HOME RULE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The Judiciary Subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 445, House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present:

Representatives Harris, Abernethy, Teague, Redden,

Allen, and Sittler.

Mr. HARRIS. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr. Edward Colladay, general counsel for the Washington Board of Trade.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. COLLADAY, GENERAL COUNSEL,

WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. COLLADAY. If the committee please, I am Edward F. Colladay. I would like to have Mr. Arthur Nuesse, who is a specialist of the board of trade, with me at the table here. He has some documents which he will be able to hand to me at the proper time.

I appear here today to represent the Washington Board of Trade of which I have been a member for over 40 years, have three times been elected to its presidency, and for a number of years have served as its general counsel.

We deeply appreciate your courtesy in calling these hearings so that the board of trade and other organizations and individuals may express their views concerning the bill, S. 1976, now before your committee, which is credited with providing home rule for the District of Columbia.

I am sure that members of this committee know that the Washington Board of Trade for more than a half century has devoted a great deal of attention to studying the means of providing to the greatest practicable degree, participation by the people of the District of Columbia in their government.

The record of hearings on the Auchincloss bill and the Kefauver bills clearly set forth our views with respect to them, but more importantly with respect to the underlying philosophy of a large percentage of the members of the Washington Board of Trade, and—in our judgment of the permanent population of Washington, as to what is required to provide true home rule in the Nation's Capital. Appropriate committees of the Washington Board of Trade, and I as general counsel of the Washington Board of Trade, have care

57

fully reviewed the bill, S. 1976, as it now appears before you for consideration, and the debate in the Senate this past January following which, on January 22, S. 1976, the so-called Case home rule bill, was passed on a voice vote after motion to recommit was barely defeated by the narrow margin of 35 yeas to 41 nays; 7 of the 22 Senators sponsoring the bill, S. 1976, refrained from voting on that motion.

After fully discussing the matter the following statement was adopted unanimously by our board of directors on July 24, 1951:

Careful study of the so-called Neely-Case-Kefauver home rule bill drafted by Senate aides, leads us to the conclusion that its enactment into law would adversely affect the relationship of the Congress and the people of Washington. Inevitably the principal result of this proposed legislation would be to create an intolerable conflict between the local community and the Federal Government respecting many matters essential to the orderly operation of the National Capital.

The proposals in this draft bear a striking resemblance to the mayor and council form of government in Washington between 1802 and 17874. These forms of government were rescinded by the Congress because they were unworkable and because they created an intolerable conflict of interests between the local community and the Federal Government. We feel enactment of the presently proposed law would produce this same conflict.

The proposed bill does not offer any grounds for compromise in the position taken by the board of trade with respect to its opposition to the Kefauver bill. The board of trade has consistently held that the people of the District of Columbia can have no real self-government without voting representation in the Congress. This bill does not offer such voting representation; neither does it offer any effective vote to the people in the District.

There followed a request to the Senate committee for full hearings and an opportunity for the board of trade and others to be heard. This statement has since been fully supported by our members who for the third time in 4 years have gone on record opposing a so-called home-rule proposal for the District of Columbia.

In an organization-wide mail poll conducted last month 87.2 percent of board members residing in the District and responding to the survey went on record as not favoring S. 1976-the Case billwhile only 12.8 percent favored it.

Generally, this followed sentiment of the full membership vote including those living in Virginia and Maryland as well as in the District in which 86.6 percent of the total ballots cast were opposed to the legislation currently before the House District Committee after passage by the Senate.

In previous surveys, on similar legislation the following results were obtained: In 1948 (the Auchincloss bill) approximately two-thirds of District residents voted "no" while only 26.9 percent said they would favor it; in 1949 (the Kefauver bill) more than 80 percent of the board of trade members residing in the District were opposed while only 18.9 percent favored the legislation.

Now in the latest poll, based on the Case bill, 89 percent of the total ballots cast indicated opposition to persons now franchised in other States and Territories voting for District council members; 90 percent were opposed to nonresidents voting to incur debt for the District; 89 percent were opposed to appointment of a mayor by the President of the United States; 61 percent were opposed to an elected Board of Education; 91 percent indicated that local suffrage without voting

representation in the Congress is not desirable; and 95 percent indicated they do not believe the bill provides real home rule for the District of Columbia.

I submit herewith for the record a copy of the complete tabulation of the votes received in response to our recently completed poll of our entire membership to determine their views on the principal provisions of S. 1976. A sample of the material sent to each member is also included.

May that be put in the record, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HARRIS. How many pages are in that?

Mr. COLLADAY. I think about seven or eight.

Mr. HARRIS. It isn't voluminous?

Mr. COLLADAY. Oh, no, not at all. It is a tabulation.

Mr. HARRIS. It may be placed into the record.

(Survey is as follows:)

Washington Board of Trade home rule survey, February 1952

Question No. 1. You have just read the major provisions of the Case bill, S. 1976, as passed by the Senate. Do you favor its adoption?

Question No. 2a. If you answer "Yes" in No. 1, would you oppose the bill if it resulted in a lower Federal payment?

Question No. 2b. Or would you favor the bill regardless of the effect on the Fed

Question No. 3a. Do you think persons now voting in other States and Territories should be allowed to vote in the District of Columbia for District council members?

Question No. 3b. Do you think persons now voting in other States and Territories should be allowed to vote in the District of Columbia for the District to incur debt?

Question No. 4. Do you favor the appointment of a mayor by the President of

Question No. 5. Under the present system the Board of Education is appointed; the Case bill proposes it be elected. Do you favor the election of the Board of Education?

Question No. 6. Do you think local suffrage without voting representation in Congress is desirable?

Question No. 7. Do you believe this bill provides real home rule for the District of Columbia?

Question No. 9. If you live in the District, how long have you lived here?

Question No. 10. If you live in Maryland or Virginia, are you in business or employed in the District? Do you own property in the District?

NOTE.-Percentage figures represent percentage of total answers (not ballots).

Results of the 3 home rule surveys, Washington Board of Trade membership