HOME RULE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m. in room 445, Old House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris presiding.

Mr. HARRIS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The first witness this morning will be Mrs. Louis Ottenberg, representing the National Council of Jewish Women.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LOUIS OTTENBERG, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I am Mrs. Louis Ottenberg. I represent the National Council of Jewish Women. Mrs. Gottshegen, who is here to testify for the Washington section of the national organization, will also bring you the National Council's endorsement of the Case bill.

I have lived here for 40 years. For 25 of those years I worked exclusively for national representation for the District of Columbia. My husband is a native Washingtonian, and my children and grandchildren are also notive Washingtonians. I have grown old and gray working for national representation, and if the stones of this Capitol Building have been chipped and roughened, it is because we have butted our heads fruitlessly against its stone walls in our efforts to secure national representation.

I have attended many congressional hearings on local suffrage, and I have not heard any genuine criticism of the period between 1801 and 1865 when Washingtonians enjoyed local suffrage and self-government.

The period between 1865 and 1870 seems to be the period drawing the greatest fire. Then the village of Washington became crowded to overflowing with carpetbaggers and hangers-on, and with white and colored people settling here in an effort to escape the results of war conditions.

It was during this period of reconstruction, about 1870. that the hybrid territorial form of government was set up here, with Alexander R. Shepherd as Governor. He attempted to make Washington a real city by carrying out the L'Enfant plan, which was strictly a paper plan up to that time.

That Shepherd succeeded is generally accepted history. That the District ran into debt to make a city out of a mudhole is also well

137

known. But that every penny of that debt was repaid by the District to the Federal Government with interest is not so generally well known.

In the midst of this chaos a deal was made between the District and the Federal Government whereby the District was induced to give up its suffrage and accept a commission form of government in consideration of having the United States pay one-half of the operating expenses of the District. This was known as the Organic Act of 1878 and the 50-50 plan. That this deal was not entirely satisfactory to the then voteless residents was evident, because by 1888 a bill for national representation was introduced in Congress.

I regret to say, gentlemen, that the United States reneged on its bargain. First it required the District to pay 60 percent of the expenses of the District while the Federal contribution was cut to 40 percent, and later it resorted to the lump-sum appropriation which has dwindled to about 8 percent, and this in spite of the fact that the United States is reported to own about 41 percent of all of the land in the District.

For more than 60 years bills for national representation have been introduced, but never have reached the floor of either House of Congress, and thus the people of the United States have never had an opportunity to pass upon this question.

The first recorded hearing on that measure was held in 1916. In 1922, the Senate District Committee reported favorably on the constitutional amendment for national representation. Two subsequent Senate District Committees also reported favorably. In 1941 the Senate Judiciary Committee reported adversely. That same year the House Judiciary Committee reported favorably, but the Rules Committee failed to grant a rule to permit the amendment to reach the floor of the House.

About 1938, Judge Hatton Sumners, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and considered even by the late Chief Justice Taft as one of the outstanding constitutional lawyers in Congress, told a group of Washington leaders that we had better give up the dream of an amendment to the Constitution as our immediate objective and concentrate on a simple act of Congress to restore local selfgovernment to the District of Columbia. In this, the then chairman of the Senate District Committee, Senator McCarran, concurred, and said further that we could never get a constitutional amendment. through, because it was a hopeless job and merely a trick on the part of the opponents of home rule to divert us from getting local selfgovernment.

Therefore, during the past 15 years my organization, the National Council of Jewish Women, as well as a number of other national groups, broadened its scope to include local self-government for the District.

A number of arguments have been made by witnesses before this committee which I should like to touch upon briefly.

1. If we persisted, as did the women suffragists, we would ultimately obtain the amendment. As one who worked for that women-suffrage amendment, I want to say that it was not until after at least a third of the States had women's suffrage, including the State of New York with its large congressional representation, that women succeeded in having the amendment submitted to the States for ratification. I am

sure that you gentlemen know that there have been literally thousands of attempts to amend the Constitution and how few have succeeded.

2. On the matter of how many people vote back home in national elections, may I refer you to the testimony of Mr. Edward F. Collady, an opponent of the Case bill, which appears on page 27 of the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on House Joint Resolution 62, held February 14, 1945.

Judge Abernethy, I agree with you that there has been apparent apathy on the part of District natives in pressing for local self-government. However, constant frustration over so many years is bound to develop a what-is-the-use attitude.

When I came to Washington as a bride 40 years ago, my husband, a native Washingtonian, was secretary of the Committee for National Representation. He worked many years for the amendment and for local self-government. He quit through utter exhaustion and frustration.

On the other hand, people coming here from the States where they had a voice in how their schools, police, and other municipal functions should be conducted are the first to deplore their voteless condition. Voting for those things back home would give them but little satisfaction here where they are actually living and raising their families.

Answering those who say that we have a model city government here, I beg to refer them to our daily press, which, day after day, reveals crime, dope peddling, gambling, and the like. The Washington Evening Star and the Washington Post have recently, yes, as late as yesterday, pointed out the glaring neglect in the care of our children, in and out of institutions, and the utter inadequacy of the program for these children and of the buildings housing them.

Citizens' efforts to correct these conditions have persisted for over 50 years without substantial results. Is this the model city? Maybe, but only under the popular definition of a "model," that is, a small working design of the real thing.

I am not a historian, Mr. Chairman. I got my information from the records of the different hearings, so I will do my best to answer any questions on history. I have heard the family discuss it, and my father-in-law, who came here in about 1850, but I would be glad to answer any questions that you have.

Mr. HARRIS. Are there any questions?

Mr. ABERNETHY. I would like to ask a few questions.

Mrs. Ottenberg, you made a very revealing statement, and your statement is based around the principle of national representation. In other words, it is based around full citizenship. That is what you are working for?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. For full participation; yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You are also working for full citizenship?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Well, I am a citizen. It is just that I would like to participate as a citizen.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Full participation, shall I say? In other words, I think what you are working for is the right to participate in government from the President down to the, shall I say, lowest, if there is any such office, in the land?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Yes, sir.

97650-52-10

Mr. ABERNETHY. And the mere privilege of voting for a council, which Mr. Case, who sponsors this bill, says has no real exclusive authority, that its acts will always be subject to the eye and the scrutiny, change, and amendment by the Congress. That will not answer completely what you are striving for; that is right, is it not? Mrs. OTTENBERG. Well, I trust the Congress of the United States. We have trusted them all these years. I do trust them.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me ask a question, and I think you are going to agree with me. You have stated that you are interested in full and complete participation and citizenship, that is, insofar as governing yourself and your community and your Nation is concerned. And I think you have a right to work for that. I am willing to help you now. You may question that.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I do not. I know of your devoted service to the District over a period of years.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then you must agree with the gentleman who authored the bill himself, Senator Case, that the mere privilege of voting for a council which is nothing in the world but a proxy of this Congress does not answer the effort, which you and your association are striving for.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I realize this is a Federal city. I do, Judge Abernethy, and I would be the first one to strive to maintain some Federal control. I absolutely agree with the provisions in the bill that give a measure of supervision to the Federal Government. I do not want to go into that Maryland deal; but if we did go into it, there the Federal Government would lose control.

Now I get this from Judge Sumners in the many conferences that I had with Judge Sumners. He said that that exclusive jurisdictio. clause was put into the Constitution to exclude the States, not to exclude us.

Mr. ABENETHY. I hesitate to interrupt, and I hope you will not think I am being discourteous. You know we southerners do try to be courteous sometimes. We have that reputation, anyhow.

Mrs. OTTENBEG. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. However, you have stated that you want the right to participate as other citizens do in government. If you do, and I think you do I know something about your work, and I know something about the work of your husband-then you cannot be satisfied with this, can you?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I can, yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You can?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I can.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You will be satisfied with an appointed mayor? Mrs. OTTENBERG. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You will be satisfied with a Delegate and not a Congressman?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You will be satisfied with no Senator?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. All you want is a council which can meet and pass a resolution which can be overthrown by the Congress? That is all you want?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I want national representation eventually.
Mr. ABERNETHY. You just now said you did not want that.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. We are going to work for it. We are going to work for national representation, but we want some semblance of city government. We want the citizens of the District to lose their apathy. They are getting subservient. They just do not care. I do not know whether you saw the two pages in yesterday's Star showing our children's institutions and how deplorable they are.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I saw that.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. We have worked there ever since I came to Washington.

Mr. ÅBERNETHY. Do you think that electing a council which is nothing but a proxy of this Congress will solve all the gambling, all of the crime, all of the dope, and all of the problems among your children in the District? They have that in every city of this land today, or at least some of it, do they not?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Yes; but the people deserve the kind of government they have. If they do not turn the rascals out, then they are asleep. Let us wake up and know what is going on in the District. Our citizens, believe me, Judge Abernethy, are so asleep on the job. You will agree with that, will you not?

Mr. ABERNETHY. No; I do not think the citizens are asleep. I think you have a very fine citizenship here. I honestly do. I hope you will not misunderstand me.

I hate to belabor the point, but you opened your statement with the statement that you have been interested in working and you have been putting your head against the Capitol and it made cracks in it, trying to get national representation. However, you have just now said that you do not want a Congressman, that you do not want a Senator, and that all you want is this council. Then, you went back and said, "We want national representation."

If you do not want a Congressman or a Senator and you want the Federal Government to have some supervision over the District, what kind of national representation do you want?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I did not say immediately. I think eventually. Mr. ABERNETHY. What kind? Let us find out where we are going to.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. As to the different bills that have been introduced in Congress for national representation, some have carried one Senator and some have carried two Senators.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You just said you do not want that. I want to know what you want.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Eventually I think we would have a better chance if we had a city council.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You cannot have a city council that will really have complete control until the Constitution is amended. Senator Case stated that himself. You heard him say that.

I want you to have the right to vote for President and Vice President

now.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. For the present I would even settle for the provisions in the bill for a voteless Delegate.

Mr. ABERNETHY. We do not want to settle. We want to get this in one basket and see where we are headed. What do you want for the future in national representation?

Mrs. OTTENBERG. I would like to have a Congressman with a voice.