5 members, etc., but make no provision for residents of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. It would seem that enactment of any of the bills offered would increase the cost of District of Columbia Government which, in turn, would increase taxes and make it necessary to borrow money. No real benefits to District of Columbia residents would accrue. A Congressman recently said: "I want the Nation's Capital to be a showplace. I think it proper and fitting that Congress should look after it and retain control." Another said: "The city never could be administered, under home rule, by such outstanding councilmen as Senators and Congressmen now serving on the District Committee. I stand with George Washington in favor of a Federal City." The Lincoln Park Citizens' Association, at a regular meeting on February 16, 1959, voted unanimous opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 10, S. 659, H.R. 1379 and 2321, and/or any other similar bills for so-called home rule for the District of Columbia. The members of the association believe residents of the District of Columbia will be better served at lower cost if the present form of government is retained. Very truly yours, J. WATSON FLANNAGAN, President. TEXARKANA, TEX. March 5, 1959. Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Texarkana branch of the American Association of University Women voted at the last regular meeting to solicit your support of home rule bill for the District of Columbia. We feel that every adult citizen of this Nation should have the privilege of voting. And we also feel that the people of the District of Columbia should no longer be denied local self-government. We will appreciate all efforts you make in support of this bill. Yours respectfully, DOROTHY ELDER, Chairman, Legislative Committee. "Whereas the Society of Natives of the District of Columbia, Inc., has every year since it was organized in 1920, favored national representation as a necessary element for any kind of suffrage for the District of Columbia, believing that no genuine suffrage can be granted to the District without said national representation; and "Whereas the society is opposed to the proposed territorial home rule bill introduced recently by Chairman Bible of the Senate District Committee, and which it provides in part for a presidentially appointed Governor, and a nonvoting elected delegate. These provisions lack the very essence of suffrage, that of denial to the residents to elect their own Governor and a delegate with no voting power in the House; Be it, therefore, "Resolved, The society believes that the most equitable action for Congress to take, and in justice to the residents of the District of Columbia, is to pass legislation which would provide for a plebicite, which the society has recommended for years, to find out what the residents want, whether they want national representation, local suffrage or both, or the commission form of government, and not to force upon the residents some form of local suffrage about which the majority of the residents have had no opportunity of expressing themselves; and be it further, "Resolved, That copies of the resolution be sent to the chairman of the Senate and House District Committees as well as the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and respectfully urge that due consideration be given the same." Submitted by Etta L. Taggart and adopted this 26th of January 1959. STATEMENT OF ALAN OLSHINE, B'NAI B'RITH, RE HOME RULE BILL S. 659 Mr. Chairman, my name is Alan Olshine. As past president I am representing the B'nai B'rith Council of Metropolitan Washington. B'nai B'rith is the oldest and largest Jewish Service Organization in America with a national membership of over 400,000. There are over 5,500 B'nai B'rith members residing in the District of Columbia. It is an honor and privilege for me to be speaking in their behalf urging the adoption of home rule legislation S. 659. In recent national conventions, B'nai B'rith has consistently supported home rule for the District by adopting and reaffirming resolutions for home rule legislation. We honestly feel that the adoption of the proposed bill S. 659 would give the District residents the genesis of local self government, consistent with the democratic precepts and principles upon which our country was founded. We feel that the adoption of this bill would free the Congress from the onus of acting as a local city council, especially at a time like the present when their energies can then be channeled to urgent matters of pressing national and international importance. We urge you to act most favorably and promptly on S. 659. STATEMENT OF MRS. HELEN ACKERMAN, WASHINGTON BRANCH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C. I am Mrs. Helen Ackerman representing the Washington branch of the American Association of University Women. We are submitting our statement which reaffirms our position taken 2 years ago. We have taken note of the stand taken by Senator Morse and commend him for his interest in home rule. Our position, however, remains unchanged and we continue to support the stand taken by the Senate last year in S. 1846 and this year in S. 659. STATEMENT ON HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AMERICAN The American Association of University Women, Washington Branch, has supported home rule measures for the District of Columbia over a period of years. Through our efforts suffrage for the District has been placed as an item on the legislative program of our national association, and supported by the 145,000 members throughout the States. The members of our Washington branch are citizens of the District who are keenly interested in the progress and development of the community. We are well aware of the many problems involved in the governing of the city. We believe that participating citizens take greater interest and pride in the community. Washington needs this interest to achieve needed municipal improvements and to provide for sound urban growth. We believe the District of Columbia could be better cared for if the residents were given an opportunity to show their interest by electing representatives to a legislative body for local affairs. Busy Congressmen and Senators concerned with thousands of measures dealing with national and international affairs should not be required to devote their time to the many bills necessary for the local governing of the city. Although our branch has supported previous home rule measures which provide for a full measure of local suffrage, we now support a measure such as S. 1846, which the Senate passed last year. This bill includes three important provisions of home rule—the restoration of suffrage to the citizens; the creation of a government responsible to the people; and an elected delegate to the Congress. It gives the city a large degree of autonomy through the legislative assembly elected by the citizens. The various checks on the legislation in the veto of the appointed governor and the President meet the criticism of former bills. The constitutional congressional authority is, of course, the final check on District legislation. We appreciate the long interest and support given by the Senate District Committee, as well as the Senate itself, to home rule for the district. We respectfully urge the committee to vote a home rule bill similar to S. 1846 out of the committee as early as possible and to give it your full support in the Congress. Hon. VANCE HARTKE, THE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE Chairman, Subcommittee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HARTKE: It is my understanding that hearings are being held on home rule legislation for the District of Columbia. Our organization subscribed fully to that plank in the 1956 Republican platform which provided: "We favor self-government, national suffrage and representation in the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia." Recent polls we have taken among Republicans registered in the District of Columbia under the District primary law, indicate support of this platform pledge by more than 70 percent of the voters who responded to our inquiry. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Francis Case' bill, Senate Joint Resolution 60, Senator J. Glenn Beall's bill, Senate Joint Resolution 71, and S. 659, the administration's Territorial self-government bill. Will you incorporate this letter in the record? With warm good wishes, I am, Sincerely, CARL L. SHIPLEY, Chairman. Senator HARTKE. Is there anyone else here who has not been called who wishes to make a statement this morning? The hearings will be kept open, and additional statements which are desired to be submitted for the information of the committee will certainly be welcomed. We do have two Members of Congress who are to be heard, Senator Wayne Morse whose absence is not in any way to be an indication of his lack of interest up to this time. Due to other committee meetings which he was required to attend we have had to postpone his appearance before the committee until Wednesday. Also Congressman Schwengel advises me that he cannot be here this morning and he also requests the opportunity to testify on Wednesday. Senator Beall also will testify at that time. Additional witnesses will not be called unless there is someone who feels there is a need for further clarification. I think we do have up to this time a rather comprehensive study of this matter and probably enough information so that if it is properly digested and considered we will be able to proceed accordingly. The hearings will now be in recess until Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1959.) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARTER ACT THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess and subsequent postponement, at 9:40 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Senator Vance Hartke presiding. Present: Senator Hartke and Senator J. Glenn Beall. Also present: William P. Gulledge, counsel; Donald P. Feldman, assistant counsel; Chester Smith, chief clerk; Charles W. Lee, assistant chief clerk; and Lacey C. Wilson, legislative assistant to Senator Frear. Senator HARTKE. Good morning, Senator. We'll proceed with the hearing and with Senator Beall's testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. J. GLENN BEALL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a great honor and privilege to appear before this subcommittee and present my views to this subcommittee. I thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I might say that I have been making this statement for some 15 years, and this is pretty much the same situation. I do hope that this year the bill, or a bill, fares better than any previous legislation has. Senator HARTKE. I would like to say, for the record, that Senator Beall agreed to testify any time, and practically any place, on this matter, but he did want to make sure that he had an opportunity to testify. We are certainly glad he has such a definite and defined interest in the subject. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator BEALL. Mr. Chairman, it is, as always, a great honor and privilege to appear before this subcommittee and state my views on the District of Columbia home rule legislation now pending before the subcommittee, and I thank you for allowing me this opportunity. As is generally known, I have consistently and actively supported home rule legislation during my tenure of office in both Houses of the Congress. I have not yet seen my efforts culminate in home rule for the citizens of the District of Columbia, but I am not disheartened-nor do I feel that I should lessen my efforts. Rather, I feel that the time has come for all of us to double our efforts. Now, during this Congress, is the time to act, and I have no intention of doing otherwise. I wish to emphasize to the members of the subcommittee that what we are doing here is more than just another attempt for home rule legislation during another Congress; this is a fight for the rights of a large group of disenfranchised persons to the end that they might conduct their own affairs. I want to remind all persons involved in this hearing (and those thousands of others who, though not here, are deeply interested in the action the Congress takes on this legislation) that the 85th Congress, after a fight of many years, gave statehood to Alaska and that this Congress has already voted the benefits of statehood to the Hawaiian Islands. We of the Congress are well aware of the length and bitterness of the battle to obtain statehood for these Territories. The proponents of those statehood bills never gave up; each year they worked harder. Their persistent efforts obtained for the people of Alaska and the people of Hawaii the fruits of statehood. There is no course to follow with home rule legislation but that course which most benefits the citizens of the District of Columbia. I recall how many people asked me, during the previous session of Congress, to introduce, and subsequently to support, a bill (S. 1846) which is substantially the same as one of the bills under consideration by the subcommittee today, namely S. 659. No one ever said that this bill was not a sacrifice of principle; this was conceded. The proponents of the bill assured me that it would be passed by the other body. I was almost convinced by these people that the other body of the Congress would accept S. 1846, as opposed to S. 1289, the true home rule bill. The facts speak for themselves. S. 1846 succumbed to a very pleasant and quiet death in some steel file cabinet located nearby. Gentlemen, if I am going to see my efforts year after year suffer such fate (until our goal is ultimately attained) then I want these efforts to be my best. I want to go on record as against any sacrifice of principle. I admit that last year I was beguiled into being a half-a-loaf proponent. I have no intention of being put in that position again. I do not believe that expediency will dictate what the Congress will do. I do not believe anything can be gained by compromise in this particular matter. Basing my position on almost 40 years of public life in the service of the people of the Free State, 17 years in the two Houses of Congress-I can state as a certainty that if the proponents of S. 659 have the votes to send that bill to the President, then they have the votes to send S. 1681, a real home rule bill, to the President. Let us face the issue squarely. No one can govern for others better than those persons can govern for themselves. An appointed governor is not, and could never be, a representative of the people. An elected chief executive, like any elected representative, must have a feeling of what those who elected him want, and respond to that feeling. If he does not, the people have a fascinating veto power which in itself is final-he is voted out of office. An appointed chief executive need not be concerned with the wishes of the people; his only concern is whether or not the appointive power is smiling on him. |