« AnteriorContinuar »
office 8 years, and I know something of the effect of any crime, petty or otherwise; but I do think there is some question whether anyone can contend' that the degree of crime in Washington is greater in that respect than it might be in some of the other larger cities of the country.
Mr. GRAHAM. Uniform crime statistics show you that as a matter of fact, on certain important crimes
Mr. HARRIS (interposing). But you haven't had anything of what is known as gangsterism.
Mr. GRAHAM. I believe where you have a quarter million dollars lying in the safe-deposit box, I think you have gangsterism.
Mr. HARRIS. Is it controlled by one organized group?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, newspapers, wonderful as we are, cannot carry out the functions of an investigative agency. If I knew the full details of the organization, I would publish it.
Mr. HARRIS. I am not asking you that.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I could get the full details, I could publish it in a copyrighted story and pick up quite a bit of circulation. Certainly it is controlled by a small group of people. How many there are, I do not know. The chief of police sent 55 names of leading gamblers to the grand jury.
Mr. HARRIS. And you would indicate that local responsibility, such as proposed in legislation here for home rule, would be in a better position to prevent such crime than the Federal Government of the United States with the FBI?
Mr. GRAHAM. The FBI exercises no responsibility over that, sir. It refuses to do it; it has no jurisdiction and won't get into the situation.
Mr. Harris. Well, if the Attorney General's Office were to call upon them, I imagine they would.
Mr. GRAHAM. It is the policy of the Attorney General not to call on them in that respect, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. But it is your feeling that an elected city council would minimize the degree of crime in the District of Columbia?
Mr. GRAHAM. You and I both are familiar with American cities and I have lived in one where crime for a short time had under popular suffrage gained much more control than it has here. I believe in the gample that the founding fathers made that the electorate ultimately will make the right choice. No one can say popular suffrage is a panacea to crime. I believe the way to combat it is by an effective public opinion, effective public suffrage, with the right to control our local affairs, and I believe it is the only way to correct it.
Mr. HARRIS. Now I am trying to keep you on the problems you brought up, the specific problems that you thought might be improved.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right.
Mr. HARRIS. The right of the public to vote for somebody. I assume if a lot of people were given the right to vote, well I do not know whether they would be satisfied by just voting for someone, just so they have somebody to vote for. I do not agree with that at all. I think the greatest privilege anyone can have is the right of suffrage and participation in the national elections. We are all part of the National Government and it is a surprise to me that your newspaper and the other newspapers are not putting a great deal of
stress on that right, that principle of democracy, as you are on the smaller degree of suffrage for the District of Columbia.
Mr. GRAHAM. Could I comment on that, sir?
Mr. GRAHAM. As a practical matter we are aware of the constitutional provisions and the necessity for constitutional amendment to have representation in Congress and the right of suffrage and to be able to vote for the President of the United
States. I do not believe that there is any other place in America where they are separated. I do not know of any other places in America where those rights are separated, where people can vote for just Members of Congress and for the President. I think the rights are inseparable and I would think organizing on the community level is the first step toward the normal exercise of the right of suffrage. Practically, you told me the right to vote for the President and the right to vote for Members of Congress is to be deferred for members of this community; and I say, because of the American process, I say, give us a chance. See if we are as bad as some skeptics of the plan feel or as good as some proponents of the plan believe we are, and let us come back to you and discuss on the merits the advantages or disadvantages of a constitutional amendment, which I think then can be used as the thing which would solve our present condition.
Mr. HARRIS. Of course, I have no reason to jump at any conclusion, but you referred to "skeptics,” and if you are going to refer to one extreme you might refer to the other, say as "cloud walkers" or "utopian dreamers," if you want to refer to any particular description of anyone because of their position regarding this problem.
Now you mentioned a moment ago that one of the local responsibilities that the people might help minimize in this connection was the question of segregation. I am somewhat inclined to think that probably we should discuss it a little more fully. Sometimes I believe that maybe we have a false sense of security when we talk about the high degree of freedom. However, in many instances there is no doubt many times that all of this degree of freedom of speech in the press can bring on a lot of difficulties that might adversely affect the public. Now I do not know just what degree of effect it has on this segregation issue with reference to the pool a few days ago, because of the special attention which has been given to it through the press. I do know this; there are a lot of people throughout the country, if they see there is some trouble going on they are going to make their way to it. That is just natural and it is normal, and if you have 50 people who get in a controversy on some particular subject, or policy or principle, at a swimming pool or any other place, there will probably be one hundred or two hundred or three hundred more who are going to come if they know about it. They are just going to get in on it. That is Americanism, that is all.
Mr. GRAHAM. May I comment?
Mr. HARRIS. If that situation is permitted to exist, and I think if this swimming-pool difficulty had continued as it was for a few days, there is no telling what might have happened and what would have been the final result. I do not know whether the implication is that the Secretary of the Interior closed the pool down a few days ago because of that or because of what happened up on the hill; whether there was any justification, but I doubt whether they ever seriously closed up the matter. I think he saw he was getting into some real trouble out there and he wanted to stop it, just as a normal man would have done.
Now I recall in St. Louis, which is an unusual city in itself, by the way, and I think only Baltimore in the United States has the same kind of a situation as the city of St. Louis; as I recall from accounts of the press, they had a terrific problem out there only recently which got much farther away from them than this did down here. You remember that, don't you?
Mr. GRAHAM. I do. And may I say something about this swimming-pool thing?
Mr. HARRIS. Sure.
Mr. GRAHAM. In all of these problems those of us who come in the middle, and I mean the middle, are sensible people, including you and myself, sir. With all of these problems we are trying to resolve, we can just count mathematically on people who don't want us to solve the difficulties. Now take the Wallace people. There was nothing American about the crowd gathering. The Wallace people wanted a domestic problem to develop for export. They created the incident beautifully, and I think a fairly decent job was done about putting the fire out before it blazed.
My point was this, sir: Had we had local responsibility, had we had a mayor's interracial committee with community leaders of both races, sensible men and women, working on this problem, that thing would not have erupted. We would not have had the Wallace group capitalizing on a domestic incident for use overseas. That to me is the nub as to why the best solution of this essentially local problem is to leave it with us rather than to make it a major national problem. It is a local matter.
Mr. HARRIS. But you recall the difficulty that occurred in Detroit a few years ago; do you not?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARRIS. Didn't they have to call on the State and Federal Government?
Mr. GRAHAM. I was overseas. I do not know the details. I know something happened.
Mr. HARRIS. The reason I asked the question; the point is, we really haven't had difficulty in this city as in some of the other cities in the United States, have we?
Mr. GRAHAM. I think we have had some difficulties here.
Mr. HARRIS. Now the final question. I know a lot of people in and out of the Government in the District are interested in whether some degree of home rule is given, an elected city council for the District of Columbia and an elected school board for the District of Columbia. Now would it tend toward nonsegregation in the District of Columbia by ordinance or legislative action?
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, as you know, sir; we newspapermen know everything, but my crystal ball
Mr. HARRIS. I would not want to question that statement but I do have some reservations.
Mr. GRAHAM. My crystal ball is not quite that good. This is a city where mores are basically southern. It is a border city but its traditions and mores are basically southern. I should be surprised if this city, given home rule, would not meet the problem in about the same way reached, say by Richmond, Va., Louisville, Ky., Knoxville, Tenn., and other cities.
In addition to that, this city has a very highly literate population, a high educational level, high-school and college people; and has a high majority of very good, decent, loyal Americans. And I would wager on a common-sense solution of those problems, more or less, doing the same as cities of the rank I have suggested have done.
Mr. HARRIS. Well, it is my understanding that when any appointment is to be made with reference to the School Board appointments, with reference to any one of the important administrative offices here when they are to be made, that there are certain groups, certain people who are interested; that if the sole and only issue is the question of nonsegregation being decided and anyone being appointed to such a position, they will see to it that the segregation policy is being carried out.
Mr. Graham. I think you are talking about appointment by Federal officials.
Mr. HARRIS. I am talking about the issue that is brought up. when anyone is being given a public position in the District of Columbia.
Mr. GRAHAM. And those are Federal appointments.
Mr. GRAHAM. They come from the Federal Government. I think it is true as long as it stays the responsibility of the Congress.
Mr. HARRIS. You don't have that same degree at Knoxville or Richmond.
Mr. GRAHAM. Because it is decided by the local people and not by the Congress.
Mr. HARRIS. It is the local people who contend that the present plan be adopted here when these things are adopted.
Mr. GRAHAM. But it is the national leverage. I find I haven't made myself clear,
Mr. HARRIS. You haven't been in many elections, have you?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; I have been in quite a few elections, but I haven't made myself clear on that point. When a Federal official makes an appointment in Washington, a lot of pressure is brought to bear and they are of the State level. It is not votes in the District of Columbia because there are not enough votes there, but it is votes somewhere off in the national scheme.
Mr. HARRIS. You know, your reporter, who is very good, comes in the White House and finds out-not that I know from personal observation-but I do know it from what I have heard at other places; and he also gets then to go to other places where he finds out the degree of pressure that is brought on them.
Mr. GRAHAM. That is added pressure on national issues, sir; which differentiates this city, for example, from Nashville. There are some shades of opinion which make a difference.
Mr. HARRIS. Sure, and there should be. Mr. GRAHAM. It makes it interesting. Mr. HARRIS. Some of them I don't like, but nevertheless they exist. I am sorry; I did not mean to take up so much time. The next witness will be Mr. Frank Waldrop of the Times-Herald, who is also another outstanding newspaperman in the District of Columbia. From reading the editorials in the Times-Herald and the
activities in connection with your newspaper, Mr. Waldrop, I would say that you are a staunch advocate of home rule.
We are glad to have you as a representative of the Times-Herald, and certainly I would want to express the same compliment of your paper as an outstanding newspaper as I said in behalf of the others.
Mr. WALDROP. Thank you, Congressman. I think the people of Washington are very lucky to have three newspapers represented that are all equally important.
Mr. HARRIS. We would be glad to hear your statement.
STATEMENT OF FRANK C. WALDROP, WASHINGTON
Mr. WALDROP. I want to comment just briefly, if I may, on one or two points before I go into my general statement. I should say I don't have a written statement.
I have before me a memorandum by Mr. Rufus S. Lusk, of the Washington Taxpayers' Association, and I hope he will forgive me for making reference to it before he presents it, but in it he states that the agitation for the vote of an elected City Council started about 1940, when the Washington Times-Herald began a campaign to put it across.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Lusk has not presented his statement here and I haven't seen it. It may have been sent in a moment ago. However, I understand he has given it to the press.
Mr. WALDROP. Yes.
Mr. WALDROP. I merely wanted to say that this gives me an occasion to review briefly what our paper has actually done on this subject, and if you prefer
Mr. HARRIS. If you prefer to postpone your remarks and let Mr. Rufus Lusk take the stand and make his presentation, you can then follow up the matter, commenting on what he has to say.
Mr. WALDROP. Well it is immaterial to me. I will just put it this way, that the Times-Herald in 1938, not in 1940, began to develop a point of view of its own on the subject of suffrage in the District of Columbia.
Mr. HARRIS. Could you state that briefly?
Mr. WALDROP. I was one of the principal participants in organizing a referendum to try to find out what the people of the District of Columbia wanted in the way of suffrage, in general terms, meaning the right to vote in local and national elections; we did not specify an elected City Council as above any other element. Our main purpose was to try to find out what people really wanted. We also advocated something ourselves, but whether we would be able to argue that is what the people wanted we did not know.
In 1946 I was again brought into the forming of a referendum program and was chairman of an executive committee which set it up; so I have no hesitation in saying I have had considerable experience in trying to find out what the people of Washington actually want in suffrage, and I do not know.
As far as our paper is concerned, we have tried to analyze various propositions that have come up every year in Congress, and from time to time have favored some of them a little more than others; and yet