the adverse interests, if they are, may be considered, and the solution determined so that the rights of these groups should be preserved?

It seems to me, to be critical of your statement, that your statement has looked entirely from the attitude or the viewpoint of those who made their homes in Washington upon whom almost a Federal city seems to be imposed as an undesirable thing.

Have you made a study of which rights should be preserved for each of the two opposing groups and evaluated the solution that this bill has proposed?

Mr. WATTS. My organization has made no such study, although I am sure that the people who have worked on it over the years have given consideration to the problem, and it seems to me that the present bill goes to that end to a great extent, further, frankly, than I would like to see it go on a personal basis, in that it does reserve to the Congress the final veto right over anything that is done by the elected city council, so that those rights, if they are required for other people as they are not required for Washingtonians as they go into other States to live on a temporary basis or transgress through those areas, I think are adequately protected in this legislation or proposed legislation.

Mr. ALLEN. Do you agree with the method of voting provided in this bill?

Mr. WATTS. Yes, I do.

Mr. ALLEN. Have you made any study of the effect of a similar method in other cities of somewhat comparable size?

Mr. WATTS. No, I have not, sir.

Mr. SITTLER. Did you say that you objected on a personal basis to the review by Congress? Did I understand you correctly?

Mr. WATTS. Not in total. I am not in a position of saying that we want complete local autonomy. In fact, I am not even prepared to debate whether or not that complete autonomy is the desirable thing because we have recognized that it is a Federal city in the beginning.

We recognize that there were real good reasons for the establishment of a Federal city. I am not opposed to a review of the legislation which might be enacted by this council by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. SITTLER. Will you read the last paragraph of your statement again? I think you spoke of what you will accept. Did you not close with such a statement?

Mr. WATTS. I believe I made that statement after this prepared statement. We did not make anything in our prepared statement to the effect that we are willing to accept anything now that you are willing to give us. I made that after the prepared statement.

Mr. SITTLER. I thought it came out that you would like to leave this in the hands of Congress and you would be willing to try out any suffrage that Congress was willing to offer.

Mr. WATTS. I believe that, although I am fearful that the committee might be fearful of picking up suggestions on our part. I do not think that this is the appropriate procedure to be used.

This legislation has been proposed and it has been worked on very vigorously and very hard by the people in the District of Columbia. Even to get it through the Senate it had to be modified from the original proposals, and if the members of this committee are truly

interested in seeing democracy work in the District of Columbia, I do not believe that they will think up ways to forestall bringing it to them at this time.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I will say this, Mr. Watts: I am afraid maybe you are misinterpreting my position. I do not want anybody around the District to think I am kidding about this thing.

You are talking about making democracy work. I am perfectly willing this morning to support legislation which will recede to Maryland all of that portion of the District of Columbia except such that this immediate Capitol, the buildings on Constitution Avenue, the White House area, and the others that I mentioned early are resting upon.

We talk about making democracy work. The thing that amazes me is that the proponents of home rule are reluctant to take that which will give them every right that every citizen in the United States outside of the District now enjoys, the right to elect officials from President down to constable, may I say, and the right to support a Federal Government, a State government, a county government, and a municipal government.

Do you think the people of the District ought to have that right? Mr. WATTS. I think that they ought to have all of those rights, sir, but I think as a practical approach to the problem you will recognize, as I believe is a fact, that you have little or no opportunity of getting such legislation through the Senate and through the House of Repre

sentatives.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What is impractical about it?

Mr. WATTS. Because of the lack of opportunity to get legislation enacted at this time and I think for a long time in the future to change the whole historical relationship of the District of Columbia as a Federal area over to turning it back to the States.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then you do not oppose them having those rights that other citizens have?

Mr. WATTS. I do not. I think they are entitled to them.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You do not oppose the idea?

Mr. WATTS. I do not.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You do not oppose that idea. You simply state that you think it is impractical of being passed through the Congress at this time. Is that what you said?

Mr. WATTS. That is it; yes, sir. To be absolutely clear on the record, I will say that I did not come here to offer testimony in support of any movement at the present time to give the land of the District of Columbia, except for a small portion as described by you, back to Maryland.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand that, but it was not a question of whether you came here prepared to do it, or not.

You have stated that you would favor it.

of

Mr. WATTS. Not as receding the land as such, but I am in favor of the people who reside in the present District of Columbia, having all those rights that you have described. There is more than one way skinning a cat, as they say, and I suppose if there is absolutely no other way of getting the right to vote in the District of Columbia, that the citizens of the District of Columbia might well get behind such a

move.

I do not believe however, that we should look for that in lieu of the present proposed legislation, since if you can get it through the House of Representatives we can have some kind of a vote in the very near future.

Mr. ALLEN. It seemed to me, Mr. Watts, you said something about that if the committee or the Congress had a sincere desire to make democracy work in the District of Columbia, they would take some action at this time on this bill. Do I quote you roughly correct? Mr. WATTS. Yes, you do.

Mr. ALLEN. If, in the opinion of any member, the making of democracy work in accordance with the proposal now before us would somewhat severely harm the operation of the Republic of the United States, do you think we ought to go ahead now on this bill?

Mr. WATIS, No, but I cannot imagine this legislation hampering the operations of the Republic of the United States at all.

Mr. ALLEN. I just wanted to get in the record that there are two sides.

Mr. WATTS. There are, and I am not a purist by any means, and that is why I can take a very strong position on this legislation. I think any legislation that has ever been passed is in the same category. Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you, Mr. Watts.

We will hear from you now, Mrs. McIlwee.

STATEMENT OF MRS. BRANSON GILBERT MCILWEE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mrs. McILWEE. I have.

I am Mrs. Branson Gilbert McIlwee, 517 Peabody Street NW., Washington.

I come just as a citizen and a mother who is interested.

I oppose this home rule bill.

The present form of government is best for our Nation's Capital. The Senators and Congressmen on our District Committees should have a voice of thanks from everyone in the United States for their good work for our Nation's Capital.

I congratulate and thank them.

Washington, D. C. should be rezoned and cleaned up.

It never was intended that our Nation's Capital should be a place for slums.

Seldom have there been crime, gamblers, and people on relief as there are today. These people on relief should be moved out on government controlled farms so they can be self-supporting and build their schools, libraries, churches, and hospitals.

Perhaps five square miles would be all that we need for the Nation's Capital. Our Nation's Capital must be controlled by Congress. We can let Maryland take over that area which will give many people a vote. Then, build Government buildings and living quarters for people employed in our Nation's Capital.

The present form of government is best for our Nation's Capital. Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you, Mrs. McIlwee.

Mrs. McILWEE. I made a similar statement to this last year on this bill and I am convinced the present form of government is the best. Mr. ABERNETHY. You are just satisfied.

Is there anyone else that has a short statement?

We have 6 minutes left.

Who can get through in 6 minutes?

Mr. HOWARD. My statement will only take half a minute.
Mr. ABERNETHY. All right.

STATEMENT OF CLINTON N. HOWARD, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFORM FEDERATION AND EDITOR OF PROGRESS MAGAZINE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HOWARD. My name is Dr. Clinton N. Howard. My occupation is general superintendent of the International Reform Federation and editor of its official publication, Progress.

Like others, I have been waiting very patiently for an opportunity to present my views. I am very timid to attempt it now.

Mr. ALERNETHY. Of course, you have not been denied the opportunity. We just could not get to everyone first.

Mr. HOWARD. I recognize that perfectly.

My observation is that this morning a gentleman seemingly made a very intelligent statement, one single page-I timed him-which took him about 3 minutes, and then he was subjected to about an hour and a half of interrogation. My statement is more provocative than his, and longer, and I do not wish to keep the committee here in session indefinitely, or myself, so I am going to suggest this

Mr. ABERNETHY. I thought you were going to take a half a minute. Mr. HOWARD. My occupation and my residence is at 134 Constitution Avenue, and I am going to suggest that I may be privileged to file my statement and give a copy to the reporter.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I think the committee had an understanding the other day, Mr. Howard, that all witnesses who cared to file statements would answer questions if the committee cared to examine them. I think the committee felt that they ought to have the privilege of examining them on their statements.

Would you care to come back and be examined on the statement? Mr. HOWARD. I am not making any criticism of the committee's plan and purpose.

However, I spent two mornings here already and I had a very strenuous day yesterday speaking three times in Philadelphia, taking an early morning train to get down here anticipating the privilege of presenting my statement, and I should not care to read that statement and subject myself to another hour or two of interrogation on the possibility of future legislation.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You mean you do not feel that you are physically able?

Mr. HOWARD. Oh, no; I am a "young" man and I am physically able. Mr. ABERNETHY. Then, we will let you call back. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CLINTON N. HOWARD, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFORM FEDERATION AND EDITOR OF PROGRESS MAGAZINE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the District of Columbia has a population of 800,000 of the most intelligent, prosperous, highly civilized, and best paid people to be found anywhere on the planet, with 250,000 on the Federal payroll, with a higher average income than any other area in the world.

I do not believe that it can be matched in any other city or State in the United States, and I am familiar by personal contact with them all, having traveled and lectured in all for more than half a century.

UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION

I believe that its 800,000 people are as much entitled to self-government, home rule, and the right of a freedman's ballot as the 318,000 people of Delaware, the 290,000 people of Wyoming, the 160,000 people of Nevada, the 277,000 people of Vermont, the 700,000 people of Rhode Island, and the several States in the 500600,000 population class, each of whom has one to four voting Members in the House and two United States Senators, who count for as much in legislation as the 8 million of Ohio, 10 million of California, 10 to 11 million of Pennsylvania, and 15 million of New York.

Why should the nearly million intelligent and prosperous people of this Capital City be treated like serfs and be denied the right of suffrage when millions of foreign-born immigrants become naturalized citizens after a brief residence and vote for their local officials, for mayor, members of their State legislature, governors, Congress, and the President of the United States?

Why deny the citizens of the District, nearly all of whom are native born Americans, the same privilege as naturalized citizens, after a brief residence, in every other State in the Union, and classify the citizens of the District with paupers, lunatics, criminals and the Indian population in all other States?

ROBBED OF MY CITIZENSHIP

I was born in Pennsylvania, and there cast my first vote. I married, removed to Rochester, N. Y., resided there for more than 50 years, and voted for every office in every election, even though my profession took me all over the country, from coast to coast, and I had to return home first to register, and then again to vote, which I did, for I was proud of my American citizenship. Fifteen years ago I removed to Washington where I am the superintendent of the International Reform Federation and the Editor of Progress magazine, pay every tax imposed upon its citizens, and a thousand dollars income tax to my Government, and am denied the right to vote.

I FAVOR HOME RULE

The population of Washington is not limited to the District area. The metropolitan area, numbering more than a million people, 250,000 of whom earn their living in this Capital City, and are paid by their Government, who sleep across the Potomac in Virginia, and suburban Maryland, as close as Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Chevy Chase, divided by an imaginary line, have the right to vote and to representation in Congress while those on the District side of that line are politically deaf and dumb, and burdened with a crushing weight of taxation and denied representation, the very thing that our colonial forefathers rose in a successful rebellion against. I am for home rule. I prize my sovereignty as a citizen and wish to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

But when I moved to Washington 15 years ago I lost my sovereignty under the shadow of the Capitol, one-half block from its majestic dome, I lost my right to vote in every election and became a serf, without a voice in the city of my adoption or in my country, with a family ancestry of more than seven generations, while other naturalized citizens in other areas across the Nation can vote for every public office from pound master to President. It just doesn't make sense.

DEMANDS EQUAL RIGHTS

We welcome the foreigner who qualifies as a citizen of Maryland, Virginia or any other of the 46 States of his choice; but we deny the same sacred privilege for those native born citizens who may choose, or whose occupation requires that they live at the seat of government in Washington.

This is a galling situation which the bill under consideration is designed to correct.

PSEUDO HOME RULE

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I must confess that the bill as framed bears a false label. It is pseudo home rule, with the most important public office, that of manager or mayor left to partisan politics, in other words appointed by the President.