of whether the citizens vote for or against the provisions of the home, rule bill. 18. The Congress over the years has consistently refused to go back to the 40-60 formula and the law relating to that formula was violated for years before the law was repealed. Now we come to section 2001, wherein a formula is offered providing we vote for home rule. Why, we ask, is not this formula in being for this year's budget? We also ask: What guaranty do the citizens of the District have that this will remain on the statute books? If Congress could toss out of the window the 40-60 formula, it can toss out of the window this formula provided in section 404, which ends with the following language: * * * to amend or repeal any law in force in the District of Columbia prior to or after enactment of this act, or any provision of this act. 19. The members of the American Legion of the District of Columbia have over the years been on record for statehood. The author of this bill in the Senate, Senator Estes Kefauver, introduced for the District of Columbia S. 1527, but in this same year offers S. 2035 to provide statehood and admission of Alaska into the Union. H. R. 49 is for the purpose of enabling the people of Hawaii to form a constitution and State government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States. I would like to state that both of these bills comply with resolutions 747 and 377 adopted at the American Legion convention in Miami in 1948 and resolution 732 at San Francisco in 1946. The people of the District of Columbia are entitled to the same consideration as those of Alaska and Hawaii, and the only bill the American Legion of the District of Columbia will accept is a bill similar to the bills for Alaska and Hawaii. In behalf of the members of this department I sincerely trust that this committee will not approve this bill. I sincerely trust in its stead you will introduce and approve a bill for statehood with full voting rights and privileges as accorded to the citizens of your States and are now considering for the people of Alaska and Hawaii. When considering these bills, add bills for the District of Columbia and create three additional States at one and the same time. In other words, if the bill for statehood for the District of Columbia is considered and approved with those for Alaska and Hawaii, ratification of all three could be had at one and the same time. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to state that when witnesses stated as to the criminal conditions in Washington, the number of crimes committed indicates the efficient Police Department which arrests for those crimes. In other words, when the police make arrests, the crime has been known and is used for statistical purposes. As Mr. Lusk has stated, everything around the District of Columbia shows for efficient government, but if we go back to the days of Cicero, Chicago, and certain conditions that exist in other States where the law officers did not enforce the law, then the percentage of crime does not show on the record of enforcement; but our records are large for enforcement because of the efficient work done by our Police Department and we have a very efficient Police Department. That is all of my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HARRIS. You have covered very fine areas in your presentation for the American Legion, on the over-all principle of the right to participate in democratic government. I think your statement will have far-reaching consequences also and will be of much interest to the other Members of Congress when they come to consider the problem. We appreciate your statement very much, and appreciate your coming here and giving us your statement, representing as you do one of the greatest patriotic organizations not only in this present age, but throughout the history of the United States. Mr. McKEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington 9, D. C., June 22, 1949. HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE ON HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORED MEMBERS: The American Legion, Department of the District of Columbia is composed of 59 posts, and its membership at the close of 1948 was 19,929 paid up members, yet statements have been made that no large representative group have been or are opposed to home rule in and for the District of Columbia. When H. R. 4902 was introduced in the Eightieth Congress we opposed it and a copy of our findings in regard to that bill is enclosed herewith for the record. I was directed to appear before the House District Committee this year in opposition to H. R. 28 of the present Congress, and I was directed to appear before the Senate District Committee and any other committee holding hearings in opposition to S. 1365 which has since been changed to S. 1527. Nothing in the proposed bill by Senator Kefauver changes the opinion of the American Legion, who by mandate at its last department convention opposed home rule, because: 1. It does not truly create home rule as defined by Webster's "home rule" as "government of a district, colony, territory, etc., by the inhabitants themselves, particularly with regard to local matters." 2. The insertion of section 404 of S. 1527 clearly upholds our contention that home rule is not being offered when it states: "The Congress of the United States reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District of Columbia, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the District Council by this act, including without limitation legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District of Columbia prior to or after the enactment of this act or any provision of this act. 3. Section 301 creates an 11-member Council, 9 of whom shall be elected, and 2 of whom shall be appointed, without regard to political affiliation by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, yet section 404 is inserted to protect the interests of the United States. 4. Section 303 now fixes the compensation of the Council members at $5,000, whereas H. R. 4902 fixed the compensation at $3,000. Under the new set-up the total annual outlay for the Council is $60,500, whereas H. R. 4902 was only $32,000. 5. Section 327 can lead to excessive overhead as the compensation is a blank check to be filled in later whether the people like it or not. 6. Section 332 creates another blank check to be filled in. 7. Section 335 permits an ordinance within 13 days of its introduction and also provides that the ordinance can be instituted at once if the vote of the council is unanimous. Does this mean that the voice of the citizen will not be heard as he now enjoys at hearings before the Commissioners of the District of Columbia? 8. Section 402 legislation created by the failure of Congress to pass legislation can find its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The right of Congress to veto again proves this is not home rule by the people themselves. 9. Section 501 creates another blank check to be filled in later. This is the salary for the district manager. 10. Section 503 means more blank checks for the assistants to the District Manager. 11. Section 822 creates additional costs to the taxpayers. 12. Section 831 again creates additional costs to the taxpayers as indicated by subsections 1, 2, and 4 of section (A) thereof and subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of section (C) thereof. 13. Why does section 832 eliminate any income to the District from these sources, when it charges the District with expenses of other courts. 14. Section 901 (A) creates 12 executive departments and section (B) again creates a blank check for the salaries to be paid these heads of departments. 15. Section 1002 (C), Public Utility Commission, states "No person shall be appointed to the Commission unless he has resided in the District for the 3-year period which ends on the day of his appointment.' Why a 3-year period for members of this Commission, and not a 3-year residence requirement for the members to be elected to the council? 16. Section 1206 (A) states "To be qualified to vote in the District it is not intended that a person be required to relinquish his rights in another jurisdiction. This creates dual voting privileges, and in former hearings the proponents for home rule justified this provision by pointing to two towns in the whole of the United States where this is permitted, namely, the towns of Cheverly, Md., with a population of 2,700 and Brentwood, Md., with a population of 2,400. These two towns came into being because Government clerks working in Washington holding voting privileges elsewhere established these towns and those towns at their inception practically had no other types of inhabitants, so there was nothing left for them to do but govern themselves. 17. Section 1702 creates a loan of $500,000 without interest for the expense of the Charter Referendum Board, etc., which amount is to be paid back by the District of Columbia during the next year regardless of whether the citizens vote for or against the provisions of the home rule bill. 18. The Congress over the years has consistently refused to go back to the 40-60 formula and the law relating to that formula was violated for years before the law was repealed. Now we come to section 2001, wherein a formula is offered providing we vote for home rule. Why, we ask, is not this formula in being for this year's budget? We also ask. What guaranty do the citizens of the District have that this will remain on the statute books? If Congress could toss out the window the 40-60 formula, it can toss out the window this formula as provided in section 404 when it ends up with the following language "To amend or repeal any law in force in the District of Columbia prior to or after enactment of this act, or any provision of this act. 19. The members of the American Legion of the District of Columbia have over the years been on record for statehood. The author of this bill S. 1527 Senator Kefauver has also introduced S. 2035 to provide for statehood and admission of Alaska into the Union. H. R. 49 is for the purpose of enabling the people of Hawaii to form a constitutional and State government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. I would like to state that both of these bills comply with resolutions 747 and 376 combined of the American Legion conventions in Miami 1948 and resolution 732 at San Francisco in 1946. The people of the District of Columbia are entitled to the same consideration as those of Alaska and Hawaii, and the only bill the American Legion will accept is a bill similar to the bills for Alaska and Hawaii. In behalf of the members of this department I sincerely trust that this committee will not approve this bill. I sincerely trust in its stead you will introduce and approve a bill for statehood with full voting rights and privileges as accorded the citizens of your States and are now considering for the people of Alaska and Hawaii. In conclusion, if a bill for statehood for the District of Columbia is considered and approved, with those for Alaska and Hawaii, ratification by the States on all three could be had at one and the same time, and the three new States could be added together with the necessary stars for the flag of our country, all of which could be done at a saving to the Nation. I thank you, JEROME B. MCKEE, Mr. HARRIS. We have Mr. David Whatley, who was not scheduled as a witness for this morning, but who is interested one way or another; and he advises us that he probably will not be able to be in town and be able to testify at a later date. Under those circumstances we will hear him at this time. It is now 5 minutes after 12. How much time will you require? Mr. WHATLEY. Six minutes. Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF DAVID WHATLEY, ATTORNEY, AND FORMER RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. WHATLEY. I am David Whatley, and you may recall I am a former resident of your district. Mr. HARRIS. Of Lewisville, Ark. Mr. WHATLEY. And have voted for you on numerous occasions. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Mr. WHATLEY. Since 1930 I have been fortunate enough to retain my vote, so I have my vote although I have lived in the District. Mr. HARRIS. May I congratulate you on being one of the practical ones who do that, which is a great privilege and a right that belongs to the people of the District of Columbia as well as the people of any other State of the Union. Mr. WHATLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak objectively in behalf of this bill, since it would not affect my personal vote. I speak for those several hundred thousand here who do not have that American right to participate in the election of their own officials. I am a great believer in the Constitution, particularly that requirement that guaranties to every State a republican form of government; that particular provision, I think, makes it mandatory upon the Congress to provide full suffrage for the District of Columbia, and I take this time in order to present a plan which I have previously presented before committees in past years which seems to have aroused very little interest. I am still soundly convinced that it is the only practicable means of achieving full national representation without a constitutional amendment, which constitutional amendment, I think, would never be ratified by the requisite 36 States, in view of the fact that a number of the States are often from time to time reduced in their representation in Congress so it seems inconceivable that they would ever grant the District of Columbia two Senators. I am not satisfied with the half loaf of a Delegate, with no Senator. I therefore propose, Mr. Chairman, to refute the contention made this morning that the only two means of achieving national representation are by either a constitutional amendment or the re-cession of this area to Maryland. The latter policy certainly is not practicable. It would presumably, I think, also be unconstitutional, in view of the fact that the Constitution gives a categorical jurisdiction, plenary jurisdiction to the Federal Government over this area, and provides no detailed power to the Federal Government to re-cede such an area. The re-cession of the part that was originally this area to Virginia, which is now Arlington County, was a very dubious thing from a constitutional standpoint. I propose national representation by the very simple expedient of considering, for purposes of voting only, that this particular area be still considered as a part of the State of Maryland. That would per 95148-49- -15 mit the acquisition by the State of Maryland, by action of its legislature, of the voting rights of the people in this area who do not vote elsewhere for Federal offices only, as if they actually were residents of the State of Maryland. I believe that the State of Maryland, if memorialized, would provide such suffrage by an amendment to this bill, in the nature of a simple resolution calling upon the State of Maryland to provide such suffrage, that the legislature would very readily pass it, if for no other reason than the fact that it would provide additional representation in the House for the State of Maryland and would probably increase their representation by three votes. I think that the people here would then be participating in the same category in regard to Federal offices as, for instance, the people in the city of Baltimore would. I think the people in the District are entitled to no more than that, as a practical matter, and I believe that it would be a logical solution and a practical solution to this problem, and would afford an answer to the critics of local home rule who do not wish local suffrage without national representation. I seriously ask that you have a study made of that question by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress or by the Attorney General, as to its constitutionality and its practicability; and if such a resolution were passed as an amendment to this bill, I believe that the legislature of the State of Maryland would act upon it. Mr. HARRIS. I was interrupted. Would you mind repeating what your resolution was that you proposed? Mr. WHATLEY. It would memorialize the State of Maryland to make suffrage available to the residents of this area who do not vote for Federal offices elsewhere, as I have done since 1930. They are the judge of their own qualifications and voters, of course, under the Constitution. Mr. HARRIS. Do you know whether or not the laws of the State of Maryland would permit a person who actually lives outside the State to vote in the State? Mr. WHATLEY. It would, of course, require legislative action by the State of Maryland. Unquestionably. I believe, it would not involve an amendment to the Maryland Constitution. Mr. HARRIS. In what part of Maryland would they have a right to vote? Mr. WHATLEY. It would depend on what district they would put them in. I would contemplate that the District would properly be combined with the contiguous area of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, so that to the northwest your area that is in the metropolitan Washington suburban area would probably be combined with Montgomery County and have one congressional district, and the northeast section would probably be combined with that of Prince Georges County which is contiguous to that. Mr. HARRIS. Do you mean by that that the people of the District of Columbia would be permitted to vote in the State elections of the State of Maryland? Mr. WHATLEY. Only for Federal offices, sir. Mr. HARRIS. Only for Federal offices? Mr. WHATLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRIS. Do you mean they would vote for Senators in the State of Maryland? |