« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I do not want to appear in anything I have said that I am for or against segregation. I think it is a matter which should be brought out and discussed.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would be delighted to comment on it, since you brought it up. I think it should be brought up, out in the open, and not in the locker room in whispers.
I would like to say as a personal note, sir, that I was raised farther south than any Member of Congress in the United States except one man, and that is George Smathers, who is Congressman from my own town who was raised 5 miles farther south than I was. I think the general feeling I have is that we have a problem of racial relations in the United States which in all common sense, I think, we will have to solve. It should be handled so that it will not become a political football on a national level.
You mentioned the swimming pool. I have spent some time on that problem and there I had the feeling of nobody being in charge; and there, again, I found instance after instance where you have a situation of both Federal and local officials exercising jurisdiction, and when you run into a problem like the segregation problem in the present structure, the Federal officers will tell you quite frankly, off the record, that they must do this or this-not touch this—not because of the people in the city here, but because X, for example, or Y, a Representative, is opposed to it, not because he believes it isn't good for the city of Washington but because he has to think about the views of his constituents on the segregation issue back home. So I would favor the solution of that problem in the Kefauver bill, leaving the solution of such problems in the community. I think that is the proper way to approach it.
I mentioned Pittsburgh and the feeling of the community that exists there. I talked to the Pittsburgh people, to the chairman of the interracial committee. Now that committee has done an incredible amount of good through its working on the local level on what could be a very major problem, which has been solved by decent men and women on the Interracial Committee. It is composed of men living in the community, in industry, labor. So, knowing the people here in the city of Washington, I feel we are perfectly competent to do the job if you gentlemen turn the job of this continuing problem over to us, and we will display the kind of common sense that American people are capable of displaying.
Mr. HARRIS. Are there any further questions?
Mr. Graham, I appreciate very much having you present and hearing your discussion this morning. I must say your talk has been the most interesting discussion that I have heard in some time. However, it seems to be generally the feeling throughout the country for the cities and the States to come to the Federal Government and ask Congress to get things out of the Federal Government. Therefore, coming in closer contact—when here you come with an entirely different philosophy of the District or Washington, the only city which the National Government really owns and controls-it is quite a surprise to hear your suggestion that it be taken away from the Federal Government.
Mr. GRAHAM. You cannot satisfy everyone.
Mr. HARRIS. I think it is a rather unusual situation and one that I somehow cannot understand the general philosophy of.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, sir, I do not know too much about your State, but I have some friends in your State.
Mr. HARRIS. My State isn't any different from the. 47 other States in any respect.
Mr. GRAHAM. I doubt very much that people of the cities of the country are really trying to turn their affairs over to the Central Government.
Mr. Harris. You mean you doubt the trend in the last number of years has not been toward centralized government?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, we have trends and more trends. I think the trend toward centralization is not arguable, but I think there is still a great deal of immovable American pride in being master of your own city or county, and I think we will see more maturity and perhaps more of a counter to that trend if we don't become-somnambulant, as we have been in the past.
Mr. HARRIS. Then, do you agree that the city of Washington is unique as it is and that it is in a somewhat different position from any other city in the United States?
Mr. GRAHAM. I certainly do, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. But, I think what you advocate here is that the same privileges be extended to the city of Washington as have been extended to any other city in the country?
Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; it would still be unique.
Mr. GRAHAM. Because I think there is an intermixture of Federal and community.
I think Senator Taft's suggestion for two councilmen to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is a natural and sensible recognition of that national interest.
Mr. HARRIS. And, because of that, there cannot be true home rule?
Mr. GRAHAM. I believe it is true home rule, but that is a question of subjective form.
Mr. HARRIS. You mean it would be true home rule if people. could vote?
Mr. GRAHAM. The people will have primary responsibility for their local affairs, just as the people of Miami, Fla.; could be disfranchised by a constitutional amendment of the State legislature. In that sense, they are responsible to a State sovereignty.
Mr. Harris. The Constitution of the State of Florida, with which you are more familiar than I, does not have that provision in it, however, that says that the legislative responsibility
Mr. GRAHAM. Like article I
Mr. HARRIS. Various cities of Florida shall be within the legislation of the State of Florida? .
Mr. GRAHAM. I would doubt it. I really do not know factually, but I should doubt it.
Mr. HARRIS. And in that sense, because of this unusual provision in the Constitution of the United States, it does become a rather unique situation; doesn't it, apparently? And, without an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the people cannot have the highest degree or privilege of citizenship; and these rights, so far as suffrage and voting in principle, and so forth, as they can have, say, for instance, in the city of New York. Can they?
Mr. GRAHAM. I think the people under the Constitution can have a very high degree of responsibility about their local affairs, and by so doing have a very beneficial effect on the operation of the machinery of the legislative branch of our Government.
Mr. Harris. Well, you mentioned some of those highly important responsibilities a moment ago. First, you mentioned what happened in Pittsburgh and what happened in other places throughout the country that you referred to.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. And probably in a little higher degree than here in the city of Washington.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. I haven't been in Pittsburgh recently, but it occurred to me that the Nation's Capital here in Washington, D. C., in many ways has made more progress, because it had the Treasury of the United States to call upon, than any other city in the United States.
Mr. GRAHAM. I should think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to compare the two cities because they are so dissimilar. In the sense of the production of wealth in the area of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, they have made much greater progress than we have, but it is more or less a one-industry city, in terms of steel and fabrication. We are a one-industry city, in paper work, politics.
Mr. HARRIS. If you take the politics away from the city of Washington, what would happen to the city of Washington?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I have decided that is not yet a real problem, so I haven't thought about it.
Mr. HARRIS. It is the one industry you talk about.
Mr. HARRIS. And, when you do away with the one industry in a city, you know what happens in that city.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would not be able to envisage any possibility of the destruction of that single industry by this measure.
Do you? I don't quite understand the question.
Mr. HARRIS. I am trying to point out, not that there is going to be any destruction of the Nation's Capital; in fact, it will continue to improve and progress.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right.
Mr. HARRIS. Because it belongs to all the people and not the 600,000.
Mr. GRAHAM. I think there are 850,000 people.
Mr. HARRIS. The point I am trying to make here is that the very interests that built up the city of Washington were what was done by the Congress of the United States and people throughout the United States. Is that true or not?
Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is true; sure.
Mr. HARRIS. Now it means that this, the Nation's Capital, belongs to all of the people.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right.
Mr. GRAHAM. Responsibility can become a greater local matter than it is now. I don't want to end on that, but I think that is the answer you have today.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, maybe so. You told me the principal people in Washington have a feeling of a sense of restraint, as far as Congress is concerned. I must differ from that because, from my own personal experience, I haven't seen a great deal of restraint by a lot of people in the District of Columbia in making requests.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I am sure people are exercising a great deal of restraint or you might be suffering a total nervous collapse at the present time, Congressman.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, along with responsibility would come the cost, the expenditure that the people of the District of Columbia would not be willing, of course, to bear all the expenses in connection with the District; would they?
Mr. GRAHAM. I don't think because of the economic position of this city, on which we are in agreement—I don't think it would be equitable or fair for the Federal Government ever to cease making an equitable contribution toward municipal services. I don't say that it is connected directly with the issue of home rule or delegates or some of those unrestrained interferences on the local level.
Mr. HARRIS. It has always been my belief that along with responsibility goes the privilege of paying for it. Is that true?
Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is true, but I would not think it answers the question of the Federal payments.
Mr. HARRIS. No; I don't either.
Mr. GRAHAM. There are Federal installations throughout the 48 States, and there are adjustments made on many of those; and here in the Nation's Capital, where the Federal Government owns 51 percent, I don't think the local taxpayers should bear the entire burden. Then, too, we have here the three Commissioners appointed by the President, and the situation is not like that of States where Congressmen and Senators are elected. I think the Federal and local governments are more intermixed here than anywhere else.
Mr. HARRIS. It is rather unusual, when we find out the financial condition of some of the States and the body politic, where the Federal Government has taken over property for various reasons, and we find in many States counties that are almost without any revenue whatsoever.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. And you can see what a time they have trying to get money out of the Treasury of the United States. I am sure you are aware that situation exists.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; but some of them have been more successful than others.
Mr. HARRIs. But not nearly as successful as the District of Columbia.
Mr. GRAHAM. I think I know some who have outdone the District of Columbia.
Mr. HARRIS. Now you talk about local responsibility, relieving such conditions as crime as has been experienced here in the District of Columbia. Do you know of anything approaching the underworld activities that has ever occurred here in the District of Columbia ?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I know this, you can't walk one block without tripping over a "numbers operator" here, and I don't think it is run by the churches. [Applause.]
Mr. HARRIS. Well, of course, I am not in the newspaper business, and I do not know of anyone that is going to suggest that the sincere, religious people, the churches of this country, which are the backbone of the home and the family and the people of this country and responsible for the degree of morality and moral responsibility, would enter into such crime or such a degree of crime. I am afraid that the statement has implication which I hope you will take out of the record.
Mr. GRAHAM. I hope you will read the record, Mr. Congressman, and on doing so recognize you have misunderstood me and misinterpreted what I have said.
Mr. HARRIS. I don't believe you answered the question by saying the "numbers racket" was not run by the churches of the District of Columbia.
Mr. GRAHAM. I believe I am as good a churchman as you, and have as good feeling as you do. I think I made a statement reductio ad absurdum, and I did not know it was out of order.
Mr. HARRIS. I have been here 9 years, I assure you; and, as I was going to say, I have not been out as a newspaper reporter and haven't had the occasion, but I have never seen anyone that I knew or who was referred to or known as a “numbers operator." [Laughter.]
Mr. GRAHAM. That is obviously possible if you say so.
Mr. HARRIS. I would assume that you would find them here the same as you would find them in any of the cities in the United States.
Mr. Graham. It has been placed up in the press, and if you will call on the Attorney General he will tell you, sir, that recently one-quarter of a million dollars in $10,000 and $1,000 bills were found in a safedeposit box in a vault that belonged to one of the gambling leaders in the District, and I can't call that “hay.”
Mr. HARRIS. I do not, either; and I certainly do not subscribe to such activities, and certainly there is a law that would prohibit it.
Mr. GRAHAM. I think it is a very serious thing from the standpoint of our form of government.
Mr. HARRIS. But the point I make there is the implication from the statement you made that there is somebody in the "numbers racket” on every corner. Maybe I don't go down on every corner; and I may be as busy as you are. But I know there are a lot of people who, just as I am, are not bothered by those in the "numbers racket.” Perhaps they know I would not play them. Neither am I bothered by the "bookies."
Mr. GRAHAM. You raise the question of the churches. It might be interesting to you if you would call the Federation of Churches people down here, because they have put a good deal of time on and I am in complete agreement with them in regard to crime.
Mr. HARRIS. I am not trying to minimize at all the danger of any degree of crime. I happen to have served in the district attorney's