Mr. McKELWAY. Not in this legislation; no, sir,

Mr. HARRIS. And the next issue is, you do not believe that under the provisions of the proposed legislation you would have any better municipal government than you have at the present time?

Mr. McKELWAY. I do not.

Mr. HARRIS. The next issue you point up is that under the Constitution even with the adoption of any of the proposals here you would not have real true home rule in the District of Columbia, would you?

Mr. McKELWAY. You would not have representation in Congress or in the electoral college.

Mr. HARRIS. Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. McKelway.

We have with us Mr. Philip L. Graham, who represents another outstanding newspaper of the District of Columbia, namely the Washington Post.

Mr. Graham, I must say, in order to avoid any accusation of discrimination whatsoever, I would have to say the same thing about the Washington Post as I did in referring to the Evening Star.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is a very happy situation. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. We are very glad to have you and we would be interested in having any statement you care to make at this time on this proposed legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, sir, I have a statement which I have distributed to the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I wondered if I might not just file that and talk rather than read, and then offer myself for questioning. Would that be appropriate?

Mr. HARRIS. I think it would be appropriate, and in view of the limited time that we have, Mr. Graham, it would be highly desirable, and without objection your statement will be filed for the record in support of S. 1527.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF PHILIP L. GRAHAM, PUBLISHER, THE WASHINGTON POST

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I wish to thank you for your courteous invitation to appear in your hearings on Washington home rule. I shall testify in support of the home-rule bill which has been approved by the Senate.

I believe the finest service this subcommittee can perform for the District of Columbia and for the Nation is to give its support to the Senate home-rule bill so that it will be presented to the House for a prompt decision. I have every hope that the full District Committee and the House would approve this bill. I believe it should be done at this session of Congress.

Many citizens of the District, and doubtless many members of your committee were surprised at the speed with which the Senate approved the home-rule bill. But I think we all realize now why it was done so quickly. First, the Senators had on hand the splendid home-rule plan prepared in this very room by gentlemen who are now members of this subcommittee, Representatives Auchincloss, Allen, and Jones of Alabama. The able work done by these men simplified the task of the Senate, and it is available for you to use in the same way. Second, the homerule idea has received national sponsorship in the 1948 campaign platforms of the two great political parties, a development made possible by the bipartisan support given to home rule in the last Congress and extended in the present Congress. Senator Kefauver, the author of the Senate home-rule bill, has called attention here to the valuable support given to it by Senators Taft, of Ohio, Holland, of Florida, and by the eight other Senate District Committee members of both parties who joined him in sponsoring the measure.

It occurs to me that there is another very important reason for this subcommittee to work for House approval of the home-rule bill at this session of Congress.

The success of the home-rule plan will depend upon the close and friendly cooperation of Congress and the citizens of the District. This will be particularly true at the outeset of the proposed home-rule system. If the bill becomes law within the next few weeks, the public referendum required to approve the new charter will take place in the fall, and if that vote is favorable, as I am sure it will be, the new Council-Manager government will start taking over in the spring. All this would take place while you gentlemen, who are now supervising the drafting of this legislation, are still present as a group to oversee the transition from the present Commissioner system to the new home-rule system. If the bill is delayed until next year, and then approved, it will go into effect under the eyes of a new Congress, some of whose Members at least would be unfamiliar with the reasons for the change. It seems to me that chances for a smooth transition to home rule will be measurably improved if the Congress that creates home rule is present to watch it begin work.

I wish briefly to touch upon certain questions that have been raised about the home-rule plan.

There is the question of constitutionality. I think the record compiled by the Auchincloss committee shows clearly that the home-rule_plan here proposed is constitutional. We have the often-quoted passage by James Madison in the Federalist that the writers of the Constitution intended that the residents of the District would be allowed a municipal legislature for local purposes "derived from their own suffrages." We have the opinions of many eminent lawyers that the plan would be constitutional. These are in the hearings. Finally we have the certain knowledge that if the plan is unconstitutional, the courts will say so. On this point, I believe it is also worth noting that the Senate, largely composed of lawyers, approved the home-rule bill by a simple voice vote, without any demand being raised for a record vote.

A question has been raised about dual voting. As a matter of practice, I think all would agree that the interests of the city would best be served by encouraging the participation of Federal workers here in the home-rule elections. Whether their participation as individuals would endanger their voting rights in the States is a matter for the individual to determine. They would surely decide that question for themselves according to their own best interests. The Auchincloss Subcommittee record indicates that, as far as 38 of the States are concerned, District residents with voting rights in those States would be free to take part in the local Washington elections without losing their rights to vote in State and national elections as they have done in the past. It should be remembered that no one is expected to vote twice for the same office-votes cast in the States would be for State and National offices, votes cast here would be for the Council and School Board. The bill clearly states that it is not the aim of the District voting plan to deprive any person of State voting rights. This should encourage the States which now question the possibility of the voting plan to take the steps that would permit their residents here to take part in the local District elections without loss of voting rights back home. I would estimate that a very small percentage of all District voters might be affected by the possible conflict between State and District voting rights at the outset of home rule. Since the States could remove this conflict, I think the argument is all in favor of giving home-rule rights to the overwhelming majority of potential District voters.

I am sorry to see that some Members of Congress appear to feel that our interest in home rule is intended to reflect upon their management of District affairs. I certainly do not want that implication to be read into anything I say here. I sincerely appreciate the fact that you gentlemen give generously of your time and your abilities to the careful consideration and supervision of District matters that come before you. Some of you have given the District almost your full time over long periods. You have done it on tax matters. Your colleagues have done it on the District budget. You have done it with many other important local problems. But you cannot give the District the day in, day out attention that a $100,000,000 enterprise, the District government, requires. That is not your real job. If you could make it your real job, I'm satisfied that Washington would have the finest city council in the country with you as its members. But since you gentlemen are bound by your higher duties to your districts and to the Nation, I think it is no discourtesy to say that District citizens, serving on an elected city council, can equal your performance and better it. And they will do it, not because they are men of greater ability or greater interest than you, but because they will have the time.

I notice that some members doubt the Congress would be saved much of the time it now gives to District affairs by turning over details to the home-rule council. 95148-49- -13

In the last analysis, the decision on that question is entirely up to you. Of course, you could investigate and review and change every action of the city council. You could throw every legislative proposal it makes in the wastebasket, and write your own legislation. But I do not think you will. There is no question in my. mind that the Council, having in mind the reserved powers of Congress finally to control the District, will cast its decisions from the start in a manner that will recognize the interests both of the citizens and of the Federal Government as represented by the Congress. There is an extra safeguard for the Federal interest in the two Presidential appointees who would sit in the Council under the Senate bill. As a matter of practice, I am sure that Congress will relieve itself of much of the burden of running the District when it sees how well the council handles the job.

I understand this has been your experience in the supervision of territorial affairs.

Another question raised about the home rule plan is directed at the fact that Washington is the Nation's Capital, the Federal city, the seat of government. It is all those things. It is equally true that every citizen has a vital interest in the District. The citizens of our Nation have a vital interest, too, in the great ports of New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans; they have a vital interest in the great industrial centers of Detroit, Akron, St. Louis; they have an equal interest in the vast agricultural and mining areas of our land. With our Nation so closely knit economically, socially and politically, every citizen has a direct and vital interest in all parts of his country. But in no other place has that fact been used as. an argument against home rule. We trust the people of New York, Arkansas, Minnesota, California to run their local governments in the American way. There is no reason on earth for any citizen to distrust the ability or the desire of his countrymen in the District to run their local affairs in the democratic American way.

In conclusion, I urge you, by your approval of the home rule bill, to restore a measure of local democracy to this District, the seat of the world's capital of freedom.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP L. GRAHAM, PUBLISHER, THE

WASHINGTON POST

Mr. GRAHAM. The general points I would like to mention in testimony are these, sir:

We are in support of the Kefauver bill passed by the Senate for home rule for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

We believe it would give us an important measure of that popular suffrage on the local level, which is the keystone of American society, and we believe that it would lead to better government for the local municipality; and would relieve the Congress from burdens which interfere with its over-all national responsibility.

Further, it seems to me highly important that if possible this legislation which has passed the Senate be passed in the House at this term, for the following reasons:

The legislation is supported by years of study and in the last year and a half was developed by the most intensive study by the joint committee last year and in the Senate Committee again this year. If the bill was passed this year there would be a referendum in November.

If the citizens of the District approve the concept of home rule we would elect our first city council; that is, we would elect nine members of it, early in the spring of next year. That would mean the transition from the present system of government to the system of home rule, under the eyes of this Congress which would have launched the bill. It seems to me as a matter of timing that we should take the first step under the eyes of this present Congress, which would have

created this suffrage, and that would be highly important, for the proper exercise and administration of the new right of home rule.

I have felt, as I am sure all of you gentlemen do, since I got out of diapers, that local responsibility was the key of the American system. I think we are all in agreement that it is a fine system and the best system there is. Having been raised in a State where the normal exercise of local responsibility was the privilege of acquisition of citizenship, I felt somewhat at a loss ever since I have been a resident of the District of Columbia; particularly in the 321⁄2 years since I returned from the Army, in dealing as I inevitably must with the civic problems which come up in our city. I have seen the really terrible effects on people without any control over their affairs, people feeling frustrated and unavailing, who cannot hope to improve their local affairs because they do not know to whom to go. In certain outstanding instances we feel called upon to call on you gentlemen; but, being sensible people, we feel at the same time a sense of restraint about the many small details, petty matters, which should be solved at the local level rather than on this level.

It has been said over and over again in discussion of this matter that we have the best government in the world in the District of Columbia-the best community government in the world or as good as any, here in the District of Columbia. I should have to dissent from that. I think if that is true it would have a terrible philosophical implication. None of you gentlemen were appointed by any single authority. You were elected by your fellow citizens. It is my fundamental belief, and fundamental philosophy I think also of all loyal Americans, that the wisdom of the majority of the electorate is the power most capable of selecting governing officials.

It is true that we haven't the worst government in the world in the District of Columbia. There are cities over the years that have had juicier scandals, more flamboyant corruption, more abuse of governmental processes, than this city has had; but it is a long way from saying we have the best government in the world.

It is said we have under this commission form of government the cleanest city in the world. I would have to enter a dissent there. The crime rates of the city are the highest. The numbers and bookie operations in the city are substantial and run by large gambling syndicates; but I don't think that this negative aspect is the important thing. What seems to me the key of the thing is that we lack that affirmativism, that drive toward solution by local people of local problems, which is typical of our finest American cities.

In recent weeks I went to Pittsburgh and I saw a community working together-labor, management, Republican and Democrat, people across the city-who have already abated the old smoke nuisance which used to hurt Pittsburgh; they were working together toward city planning, increased parks, better housing, better participation in Government. They are working together uniformly, satisfactorily, and they were not bothering us by coming down here. They are appreciative of their own efforts and they are not waiting for Uncle Bob or the Congress or the Federal Government to solve their problems.

Several months ago I was in Richmond, Va., our neighboring city, and I could feel there the progress that was being made in that city

where a group of the people were at work and where they were bringing about material improvement in municipal affairs. They were exercising effectively their duties in local affairs, which seemed to me the key of American citizenship.

Here when a crisis arises we feel particularly this lack of responsibility, the lack of dealing directly and the lack of responsibility of the citizens. We have the carpenters' strike which has been going on for 6 weeks and which no local official has tried to bring to a close because they don't have the machinery. When a bad situation develops in the local jailbreaks we have to come to you people to stop the boys going home for Christmas. That is quite true. Then we have the situation of the real estate people on the one hand and people interested in public housing on the other hand. They have a great deal in common in the desire to do something about slum housing conditions in this city; and in that connection I think much can be done. But there is no machinery for local action.

This was also true in regard to veterans' problems, where there was a great lethargy, a feeling of no community responsibility. The situation here was entirely different from the efficient manner in which it was handled at Bridgeport and other cities, where because the city fathers had an intimate, happy, and eager desire to do something about those problems, they were immediately taken care of.

I think that winds my oratory up, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Graham.
Mr. Teague, have you any questions?

Mr. TEAGUE. No.

Mr. HARRIS. Have you any questions, Mr. Buchanan?
Mr. BUCHANAN. No.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Auchincloss, have you any questions?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement at this time.

I have listened to a good many arguments and I have listened to a good many statements pro and con for home rule in the District of Columbia this past year or two, and I want to commend Mr. Graham for a very clear exposition of the reasons why home rule is desirable for the District. It is for the benefit of the people and I think it would be a great help to the general morale of this city if unmeasured home rule could be granted.

I would like to ask one question.

Mr. HARRIS. Very well.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. It is now hardly germane to this bill or any other bill which is before us, but it is a great problem which is before the people of the District of Columbia, and that is this question of segregation. It has been brought to my attention in the subcommittee of which I was chairman last year and which considered the question to a certain extent, whether anything should be said in the measure about segregation. We did not put anything in the bill and I don't think there is anything in any measure before Congress today having to do with that subject. But in the light of the experience which we had in the swimming pools and so on, it is a very important question. I think that is a question that is a very practical one and it is a matter which is of concern to the Members of Congress who have to pass on this measure. I wondered if you would like to comment on that at this time.