Mr. TEAGUE. That comes back to the point that Mr. Redden made and the point I mentioned many times before, that I do not believe the group who advocates home rule actually believes in this voice in government, as you mentioned. I agree with you on that 100 percent, but I do not agree with complete home rule.

If that group believes in complete home rule, then I think the only answer is to make this a State or give it back to Maryland. I would support right now a bill that would give it back to Maryland. But as you say there, I do not think it can be buried until it is settled.

From the people you have talked to, do you believe they would be satisfied with this bill, or do you believe this is just a step and next year they will come back for something else, and it will all start over again? Senator CASE. I think that if this were enacted, it would be given a reasonable trial before something was started for something else. I have no idea that this is a perfect bill. The Constitution has been amended

Mr. TEAGUE. Senator, do you believe that these people who talk home rule mean complete home rule or a voice in the local government? Which do they mean?

Senator CASE. I think that varies with individuals. I think that some of them think that they want home rule in the complete sense that you have just described. Others of them feel that if they could elect people who would be answerable to them for what they do about the city government, they would feel that that was a great step and advance. That is what really a great many of them want. They want somebody who is answerable to them for the regulations that are prescribed under which they live and under which taxes are levied. There is nobody answerable to the people of the District of Columbia directly today.

Mr. TEAGUE. That is all I have.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Sittler.

Mr. SITTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement and ask a couple of questions. One is that Senator Case's effort bids fair to make a freshman homeruler out of me, and I want to commend him very highly inasmuch as I know what influence his statement has had upon my thinking. It is a very clear-cut presentation of a most sensible plan, and he has testified with great honesty.

This is my question, since I am not an attorney, and I would like to direct it to Mr. Abernethy, who is.

Mr. HARRIS. Let us direct it to the witness because Senator Case has other things he has got to do and I hope he can complete his testimony.

Mr. SITTLER. I will do that immediately then. Senator, is there any place in the Constitution where it says that taxation without representation is tyranny?

Senator CASE. I have thought that was basic in our whole American concept.

Mr. SITTLER. Is that not a more fundamental principle almost— not more fundamental than the Constitution, but certainly one of the fundamental principles that brought about the Constitution?

Senator CASE. It is; it brought about our independence. You have stated the traditional way in which we have said that. I said, "No principle is more ingrained in Americans than that taxation without representation violates every concept of democracy."

I did not want to suggest that the people of the District of Columbia live under a tyranny because I think that these committees of the Congress are too sympathetic. But still it is not what we have talked of as the American way of life to have people taxed by a body which is not answerable to them.

Mr. SITTLER. Is it not true that the people in the District of Columbia are taxed but are not represented in the expenditure of those taxes?

Senator CASE. That is true.

Mr. SITTLER. Then those who would defend the Constitution, it seems to me, would be called upon to defend that point even as those who have called for home rule are called upon to defend the delegation of authority that is in the Congress to those who would be its appointed representatives.

Senator CASE. We do, I think, provide the people of the District of Columbia with the right of petition to these committees and to the delegations here. But we do not give them representation. We do not give them a voice.

Mr. SITTLER. That is my only point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. Senator Case, it is almost 12. If you would bear with me just a moment, I have about two or three questions that I would like to ask in order to clear up my mind as to the intentions of the proposal that we have before us today.

In the first place, this is quite different from the proposal we had in the Eighty-first Congress called the Kefauver-Taft proposal, is it not?

Senator CASE. It is very much different, I would say.

Mr. HARRIS. I have noted substantial changes from the comparison that this committee has had made of that bill, the Auchincloss bill in the Eighty-first Congress, and this one that you have before you

now.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I understood you were making a comparison. I would like to have a copy for my files, if I may. Mr. HARRIS. Very well, we will have the clerk give you one. I am sure you cooperated with other proponents not only here on the Hill but those interested probably downtown in preparing this version of the present legislation. Was there any particular thing that brought about the fundamental changes of the previous legislation in the preparation of this?

Senator CASE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was the testimony that came out during the consideration of the so-called Kefauver-Taft bill. Mr. HARRIS. Now I am just going to try to get short answers to short questions because the time is up. I know we could talk about this a long time. What was it in the hearings that caused you to feel justified, for instance, in increasing the number of the council to be elected from 9 in number to 15, proposed in this bill?

Senator CASE. To give a little more effective voice. If I remember, the other bill had 11 members, 2 of whom were to be designated by the President. There was some feeling that these two would be given a little different status and that they might tend to dominate the council. We thought by the device of having the councilmen elected by the city at large, but nominated from wards, that we would insure representation for the various parts of the city and yet make it possible for a harmonious council to be elected. That is, you could have slates or

tickets of conservative or liberal or whatever it might be, reform candidates, whatever the local designation might be, where you could have a slate which would run through the city with a sort of harmonious viewpoint of government, but at the same time insure representation for every ward or every part of the city.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the Washington Board of Trade had voiced some specific objections to the other bill, which was S. 656. We definitely sought to meet 11 specific objections which they had raised, and if I might, I would like to leave for the record a statement embodying those objections and the reference to the way in which we sought to meet those specific objections.

Mr. HARRIS. S. 656 was in what Congress?

Senator CASE. That was the Eighty-second Congress. That was the Taft-Kefauver bill.

Mr. HARRIS. I was thinking that was S. 1527.

Senator CASE. S. 1527, I think, was the alternative bill which I had personally introduced.

Mr. HARRIS. Anyway, the record would show. That will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The material is as follows:)

MEMORANDUM ON THE POSITION OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE ON HOME RULE PREPARED BY ROBERT C. ALBROOK, ASSISTANT TO SENATOR FRANCIS CASE The Washington Board of Trade stated its views on home rule most recently on March 1, 1951, at Senate District Committee hearings on the Taft-Kefauver bill (S. 656). The proposed substitute home rule bill appears to overcome at least 11 specific objections the board had to S. 656 and represents a conscientious effort to incorporate the constructive suggestions of the board.

The board of trade

(1) Objected to two Presidential appointees on the council as a dilution of home rule. The substitute proposal eliminates them.

(2) Objected to a 1-year domicile requirement for council candidates and suggested 3 years. The new bill makes it 3 years.

(3) Objected to the congressional veto as leaving all council actions subject to indiscriminate congressional attack and said this is not real home rule. The new proposal eliminates the veto. (The Constitution, of course and this is affirmed in the new bill-still will give Congress ultimate authority to legislate on all subjects for the District. But many States have like authority to amend or repeal the laws under which their cities are chartered or from which they derive their various powers.)

(4) Objected to the city manager form of government and the fact that an “outsider" might be hired to run the city, saying all cities over 500,000 have the mayorcouncil form. The new bill uses the mayor-council form and requires the mayor to have lived and been domiciled here for 3 years.

(5) Objected that a dozen reorganized city departments would be headed by men chosen without confirmation by the council. The new bill not only leaves reorganization to the council but gives the council the right to confirm department heads.

(6) Objected to cutting off fees and fines that now go to the District. The new bill eliminates that section.

(7) Objected to half a dozen reorganization features of S. 656. The new bill eliminates all of them.

(8) Objected that Board of Education members were not required to be District residents. The new bill requires them to have been residents and domiciled here for 3 years.

(9) Objected that the District would lose the services of the Army engineer. The new bill permits the mayor to negotiate with the Government for such services and is no bar to a continuation of the present engineering arrangement.

(10) Objected to persons voting in two places. The new bill tends to eliminate this by barring from the polls here any who participate in municipal elections elsewhere and by barring from voting for Delegate any who vote in any elections elsewhere.

(11) Objected to use of surplus revenues exclusively for schools. The new bill permits use of surpluses in any fashion the council directs.

The board also has said it wants no local home rule until full national representation in Congress is achieved through constitutional amendment for the District. The new proposal takes a practical step in this direction by providing for a nonvoting Delegate in the House from the District. As a practical matter, full national representation, sought unsuccessfully by the District for half a century, still seems far off. But this campaign will suffer no loss of "steam" by enactment of the home rule bill, for the two objectives are so different that they can be easily distinguished.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it fair to ask if you had the advice of counsel and cooperation of the same people in preparing the present proposal that is before us now that prepared the proposal in the Eighty-first Congress which passed the Senate and was considered over here by this committee?

Senator CASE. I cannot answer that fully because I do not know who prepared the other bill. But I do not mind telling you how this bill was prepared. The bill which I first introduced in the Eightysecond Congress, which I offered as an alternative but on which we did not hold hearings, was prepared under suggestions which I made, and the bill was drafted by Mr. Gulledge, who is the assistant legal counsel to the District of Columbia Committee in the Senate.

That was more or less of a personal effort on my part, but the Senate did not consider that, failed to report the Taft-Kefauver bill by a 6-to-6 vote. Then I worked with Mr. Allbrook, of my own office, and Mr. Van Arkel, the counsel to the District Committee in the Senate, in the preparation of this bill; and Mr. Van Arkel and Mr. Albrook consulted with various people throughout the city who had been identified with the home-rule question and also talked with members of the board of trade.

Mr. Albrook, I believe, met with different groups and discussed the bill in detail; and out of that kind of a background S. 1976 was written.

Mr. HARRIS. I wanted to ask you this: In view of the discussion that you had a moment ago with Mr. Abernethy on the basic issues. here, and that is with reference to the delegation of authority, do you distinguish between legislative enactment by the Congress and ordinance making-I believe you called it findings or rules or regulations-which are necessary in the administration of legislative policies? Senator CASE. Yes; I do.

Mr. HARRIS. In getting down to the fine point of interpretation of this proposal, is it then your viewpoint that all you can do under this legislation is to delegate rule-making, fact-finding, regulation, and such ordinance authority?

Senator CASE. Well, it may not be all that you can do, but I thought we were on safer constitutional grounds to approach it that way.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you think that the levying of taxes or the providing of taxes is a fact-finding, ordinance, regulation, or order problem? Or is it a legislative problem?

Senator CASE. I think it comes within the objectives that are necessary for the welfare of the District of Columbia. It comes within those phrases that we used as the objectives to be met in the findings. Mr. HARRIS. You do not think then it comes within that category defined as legislation?

Senator CASE. I do not think it violates that any more than these regulations which authorize the OPS or the OPA or some other agency to impose fines and penalties.

Mr. HARRIS. In other words, you think the same authority

Senator CASE. I think you could press me to the point where I might use some word which lawyers would not accept, because I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the technical meaning which they ascribe to these things.

But the principle of creating an agent of the Congress is one which has been used so much since that first AAA decision was held unconstitutional, and Congress has operated in that field of creating agents so much that I thought we were on sound grounds here.

Mr. HARRIS. Out of your experience, you do know that it is by legislation that policies are determined?

Senator CASE. Yes; policy is expressed here in the objectives we set up for the council.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it the intention or purpose of this proposal here, according to your viewpoint, to deny the council from making legislative proposals?

Senator CASE. Except within the limits or within the objectives set forth within the creation of the council by the Congress.

Mr. HARRIS. I think that is a very important point in connection with this whole case. You have been very kind to respond to questions which members of this committee appreciate.

You have an assistant with you. If he would care to make any further statement, we would be glad to have you, Mr. Albrook, make any comments that you desire.

Mr. ABERNETHY. May I ask the Senator one brief question before you do that? Senator Case, you have raised a very interesting question right lately with your bill to provide that the Recorder of Deeds be appointed by the District Commissioners.

I think that bill has considerable merit. I would like to ask you whether or not you would consider as an amendment to your homerule bill a provision to the effect that the Recorder of Deeds might be elected by the people of the District of Columbia as he is elected in most other jurisdictions?

Senator CASE. Personally I would have no objection to it. In the bill I proposed that he be required to have been a resident of the District for at least 2 years.

Mr. ABERNETHY. In this bill you do?

Senator CASE. In this separate bill on the Recorder, yes. I think the Assessor is appointed by the Commissioners now.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Albrook, do you have any further comments you would like to make for the record?

Mr. ALBROOK. I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman. I doubt if I can add anything to what Mr. Case has said. I am at your service if there is anything now or at any future time that I can be of assistance to you on.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Van Arkel, you are here from the District Committee of the Senate. You no doubt cooperated in the formulation of the bill that is before us, and perhaps in the preparation of the testimony by the distinguished Senator before us this morning.

Mr. VAN ARKEL. In that I had no hand, Mr. Chairman.