did not recede its land to the District of Columbia until 1890. It had its own control irrespective of the Commissioners until 1890. But I think that was the thinking then.

Now, developing that point, we also have heard over the years historial about the no foreign entanglements. We also had the Monroe Doctrine. But what happened? Our first outside war from the continental limits of the United States was in Santiago in 1898. Then we

went into Mexico after Villa and we entered Veracruz and then we had World War I, where we fought in France, Belgium, and Germany, and in World War II we had enlarged. The same thinking that may have been in the minds of Congress in setting up this jurisdiction has definitely been changed by the present Congresses. We now have our United Nations whi h was never conceived in the minds of men we looked to for leadership in this country. They were opposed tɔ it. Maybe many citizens in this country are opposed to it today. It was never sent to the citizens to see whether they were opposed to it. That was left to Congress. But with the ramifications over the world that you cannot support your city from taxation and with your foreign requests it has the people worried whether we are actually playing into the hands of Russia. It is something worth thinking about.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Have you heard any member of this cominittee complain about his work for the National Capital?

Mr. McKEE. No; it has all come from the newspapers and over the radio. I have never heard you be anything but courteous and interested in the problems of the District. I would like to go back to the joint hearings held about 4 years ago in the Senate and House when our late Congressman Bates who was killed in an airplane disaster and Senator Case headed the committees. At that time Congressman Bates asked for a town meeting to see whether the people wanted it. If you will read the testimony of the few people who appeared, it was amazing with all the stuff in the newspapers the little complain the people had. Frankly, I think it is the finest city and as well adninistered a city as any in the United States, though, like everybody else, I may differ on certain subjects at times.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The part that the Congress is supposed to play is the legislative angle. Have you heard anyone complain about not getting proper legislation from the Congress on District of Columbia problems?

Mr. McKEE. I wouldn't say that. The disagreement is so minute I couldn't call it such.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Every person has had a chance to be heard.

Mr. McKEE. Yes, sir; I have told many of them that we have a chance to go before the Commissioners and after that we can come before this body and the Senate. We have three open hearings. I don't believe that same opportunity is offered elsewhere in the country as it is in Washington.

Mr. REDDEN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ALLEN. Do you know whether there was any provision in the law which I presume was passed by the State of Maryland which limited the use to which the District ceded by Maryland might be put?

Mr. McKEE. I can tell you in a few minutes by rechecking that. However I may state that they had a different act in the State of Virginia in that certain large landholders here were directed in the selling of their lands to also raise money to put into being in 1900, the date set by Congress and the old landholders in the District did come up with the money demanded of them to start the seat of government. They had a chance to sell their lots and make money because the city coming here from a farm land for which they had to put up so much of that profit.

But in answer to your question, I don't believe that there is anything in here except where it says forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States, and full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the Government of the United States:

Provided, That nothing here contained shall be so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil as to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States: And provided also, That the jurisdiction of the laws of this State over the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid shall not cease or determine until Congress shall, by law provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner provided by the article of the Constitution before recited.

And then this act of Maryland ratifying the cession which I just read to you goes on to say:

And be it enacted, that all the lands belonging to minors, persons absent out of the State, married women, or persons non compos mentis, or the lands the property of this State, within the limits of Carrollsburg and Hamburg, shall be and are hereby subjected to the terms hereinbefore recited as to the lots where the proprietors thereof have agreed concerning the same; and all the other lands belonging, as aforesaid, within the limits of the said city of Washington, shall be, and are hereby, subject to the same terms and conditions as the said Notley Young, Daniel Carroll, of Duddington, and others, have by their said agreements and deeds, subjected their lands to

*

* *

but nothing along the line do I recall reading in here.

Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement. The next witness will be Mrs. George Malloy.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GEORGE W. MALLOY, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. MALLOY. As the representative of the 900 members of the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express the strong support of our league for S. 1976.

We have appeared many times before this committee to urge passage of legislation which would give District residents a voice in their local government. It seems to us that Washington citizens should have the same privilege of voting on local affairs that every other citizen in this country has. We feel that since these citizens pay almost $100,000,000 in local taxes they should have a say in how their tax money is spent.

S. 1976 incorporates the thinking of many groups interested in obtaining a form of self-government for the District. This bill will allow us to participate in our local government by providing for an

elected city council and an elected school board. At the same time the Federal interest in the District is fully protected.

Mr. Chairman, we sincerely hope your committee will act on this bill quickly, and that it will be reported favorably.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Is your organization one which writes to your members in the States and asks them to write to their Congressmen about this bill?

Mrs. MALLOY. Ours is the District League of Women Voters. We are supposed to act through our national organization on this. Our representative from the national league testified the other day for this bill and they were representing the leagues throughout the States. We are just representing the District. The people are furnished with material from the national headquarters. The bill has been summarized for them.

Mr. REDDEN. Has the organization you represent ever had a meeting on this bill?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Mr. REDDEN. A meeting of all its members?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes. There are two items of this bill on our agenda. Mr. REDDEN. The Case bill?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes. Our first unit meeting, in September or October, was on home rule and on this bill.

Mr. REDDEN. Was this bill read before the group?

Mrs. MALLOY. The summary but not the entire bill.

Mr. REDDEN. Your organization has approved every bill that was ever introduced for home rule since you have been connected with it? Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Mr. REDDEN. Even though each one of them is materially different? Mrs. MALLOY. We were not for the original Case bill. That did not come to the House, though.

Mr. REDDEN. Was it introduced in the Senate?

Mrs. MALLOY. I believe Senator Case introduced a bill in the Senate which we did not approve, and as a result of that and the Kefauver bill, this compromise bill resulted.

Mr. REDDEN. You have another bill which you were sponsoring and approved?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes; the Kefauver-Taft bill.

Mr. REDDEN. Had the Kefauver-Taft bill not been introduced, you would have approved the Case bill?

Mrs. MALLOY. No; I don't think that was a workable bill. We went over that rather thoroughly.

Mr. REDDEN. In your opinion has there ever been any other unworkable bill introduced at any time?

Mrs. MALLOY. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. REDDEN. How many members were present at your unit at which the bill was discussed?

Mrs. MALLORY. I can get the records.

Mr. REDDEN. Just your opinion.

Mrs. MALLOY. I would assume there were 300 or 400. We also had a luncheon meeting at which this same bill and the home-rule problem was discussed. We had an evening meeting which was attended by 70 or 100 additional people at which Mr. Van Arkel explained the particulars of this bill.

Mr. REDDEN. Was there any opposition to the bill?

Mrs. MALLOY. No.

Mr. REDDEN. Everybody was united 100 percent?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Mr. REDDEN. Is that customary in controversial questions that you folks always get together on them 100 percent?

Mrs. MALLOY. I might say we are 100 percent in backing this bill. There are parts of the bill that we feel are compromises that we are going along with. We would prefer other sections in it.

Mr. REDDEN. Your committee does not approve the appointment of a mayor in the District of Columbia?

Mrs. MALLOY. No; we do not.

Mr. REDDEN. You do not approve the appointment of a recorder of deeds for the District, do you?

Mrs. MALLOY. That has not come to a vote in our organization. We do not feel as strongly about that as about the mayor.

Mr. REDDEN. That phase of the Case bill was not mentioned? I believe he has a separate bill, is that right?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes; he is just putting one in now.

Mr. REDDEN. That committee of yours does not favor the appointment of any representative to hold any of these that you would call major offices in the District. Is that correct?

Mrs. MALLOY. Our organization believes that the Federal interest should be maintained in the government of the District and we prefer the method used in the Kefauver-Taft bill where two members were appointed by the President with the consent of the Congress over the mayor's appointment.

Mr. REDDEN. When you say your committee approves this bill, what you mean is that they will take it if they cannot get anything better.

Mrs. MALLOY. We recognize, realistically, that you cannot have everything you want, and we feel that this bill is workable. We do not feel we should oppose the whole home-rule movement because we do not favor the mayor's appointment.

Mr. REDDEN. Actually your committee does not approve the full provisions of this bill, does it?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes; we have voted on it and approve it but we prefer that your committee would consider seriously the fact of having appointed two members of the council rather than the appointed

mayor.

Mr. REDDEN. But you said you do not approve the appointment of a mayor. Is that right?

Mrs. MALLOY. We don't like that part of the bill.

Mr. REDDEN. You don't approve it even though you accept it with reluctance because you feel that is the best you can do.

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Did your committee study the system of elections, particularly the system of plurality elections in cities of comparable size? Mrs MALLOY. Yes, this matter of the majority and the plurality has been discussed over the years in connection with other bills and with this bill. We are not too concerned about that part of it.

We do feel that it would be sort of an annoyance to have the majority because you would have to have run-off elections and I think it is certainly a point to be considered. We don't feel too strongly one

way or another on this particular point. We were concerned with the ward system of government and that took up more time than the plurality or majority did.

Mr. ALLEN. Was there any discussion as to the actual experience on plurality elections in other cities?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes, we have gone into that and as a result of our studies which, as I say, have not been too profound, feel that the majority is preferable, but we are not too strong on this matter. We feel that if this thing-I know you have brought up this problem and you have mentioned your concern over what might happen. Perhaps we could go back and consider this more seriously than we have in the past.

Mr. ALLEN. I feel sufficiently concerned about this becoming a plurality system that it might change my views on the home rule.

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Have you given consideration to the two bills before us that provide only for the establishment of an electing system and the election of a delegate!

Mrs. MALLOY. We have, as you know, been for voteless delegates to the Congress and in 1943 we considered H. R. 2630. We hope that we would support that legislation and we hope that you would certainly go for it and give us an elected council and board of education.

Back in 1943 we have said among other things: "The election of a delegate would be the first step toward voting representation of the District of Columbia in the United States Congress." We feel that is a step more toward the national representation than it would be toward this home rule but I recognize that it would set up an election system for a mayor which of course would be helpful.

Mr. ALLEN. If this bill were passed, you would then at least have experience on who would register and who would vote and how many people would be interested in this particular bill, and you would have the additional implication of a plebiscite on home rule. Mrs. MALLOY. Yes. We hope that these other two parts would be included.

Mr. ALLEN. Does your organization consider the Case bill as a step in the right direction or as a final system of local voice in government not needing further amendment?

Mrs. MALLOY. That is a difficult question. We would have to see how it worked. We think, as I said, that this is a workable bill. We would hope that it would work so that we would not have to come back for amendments, but we still would hope that some day we might have the council manager form of government, which the league has always stood for rather than the mayor.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Does your organization approve of the proposed council system with the authority to borrow money?

Mrs. MALLOY. On that matter of borrowing, it has to go to the people for vote; does it not?

Mr. MCMILLAN. Yes. Does your organization approve of that? Mrs. MALLOY. Yes; we do.

Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much.

We will now hear from Mr. Clinton N. Howard.