Mr. ABERNETHY. Then maybe you are not satisfied with just this bill? Mr. VAN ARKEL. No; I am quite satisfied with the bill, Mr. Congressman. But it seems to me any piece of legislation is necessarily subject to amendment, depending on how it works out. Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me ask you this question: Do you think that the Congress of the United States ought to retain any power? Mr. VAN ARKEL. Most emphatically. Mr. ABERNETHY. Then what power, and to what extent? Mr. VAN ARKEL. At the present time, Mr. Congressman, I advocate this bill, which it seems to me is a practical step in the achieving of local self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. Like yourself, Mr. Congressman, I cannot predict at this time what amendments to this bill may seem desirable in the future if it becomes law. Mr. ABERNETHY. It is not a question of amendments. It is a question of whether or not you feel that the Congress should retain the all-powerful hand over this 10 square miles. Mr. VAN ARKEL. And I have stated that it seems to me constitutionally impossible for the Congress to deprive itself of that power. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think it should do it? Mr. VAN ARKEL. I say that the question does not arise, Mr. Congressman, because you cannot do it short of a constitutional amend ment. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think that that amendment should be proposed? Mr. VAN ARKEL. No.' Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all I want to know, then. You can answer it "yes" or "no." Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Redden, did you have another question? Mr. REDDEN. I was just going to make an observation about the thing I heard Senator Case say so many times that I somewhat disagree with him on. I have heard him say many times he is not a lawyer and therefore he does not want to go too far on the question. I think he is one of the best lawyers I have ever heard. I used to follow him a lot over there in the House on his legal arguments, and lawyers follow him; and I thought he was better than they were. So I disagree with him on that point. Mr. HARRIS. Then you, Senator Case, Mr. Albrook, and Mr. Van Arkel. We appreciate your coming over and leading off on this thing this morning. Mr. PRELLER. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Washington Central Labor Union, 1745 K Street NW. I have a written statement I would like to leave with the clerk because I will be unable to be here this afternoon. Mr. HARRIS. We will be glad to receive it and are sorry you cannot be with us later on. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF C. F. PRELLER, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR UNION, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. PRELLER. In behalf of the Washington Central Labor Union and the over 100,000 AFL members who reside in the District of Columbia, we wish to go on record as strongly supporting the substitute home-rule bill. We believe the new Kefauver-Case bill is in some ways an improvement over the old bill. The omission of the reorganization features in the new bill is a very important forward step. The reorganization question generated opposition from some people who favored home rule, but who did not think the problem of reorganization should be included in a home-rule bill. Most Washingtonians are convinced that reorganization of the District government is mandatory. However, the structure and function of the District government is highly complex and much thought must be given to the appropriate place of even the smallest agency of the District government in any plan for a reorganized District government. Much care should be exercised in considering such questions as the abolition of citizen boards which function in such spheres as minimum wages, industrial safety, unemployment compensation, and so forth. These boards make possible direct citizen participation in the decision-making process at the point of decision. Should these boards be abolished so as to streamline their administration? Or is the nature of the decision to be made by these agencies so important to the community that citizen participation must not be eliminated? This is only one illustration of the difficulties to be faced in reorganizing the District government. Under the Kefauver-Case bill, the District Council will have the responsibility of reorganization. The council will probably proceed very carefully in its reorganization responsibility and undoubtedly will give adequate opportunity for public hearings on each major item of reorganization. The citizens will have ample opportunity to express their point of view on each and every issue. We believe the new bill should be passed by the Congress without delay. The Washington Central Labor Union has for 50 years supported full suffrage for the District of Columbia. We hope it will not be necessary to send representatives over to the Hill for the next half century to continue to petition for a government which derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Colladay, how long will you be gone? I understand you are having to leave? Mr. COLLADAY. I am leaving Wednesday and will be gone a month, I hope. I would like to be heard at the convenience of the committee before I go, if that is possible. Senator CASE. May I say I do appreciate the courtesies you have shown me this morning, and I think that everyone, however you may feel about the bi, would recognize that you have given us an opportunity to state the case for the bill here; and we appreciate the courtesy and the fact that you are holding these hearings. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. We appreciate your coming over. Mrs. Jack Gottsegen has requested that she be permitted to file for the record her statement on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question. These statements are either completely for or completely against. I think it is all right to file statements, but I think we should have the opportunity to question the witnesses about their statements. These statements are short. They are general. They do not go to particular points in the bill. They are only as to the objective; that is, for or against. I think we ought to have an opportunity to ask them some questions about it. I would like to know how they feel about it, whether they are satisfied with this, as the Senator says he is; or whether they want complete autonomy in the District. I want to know what we are going to get into. After all, we will be here another day or two if they could come back and let us talk to them some. Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the people who submit statements ought to be examined because they stand for what their statement says, but they may stand for something else, too. That is not everything they have got to say about it. Mr. HARRIS. There appears to be objection, so consequently we will have to ask you to come back at some convenient time. The committee will endeavor to hold hearings at such times as you would find it convenient to come back. I believe we did give Mr. Preller permission to file his statement, so consequently it is in the record. Mr. ABERNETHY. I would like to ask for him to be notified and be back at a date so we can talk to him about it. Mr. HARRIS. Very well. The subcommittee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until Tuesday morning, 10 a. m., March 18, 1952.) HOME RULE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1952 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C. The Judiciary Subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 445, House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Harris, Abernethy, Teague, Redden, Allen, and Sittler. Mr. HARRIS. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr. Edward Colladay, general counsel for the Washington Board of Trade. STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. COLLADAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE Mr. COLLADAY. If the committee please, I am Edward F. Colladay. I would like to have Mr. Arthur Nuesse, who is a specialist of the board of trade, with me at the table here. He has some documents which he will be able to hand to me at the proper time. I appear here today to represent the Washington Board of Trade of which I have been a member for over 40 years, have three times been elected to its presidency, and for a number of years have served as its general counsel. We deeply appreciate your courtesy in calling these hearings so that the board of trade and other organizations and individuals may express their views concerning the bill, S. 1976, now before your committee, which is credited with providing home rule for the District of Columbia. I am sure that members of this committee know that the Washington Board of Trade for more than a half century has devoted a great deal of attention to studying the means of providing to the greatest practicable degree, participation by the people of the District of Columbia in their government. The record of hearings on the Auchincloss bill and the Kefauver bills clearly set forth our views with respect to them, but more importantly with respect to the underlying philosophy of a large percentage of the members of the Washington Board of Trade, and—in our judgment of the permanent population of Washington, as to what is required to provide true home rule in the Nation's Capital. Appropriate committees of the Washington Board of Trade, and I as general counsel of the Washington Board of Trade, have care 57 |