Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

5. Sets up no procedure whereby Congress is advised and kept informed as to legislation enacted by the proposed District Council.

6. Does not eliminate dual voting. "A person who is qualified shall not be otherwise disqualified by being entitled to vote in another jurisdiction."

S. 1976 SURVEY, WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, FEBRUARY 1952

1. You have just read the major provisions of the Case bill, S. 1976, as passed by the Senate. Do you favor its adoption? Yes No

2. If you answer "yes" in No. 1, would you oppose the bill if it resulted in a lower Federal payment? Yes No

Or, would you favor the bill regardless of the effect on the Federal payment? Yes No

3. Do you think persons now voting in other States and Territories should be allowed to vote in the District of Columbia for :

[blocks in formation]

4. Do you favor the appointment of a mayor by the President of the United States? Yes - -. No

5. Under the present system the Board of Education is appointed; the Case bill proposes it be elected. Do you favor the election of the Board of Education? Yes No

6. Do you think "local suffrage" without voting representation in Congress is desirable? Yes

No

7. Do you believe this bill provides real "home rule" for the District of Columbia? Yes No

8. Do you live in the District of Columbia?...

Virginia?___

; Maryland?_____

9. If you live in the District, how long have you lived here?__

10. If you live in Maryland or Virginia, are you in business or employed in the District?_

Do you own property in the District?.

Please state type of business or profession (lawyer, real estate, construction, government, etc.) –

Your answers are important.-Please fill in and return immediately in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.

Mr. COLLADAY. It is perfectly clear that this and any other so-called home rule bill will continue to be opposed by the members of the Board of Trade and many other thinking District citizens unless they contain the provision recommended by us in previous hearings which reads as follows:

The charter shall take effect only if and when the following constitutional amendment shall have been proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives as provided in article V of the Constitution and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within 7 years of the date of its passage and the same implemented by appropriate congressional action giving the people of the District representation in Congress.

"The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine. All legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal."

While we will not indulge in a detailed discussion of the bill today, we desire to call attention to certain provisions in it which are similar to those in the predecessor bills to which the Board of Trade objected in those bills and desires to be on the record as objecting to them in this bill.

These are: The provision for dual voting, which is only slightly modified; presidentially appointed Mayor; bond issues; abolishment of the office of Engineer Commissioner; the qualifications of electors and office holders; and elected Board of Education.

Our examination of the debate in the Senate on S. 1976 shows that a number of significant and important new questions were raised in the scholarly presentation made by Senator Johnston of South Carolina, concerning the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. We agree most heartily with Senator Johnston's contentions in this respect and seriously question the constitutionality of the legislative processes proposed in the bill. Senator Johnston's arguments are strong and amply documented to support his reasons as to why the bill should not be passed-if for no other reason than on constitutional grounds alone. The Senator's remarks are too lengthy to include in these hearings; however, they appear in full in the Congressional Record of January 14 to 16, and 22, 1952, and I sincerely hope that every Member of the House, especially of the Committee on the District of Columbia, will study the record closely in this respect.

One of the basic reasons why the board of trade is opposed to this and earlier "home rule" proposals arises from the fact that, in the judgment of our Members, their passage would seriously jeopardize a continuation of even the present inadequate Federal payment toward the expenses of operating the Nation's Capital. This belief has been strengthened by the action of the Senate in adopting Senator Saltonstall's amendment which struck from the bill the formula for determining the Federal payment.

At this point I should like to introduce for the record an editorial from the Washington Star of January 19, 1952, which states in part, "A necessary part of any home rule is a guaranty of financial participation by the Federal Government in meeting the expenses of its Capital."

Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, it will be inserted. (The editorial is as follows:)

[From the Washington, D. C., Star of January 19, 1952]

BODY BLOW AT HOME RULE

It is understood that Senator Saltonstall favors the home-rule bill and expects to vote for it. But in moving an amendment to eliminate from the bill the formula it contains for measuring the amount of the Federal appropriation, he has taken a step that, if successful, would make the bill more unacceptable than ever to taxpaying residents of Washington.

A necessary part of any home-rule bill is a guaranty of financial participation by the Federal Government in meeting the expenses of its Capital. The provision written into the pending bill authorizes an annual appropriation in this respect amounting to 20 cents for every dollar appropriated from local taxes. This would exceed $25 million, more than twice the $11.4 million appropriated this fiscal year as the Federal lump sum.

Senator Saltonstall will explain his amendment when it comes up for discussion on Tuesday or later. He may feel that as Congress has authorized by statute $12 million as the lump sum, but is appropriating less than that now, it is unrealistic for Congress to promise $25 million and more if a locally elected city council, instead of Congress, does the appropriating. He may feel that some other arrangement is more desirable.

But the people of Washington would be very foolish indeed to favor any form of home rule that does not specifically set forth, as a part of the terms, the precise method of measuring the annual financial obligation of the Federal Government in support of Washington. The obligation should be measured by the dollars raised through local taxes. Anything less than that should be regarded as unsatisfactory.

As it is, the bill threatens to place on taxpaying residents of Washington a financial responsibility that cannot be met without excessive local taxation, or without neglect of the development of the American Capital. If the fiscal relations formula is removed from the bill, no matter how well intentioned the

motives might be in seeking its removal, the bill ought to be considered a dead duck. Those who know anything about the financial problem involved in supporting this expensive American Capital will automatically be against accepting a proposition which fails to recognize, in plain terms, the extent of the Federal obligation.

Mr. COLLADAY. We contend that Senate bill No. 1976 is unconstitutional in its purposes and objectives. When one begins to analyze its individual provisions serious and grave questions of transcending importance loom large before us with respect to them.

Turn with me to subsection II of section 324 on page 11. There the Council

may by ordinance legislate on any subject coming within the scope of the power of Congress in its capacity as legislature for the District of Columbia, as distinguished from its capacity as a National Legislature, not inconsistent with the other provisions of this act or of the Constitution of the United States.

There is no provision in this bill requiring the District Council to report to the Congress its acts. In that respect it differs directly with the enabling acts of the various Territories under which the legislature were required to immediately report their acts to Congress, and if Congress did not repudiate those acts, it became law, and if Congress did repudiate them, and that means, both Houses of Congress and the signature of the President, or an overriding veto, they became null and void.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Under Senate 1976, as I understand your interpretation of it, when this so-called City Council passes an ordinance, the act does not require the Council to certify a copy of the ordinance to the Congress..

Mr. CALLADAY. That is true. There is no provision in the bill requiring that and no provision for getting it on the records of Congress so that the Congress may consider it.

What does this mean? It means what the Senate committee report says in the second paragraph on page 3:

It is contemplated that the District Council may amend or repeal any existing act of the Congress dealing solely with the District of Columbia. The District Council would not have power, any more than have the States, to amend or repeal legislation applicable to the Nation as a whole. With respect to future legislation by the Congress, it will be necessary for the Congress to decide in each case whether the Council should be permitted to amend or repeal legislation dealing with the District of Columbia. Certain limitations are imposed on the fiscal powers of the District Council.

Mr. ABERNETHY. As I understand it, if the Congress of the United States, which under the Case bill maintains super control of the District and which the author of the bill himself concedes that the Congress should do, if this Council sees fit, it can meet and repeal an act which the Congress has passed without certifying a copy of it to the Congress.

Mr. COLLADAY. That is the situation if the bill is not amended. Mr. ABERNETHY. In other words, the Congress could pass a law one day and the Council could repeal it the next day.

Mr. COLLADAY. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And then Congress might say, "Well, we are going to repeal your repeal of our law."

And the next day the Council could again repeal the repeal made by the Congress. Is that right?

Mr. COLLADAY. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How many times would that have to happen before they would decide which side won?

Mr. COLLADAY. I am unable to answer that and the fact that I am unable to answer that is one of the criticisms of the bill.

Mr. ABERNETHY. All right.

Mr. COLLADAY. Of course along with that comes the possibility pointed out by Senator Johnston that the President might veto one of Congress' bills which was intended to repeal one of the bills passed by the Council and it would come back to the Congress for its action in response to the repeal, and Congress might not get a two-thirds vote of both Houses and the Congress could not effectively repeal the act of the Council.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Under situations of that kind, the Council which is supposed to be the creature of the Congress would become the dominating body.

Mr. COLLADAY. Yes, sir; by inability to act in accordance with the act of Congress.

What does this mean? Congress may pass a law for the District today and the Council may repeal it tomorrow. The Council may pass a law today, and Congress may repeal it tomorrow. We can't argue that this won't happen.

On January 22, 1952, Senator Ferguson posed a very interesting question. Senator Ferguson's point was that circumstances could arise which would make the Congress practically powerless to veto legislation passed by the Council. The Washington Star commented on this point editorially on January 26, and I submit that editorial herewith for the committee's information and interest.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, it may be inserted. (The editorial is as follows:)

[From the Washington, D. C., Star of January 26, 1952]

HOME RULE'S NEW LOOK

During debate on the home-rule bill Senator Ferguson raised an interesting point that hitherto seems to have escaped discussion. The bill approved by the Senate confers legislative powers on an elected City Council. But it has always been stoutly contended that Congress reserves its own supreme legislative authority over the District. Senator Ferguson showed, however, that a situation could arise in which legislation, originating with the Council, might become law despite its disapproval by a majority of both Houses of Congress.

The Council, under the bill, could enact legislation, having the effect of law. Congress could approve legislation repealing the law. But the President could veto the repealer. If Congress chose to repeal the law over the President's veto, such repeal would require a two-thirds vote. Failure in Congress to muster the two-thirds vote could mean that Council-approved legislation took precedence over a majority vote in Congress. The Senate did not take the time to thresh the matter out, but the home-rule bill did take on a new look.

Mr. COLLADAY. There is an important legal reason why the bill is inadequate. We have a corporation counsel here. We also have a United States attorney. Each has a well-defined scope of functions which do not interfere with nor overlap the other. This bill makes no provision in reference to them or their spheres of activities. How about the courts? They can be abolished under subsection II of section 324, which I have read to you. When the council provides by legislation that a certain act is a felony, who is to prosecute the felony and in what court? Time forbids a full exploration of this problem.

This bill makes no provision for the courts or the prosecuting officers here. Their tenures at once become precarious.

Senator Case said on January 14 at page 114 of the record:

The bill makes no changes in the judicial branch of the District government. He did not say that subparagraph II of section 324 gives the Council authority to repeal all acts creating all the courts in the District and both of its prosecuting officers.

Subsection (b) of section 201, page 7 of the bill, wipes out certain provisions of preexisting statutes. It destroys section 25 of the act

of 1871.

That provision is:

SEC. 25. And be it further enacted, that the judicial courts of said District shall remain as now organized until abolished or changed by act of Congress; but such legislative assembly shall have power to pass laws modifying the practice thereof, and conferring such additional jurisdiction as may be necessary to the due execution and enforcement of the laws of said District.

No such provision is contained in this bill. The courts are left to the mercy of the Council of 15 created by this bill.

At this point I am sure the members of the committee will be interested in a study we have made and just concluded, based on the latest information available, pertaining to the relationships of a number of representative foreign governments with their national capitals. Our study in this respect had already been initiated when we heard of a similar work being in progress by the House District of Columbia Committee. I submit herewith the results of our findings in this regard as shown on the accompanying charts, trusting that this information may be of some assistance and interest, and not otherwise duplicated.

Mr. TEAGUE. Would you tell us what you found in this study of the foreign capitals?

Mr. COLLADAY. In general, the foreign capitals are not in special national districts, and in those capitals it is very difficult to summarize the manner in which they are governed.

Mr. TEAGUE. I thought perhaps it could be.

Mr.COLLADAY. It would be necessary to go into some detail and draw distinctions. It merely gives the information in detail under certain columns, and I have been unable to summarize it in a short manner. You cannot summarize it in a few sentences. It is necessary for each person to examine it and draw his own conclusions. (The chart referred to follows:)

« AnteriorContinuar »