Columbia, favors the enactment of S. 1976, to provide for home rule in the District of Columbia, and expresses the hope that this Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the House Committee on the District of Columbia will be pleased to lend its aid to the passage of this legislation by the Congress in time to permit the charter referendum to be conducted on August 5, 1952, as contemplated in the terms of S. 1976. In the opinion of our federation, S. 1976 is a great improvement over any and all former proposed legislation looking to District of Columbia home rule. Nevertheless, we respectfully submit the following comments on its provisions: Title IV, mayor: Section 402, paragraph 2, page 20, clothes the mayor with too great power in the matter of removal of personnel. He is not close enough to the people of the District of Columbia to be so empowered. He is answerable to the President of the United States and to the Senate, as a matter of fact. Title IX, elections in the District: Section 903, page 47, stipulates 2-year terms for elective offices on the District Council, the Board of Education, and the District Delegate. While the 2-year term probably is stipulated because of the necessity of electing the District Delegate every 2 years, nevertheless the 2-year term for the Council. and members of the Board of Education is too short. Three years should be minimum. Section 907, page 49, registration, contains what might be described as a latent ambiguity, to wit: * * * (3) he executes SEC. 907. (a) No person shall be registered unless a registration affidavit (unless prevented by physical disability) on a form prescribed by the Board of Elections, showing— followed by a recital of certain requirements. May we suggest that this stipulation be— * * * (3) he signs and SEC. 907. (a) No person shall be registered unless swears to the form prescribed by the Board of Elections, showing— to be followed by the present recital of requirements. That is the extent of our submission of the Federation of Civil Associations and this is our comment on it. Mr. REDDEN. I assume you, like most of the others who have been here, do not approve of the provisions of this bill but look upon it as a step in the right direction? Mr. HALL. That is right. Mr. REDDEN. You don't prefer the appointment of a mayor but you prefer the election of the mayor? Mr. HALL. Yes. Mr. REDDEN. You prefer the election of all officials? Mr. HALL. Yes. Mr. REDDEN. Generally speaking, you do favor the election of the folks who represent the District? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. REDDEN. Of course you do not approve of the appointment or election of the Representative in the Congress who will have no voice. Your preference is that he be given full voice in the Congress? Mr. HALL. We do not oppose that approach to participation. Mr. REDDEN. What you mean is that the provisions in the Case bill are better than nothing in that respect. Mr. HALL. Yes. Mr. REDDEN. But if you had a preference you would give him full power in the Congress by vote. Mr. HALL. Yes. Mr. REDDEN. Of course you realize what this committee has to do is to pass on the bill before us and not on preferences expressed. Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; our comment is for very slight changes in the bill. Mr. ALLEN. Would you achieve all of the objectives if the property which the Federal Government needs for a Capitol for governmental use were retained and the rest of the community ceded back to the State of Maryland? Mr. HALL. We do not favor the parceling out of any of the land. I think the dignity of our Capital requires this area that we have, and What we ask is that we have some form, as Senator Case said, of participation in self-government but not to the extent of demanding statehood by cession to Maryland of land that was taken for 10 square miles. Mr. ALLEN. Something you said creates the doubt in my mind about this dilemma which the people face. They wish to have practically full rights of a State if they can get them, but also they want to have a Capital of the 48 States, and the two jurisdictions seem to come into conflict. I am trying to find out which you want most; the Capital or the suffrage that the people in the other States have? Mr. HALL. As a citizen of the Nation, I favor a fine Capital here and seat of government, and it is almost world government, and I wouldn't trade that for local advantage, and I don't think our organization would be in favor of any such trade as that. Mr. ALLEN. Primarily, you want this control to remain in the Capital of the United States? Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. REDDEN. And not jeopardize that position by getting miscellaneous rights of citizenship which, if you feel sufficiently about them, you could get by moving over to Virginia or Maryland. Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. LANE, SOUTHEAST BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION Mr. LANE. I represent the Southeast Businessmen, which takes in this category and beyond to a slight extent. At the last meeting of our committee the Kefauver bill was discussed in its entirety, and they were opposed first because of the language of the bill, in that there are 15 common councilmen to be elected by the Washingtonians as a whole, and that committee felt that councilmen wouldn't be responsible for particular wards. Secondly, they were opposed because of the appointment of the mayor by the President that he would only be accountable to the President. Thirdly, they were opposed because they felt that the Capital of the United States was intended to be the seat of government and to be free from political matters. The consensus of the opinion of the Southeast Businessmen is that we have a very good government here and that we have been functioning very well since the inception, and they are not desirous of making any change. Mr. MCMILLAN. In your opinion, you wouldn't trade the government for any other city government you know of at the present time? Mr. LANE. I have traveled much, and I was mayor of a political town for 12 years and went out of office without being defeated, and I think this government under the eye of Congress is the cleanest government in the world. Little things happen from time to time, but they are corrected quickly. I have observed European cities, and I have been all over this country, and I think they have got a very fine government here. Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lane. We will now hear from Mr. Clifford H. Newell. STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD H. NEWELL, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS, THE WASHINGTONIANS Mr. NEWELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to appear at the request of Dr. J. Ross Veal, the president of the Federation of Citizens Associations, and also Miss Etta L. Taggart, chairman of our suffrage committee. They have asked me to present their statement. First, I will read the statement of Miss Etta L. Taggart. [Reading:] STATEMENT OF ETTA L. Taggart, Chairman, Suffrage COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS No action has been taken by the Federation of Citizens' Associations on S. 1976. On Saturday night, March 15, 1952, a motion was made by one of the delegates to the federation to take some action on S. 1976. This motion was sidetracked when another motion was made to refer the matter to the suffrage committee. The latter motion was passed. As the chairman of the suffrage committee of the federation, you are informed that the committee has received no communication from any member body of the federation as to any action taken on this bill. The Washingtonians, the organization which I represent, went on record as opposing S. 1976 at their March meeting, a report of which is as follows: "It is recommended and requested that the record of the hearings on the bill be held open for report of any action which may be taken by the federation at its next meeting on April 5, 1952, when the suffrage committee will report." That is a short statement from the chairman of the suffrage committee. Now, Miss Taggart is also president of the Washingtonians, which is one of the member bodies of the federation, and that is, as the name implies, made up of several hundred of our very outstanding citizens here in the District of Columbia who were born here and have always lived here. Now, again, this is a statement from the Washingtonians. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTONIANS FOR ETTA L. TAGGART She says first [reading]: My name is Etta L. Taggart, and I live at the Highlands Apartment. I am a native of the District of Columbia and have lived in the said District all of my life. I am a practicing attorney. I represent the Washingtonians as its president. The organization is a citywide one and stands for everything which is for the best interests of the District of Columbia and the United States. At the March 1952 meeting of the group, S. 1976, an act which would provide for supposed home rule for the District of Columbia, was thoroughly discussed, with special emphasis on the question of its constitutionality. We maintain that the name "home rule" is a misnomer because the bill deals with purely local matters, and to have genuine suffrage in the District there must be national representation. There has been much discussion in previous proceedings on this constitutional question, especially on whether Congress can delegate to a District council (as provided in the bill) its power to legislate over the District. We think not. In article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States is the following language: "17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States. * * *"" That language is simple, clear, and understandable. In connection with the question of whether or not Congress can delegate its powers to the people of the District to legislate, we recommend that every member of this committee read, if he has not already read, the entire testimony of the late Henry H. Glassie, a well-known constitutional lawyer of this city, which he gave at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in 1928 (H. J. Res. 18). Mr. Glassie stated in part at this hearing: "Now, the constitutional provision for exclusive legislation means the same to every man. It means one legislation, not a divided legislation; not a superior and subordinate legislation; one single sovereignty, one law" (p. 71 of the above hearings). Mr. Glassie told the committee that Congress cannot delegate to the people of the District the power to legislate, and he also stated that "The Supreme Court has held, and our courts have held, following the Supreme Court, that the words of the Constitution 'shall have exclusive legislation in all cases' excluded the idea of a local legislature." He went on to say: "I * ** * ask you to settle your mind upon the question of 'exclusive legislation in all cases.' That means the lawmaking power. Now, that cannot be delegated unless you can get the Supreme Court to change its views. But, of course, there are things that can be delegated, and one of those things that can be delegated and be governed by local vote is the administration of a mere municipality. It is the same distinction as the distinction between ordinances of a municipality and the legislation of a legislature in a State. There is a line perhaps difficult to draw, but perfectly established between what a municipality in your State, or any other State, can do in the way of local regulation and what only the legislature of your State can do." Attention of the committee is called to the fact that the Washingtonians have for many years endorsed national representation for the District, and if this is not granted to the people we have been on record as receding the District back to Maryland, with the exception of Federal holdings. At a hearing on the budget in March 1948, the representative of this group stated: "Congress has closed its eyes for many years in connection with the question of maintaining the District of Columbia as it should be maintained, and it is about time for it to awaken and constructively act on our problems; otherwise cede us back to the State of Maryland, where we will at least be granted one of the greatest privileges ever granted to the citizens of the United States-the right of franchise." In March 1946, as chairman of the Committee on National Representation, I personally recommended in a minority statement to the Federation of Women's Clubs in the District of Columbia as follows: "The principal thing for us to remember is to continue to be good citizens and honor our Government, whether or not we are granted suffrage by the Congress of the United States, which body will always govern the District of Columbia, unless we are ceded back to Maryland or become a State, which is not probable," The above is cited to impress the committee with the fact that the matter of receding the District back to Maryland is not a new idea. We recommend and have been on record for many years favoring a legal plebiscite for the District and the passage of legislation to cover the same by which Congress could get from the residents, first hand, whether or not they want suffrage. They should ask the following questions: 1. Do you want suffrage? 2. If so, do you want national suffrage? 3. If so, do you want local suffrage? 4. Do you want both national and local suffrage? It would seem that section 1801 of the bill has the cart before the horse becausé any referendum to be had should be had before the passage of any suffrage bill. If a referendum or plebiscite was held under proper legislation of Congress, it would result in getting the wishes of the people on the suffrage question, and perhops stop the introduction of so many so-called home-rule bills with which the people are now faced. The Washingtonians oppose S. 1976, and to force this on the residents of the District of Columbia would, in my judgment, result in the filing of many suits in court by those who might be dissatisfied with certain acts of the council which would affect them favorably. In fact, a most chaotic condition would be created and it would be playing with fire, so let's avoid, if possible, such confusion. In discussing the bill, before concluding this statement, I would like to mention some of the sections to which we specifically oppose. We oppose section 324, title VI, because it is not believed that a District council can act as agent of Congress in the discharge of powers granted the Congress by article 8, section 8, paragraph 17 of the Constitution of the United States; oppose section 324 (d), which provides for reservation of congressional authority, because by such a provision the most important elements of home rule are lacking; we oppose title IV, section 401, dealing with the appointment of a mayor by the President of the United States, because we think if a mayor is to be had then he or she should be elected by the people, and be their choice, and not the choice of the President, and he should be a bona fide resident; oppose title VIII, section 801, providing for an elective school board; oppose title IX, section 901, the appointment by the President of the members of the board of elections, believing the members should be elected by the people; oppose, under same title, section 906, because it does not eliminate dual voting in said bill; and we oppose title XVII, section 1701, which provides for a Delegate with the right of debate but no voting, as a representative of the District should be allowed to vote and take part in our national affairs. Concluding, the group believes that if S. 1976 is enacted into law there will be the probability of suits being filed to attack it on the ground of unconstitutionality, and we believe also that the bill is of no advantage or benefit to the people of the District of Columbia. It is not a genuine home-rule bill. Respectfully submitted. Mr. REDDEN. Thank you very much. Mr. NEWELL. Now, as a private citizen, I would appreciate just few moments of expressing my own personal views. I have resided in the District of Columbia for the past 35 years. I have been quite familiar with all of these so-called home-rule bills that have been presented in Congress. I have been president of the Federation of Citizens' Associations, and I am now on the executive board of the federation. I have been president of my own member body, the Arkansas Avenue Community Association, and I have been generally quite active in civic affairs throughout the city. I have watched these bills, as I said, and I have found this true: I have found that there seems to be, as the people become more and more familiar with the different sections of these so-called home-rule bills, a great distaste to this bill, realizing first of all that Congress has the duty imposed by the Constitution to look after the affairs of the District of Columbia, both legislative and administrative, and they have become more and more conscious that these bills that have been brought up from time to time are not homerule bills. As a matter of fact, I think there is less interest on the part of the people in the District of Columbia today on this particular bill than there has been on any other bill in the past 20 years. Now, the reason for this is that they become more and more conscious of socialistic tendencies, and they feel that this bill is tinged with socialism. They feel it does not actually and honestly grant to |