zen but a slave. It was a right which this country, when under subjection to Great Britain, thought worth making a resolute struggle for and evinced a determination to perish rather than not enjoy.' "In 1803 the 'unrepublican' condition of the District was again a matter of comment, and it was proposed to recede to Maryland and Virginia jurisdiction over the parts of the District originally ceded by them. John Randolph, Jr., in February of that year, said in the House: "I could wish, indeed, to see the people within this District restored to their rights. This species of government is an experiment how far freeman can be reconciled to live without rights; an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But inasmuch as it had been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and as at some future time its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am disposed to vote against the resolution.' "A proposition to recede the Territory of Columbia outside of the limits of Washington caused Representative Clark to say, in 1805, that he spoke of the inhabitants whenever he had occasion to allude to them with pity and compassion, and he most devoutly wished to see them placed in a condition more congenial to his own feelings and the feelings of every true lover of civil and political freedom. Alexandria was retroceded in 1846, her ‘galling disfranchisement' being referred to in debate. Georgetown had sought retrocession in 1838, but unsuccessfully. "During all these years Washington as well as Georgetown and Alexandria, had been voting in their respective municipal governments." STATEMENT OF MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS Mrs. WILEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Mrs. Harvey A. Wiley. I would like to identify my organization. We are an organization of 30 clubs and our meetings are every month, of the entire body, according to the members in the clubs, so that the vote that is taken at a meeting is a representative vote of the clubs. I have a committee on legislation that meets at my house always before the meeting and we discuss whatever is coming up at the meeting and recommend our findings to the entire body. I might say I am a Republican and I was born in the district of Mr. Allen of California, and Mr. O'Hara and I worked together on daylight saving, so I suppose I have those points in common with the committee. I might say I have lived in Washington for 62 years, and I have worked for the city all my life and that is a long period. I have lived in the same house for 36 years. Mr. ABERNETHY. I recall you appeared before the Committee on Agriculture but you were not with Mr. O'Hara on that. Mrs. WILEY. That is true. We did disagree on oleomargarine. Mr. HARRIS. Would you like to include your statement in the record? Mrs. WILEY. No; I want to read it. Mr. HARRIS. Very well. Mrs. WILEY. I want to say, in the first place, I am a very seriousminded person. I worked for woman suffrage in 1917 and I have been in every good movement in the city, Red Cross, Community Chest, and president of my citizens' group and a delegate to the citizens association, and I have given a great deal of time to public work. Mr. HARRIS. That is very commendable of you, Mrs. Wiley. Mrs. WILEY. Yes; and now all I want to say is that we want to vote. We, the members of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, most of whom have lived in this city for most of our lives, have long stood for the principle of national representation in the District of Columbia. We have worked for that principle year after year. In the Seventy-ninth Congress the bill to give the District of Columbia national representation, by means of a constitutional amendment, reached its highest point. At that time we were gratefully hopeful that our long pent-up desire would be gratified, and that the amendment would be submitted to the States for ratification. However, when that did not happen, when the Eightieth Congress came along and Representative James C. Auchincloss, of New Jersey, worked for months perfecting his bill for home rule, H. R. 6227, which of course could be passed by a majority vote in each House, our organization, after careful study, went on record on February 23, 1948, for the Auchincloss bill. At a subsequent meeting of the federation on November 23, 1948, I was entrusted to send a letter expressing our approval of home rule for the District of Columbia to all new Members of the Eighty-first Congress, in the House and Senate, advising them of our stand in this matter. This [indicating] is a copy of that letter. By way of explanation of our stand in this matter, I would like to say that primarily we believe that it is right that the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Capital City of this great democracy, should have the opportunity to express our wishes at the polls in matters concerning the District of Columbia. We would have preferred, as expressed above, to have had representation in the Congress; but that being impossible, we believe since our taxes furnish the bulk of the money which runs the city-I think we got $13,000,000 and supplied the $93,000,000 through taxes and as we send our sons-I sent two of my sons to war to defend the Nation, we are entitled to the fundamental privilege in a democracy to express our wishes at the polls to choose the officials who settle District matters. Throughout the country few people seem to know that we, the people of Washington, D. C., bear all the burdens of the community but have none of the privileges. Also, comparatively few people know that the District had home rule from 1800 to 1871. The untruth that the founding fathers intended that the residents of "the seat of Government of the United States' should be denied the basic right of local self-government has been exposed many times in the daily newspapers, which inform the public that "A municipal legislation for local purposes (District of Columbia) derived from their suffrage will, of course, be allowed them," was uttered by James Madison. Washington is the only national capital in the whole world whose people cannot vote. Referendums taken in 1938 and again in 1946 expressed an overwhelming opinion in favor of both national representation and of home rule. The Kefauver bill, S. 1527, which passed the Senate, is somewhat different from the Auchincloss bills (H. R. 6227 and H. R. 28). The principle is the same, however, as small points of difference must be settled by the committees of Congress. We hope that the House will pass this bill this session and allow the people here to vote on it next November 15, 1949. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much for your very fine statement. Mr. ALLEN of California. Mrs. Wiley, does your organization have a preference between the Kefauver bill and the Auchincloss bill No. 28 of the Eighty-first Congress? Mrs. WILEY. Representative Allen, we haven't gone into those differences. I have the differences here and I was very much interested a moment ago in the testimony of Mr. DeWitt, who said that the Auchincloss bill was better because of the organization and because it gave a positive instead of a negative action by Congress, If that is the opinion of a well-qualified lawyer, I think that sounds pretty reasonable. We haven't voted on that. I thought those differences should be ironed out by you in conference as it is a matter for a lawyer. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you for your statement. We will now hear from Rev. Orris G. Robinson. STATEMENT OF REV. ORRIS G. ROBINSON, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF CHURCHES Reverend ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Orris G. Robinson and I am testifying in behalf of the board of directors of the Washington Federation of Churches. On June 17, 1949, the board of directors of the Washington Federation of Churches, a board composed of slightly over 100 religious leaders, both lay and clerical, in regular meeting unanimously passed on the following statement: We hereby reaffirm our action relative to home rule in the District of Columbia, and urge the House District Committee to bring the matter of home rule before the House of Representatives for action. The board expressed its very great hope that favorable action on home rule may be taken before Congress adjourns. The resolution referred to was passed May 21, 1948, and is as follows: Whereas we believe that the demands of American democracy require that our community be given comparable rights to citizenship and its privileges which are enjoyed by other communities throughout our Nation; and Whereas we believe that an important aid by which the people of Washington may learn to exercise their responsibility as citizens is to give them the vote; and Whereas we believe that every citizen has not only the right but also the duty to participate directly in choosing the officials who govern him: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the members of the board of directors of the Washington Federation of Churches present at its meeting on May 21, 1948, approve the principle of self-government, and to this end urge Congress to pass the District charter bill now before it. That is a very brief statement but very earnest, coming from a group of people whom we consider very thoughtful and who are intensely interested. Mr. HARRIS. I find you do recommend the Kefauver bill. Mr. HARRIS. Your board no doubt has given careful consideration to the provisions of the bill. Reverend ROBINSON. We have had members of the board, laymen, some of whom are lawyers, who did make a very careful study. Mr. HARRIS. And you recommend it as it was passed by the Senate? Reverend ROBINSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The next witness will be Mr. Marvin M. McLean. STATEMENT OF MARVIN M. MCLEAN, EX PRESIDENT, BROOKLAND CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mr. McLEAN. My name is Marvin M. McLean, of 1551 Newton Street NE., that is Brookland, D. C. Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed, Mr. McLean. Mr. MCLEAN. I want to mention the article in the Constitution that was so ably presented and argued by Judge Hobbs, who is one of the ablest lawyers in Congress. It is section I, article 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the seat of the Government of the United States." The chief interest of the National Government, Congress, seemed to be that Congress should be supreme in the seat of Government to the exclusion of any State or local sovereignty. Now as argued by the distinguished Representative, Judge Hobbs Mr. HARRIS. Pardon me, Mr. McLean. The bell has just rung and that is on a vote which requires us to be present when our names are called. How much time would you need? Mr. McLEAN. I think I can get done in 3 minutes. Mr. McLEAN. I do not believe that the Congress has the moral or the legal authority to transfer or delegate this authority to act. That is conferred upon it by the Constitution. They don't have either the legal or the moral right to do it. They could not. Everybody admits that they could not, at least the majority of the lawyers, that they could not elect a delegate to Congress without a constitutional amendment. So far as I am concerned, I have lived here for 50 years. I am a native of Texas and a Democrat and I still vote in Texas. My own opinion is that a great many of these men could vote if they tried to, who are now advocating home rule. Most of them could vote in their home States, those that come from the States. The weakest system of government in the United States is the government by votes in home rule in the cities. In Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York-Mr. Hague's town in New Jersey, and some others-in Chicago they had home rule. It was governed in part by that Italian crook who was sent to the penitentiary-I do not recall his name now. Mr. HARRIS. Do you mean Mr. Capone? Mr. McLEAN. Yes; he governed the last elections in that city and elected judges until they sent him to the penitentiary. And then they had Bathtub John and several others of the same kind. Then in Philadelphia they had wards that cast out the votes, and in such a ward they would have three or four Democratic votes and the balance would be thousands of Republican votes. They elected a Senator over there who was a "good" Methodist. I am a good Methodist, but they believed in following some creed and he apparently fell. They would not seat him because of the fraud in the elections. Now I think without any question that this city has the best city government of any city in the United States. We have no taxeswe have a good cheap school system. Mr. ABERNETHY. You don't mean you have no taxes? Mr. McLEAN. I mean we have low taxes. We have the finest streets and parks, etc., I think, of any city in the country, and probably in the world. It is well governed. It has been well governed for 75 years. They tried local suffrage here from about 1872 to 1874. Then they had local suffrage and the city went bankrupt. Then they changed to the present form in 1878. Now they talk about this thing being bottled up. Home rule has been bottled up for 75 years now, and I think it could wait about 75 years more, and probably it will wait several years more, I am pretty sure of it. When we have as good a government as we have everything is running well; there is nothing perfect, nobody is perfect that I have ever seen on this side; but I have known the Commissioners for 50 years, some of them. They have all been good men, good civilians. The most effective Commissioner on the Board is always the Engineer Commissioner. He is a graduate of West Point, always a man of great ability. His position is permanent and he has no temptations to go crooked and has nothing to do with political parties and the like and he can act only in the interest of the people. Now this present bill and all the other bills provide that most of the power shall be lodged with the City Manager. We now have three Commissioners rather than a City Manager, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. I don't think you could improve on them by an election. I say, when you have the best government, the finest city, let well enough alone. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. McLean. We are glad to have your statement. Mr. McLEAN. I will, if I am permitted, introduce in the record a one-paragraph article that appeared in the Sunday Star, which reads as follows: It is generally admitted that for the District of Columbia the present form of government is the best possible. Free from scandal of every sort, successive Boards of Commissioners of ability and character have administered the affairs of the District government during the past 27 years more efficiently and economically than the affairs of any other American municipality To quote the words of an experienced and acute observer, "Washington is one of the best-governed cities in the world." Rufus Rockwell Wilson, Washington, the Capital City, volume 2, pages 379–380. * * * Mr. HARRIS. We have one more witness for this morning, Mr. Charles E. Sands, of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. Can you make a brief statement in a minute or two? STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. SANDS, REPRESENTING THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. OF L. Mr. SANDS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Charles E. Sands, international representative of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and with the Railway 95148-49- -26 |