Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

So there is not much we can say than to just back up what Mrs. Wiley has said.

I have been very interested in the questions that Mr. McCulloch has been developing about the population angle. It sounds very reasonable, the point that he is making. But I do believe that the general rule followed in apportioning representation in Congress is according to the census figures. I hope if this resolution goes through that he won't hold us down to a different formula.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say this: I think the condition is much different with respect to the residents of the District of Columbia than of any like territory or any entire State in all the country. For that reason I am sure that if you analyze some of the proposals very carefully you must come to a conclusion that there could be representation in a fashion which, if it didn't violate the letter of the Consitution, certainly would violate the spirit. Mr. KOOCKOGEY. You have a point, Congressman, and I am glad to help you make it, if I have.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. I may say, if you will hold up just a moment, I think the census is so set up, counsel so informs me, that each individual can be counted only once. That doesn't mean there is no room for error, but generally speaking it would be accurate and fair and would preclude the dual situation that Mr. McCulloch envisages.

Mr. KOOCKOGEY. I only thought that where they counted according to population, there are some sections where there is a large population of people who are not citizens at all. Of course you might say that is the same thing here.

Mr. McCULLOCH. To carry on our friendly discussion a little further, I think there is an essential difference. Subject to what counsel has said, that the people are counted only once, if they be counted twice, then the representation in Congress would be double that which it otherwise would be.

If 800,000 people were to come into Ohio who were not citizens qualified to vote, while they would be taken into consideration in determining our representation in Congress, they would not be taken into consideration twice. They would only be taken into consideration once. And if our counsel is right, subject to the desire of the District of Columbia to show as big a population as possible, and not subtracting, if I could use those old words of the Constitution which were written in for a certain purpose, we do have this problem confronting us.

Mr. KOOCKOGEY. I am glad that I have helped you develop your point. It is a very good one.

I simply want to say that that is our position. The principle of this Joint Resolution 529 we have endorsed several times. I am very glad to get it in the record.

Thank you.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very

Are there any other witnesses?

much.

Would you come forward please? With the admonition of Chairman Celler's that your statements be brief, please come forward and make your statements.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE PRAHINSKI, VICE PRESIDENT FOR DISTRICT AFFAIRS, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. PRAHINSKI. My name is Theodore Prahinski. I am the vice president for District affairs of the Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia.

I am speaking because our president has been called up on 2 weeks' military reserve duty.

This is the resolution passed unanimously by the executive committee of our club:

The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia feels that the District of Columbia residents should have the full and complete rights of citizenship.

We urge the House of Representatives to include in the proposed constitutional amendment provisions which would allow the District to have two voting Senators, the right to vote for President of the United States, and voting Members in a number determined by the population as used in the States.

The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia further feels that as desirable as national representation is, the drive to pass it should not be used to divert momentum from the current drive to earn home rule for the District of Columbia.

As you can see, we are not satisfied with the proposed amendment. We feel that if this subcommittee will vote to give us Senators, and voting Members in the House of Representatives, that the full House will approve this, as will the Senate after conference. It will be at least 1964 before we can vote for presidential electors under the present form of the amendment, and judging by the speed with which the House is presently acting on the home rule discharge petition, it will be 2064 before enabling legislation under the proposed amendment will be passed to give us Delegates to the House. We are not afraid to take the risks of delay.

The District of Columbia is a political unit entitled to equal treatment with the States in every way except that as the National Capital the Federal Government should have supervisory power over the local government which should be elected by the people to consider purely local matters.

Two Senators is our right. Our population exceeds that of 15 of the States, and the framers of the Constitution intended Senate representation to be the same for large and small States.

The Senate collectively is said to feel that its voting strength should not be diluted, and that representation should be limited to States. However, no Senator is ever quoted by name as making such statements. We are sure that if this subcommittee squarely presents this issue to the Senate, no Senator will state for the record that the people of the District of Columbia are inferior to the people of the States, and are not good enough for representation in the Senate, but that the House of Representatives, a less exclusive club which will take anybody, is welcome to have us.

We are sure that if any Senators believe the people of the States are inherently better than those of the District of Columbia, or that the Senate inherently has any more dignity or importance than the House of Representatives, they are a minority.

We cannot see why voting powers should not be given our delegates to the House, why further legislation should be required to give us these Members, or to set their numbers and powers, or why future Congresses should have the right to take away their powers or set their number on some basis other than that used in apportioning members among the States. If two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States approve the amendment, what other evidence is needed to show the people of the United States want us to have congressional representation on the same basis as themselves?

To obtain passage of a constitutional amendment is a long and arduous task. We feel the job should be done right the first time. We are not satisfied with an amendment which by treating us on a different basis than the States fastens the aura of second-class citizenship upon us, perhaps for all eternity.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. In other words, you don't feel, as some of the previous witnesses, that we ought to get this little piece now and subordinate that to the broader task confronting us; is that correct?

Mr. PRAHINSKI. That is correct. I recognize their good will but I think they feel that we will get this through. We are not going to get this through unless the people of the United States get mad about the situation. The Senators who say this sort of thing are the same sort of people who were mad, who didn't want a Chinese Senator or Congressman, and now they don't want a Negro Senator up there. I think they are in the minority, and I am not afraid of the possibility of having a Negro Senator up there because, if I might just point out something, this Sunday I was at a political meeting in a Negro church. A Negro candidate for office said that he is a Negro, and as Negroes they felt that they appreciated most those who gave people a chance to help themselves, and accordingly people there should vote for him. He got a rather stoney silence in that audience.

After him a speaker said that he thought it was just as bad to vote for a man because of his race as it was to vote against him because of his race, and the Negroes in that church cheered with great enthusiasm.

There are responsible Negroes, responsible leaders, and the Negroes of this city realize this. If we get a Negro Senator he will be a good one, just as the Senator from Hawaii is a man who in the great American tradition has made a million dollars, and a Japanese Congressman, a man who had enough ability to become the speaker of the territorial legislature.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HENRY GICHNER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mrs. GICHNER. Mr. Chairman, I had requested permission to speak as an individual. I have a prepared statement.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity that you are giving me.

I am Mrs. Henry Gichner, a resident of the District of Columbia for more than 20 years. I speak as an individual because I belong to and work for many organizations. But in response to the questions that were asked this morning by some of the Congressmen as to how the residents of the District of Columbia felt as individuals, I accept their invitation to speak on this subject.

I wholeheartedly support the statements made by the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia. As vice chairman of the District of Columbia Committee for the White House Conference on Children and Youth, I attended the meetings, forums, and workshops last week, I was assigned to the particular area concerned with citizenship.

Citizens from all parts of the country, young and old, of all races and creeds, discussed the rights of citizenship and the obligations inherent in those rights. The citizens of the District of Columbia recognize their obligations; they have no opportunity to exercise the rights given to others.

In the interest of avoiding repetition of arguments already presented, I will not dwell on facts known to you: the amount of taxes paid, military service given, comparison of population of the District of Columbia with other States, and other points. I merely want to underline the sincere desire and right of thousands of second-class citizens of this important democracy to have a voice in the selection of the Chief Executive who controls so much of their day-to-day lives, including the appointment of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, to be included under the provisions of the Constitution concerning the casting of ballots, and to be represented in the Congress of the United States by regularly elected delegates with voice

and vote.

We speak loudly to the world of the glories of a democratic society; we jealously watch other people's rights in free society; we deprive a segment of our population of privileges which should be theirs. I strongly urge giving the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, and a voice in Congress through elected representatives with full power of voice and vote. Mr. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. GICHNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. We appreciate your remarks.

I understand there is another witness to be heard?

If not, we will close the hearings today and resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

The subcommittee stands in recess.

(Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 1960, in Washington, D.C.)

[ocr errors]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRESENTATION AND VOTE

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1960

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee was called to order at 10 a.m., in room 346, House Office Building, Hon. William M. McCulloch presiding.

Present: Emanuel Celler (chairman of the committee), Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Byron G. Rogers, Lester Holtzman, Harold D. Donohue, Herman Toll, William M. McCulloch, William E. Miller, and George Meader.

Also present:

Roland V. Libonati, member of the committee.

Cyril F. Brickfield, counsel; Wm. H. Crabtree, associate counsel;: Richard Peet, counsel.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. The committee will please come to order.

By reason of a very important commitment of our colleague, Mr. Harris, the gentleman from Arkansas, we will hear a statement from him immediately.

We are very happy to have you here, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. OREN HARRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HARRIS, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for your courtesy. I am indeed pressed for time because of pressure of a committee meeting that is supposed to be underway, and there are a good many witnesses to be heard this morning on the ethics problem in our regulatory agencies of the Government. Your distinguished chairman, Mr. Celler and I were talking last night. He suggested that if I could get the time to drop by for just one minute, to do so. I have done so to express my full and complete support for the resolution, for the amendment to the Constitution to provide for a vote for the citizens of the District fo Columbia for the President and Vice President, and to provide for a delegate in the House of Representatives.

Very briefly, you know that I was chairman of the subcommittee on the District of Columbia even back in the days on the committee with our distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Randolph. I was opposed to the many proposals at that time regarding the so-called home rule approach that they made for the District of Columbia.

117

« AnteriorContinuar »