith a draft bill to provide local self-government for the District of Columbia. This bill, with certain exceptions, is the same as the bill submitted by the District Democratic Central Committee.

As you know, the 1948 conventions of both major political parties included planks promising home rule for the District of Columbia. Enactment of the bill which we propose would be a faithful fulfillment of the platforms of both these political parties. Enactment of this bill would be a great satisfaction to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, and a culmination of their now historic struggle for home rule.

The draft bill is based largely on the Auchincloss bill (H. R. 28, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). It differs from the Auchincloss bill mainly in the two following respects:

(1) The draft bill is based on the same theory as were the organic acts provided by the Congress for the various Territorial governments and, hence, provides for the usual "“Territorial" delegation of local legislative authority to the District Council, as opposed to the "legislative proposal" machinery incorporated in the Auchincloss bill.

(2) The draft bill omits the rather exhaustive provisions of the Auchincloss bill which provides for an extensive reorganization of the District government. The reasons for and the advantages of these changes which we have incorporated in the draft bill will be covered at length in our testimony in the coming hearings before your subcommittee.

We have been aware of the fact that the action of Congress in granting home rule must conform to any limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the power of Congress to enact legislation concerning the District of Columbia. Accordingly,

we have been constantly alert to avoid making a proposal which could subsequently be invalidated by the courts.

It is our conclusion from studying the constitutional authorities in the course of preparing our draft bill, that the bill proposed by us, as well as the bill submitted by the District Democratic Central Committee, are constitutional in every respect. The reasons upon which we base this conclusion are set forth in a memorandum which we are enclosing.

Summarized briefly, our views are as follows:

1. The power of Congress to legislate concerning the District of Columbia is equally as broad as the power of Congress to legislate concerning the Territories of the United States.

2. The Congress has unquestioned power to grant general legislative authority to the Territorial legislatures.

3. The Congress has power to grant similar general legislative authority to the District Council. The draft bill would grant such power to the Council.

4. We believe that previous decisions by the United States Supreme Court sustain this interpretation of the power of Congress.

Respectfully yours,

WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE. By: GERHARD A. GESELL.

CHARLES C. GLOVER III.

GANSON PURCELL.

HOWARD W. REA.

A. LLOYD SYMINGTON.

STURGIS WARNER.

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DRAFT BILL SUBMITTED BY THE WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE

"A municipal legislature for local purposes, levied from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them" (The Federalist, No. 43).

I. INTRODUCTION

The Washington Home Rule Committee has presented to the Home Rule Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia a draft bill which would provide a form of local self-government for the inhabitants of the District of Columbia. This bill authorizes the establishment of an elected District Council endowed with the power to legislate for the District. In this respect, the draft bill submitted by the District Democratic Central Committee is identical.

This memorandum concerns the constitutionality of granting legislative powers to such District Council.

II. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DRAFT BILL

The three pertinent sections of the draft bill submitted by the Washington Home Rule Committee are sections 421, 503, and 504, the relevant parts of which are as follows:

"SEC. 421 (a). Except as provided in subsection (b) and subject to the reserved power of the Congress as provided in section 504, there shall be vested in the District Council complete legislative power over the District with respect to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution or with those laws of the United States which are applicable but not confined to the District, provided that such subjects are within the scope of the power of Congress in its constitutional capacity as to legislature for the District of Columbia as distinguished from its capacity as the National Legislature * *

"SEC. 503. The District Council, within sixty days after the end of each fiscal year, shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate copies of all laws enacted during the fiscal year."

"SEC. 504. The Congress of the United States reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District of Columbia, by enacting legislation for said District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the District Council by the Act, including without limitation legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District of Columbia prior to the enactment of this Act, any law enacted by the District Council, or any provision of this Act."