HOME RULE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1952 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10. a. m., in room 445, House Office Building, the Hon. Monroe M. Redden presiding. Present: Representatives McMillan (chairman), Redden, Allen, and Sittler. Mr. REDDEN. The subcommittee will come to order. According to the order of business which has been handed me, Mr. Jerome B. McKee will be the first witness this morning. STATEMENT OF JEROME B. MCKEE, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION Mr. McKEE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jerome B. McKee. I am immediate past president of the Federation of Businessmen's Associations, which is composed of 24 constituent groups having membership in excess of 9,000 small-business men in the district of Columbia. I have been assigned by the present president, John L. Sullivan, to appear before this committee in relation to the so-called home-rule bill and its opposition thereto. I may state off the record that I have also during the past appeared before the Congress as chairman of the American Legion legislative committee also in opposition to the original Auchincloss bill. Mr. REDDEN. How many American Legion posts did you represent the last time you were here? Mr. McKEE. I think 58 posts at that time, with a membership of approximately 30,000 today. Gentlemen, we realize that in the District of Columbia Code and other publications that article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States states as follows: The Congress shall have power * * * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) and I emphasize that "not exceeding 10 miles square" because it does not state whether you choose to recede to 1 mile square or 2 miles square that you would be illegal in doing that. You have the basis for that in 1790 when the discussion first took place and George Washington appointed a committee to lay out the city of Washington. It was also to embrace four points of the compass 97650-52- -12 171 in Maryland and Virginia. After that survey and proclamation by the President, it was found that those lines were drawn, we may say, faulty, because it went up to Great Falls and stopped at the Eastern Branch. Upon the survey of the topographical outlay, the present boundaries were submitted to the President, and his former proclamation created a new proclamation accepting these boundaries. Also, the acceptance of that land had this language of ceding that land by Virginia. Under section 2 of the Act of Cession from the State of Virginia, dated December 3, 1789, as follows: II. Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly, That a tract of country not exceeding 10 miles square, or any lesser quantity, to be located within the limits of the State, and in any part thereof, as Congress may by law direct, shall be, and the same is hereby, forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States * * Now, in that act of Virginia, that was not lived up to, because you did re-cede back to Virginia that land. The same, identical language is in the act ratifying the cession by the State of Maryland on December 19, 1791. That language under section 2 also stated: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That all that part of the said territory called Columbia which lies within the limits of this State shall be, and the same is hereby, acknowledged to be forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and Government of the United States * * However, what happened was this: that there was a proclamation relative to the retrocession to the State of Virginia in conformity with the Virginia act accepting that retrocession. If it pleases you, an effort was made, a vote was held in that area of Virginia known as Alexandria County of the District, and in that election there were in favor of accepting the provisions of the said act 763 votes and against accepting the same 222, showing a majority of 541 votes for the acceptance of the same. I bring that out to let you know that there was a vote held, as I will develop by proposals here today, in that territory before it was ceded back by the Federal Government, so that out of the 983 votes cast by the inhabitants thereof there were 220, or better than 22 percent, who opposed that acceptance back of that State to the State of Virginia. They preferred even to live under the new act of the Congress. Now you go in further, and you say, "Well, there were certain people from that time who felt that that was illegal." But, strange as it may seem, under February 23, 1927, the Congress of the United States made a further retrocession of Battery Cove in Virginia, as follows: * * * That this act shall not be construed to waive or relinquish the title of the United States to the fee of the 46.57 acres made land in Battery Cove nor as relinquishing or in any manner affecting the power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over the said area so long as the same remains in the ownership and possession of the United States. The minute that came about, however, they relinquished it but it did not * * * Affect, impair, surrender, waive, or defeat any claim, right, or remedy, either at law or in equity, of the United States against the Virginia Shipbuilding Corp. for or on account of any debt or obligation of said company to the United States or that hereafter may be ascertained to be due by said company to the United States, by any court of competent jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter in any suit now pending or that may hereafter be instituted by the United States against the Virginia Shipbuilding Corp. Now, that was in 1927, if you please. That was made land created during the period of the war for the benefit of the shipbuilding corporation in Alexandria. We come to a later one, which is right now over the line here, and that is the act of October 31, 1945, not 7 years ago: Subject to the limitation on the consent of the State of Virginia as expressed herein, exclusive jurisdiction in the Washington National Airport shall be in the United States, and the same is hereby accepted by the United States. Then it goes on to say: This act shall have no retroactive effect except that taxes and contributions in connection with operations, sales, and property on and income derived at the Washington National Airport heretofore paid either to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of Columbia are hereby declared to have been paid to the proper jurisdictions, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and District of Columbia each hereby waives any claim for any such taxes or contributions heretofore assessed or assessable to the extent of any such payments to either jurisdiction. Any provision of law of the United States or the Commonwealth of Virginia which is to any extent in conflict with this act is to the extent of such conflict hereby expressly repealed. SEC. 108. This title shall not become effective unless and until the State of Virginia shall accept the provisions thereof. In the same act, if you please, the State of Virginia has a perfect right to collect such taxes for the disbursement of alcoholic beverages sold on the premises, yet that remains a question of retrocession by the Government so far as police powers are concerned except that the State of Virginia has the right to serve papers through proper State officials. That gives you an insight as to what happened to the original 10 miles square in the District of Columbia. We have opposed the home-rule bill and have always been in favor of national representation. Now, we speak of the re-ceding of this land to Virginia, and it has come up here again, the possibility of re-ceding it to the State of Maryland. Frankly, I say, if we examine our form of government, which you are all familiar with over the years, there was a statement made by two witnesses, I believe, yesterday that our present commissionership form of government dates from 1878. It is actually 1874, or 70 or 80 years in existence. They may have been confused in that existence, that other government for 34 years was the appointed governor, of which there was so much problem because of the expenses there incurred. However, when the commissionership form of government was instituted, they had certain powers to borrow money to offset the indebtedness of the city at that time and issue bonds over a period of years. Under that commissionship form of government, those bonds have since been paid long ago. We have also received money from the Congress on loans for the advancement of water supply to the District of Columbia which in many instances were paid and given as they should have been out of the income from water rates assessed to our citizens. However, in comparison to any other area in the United States that I may think of as large as this I think we should be proud of what we have in the way of government in the District of Columbia. Mr. MCMILLAN. Do you know of any other city in the United States that does not have a bonded debt around its neck? Mr. MCKEE. No, I do not. Mr. SITTLER. I will be glad to give you the name of a city, Kala· mazoo, Mich. Mr. McKEE. I do know that we as a business group have complained at times of the appointment of the Commissioners. We can go back to Mr. Rudolph who came out of the business world and made great contributions to the city. That power was at the confirmation of the Senate. However, we do strongly urge right now while it is off the subject but I would like to say it, that whoever is appointed for the next appointee for which there happens to be a vacancy, that a businessman be considered, and I think as a businessman is put in there, if he is put in there it will reestablish the faith of the citizens of Washington in some of these departments which are now under attack because a businessman I believe has a better insight and experience in organization than possibly some other people have. Mr. REDDEN. Well running the District of Columbia is quite a business. It wouldn't be out of order to appoint a businessman all the time. Mr. MCKEE. No, but it hasn't been done. Coming back to the bill itself and many of the things we have opposed, we are grateful to say that the present bill before the House as now submitted and passed on by the Senate means that the proponents of this home-rule bill from its inception owe a debt of gratitude to the opponents over the years because this is what has been accomplished. They would have taken in toto the original Auchincloss bill, I think every witness has told us they are not satisfied with just home rule, as soon as challenged. We have opposed it consistently. We have found many things of which we complained which were in the measure of blank checks where your district manager's salary was not set up. It was to be fixed. His assistants were to be as many as he wanted and no salary fixed. That is now eliminated. But if we were not here today still discussing home rule and if the original Auchincloss bill had become law, the same group of proponents would be back up here asking for national representation. Now we know to create a State out of this area means the election of two Senators to the Congress. I don't think we need to emphasize too strongly what a balance of power two votes on many issues will be in the Senate. If the truth were known and were to be admitted the refusal at the present time and over the years of voting Alaska and Hawaii into the Union or full statehood may be based on the fact of that strength of Senators over in the Congress. The balance of power is tremendous. Therefore we are in favor of retrocession to Maryland because we will not be embroiled with the time-consuming element of trying to have it passed by the Congress and ratified by the States which can be endless. That is the businessman's way of going at the thing. We came from the State of Maryland. It belongs back to them the same as the area in Virginia. Virginia today will have more representation in Congress because of its increased population and where did that increased population come from? It came from the District of Columbia. They have moved out of here to the State of Virginia. You have the same thing north and to the east in Maryland, the movements of former citizens of the District into the State of Maryland. Now at the proper times we know when the new census is taken there would be more representation in the Congress for the State of Maryland. It may give a greater area for the man representing this particular county, Montgomery County, which was originally Montgomery County, if you please. For that reason we strongly urge that instead of wasting $500,000 which is proposed in this bill of the Senate under Senate Resolution 1402 for the elecion, and many of these people who come in here harping to you that they need more money for schools and for the children's homes which they described which is possibly $97,000 to $100,000, but I will venture to say that very few of them have read enough of this bill to know that there is $500,000 proposed to be advanced by Congress, but they have to pay it back in the following year out of their budget. That $500,000 will do a terrific amount. of work in what we need in school and other relief organizations in the city, but they would forfeit the use of that by throwing it out the window and having this election. If you are going to spend that kind of money and impose it on us I would like to have a proposal or an act to recede back to Maryland and have a vote on our citizens and find out where they stand on that. Secondly, it would also by an act of the State of Maryland have the voters to agree or not agree to accept. Now that is something that the only and logical and short cut-if that is done, gentlemen-I think you will have stopped year after year the use of your time on this same problem. You talk about you want to divest yourselves of these responsibilities because of the demands on you as a world government, which is true. The simplest and quickest approach in our considered opinion is to recede or attempt to recede it back to the State of Maryland. However, that will impose greater taxes possibly in the minds of people if we do that to the State of Maryland but you have got to pav for anything you get. You had one witness speak to you about moving back to the farms a lot of these people. I have contended for years that the 1-year relief clause of residents in the District of Columbia on relief is unfair to the District of Columbia residents. These people flock into here and by some manner they live on Community Chest or what not and then they apply for relief. If you please I would like to take you back to the Reorganization Act of 1820 when this was stated: * * * To cause all vagrants, idle or disorderly persons, all persons of evil life or ill-fame, and all such as who have no visible means of support, or are likely to become chargeable to the corporations as paupers, or are found begging or drunk in or about the streets, or loitering in or about tippling houses, or who can show no reasonable cause of business or employment in the city, and all suspicious persons who have no fixed place of residence, or who cannot give a good account of themselves * * * to give security for their good behavior for a reasonable time, and to indemnify the city against any charge for their support; and, in case of their refusal or inability to give such security, to cause them to be confined to labor until such security shall be given, not exceeding, however, 1 year at a time; but if they shall be found again offending, the like proceedings may be again had, and from time to time, as often as may be necessary to enforce |