Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

its form of government? Just how much of a government are they going to have under the Senate bill, Senator?

Senator KEFAUVER. You asked what brings it about? At least ever since I have been in Congress, it has been brought up; and certainly, ever since I have known anything about Washington, there has been a great agitation, and a very natural one, on the part of the people for some right of suffrage and self-government; and, if the bill, or all the bills, provide for a referendum as to whether the people want it or not, if the referendum does not carry, that of course, is evidence. But I think the informal referendums they have taken show that the majority of the people do want self-government.

We can't place much reliance, apparently, on some of the polls, but the Gallup poll shows that a great majority of the people in the United States thought that the people of Washington should have home rule and suffrage. I think it was “7-A.

Mr. O'HARA. Under your bill to what extent will the city of Washington be permitted to bond itself?

Senator KEFAUVER. As I remember, not in excess of 5 percent of the assessed valuation of the property of the District, only after a vote by the people; no bonds that are issued can be issued for longer than the life of the improvement and they must be paid off and amortized in that time.

Senator Taft helped us get up the revised section about bonded indebtedness; and that is one of the contributions he made to the bill. That is title VII, sections 701 through 731.

Mr. O'HARA. I don't have the figures off-hand, but what would it amount to on the basis of assessed valuation of the District on the bonded indebtedness which would be permitted?

Senator KEFAUVER. I do not follow you in that.
Mr. O'HARA. I thought you might know.

Senator KEFAUVER. I do not know. I did know but I don't recall it.

The provision that it can never be more than 5 percent of the assessed taxable real property in the District, according to the latest general assessment previous to incurring the debt-I might ask some of these people who could tell us what the assessed valuation is. I did know that I have forgotten.

Mr. O'HARA. We can get it from someone else.
Senator KEFAUVER. I would be glad to put it in the record.

Mr. O'HARA. It would be something over $60,000,000 or $70,000,000?

Senator KEFAUVER. No; it seems to me it would be about $50,000,000. I will get the exact figure and put it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kefauver, if this bill of yours is enacted, I believe it is one of the mildest bills we have before us. Then what do you think the people will want after this bill is enacted? What will come next? Do you know?

Senator KEFAUVER. That, Mr. McMillan, I cannot say. I understood they wanted a Delegate and I believe I got a letter from the chairman saying he was in favor of their having a Delegate.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will go along with their having a Delegate.

Senator KEFAUVER. But I think this: I think that, as far as I am concerned, before they would be in a position to ask for anything else, they would see that they made a success of this. This is an important step, and I think we want to see them make a success of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Now if this proposed City Council passes an ordinance wbich does not please everybody in Washington—I have never heard of any ordinance passed by a municipal council that pleased everybody-don't you think that they would come to us and we could override it, and wouldn't it thus cause a great deal of trouble?

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, they come to us with the whole burden now. At least we will be able to shift part of the burden to the City Council, as we do with the people of Alaska and Hawaii. What the people of the District want is self-government here, to vote by referendum, to have elected representatives, pass ordinances. That is what the majority of the people of the District apparently want, and instead of bringing us into the picture the people would have the right to elect some councilmen; and then I think we should adopt the attitude that they are settling things locally unless they are affecting the interests of the Federal Government.

The CHAIRMAN. I wondered if you were not inviting many additional headaches.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, we at least would be getting rid of at least four-fifths of the headaches.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, we appreciate your coming over very much; and regardless of the outcome of this bill you and I will still be friends.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, we certainly will, John.
The CHAIRMAN. I have always admired you.

Senator KEFAUVER. I have admired you, and your attractive wife who comes from Tennessee, and your son Johnny who is the same age as my little girl.

I have some cases here, citations from the language of the Supreme Court in connection with the right of Congress to delegate legislative power in the District, which I think further establish my points beyond any question of a doubt, and which I would like to have placed in the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it may be inserted in the record at this point.

Senator KEFAUVER. This is in addition to the Binns case and others which I referred to. The data are as follows:

In the case of Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (261 U. S. 428 (1922)) court held that power of the Congress over the District was plenary to such an extent that it could constitutionally vest legislative power in the courts of the District of Columbia, and that it need not adhere to the principle of the separation of powers within the District.

Also, in O'Donahue v. U. S. (289 U. S. 516). In Crane v. D. C. (289 F. 557, Ct. App., D. C., 1923):

Under sec. 8 of article I of the Constitution, the exclusive right to legislate for the District of Columbia was reserved to Congress. Congress, nevertheless, had the power to vest and did vest

the District of Columbia with authority to legislate.

The act of February 21, 1871, constituted the District of Columbia a body corporate for municipal purposes and provided for a legislative assembly which was clothed with full power to legislate. The act, however, expressly reserved to Congress the right to repeal or modify all legislation passed by the assembly and to legislate for the District as if no legislative authority had been granted.

[ocr errors]

*

*

*

In Welch v. Cook (97 U. S. 541 (1878)), the 1873 act of the District of Columbia Legislative Assembly granted 10-year real estate tax exemption to new manufacturing establishments.

Justice Hunt, for the court, in commenting on the validity of the tax said: It is not open to reasonable doubt that the Congress had the power to invest and did invest the District government with legislative authority, or that the act of the legislative assembly of June 26, 1873, was within that authority.

This is, however, a dictum. The issue before the court was whether an act of Congress, passed in 1874 and taxing all real estate in the District, validly superseded the act of the District of Columbia Legislature. The court held that it did.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything else you want to submit?

Senator KEFAUVER. Also I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Auchincloss committee and the House committee last year held the most extensive hearings that I think I have ever seen on any subject. Every organization and every individual and every interest of the Federal Government was present, all of the departments. Those people came in to testify, and it was a very full and complete hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. We have copies of those hearings.

Senator KEFAUVER. And in the Senate, before the Senate bill was passed, we had very extensive hearings, in which a great many of the witnesses were the same ones who testified before the House committee.

The issues pro and con were fully gone into and we are all conversant with them, particularly Members of the House, and I do hope-in other words, while I know you don't want to shut off anybody from testifying, the whole thing has been very exhaustively reviewed, and the issue is clear; I do hope that it may be submitted to the House and get a decision one way or the other at this session of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. I guarantee this bill will be considered calmly and thoroughly by every member of the committee. We are going into it thoroughly and will take every item up at its face value.

We certainly appreciate your coming over here.
We will hear from Congressman Marcantonio at a later date.

Mr. O'HARA. The clerk has just handed me a memorandum that the assessed value of real property was $1,625,000,000 as of April 1949.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned, to meet at the call of the chairman.)

HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The Judiciary Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia met in the committee room, 445 Old House Office Building, at 10 a. m., Hon. Oren Harris (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Other subcommittee members present were Hon. Olin E. Teague, Hon. Frank Buchanan, and Hon. James C. Auchincloss.

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order.

This morning we are to resume hearings on H. R. 28, H. R. 2505, H. R. 4281, and S. 1527, generally referred to as the home-rule legislation proposed for the District of Columbia.

At the last meeting of the committee we concluded hearing of the proponents and authors of the various bills. Hearings were announced for today to give opportunity to those representing organizations, groups, and associations to make their desires and wishes known to the committee and give their further expression regarding the proposal referred to provide home rule in the District of Columbia.

The chair would like to state that we regret very much that Mr. McMillan, the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives is unable to be with us this morning, due to the unfortunate death of his brother in South Carolina. I know we all extend to him our deepest sympathies in his bereavement.

At the last meeting of the committee to hear the proponents re was some discussion between myself as chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Kefauver, the author of one of the bills, that passed the Senate, providing for home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia, regarding the act in effect during the early history of the District of Columbia.

Reference was made to the act of 1802 which incorporated the city of Washington for a period of 2 years. There was some discussion as to what authority was granted under that act, as to whether or not a precedent might have been established in reference to a city council and certain authority delegated by the city council to others responsible for the plan of the District of Columbia.

I have been doing a little research regarding the early history of this city, the Nation's Capital, and I find the act of 1802 is a very interesting piece of legislation; and for the benefit of the record and Members of the Congress, if there are no objections I would like to include a copy of this act, approved May 3, 1802, in the Congress of the United States. It is entitled, “An act to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia.”

I think it would be very interesting to the Members of the Congress who considered this matter to read this early piece of legislation affecting the inhabitants and incorporating the city of Washington. It shows just what authority was granted by the Congress to the body politic of the city of Washington at that time. It might be interesting to know that it evidently was an experiment which came out of the confusion of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia; and evidently there was some doubt in the minds of the authors of the Constitution and those who were active in the early part of our Nation's Capital, because it provided that the act shall be enforced for only a period

of 2 years.

The act is as follows:

ACT OF 1802 INCORPORATING THE CITY OF WASHINGTON AN ACT To incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the city of Washington be constituted a body politic and corporate, by the name of a mayor and council of the city of Washington, and by their corporate name, may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, grant, receive, and do all other acts as natural persons, and may purchase and hold real, personal and mixed property, or dispose of the same for the benefit of the said city; and may have and use a city seal, which may be broken or altered at pleasure; the city of Washington shall be divided into three divisions or wards, as now divided by the levy court for the county, for the purpose of assessment; but the number may be increased hereafter, as in the wisdom of the city council shall seem most conducive to the general interest and convenience.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the council of the city of Washington shall consist of twelve members, residents of the city, and upwards of twenty-five years of age, to be divided into two chambers, the first chamber to consist of seven members, and the second chamber of five members; the second chamber to be chosen from the whole number of councillors elected, by their joint ballot. The city council to be elected annually, by ballot, in a general ticket, by the free white male inhabitants of full age, who have resided twelve months in the city, and paid taxes therein the year preceding the election's being held: the justices of the county of Washington, resident in the city, or any three of them, to preside as judges of election, with such associates as the council may, from time to time appoint.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the first election of members for the city council shall be held on the first Monday in June next, and in every year afterwards, at such place in each ward as the judges of the election may prescribe.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the polls shall be kept open from eight o'clock in the morning till seven o'clock in the evening, and no longer, for the reception of ballots. On the closing of the poll, the judges shall close and seal their ballot-boxes, and meet on the day following in the presence of the marshal of the district, on the first election, and the council afterwards, when the seals shall be broken, and the votes counted: within three days after such election, they shall give notice to the persons having the greatest number of legal votes, that they are duly elected, and shall make their return to the mayor of the city.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the mayor of the city shall be appointed, annually, by the President of the United States. He must be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the city, prior to his appointment.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall hold their sessions in the city hall, or, until such building is erected, in such place as the mayor may provide for that purpose, on the second Monday in June, in every year; but the mayor may convene them oftener, if the public good require their deliberations. Three fourths of the members of each council may be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day: they may compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as they may, by ordinance, provide: they shall appoint their respective presidents, who shall preside during their sessions, and shall vote on all questions where there is

« AnteriorContinuar »