The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you appear before the committee and make the suggestions, which will be given careful consideration. Thank you very much. We have a few minutes, if there is anyone who would like to present his statement. Mr. PRELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. The CHAIRMAN. Give the reporter your name and whom you represent. Mr. PRELLER. I am C. F. Preller, president of the Washington Central Labor Union. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to make a brief statement? The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. STATEMENT OF C. F. PRELLER, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR UNION Mr. PRELLER. My name is C. F. Preller and I am president of the Washington Central Labor Union of the American Federation of Labor. For over 50 years the Washington Central Labor Union has advocated full suffrage for the citizens of the District of Columbia. In meeting assembled, the delegates from affiliated locals of the Central Labor Union, representing over 100,000 residents of the District, have voted their endorsement of the Kefauver bill, S. 1527. I am here today to convey to your committee our strong support of this bill. S. 1527 will provide a substantial degree of home rule. The Senate started with the work of the House Subcommittee on Home Rule, under Representative Auchincloss, made a number of changes which we believe improved the legislation and brought out a very good bill. We believe it will go a long way toward lifting the barrier of secondclass citizenship to which residents of the District have been relegated. Some groups in the community say that home rule cannot be successful without national representation. We disagree strongly with this view. National representation will require several years to enact under the most favorable conditions. Give us home rule now and national representation will come later. It might be of interest to your committee to know that the American Federation of Labor at its last national convention passed a resolution favoring full suffrage for the District. In closing I would like to say to the committee that citizenship in the best American tradition, in which the citizen takes pride in every activity of his community, can only flower fully in the District when full citizenship and self-determination are granted. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. PRELLER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. The CHAIRMAN. We also have Paul Matthews, representing the Junion Chamber of Commerce. Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement which will only take a minute or two to present. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. STATEMENT OF PAUL MATTHEWS, PRESIDENT, JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Matthews, president of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Our organization consists of approximately 850 young business and professional men between the ages of 21 and 35 years, employed or doing business in the District of Columbia. You are all aware, from the local junior chamber of commerce activities in your own communities, of the purposes and objectives of our organization. As a representative civic organization, we feel obligated to express the views of our membership on the vital issue now before your committee, namely home rule for the District of Columbia. In order to give our membership an opportunity to express its opinion on this issue a poll was conducted within the past 2 weeks. We appreciate the consideration of the committee in postponing our appearance until today in order that we might complete a poll of our membership. Of the ballots mailed, we received a response from approximately 40 percent of the total membership. There were three issues incorporated in the poll: 1. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia, with national representation? 2. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia without national representation? 3. Do you favor representation in Congress for the District of Columbia? On the first question, concerning home rule with national representation, 68 percent voted "Yes" and 32 percent voted "No." On the second question, concerning home rule without national representation, only 24 percent voted "Yes" and 76 percent voted "No." On the third question, concerning only national representation, 80 percent voted "Yes" and 20 percent voted "No." From these results it may be concluded the membership of the junior chamber of commerce primarily and overwhelmingly desires national representation. Secondly, if home rule is to be granted to the District of Columbia, national representation should precede or accompany the adoption of any home rule form of government. And thirdly, home rule by itself is definitely opposed by the membership. In conclusion, the membership of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Washington, D. C., has indicated by an overwhelming majority that national representation is the primary consideration in approaching the question of suffrage for the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are very glad to have your statement. I was a member of your organization at one time and I am still an honorary member. Mr. MATTHEWs. That is very fine. Come down to see us any time. The CHAIRMAN. If there are any others who wish to leave their statements, we will receive them at this time. Anyone who wishes to be heard, if they will give their names to the clerk, we will list them to be heard when the hearing resumes at 10 o'clock next Wednesday morning. Those who were scheduled for today who have not been heard and who will be called next Wednesday morning are: Mr. Jack Dolton, of the Amalgamated Casualty Insurance Co.; Mr. Morton Liftin, District of Columbia Industrial Union Council, CIO; Mr. Vincent J. Browne, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Mr. Elmer E. Batzell, McArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association; and Mr. Maynard B. DeWitt, of the American Veterans Committee. The hearing stands adjourned until next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon the hearing adjourned, to meet on Wednesday, July 20, 1949, at 10 a. m.) HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in the committee room of the House Committee on the District of Columbia, the Honorable Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Mr. HARRIS. The subcommittee will please come to order. In resuming our hearings on the home rule bill this morning we have Mr. Jack Dolton, with the Amalgamated Casualty Insurance Co., as the first witness. STATEMENT OF JACK DOLTON, AMALGAMATED CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. Mr. DOLTON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRIS. Please give your full name and address. Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed. Mr. DOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing here more or less on my own behalf but also for the Amalgamated Casualty Insurance Co. which insures the majority, or more than 50 percent, of the cabs in Washington. I have taken this bill up myself several times with hundreds of different people who are both interested in business and interested in Washington. I have yet to find the first man who is interested in or wants the bill, in my own opinion. Mr. HARRIS. Which bill are you talking about? Are you talking about any special bill, or just in general? Mr. DOLTON. The bill that I read. I do not remember the number now. Mr. MCMILLAN. The Kefauver bill? Mr. DOLTON. Yes, sir. The bill in itself, in my opinion, should never be passed in any city, much less in Washington. I would like to point out to you gentlemen what I and other people think of it. First of all, you are giving Washington not a home rule bill but you are giving Washington more or less a dictatorship. Do not misunderstand me. I am not criticizing Congress at the present moment. I am giving you my opinion. You first come along in the bill and you say that they shall have 11 Council members at a salary of $5,000 a year. What do you expect to get for $5,000 a year? Who will you get? You will get somebody who will want a racket in politics, or else you will get some retired businessman who will do as he wants to, who wants to pass his time passing laws and so forth. That is the only type of man you will get. You certainly cannot get an efficient businessman or executive for $5,000 a year. I pay my secretary more than that. Then you go along and you say, "We will appoint a district manager." You do not say how much salary you will pay this manager. You leave that to the Council. But is there one man big enough to operate the city of Washington, in this bill the way it is designed? You tell this City Manager once he is appointed by this Council that he can appoint anybody he sees fit. Not only can he do that, but he can hire and fire as he sees fit. Now, what will happen to what Washington has taken many, many years to build up? I have contacts in my business with several departments here. I have operated and do operate in other cities. You cannot find anywhere in the United States, gentlemen, or the eastern seaboard, which I am very familiar with, a more loyal bunch of employees than you have in the District of Columbia. When they are busy they work overtime, night after night, when they have rush times, or for the license periods, and so forth. They do not complain. They stuck with the District of Columbia all through this war at low wages. I am not here, gentlemen, to talk for the city officials. I am talking as I see things. They worked for Washington for many years, and yet in this bill you say that you can put a complete stranger in. He does not have to be a Washingtonian. He can be from anywhere in the United States. As a matter of fact, it does not even say that he has to be a citizen, I think. That man can come in and fire anybody who he doesn't like, if he does not like the way they part their hair. He can put in a lot of his friends. In the first place, in the bill itself you destroy the departments they have taken so many years to build up. You say in your bill that we are going to put in certain directives of different departments. Let us see what will happen when you do that. I am in the insurance business. My contacts in Washington are with the Insurance Department, with the Police Department, and the Public Utilities Commission. That is for the most part, since we do business with them or have contacts with them. Let me give you this as an illustration: Take the Insurance Department. I have been in the insurance business now since I was 18 years old. I am getting too old now to tell you how long that is, but I still have lots to learn. It takes many years. You must remember, gentlemen, that insurance is one of the backbones of this country, one of the most important factors of this country. Without insurance and banking you might wake up one morning, or when you have bought insurance for your wives and families, and wake up and find out that the insurance company you thought you were paying a premium to does not exist any more, without proper supervision. Are you going to take and let a stranger who is appointed by this wonderful City Manager you are going to have, and put somebody in there who is going to have the Alcohol Board, who is going to have other departments, and the Insurance Department? What will happen? Do not expect to find a man who understands the alcohol |