The right of the people to elect a chief executive is a fundamental principle that has been with us since 1776. I see no reason to abandon such principle here. I stand squarely for the principle of pure home rule. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason to adopt a charter commission resolution at this time. To do so would delay for many years any action on home rule. Furthermore, the charter commission is but a crumb. I should, at this time, like to extend an invitation to the leaders of the Congress to join me in my support of S. 1681 as a bill which adequately fills the home rule needs of the people in the District of Columbia. I feel certain that the senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Morse, will join me in this statement. I need only refer to his excellent statement of last year before this subcommittee, when he, in stating his views about an appointed chief executive, said: It were better, Mr. Chairman, and I say this in all sincerity, and with all the conviction that I can, to forego for now, the illusion of home rule, in order that at a later date the substance of home rule may be truly attained. He further stated: I am not going to support a bill that represents a retreat in respect to a great principle the right of free men and women by the ballot box to elect their own mayor. Mr. Chairman, let me insert right here that I will not fight or in any way deter any lesser bill that might be reported. I might have misgivings but I would abide by the majority wishes. I have not the slightest intention of hurting the chances of a bill that others feel is adequate. In spite of the fact that it might not be all that I want, I would not hinder its progress. However, I want everyone to know just where I stand-the kind of true home rule legislation I want and which I believe to be in the best interests of the people of the District of Columbia. It is important that we not go backward, but forward. I see difficulty in getting a bill through the Senate that does not grant complete home rule. I remind the members of the subcommittee of the determined effort against a territorial bill in the 85th Congress. I am aware that my position which I advocate here may not coincide with the views of others in my party. I deeply regret that such difference may exist. I have considered this matter since last year and reached my decision. I have no course to follow except that which I feel will best serve the greatest number of people. I am convinced that any other proposal would not be home rule, but only a figment thereof. I might add that I am opposed to nonpartisan government. I also sincerely believe that persons living within a ward should be the determining factor as to who shall represent that ward in a legislature. I would request, Mr. Chairman, that, prior to any action on any bill pending here, such bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Metropolitan Problems to determine if there is any conflict with the final report of the joint committee and the recommendations contained therein. I am sure the able staff of the joint committee can report promptly on this subject. I cannot terminate my remarks without asking that everyone throughout this great Union of ours not only put his shoulder to the wheel and work for District of Columbia home rule, but also dedicate himself to the fight to obtain national suffrage by constitutional amendment for the people in the Nation's Capital. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator HARTKE. Senator Beall, I am certainly glad to have you here this morning, glad to have your interest. I certainly hope that we are able to do some good this time. Senator BEALL. Well, I want you to know that you still have my vote. Senator HARTKE. I have some insertions for the hearing record of today: Editorial from Washington Post of April 27, 1959, entitled "The Last Outcast of Democracy." Statement from Representative Charles A. Boyle in support of home rule legislation. Resolution from Petworth Citizens' Association, of Washington, D.C., opposing home rule legislation. Statement of Hyman H. Bookbinder, legislation representative, AFL-CIO, in support of home rule legislation. Statement of Thomas M. Woodward of Washington, D.C., opposing home rule legislation. Statement of Victor O. Schinnerer, president of Washington Board of Trade, opposing S. 659 and other home rule bills, and favoring Senate Joint Resolution 60. Statement of Walter J. Filling of Washington, D.C., favoring home rule legislation. Statement of Mrs. C. Rhodes Cox, president of District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers. Statement of Ladislaus J. Esunas, public relations officer, Vincent B. Costello Post 15, District of Columbia Department, American Legion, favoring home rule legislation. Poll of Board of Education of District of Columbia on S. 659. [From the Washington Post of Apr. 27, 1959] THE LAST OUTCAST OF DEMOCRACY New hope for home rule in the District of Columbia is rising out of the tide that swept Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. For many years the District has been knocking on the doors of Congress with petitions for self-government much short of statehood. The three areas have been regarded as the underprivileged children in the United States family. Now two of those children have been welcomed into the fold as full-fledged States. With the third child still crying on the steps of the Capitol, the argument for taking it into the family as a self-governing unit ought to be irresistible. In some respects Washington is presenting the most cogent appeal for political reform ever laid before Congress. Both Alaska and Hawaii had elected Territorial governments of their own and voteless Delegates in Congress even while the full privileges of statehood were denied them. The people of the District have no suffrage whatever, no local government worthy of the name, no voice in Congress, no sense of participation in the political life of the Nation. One reason for the long delay in bringing Alaska and Hawaii into the family was their separation from the other States. No such objection can be raised against the District, which is the Capital of the Nation and the center of its political life. Another point used against Alaska was its relatively small population. But the District, with its 850,000 people, has almost 4 times the population of Alaska and more inhabitants than any one of 12 States. The District is thus a far more conspicuous political freak and a greater embarrassment to the United States throughout the free world than Alaska or Hawaii ever was. Congress came to have twinges of conscience in the case of the neglected Territories. How can it possibly avoid more acute twinges of conscience so long as home rule is denied within the Capital itself? No other major capital in the free world is kept in a state of absolute disfranchisement comparable to that of Washington. The issue before Congress is not, therefore, simply one of granting the reasonable demands of a local community. Rather, it is a question-to borrow the words of Sturgis Warner of the District Home Rule Committee "of eliminating the last legal and constitutional anomaly in the United States." Congress has done remarkably well in the first two steps it has taken. Now it should complete its task by welcoming the last outcast into the family not as a State but as a self-governing city with a special function. There is nothing drastic, revolutionary, frightening or even strange about what the District is asking. Its request is simply for a restoration of self-governing rights that were swept away in a time of indignation over Governor Shepherd's excessive zeal in trying to keep Washington abreast of our national growth in the post-Civil War period. Home rule existed here when the District was established in 1800. Congress fostered and extended it until 1874. Since then there has been an appalling departure from American political principles in the continuation of what was essentially a receivership for the Shepherd regime. It is important to remember also that, in extending the appointed local regime in 1878, Congress did not intend to continue the abolition of suffrage. The House voted for a District council to be elected by the people. The Senate approved a District Delegate to Congress. These provisions for elected officials were stricken from both bills only because the conference committee could not agree on a compromise. When the Senate Judiciary Committee looked into this problem some years ago, it concluded that the right of suffrage still exists in the District. It cannot be exercised because Congress has abolished the offices which the people used to fill at the polls. In other words, a basic right that was clearly recognized by Madison and others among the Founding Fathers has been suspended because Congress has failed in its duty to provide the framework of a local government. The Senate is now keenly alert to its obligation to restore this right of local self-government. It is expected soon to pass a home-rule bill for the fifth time in recent years. All the pressure that can be applied to reverse the blunder of 1878 will then be focused on the House. The home-rule bill on which the community's hopes are now built is a product of long evolution. It is not a perfect bill. Some of its provisions are the subject of sharp controversy. Yet on the whole it is a good bill and apparently the only home-rule measure that has a chance of enactment at present. It has wide support among the members of both parties in Congress as well as the endorsement of the administration and local home-rule groups. The positive virtues of the bill are numerous. First, it would delegate authority to govern the District for all practical purposes to a local body. At present Congress is the real city council for Washington, a chore that it does not like and has no time to perform properly. Under the new system, local policies and programs, local appropriations and taxes would be voted by a legislative assembly responsible to the people. Like every other American city, Washington would then have control over its local affairs. Second, the ballot box would be restored to the disfranchised District. Local residents would elect the 15 members of the General Assembly at large, voting for 3 candidates from each of 5 wards. By this means District residents could exercise control over their schools, their public improvements and their social welfare institutions as well as their taxes. A third important provision would give the District a speaking but nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives. This would be admittedly only a stop-gap arrangement. By all the rules of fairness and logic the people of this city should have full-fledged representatives in Congress and should participate in the election of the President. But only a constitutional amendment could extend these rights to the District, and home rule should not wait for such an amendment. Meanwhile an elected delegate could be a most useful emissary of the newly enfranchised community on Capital Hill. A fourth basic fact about the bill is that it would leave in Congress the ultimate legislative authority over the District. Any act of the legislative assembly could be repealed or modified by Congress, and of course the home-rule system itself could be changed whenever Congress might see fit. This bill would not in any sense be a first step toward statehood for the District of Columbia. Instead, it would restore Congress to its proper role of general supervision over the seat of Government while freeing it from detailed involvement in municipal operations. This is a point of enormous significance to those members of Congress who find service as District councilmen to be especially burdensome. Criticism of the bill arises largely from its provision for a District Governor to be appointed by the President and the so-called double veto. Most local residents and many legislators would prefer an elected Governor. But there is historical precedent for this arrangement. The first mayors of Washington were appointed, and after a few years Congress permitted the people to elect their own mayors. Those who favor an appointed Governor see a special need for pulling together the national and local interests in the city in the initial stages of home rule. With the new system firmly established, it would be a simple matter to permit election of the Governor, if experience should demonstrate that to be desirable. The double veto can also be defended as a steadying hand on a new government. If the Governor should veto an act of the general assembly on the ground that it would adversely affect a Federal interest and the assembly should override that veto, the President could step in with a second irreversible veto. This might be very irritating to the local community on some occasions, but it would certainly afford every safeguard that might conceivably be necessary to curb possibly unwise local measures. The only other argument against the bill that seems to influence some Members of Congress is the large percentage of Negroes in the District's population. Actual experience has shown that there is little disposition on the part of Negroes to vote as a bloc, unless that is necessary for protection of their rights. But in any event a general denial of suffrage in order to prevent Negroes from voting is the very negation of democracy-the counsel of despair. In some measure the flight of high-income families to the Maryland and Virginia suburbs is a result of their disfranchisement in the District. The imbalance produced by this migration cannot be corrected by continuing to encourage it. Those who are worried by the District's changing population should be the first to work for the creation of a responsible local government which could address itself to the community's basic problems. As a neglected orphan that depends on action of Congress for authorization to spend its own revenue, the District has a very dismal future. As a selfgoverning and self-respecting community, it could emerge into a new era of social, cultural, and economic progress. Beyond this, a decent respect for the principles we profess as a Nation and for the solemn pledges made by both political parties demands that the rights of home rule be restored. The question is whether a little group of willful men in the House of Representatives shall be allowed to mock the principles of democracy in the Capital of the world's foremost democracy. The people of the District have demonstrated many times that they want home rule. The Senate wants it. The President wants it. There are many indications that the country also wants it and that a majority of the House would readily vote for it if given a chance. The use of minority obstruction to thwart self-government is doubly offensive. Years of effort have failed to dislodge the House District Committee from its indifference to this scab on the face of democracy. So it is to Speaker Rayburn and other top men of the House that the District and the country must look. In the past these leaders have been inclined to turn the other way while homerule bills have been asphyxiated and buried. Now they must be asked to bring home rule to a vote on the floor or face full responsibility for flouting their party's pledge and for continuing to make the United States Capital a byword for cynics everywhere. If these leaders are inclined to take command of the situation, they will have support from many sources. As Shakespeare has said, "There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." and that tide appears to be running today in favor of the neglected children of democracy. Now the only conspicuous political unit in this category under American control is the District of Columbia. For its sake, for the Nation's sake and for the sake of the free world, the country ought to rise up and insist that this breach of faith with the Founding Fathers and 850,000 loyal citizens be wiped out. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1959. Re District of Columbia Home Rule Hon. ALAN BIBLE, Chairman, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This statement is submitted in support of S. 659, Senate Joint Resolution 10, and my bill H.R. 5677. One of the most frustrating struggles in our national history has been the effort of the people of the District of Columbia to secure democracy. It has always seemed ridiculous to me that the citizens of the country, who live in the Nation's Capital, are not permitted to participate in government as voting citizens. I will never feel that we are living up to our constant profession of freedom and liberty until all of our citizens have the right to vote. When hundreds of thousands do not enjoy that privilege, and live in our Nation's Capital, it is extremely poor propaganda for the United States. The fact that the people of the District of Columbia do not have home rule, and cannot vote for the President who resides in their midst, is an anachronism of long standing. In 1874, because of a municipal debt crisis, Congress took over the municipal government of Washington as a strictly temporary measure. Describing the end of home rule in 1874, the news commentated-"Congress is still running Washington, and very badly, with Members of Congress doubling in brass as aldermen. The whole business is grotesque." Like many temporary measures, this one has been continued for close on to a century. Congress has never been able to agree on a suitable form of government, and voting privileges of the Capital's populace have never been restored. With the population of nearly 1 million, Washington, D.C., pays about $1 billion into the Federal Treasury each year in taxes. There are 25 States of the Union whose people contribute less than that amount to the cost of the Federal Government. District of Columbia taxpayers have nothing to say about how their tax money is spent. They also pay well over $100 million a year in municipal taxes and defray 85 percent of the cost of running their city. A committee of Congress serves as a municipal council under an anomalous arrangement. Yet, the national platform of both political parties in 1956, included planks favoring home rule for the National Capital. President Eisenhower's messages on the state of the Union, have urged that the principle of self-government be extended to the District of Columbia and the right of suffrage be granted to its citizens. In recent years, the Senate has passed many home rule measures, and each time legislation has been pigeonholed. This is a matter of grave concern to the people who reside in the shadows of the Capitol and the White House-and to all citizens of our country. The American colonists fought the war of the Revolution to escape the burdens of taxation without representation. It is indeed a sad commentary that after almost two centuries residents of the District of Columbia are still in that undesirable situation. It is my firm belief that self-government legislation for Washington, D.C., should be enacted during the present congressional session. Sincerely, CHARLES A. BOYLE, PETWORTH CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, INC., CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEAR SIR: Enclosed herewith please find copy of a resolution with regard to home rule for the District of Columbia, which was duly adopted at our meeting of April 22, 1959. Very truly yours, ANNIE E. HAMILL, |