an equal division; they shall settle their rules of proceedings, appoint their own officers, regulate their respective fees, and remove them at pleasure: they shall judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of their own members, and may, with the concurrence of three fourths of the whole, expel any member for disorderly behavior, or malconduct in office, but not a second time for the same offence: they shall keep a journal of their proceedings, and enter the yeas and nays on any question, resolve or ordinance, at the request of any member, and their deliberations shall be public. The mayor shall appoint to all offices under the corporation. All ordinances or acts passed by the city council shall be sent to the mayor, for his approbation, and when approved by him, shall then be obligatory as such. But if the said mayor shall not approve of such ordinance or act, he shall return the same within five days, with his reasons in writing therefor; and if three-fourths of both branches of the city council, on reconsideration thereof, approve of the same, it shall be in force in like manner as if he had approved it, unless the city council, by their adjournment, prevent its return.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the corporation aforesaid shall have full power and authority to pass all by-laws and ordinances; to prevent and remove nuisances; to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases within the city; to establish night watches or patrols, and erect lamps; to regulate the stationing, anchorage, and mooring of vessels, to provide for licensing and regulating auctions, retailers of liquors, hackney carriages, wagons, carts and drays, and pawnbrokers within the city; to restrain or prohibit gambling and to provide for licensing, regulating or restraining theatrical or other public amusements within the city; to regulate and establish markets; to erect and repair bridges; to keep in repair all necessary streets, avenues, drains and sewers, and to pass regulations necessary for the preservation of the same, agreeably to the plan of the said city; to provide for the safe keeping of the standard of weights and measures fixed by Congress, and for the regulation of all weights and measures used in the city; to provide for the licensing and regulating the sweeping of chimneys and fixing the rates thereof; to establish and regulate fire wards and fire companies; to regulate and establish the size of bricks that are to be made and used in the city; to sink wells, and erect and repair pumps in the streets; to impose and appropriate fines, penalties and forfeitures for breach of their ordinances; to lay and collect taxes; to enact by-laws for the prevention and extinguishment of fire; and to pass all ordinances necessary to give effect and operation to all the powers vested in the corporation of the city of Washington: Provided, That the by-laws or ordinance of the said corporation, shall be, in no wise, obligatory upon the persons of non-residents of the said city, unless in cases of intentional violation of by-laws or ordinances previously promulgated. All the fines, penalties and forfeitures, imposed by the corporation of the city of Washington, if not exceeding twenty dollars, shall be recovered before a single magistrate, as small debts are, by law, recoverable; and if such fines, penalties and forfeitures exceed the sum of twenty dollars, the same shall be recovered by action of debt in the district court of Columbia, for the county of Washington, in the name of the corporation, and for the use of the city of Washington.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the person or persons appointed to collect any tax imposed in virtue of the powers granted by this act, shall have authority to collect the same by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person chargeable therewith; no sale shall be made unless ten days previous notice thereof be given; no law shall be passed by the city council subjecting vacant or unimproved city lots, or parts of lots, to be sold for taxes.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall provide for the support of the poor, infirm and diseased of the city.

SEC. 10. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That no tax shall be imposed by the city council on real property in the said city, at any higher rate than three quarters of one per centum on the assessment valuation of such property.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That this act shall be in force for two years, from the passing thereof, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.

Approved, May 3, 1802 (2 Stat. 195, ch. 53).

Mr. HARRIS. We have a number of witnesses this morning and we are delighted to have them, in order that we may further become advised, in the light of the past year or two and recent acts regarding this very important problem.

This seems to be the day in which the newspapers will have their opportunity to express themselves, and it is one of those very rare

occasions when Members of Congress may have an opportunity to question the newspaper boys on the record.

We have with us this morning Mr. McKelway, editor of the Evening Star, who is first scheduled on the list of those to appear before the committee this morning.

Mr. McKelway, we shall be glad to have your statement at this time. STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN MCKELWAY, EDITOR, THE EVENING STAR

Mr. McKELWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make. Mr. HARRIS. You are a newspaperman. That is, you come to us as a newspaperman; and, after all, you do run a very fine newspaper here in the city of Washington which carries some very fine material. I cannot say I approve of everything you say; but, nevertheless, I do think it is one of the outstanding newspapers of the country. We are glad to have you with us a representative of the Evening Star.

Mr. McKELWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, but I have testified on this subject twice before the previous committee, but I was invited to come over and I am glad to put myself at your disposal if I can be of any help.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you care to indicate what your position was a year ago or 2 years ago or 10 years ago, and whether or not there has been any change in your position, Mr. McKelway?

Mr. McKELWAY. When I appeared here 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I discussed some of the obvious difficulties with which a committee is faced in trying to draft a home-rule bill in this unique city.

I have followed with interest the work of Mr. Auchincloss' committee. I think that the committee spent more time and brought out a better home-rule bill before the House last year than anyone ever did in the past.

I think that the Senate bill is a very good bill, as far as the principle that is concerned in that legislation. That principle is to draw up a plan of home rule that Congress is willing to grant to the people of the District, and then give the people of the District an opportunity to say whether or not they want it I can find no quarrel with that plan whatever. In fact, it is very difficult for me to see how anyone can oppose the bill, as far as the plan is concerned. If the people here want their vote, I think they should be given the right to vote.

As for the practical success of any such measure in building a better municipal government, I have my own doubts in that respect and I haven't been able to resolve them by anything that I have seen or read in connection with this bill.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Abernethy, a member of this committee, posed what I thought was a very appropriate question to one of the sponsors of the bill last week, and I should like to hear your comment. I believe the question he asked Senator Kefauver was if there was under our Constitution such a thing as real home rule for the District of Columbia.

Mr. McKELWAY. I don't think there is, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Of course, but an amendment to the Constitution could bring that about.

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. And you spoke about the people of the District of Columbia wanting to vote, and if so, they should have the right. Now for whom do you feel that the right should be extended, to the people of the District of Columbia?

Mr. McKELWAY. I suppose you may have reference to the dual voting provision?

Mr. HARRIS. No. I have in mind certainly an assumption that you mean that the people of the District of Columbia want to vote, and if they do want to vote, that they should have a right to vote. Well, that is an excellent plan that no one in my opinion can quarrel with. But then the next question comes, under that right, who should they vote for?

Mr. McKELWAY. I think they should have a right to vote for their representative in Congress and for the President.

Mr. HARRIS. All right. That is No. 1, that they should have a right to vote for their representative in Congress.

Mr. McKELWAY. For their representatives in Congress, Members of the House and Senate.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you mean by that that you would indicate that the people of the District of Columbia have a right to a full representation, a voting representation in the House of Representatives and two Senators in the Senate of the United States?

Mr. McKELWAY. I think that they should have that right, sir. As for the number of representatives in the Senate, I think that is a detail that would be taken care of by any decision that Congress might make.

Mr. HARRIS. But you recognize there is a constitutional provision there?

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir; I thought we were talking about amending our Constitution.

Mr. HARRIS. Very well; but you are not, however, in sponsoring the legislation we have referred to here, the proposals submitted to us as a home rule bill-you are not indicating that they be given a vote for a Member in the House of Representatives and two representatives in the Senate, are you?

Mr. McKELWAY. Do you mean in this bill?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. McKELWAY. No, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Have I noticed in the newspapers, in your own newspaper, that you have advocated that the amendment to the Constitution be brought about?

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. To give the people in the District of Columbia an actual voting Representative in the House of Representatives and representation in the Senate of the United States?

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir; we have been doing it for almost 100 years.

Mr. HARRIS. Well I have been here only 9 years and I therefore can't speak for what might have occurred nearly 90 years preceding it. Also I do not read every issue of the Star, but I try to keep up as best I can, and I find that the real advocacy that you propose in your newspaper is a council for the city of Washington and an elected board of education.

Mr. McKELWAY. Let us put it this way, Mr. Chairman: The position of my newspaper has been to favor national representation through constitutional amendment. There is no pending proposal before this session of Congress for the amendment. This proposal is for home rule.

My newspaper has not seen fit to come out and oppose a proposition to put up to the people of the District of Columbia the question of whether or not they want this home rule. My paper has always been very skeptical of the success of any home rule that is not accompanied by representation in Congress.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. McKelway, would you put it up to the people of the District?

Mr. McKELWAY. I suppose all the people who fill or meet the local requirements of residence.

Mr. TEAGUE. Do you mean property owners, Government employees who have been here for a certain length of time?

Mr. McKELWAY. I should say that they should meet the normal residence requirements.

Mr. HARRIS. Well now, Mr. McKelway, we are talking about a plan and a right of the people to vote; that is, a right of suffrage, aren't we? In our governmental processes and democratic principles that is regarded the one degree of democracy and the highest privilege afforded anyone, along with freedom of speech and religion, and so forth, that we have in this country. Now, then, the only way that that principle can be brought about and the only way that that can be given to the 600,000 or more people in the District of Columbia is by an amendment to the Constitution, isn't it?

Mr. McKELWAY. That is what most of the authorities seem to hold; yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, you are familiar with that provision of the Constitution, aren't you?

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir; what provision, sir?

Mr. HARRIS. Providing the right of suffrage, the right to vote? Do you think that there is any way that the people of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice President of the United States other than by an amendment to the Constitution?

Mr. McKELWAY. There are some people who have been able to put up some very interesting arguments to the effect that they might, if Congress chose to permit them to participate in the national elections and gave them the right to have representation in Congress. I think that the preponderant opinion is it could not be done without a constitutional amendment because of the matter of the "State." The District is not a State, and I don't believe many people believe it ever should be a State, but you have a unique situation here which is the result of neglect rather than specific provision in the Constitution. Mr. HARRIS. Well, there was a reason for that unique situation being provided, wasn't there?

Mr. McKELWAY. I am not sure about it.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, I will refer you to the history of the founders of the Nation's Capital, and I am sure you will have all the information. Mr. McKELWAY. The establishment of the seat of government; yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. I would be highly sympathetic to extending to all people of this country, including the District of Columbia, the right

of participating in the national elections for President and for the Vice Vice President of the United States. I think that would be a principle that certainly should be extended to all people, and I think it is a right and privilege that they should have; but the question that I wanted to point out at this time is that there is no insistence on their part for that privilege by people in our democracy in connection with what you are requesting here in home rule.

Mr. McKELWAY. There are some people who believe, Congressman, that if the people here had home rule it would give them an organized machinery for the expression of their own opinion which might lead to more activity and more pressure along the lines of trying to obtain a constitutional amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. I would be inclined to question that statement because I do not know of any place that has got more organized groups in it than the city of Washington.

Mr. McKELWAY. I agree with you, sir. [Laughter.]

Mr. HARRIS. I believe you indicated a moment ago that you would not want to say that by the adoption of the proposed legislation that we would have better municipal government in the District of Columbia.

Mr. McKELWAY. I do not think that we would have.

Mr. HARRIS. Are there any questions by any members of the subcommittee?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. May I ask Mr. McKelway: Do I understand your testimony is that you are not in favor of the present legislation which is before the committee giving home rule to the District Government unless it would include representation in Congress?

Mr. McKELWAY. No, sir; I did not make that condition.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I wanted the record straight.

Mr. McKELWAY. The chairman raised the point of national representation, which of course is not covered in this legislation.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. You are in favor of the present legislation in some form; or, let us say, home rule as indicated in the Senate bill? Mr. McKELWAY. Mr. Congressman, this legislation provides a plan of home rule which is to be put up to the people of the District of Columbia as to whether they want it or don't want it. I can't oppose any such legislation.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Yes.

Mr. McKELWAY. Personally I am not enthusiastic about it because I do not believe that it would accomplish or bring about a better municipal government.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. You don't think it goes far enough?

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. You don't think this proposed legislation goes far enough?

Mr. McKELWAY. I think it is more or less worthless unless it is accompanied by the basic representation in Congress which I understand is not before this committee.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. In other words there is no request for the high privilege of the right of suffrage in here for the people of the District of Columbia to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States and for national representation in the Congress of the United States?