Mr. REDDEN. But if you had a preference you would give him full power in the Congress by vote.

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. REDDEN. Of course you realize what this committee has to do is to pass on the bill before us and not on preferences expressed. Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; our comment is for very slight changes in the bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Would you achieve all of the objectives if the property which the Federal Government needs for a Capitol for governmental use were retained and the rest of the community ceded back to the State of Maryland?

Mr. HALL. We do not favor the parceling out of any of the land. I think the dignity of our Capital requires this area that we have, and more. What we ask is that we have some form, as Senator Case said, of participation in self-government but not to the extent of demanding statehood by cession to Maryland of land that was taken for 10 square miles.

Mr. ALLEN. Something you said creates the doubt in my mind about this dilemma which the people face. They wish to have practically full rights of a State if they can get them, but also they want to have a Capital of the 48 States, and the two jurisdictions seem to come into conflict. I am trying to find out which you want most; the Capital or the suffrage that the people in the other States have?

Mr. HALL. As a citizen of the Nation, I favor a fine Capital here and seat of government, and it is almost world government, and I wouldn't trade that for local advantage, and I don't think our organization would be in favor of any such trade as that.

Mr. ALLEN. Primarily, you want this control to remain in the Capital of the United States?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. REDDEN. And not jeopardize that position by getting miscellaneous rights of citizenship which, if you feel sufficiently about them, you could get by moving over to Virginia or Maryland.

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.

Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Lane.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. LANE, SOUTHEAST BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. LANE. I represent the Southeast Businessmen, which takes in this category and beyond to a slight extent.

At the last meeting of our committee the Kefauver bill was discussed in its entirety, and they were opposed first because of the language of the bill, in that there are 15 common councilmen to be elected by the Washingtonians as a whole, and that committee felt that councilmen wouldn't be responsible for particular wards.

Secondly, they were opposed because of the appointment of the mayor by the President-that he would only be accountable to the President.

Thirdly, they were opposed because they felt that the Capital of the United States was intended to be the seat of government and to be free from political matters. The consensus of the opinion of the

97650-52-13

Southeast Businessmen is that we have a very good government here and that we have been functioning very well since the inception, and they are not desirous of making any change.

Mr. MCMILLAN. In your opinion, you wouldn't trade the government for any other city government you know of at the present time?

Mr. LANE. I have traveled much, and I was mayor of a political town for 12 years and went out of office without being defeated, and I think this government under the eye of Congress is the cleanest government in the world.

Little things happen from time to time, but they are corrected quickly. I have observed European cities, and I have been all over this country, and I think they have got a very fine government here. Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lane. We will now hear from Mr. Clifford H. Newell.

STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD H. NEWELL, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS, THE WASHINGTONIANS

Mr. NEWELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to appear at the request of Dr. J. Ross Veal, the president of the Federation of Citizens Associations, and also Miss Etta L, Taggart, chairman of our suffrage committee. They have asked me to present their statement.

First, I will read the statement of Miss Etta L. Taggart. [Reading:]

STATEMENT OF ETTA L. TAGGART, CHAIRMAN, SUFFRAGE COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS

No action has been taken by the Federation of Citizens' Associations on S. 1976. On Saturday night, March 15, 1952, a motion was made by one of the delegates to the federation to take some action on S. 1976. This motion was sidetracked when another motion was made to refer the matter to the suffrage committee. The latter motion was passed.

As the chairman of the suffrage committee of the federation, you are informed that the committee has received no communication from any member body of the federation as to any action taken on this bill. The Washingtonians, the organization which I represent, went on record as opposing S. 1976 at their March meeting, a report of which is as follows:

"It is recommended and requested that the record of the hearings on the bill be held open for report of any action which may be taken by the federation at its next meeting on April 5, 1952, when the suffrage committee will report."

That is a short statement from the chairman of the suffrage committee.

Now, Miss Taggart is also president of the Washingtonians, which is one of the member bodies of the federation, and that is, as the name implies, made up of several hundred of our very outstanding citizens here in the District of Columbia who were born here and have always lived here.

Now, again, this is a statement from the Washingtonians.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTONIANS FOR ETTA L. TAGGART

She says first [reading]:

My name is Etta L. Taggart, and I live at the Highlands Apartment. I am a native of the District of Columbia and have lived in the said District all of my life. I am a practicing attorney. I represent the Washingtonians as its president. The organization is a citywide one and stands for everything which is for the best interests of the District of Columbia and the United States.

At the March 1952 meeting of the group, S. 1976, an act which would provide for supposed home rule for the District of Columbia, was thoroughly discussed, with special emphasis on the question of its constitutionality. We maintain that the name "home rule" is a misnomer because the bill deals with purely local matters, and to have genuine suffrage in the District there must be national representation. There has been much discussion in previous proceedings on this constitutional question, especially on whether Congress can delegate to a District council (as provided in the bill) its power to legislate over the District. We think not. In article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States is the following language:

"17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.

* *

That language is simple, clear, and understandable. In connection with the question of whether or not Congress can delegate its powers to the people of the District to legislate, we recommend that every member of this committee read, if he has not already read, the entire testimony of the late Henry H. Glassie, a well-known constitutional lawyer of this city, which he gave at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in 1928 (H. J. Res. 18). Mr. Glassie stated in part at this hearing:

"Now, the constitutional provision for exclusive legislation means the same to every man. It means one legislation, not a divided legislation; not a superior and subordinate legislation; one single sovereignty, one law" (p. 71 of the above hearings).

Mr. Glassie told the committee that Congress cannot delegate to the people of the District the power to legislate, and he also stated that

"The Supreme Court has held, and our courts have held, following the Supreme Court, that the words of the Constitution 'shall have exclusive legislation in all cases' excluded the idea of a local legislature."

*

He went on to say: "I * * ask you to settle your mind upon the question of 'exclusive legislation in all cases.' That means the lawmaking power. Now, that cannot be delegated unless you can get the Supreme Court to change its views. But, of course, there are things that can be delegated, and one of those things that can be delegated and be governed by local vote is the administration of a mere municipality. It is the same distinction as the distinction between ordinances of a municipality and the legislation of a legislature in a State. There is a line perhaps difficult to draw, but perfectly established between what a municipality in your State, or any other State, can do in the way of local regulation and what only the legislature of your State can do."

Attention of the committee is called to the fact that the Washingtonians have for many years endorsed national representation for the District, and if this is not granted to the people we have been on record as receding the District back to Maryland, with the exception of Federal holdings. At a hearing on the budget in March 1948, the representative of this group stated:

"Congress has closed its eyes for many years in connection with the question of maintaining the District of Columbia as it should be maintained, and it is about time for it to awaken and constructively act on our problems; otherwise cede us back to the State of Maryland, where we will at least be granted one of the greatest privileges ever granted to the citizens of the United States-the right of franchise."

In March 1946, as chairman of the Committee on National Representation, I personally recommended in a minority statement to the Federation of Women's Clubs in the District of Columbia as follows:

"The principal thing for us to remember is to continue to be good citizens and honor our Government, whether or not we are granted suffrage by the Congress of the United States, which body will always govern the District of Columbia, unless we are ceded back to Maryland or become a State, which is not probable." The above is cited to impress the committee with the fact that the matter of receding the District back to Maryland is not a new idea.

We recommend and have been on record for many years favoring a legal plebiscite for the District and the passage of legislation to cover the same by which Congress could get from the residents, first hand, whether or not they want suffrage. They should ask the following questions:

1. Do you want suffrage?

2. If so, do you want national suffrage?

3. If so, do you want local suffrage?

4. Do you want both national and local suffrage?

It would seem that section 1801 of the bill has the cart before the horse because any referendum to be had should be had before the passage of any suffrage bill. If a referendum or plebiscite was held under proper legislation of Congress, it would result in getting the wishes of the people on the suffrage question, and perhops stop the introduction of so many so-called home-rule bills with which the people are now faced.

The Washingtonians oppose S. 1976, and to force this on the residents of the District of Columbia would, in my judgment, result in the filing of many suits in court by those who might be dissatisfied with certain acts of the council which would affect them favorably. In fact, a most chaotic condition would be created and it would be playing with fire, so let's avoid, if possible, such confusion. In discussing the bill, before concluding this statement, I would like to men- tion some of the sections to which we specifically oppose. We oppose section 324, title VI, because it is not believed that a District council can act as agent of Congress in the discharge of powers granted the Congress by article 8, section 8, paragraph 17 of the Constitution of the United States; oppose section 324 (d), which provides for reservation of congressional authority, because by such a provision the most important elements of home rule are lacking; we oppose title IV, section 401, dealing with the appointment of a mayor by the President of the United States, because we think if a mayor is to be had then he or she should be elected by the people, and be their choice, and not the choice of the President, and he should be a bona fide resident; oppose title VIII, section 801, providing for an elective school board; oppose title IX, section 901, the appointment by the President of the members of the board of elections, believing the members should be elected by the people; oppose, under same title, section 906, because it does not eliminate dual voting in said bill; and we oppose title XVII, section 1701, which provides for a Delegate with the right of debate but no voting, as a representative of the District should be allowed to vote and take part in our national affairs.

Concluding, the group believes that if S. 1976 is enacted into law there will be the probability of suits being filed to attack it on the ground of unconstitutionality, and we believe also that the bill is of no advantage or benefit to the people of the District of Columbia. It is not a genuine home-rule bill.

Respectfully submitted.

Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. NEWELL. Now, as a private citizen, I would appreciate just a few moments of expressing my own personal views.

I have resided in the District of Columbia for the past 35 years. I have been quite familiar with all of these so-called home-rule bills that have been presented in Congress.

I have been president of the Federation of Citizens' Associations, and I am now on the executive board of the federation. I have been president of my own member body, the Arkansas Avenue Community Association, and I have been generally quite active in civic affairs throughout the city. I have watched these bills, as I said, and I have found this true: I have found that there seems to be, as the people become more and more familiar with the different sections of these so-called home-rule bills, a great distaste to this bill, realizing first of all that Congress has the duty imposed by the Constitution to look after the affairs of the District of Columbia, both legislative and administrative, and they have become more and more conscious that these bills that have been brought up from time to time are not homerule bills. As a matter of fact, I think there is less interest on the part of the people in the District of Columbia today on this particular bill than there has been on any other bill in the past 20 years.

Now, the reason for this is that they become more and more conscious of socialistic tendencies, and they feel that this bill is tinged with socialism. They feel it does not actually and honestly grant to

the people any real voice in the affairs of the people of the District of Columbia. We have been living under what we consider a very adequate and very good form of government here in Washington. I am quite conscious that there are people who appear before your committee advocating the passage of this bill who maybe have some personal ambition for wanting to see the bill passed.

Let us divide them into three classes of people in the District. There is one class who hope, if they can have a bill of this character passed, that they might get some political advantage and perhaps a position out of what would happen.

Mr. REDDEN. Have you seen any prospective candidates for council before the committee?

Mr. NEWELL. Oh, yes, indeed. In fact, I don't mind saying to you gentlemen now that way back when the Auchincloss bill was up before Your Honors I was asked by one of the ambitious people in this city to become his campaign manager so that he might get on the council. But, laying levity aside, I want to say this: that I do honestly think this--and I may be wrong, but I don't think I am; I am only guided by what I do know in this statement and by what has taken place with some 65 member bodies of our Federation of Citizens Associations I have yet to learn of any organization except the Washingtonians who oppose the bill again, and have yet to learn of any organization that has taken any action on this particular bill. When we had the Kefauver bill up, most of our associations personally took action upon that bill, and the result of their action resulted in, I think, about 30 of the organizations opposing the bill and about 14 favoring the bill. Now, that might be one reason, too, why the federation at our last meeting took no action in regard to this matter. I think perhaps some of these 14 organizations that formerly favored the Kefauver bill might hesitate now on account of the deletion from the bill of any statement of any kind in regard to Congress participating in the expense of governing the District of Columbia.

If you will recall, the Kefauver bill, I believe, provided for a $20,000,000 a year appropriation to help us pay our bills here in the District of Columbia.

Now, I am specifically opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. In the first place, I quite agree with the Washingtonians when they say that they question the constitutionality of this bill. I think that people generally realize that, if we were to have this bill enacted into law and we were to be governed under the provisions of this bill, we would experience, just as the Washingtonians say, that they would be attacks in court upon almost anything that might come up before that council because they feel that Congress cannot delegate the actual management of the District to the council.

Mr. REDDEN. I assure you the committee has taken that into consideration.

Mr. NEWELL. Now, the next thing I am opposed to is this: that people who are not real residents of the District of Columbia, as we term residency, would have the opportunity of voting tremendous bond issues against the people residing here in the District. As a matter of fact, I believe I am correct when I say that only about 20 percent of the people in the District of Columbia pay any direct taxes. That is, of course, with the exception of possibly what income tax or what sales tax they may incur.