Mr. GRAHAM. I would doubt it. I really do not know factually, but I should doubt it.

Mr. HARRIS. And in that sense, because of this unusual provision in the Constitution of the United States, it does become a rather unique situation; doesn't it, apparently? And, without an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the people cannot have the highest degree or privilege of citizenship; and these rights, so far as suffrage and voting in principle, and so forth, as they can have, say, for instance, in the city of New York. Can they?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the people under the Constitution can have a very high degree of responsibility about their local affairs, and by so doing have a very beneficial effect on the operation of the machinery of the legislative branch of our Government.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, you mentioned some of those highly important responsibilities a moment ago. First, you mentioned what happened in Pittsburgh and what happened in other places throughout the country that you referred to.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. And probably in a little higher degree than here in the city of Washington.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. I haven't been in Pittsburgh recently, but it occurred to me that the Nation's Capital here in Washington, D. C., in many ways has made more progress, because it had the Treasury of the United States to call upon, than any other city in the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM. I should think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to compare the two cities because they are so dissimilar. In the sense of the production of wealth in the area of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, they have made much greater progress than we have, but it is more or less a one-industry city, in terms of steel and fabrication. We are a one-industry city, in paper work, politics.

Mr. HARRIS. If you take the politics away from the city of Washington, what would happen to the city of Washington?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I have decided that is not yet a real problem, so I haven't thought about it.

Mr. HARRIS. It is the one industry you talk about.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. And, when you do away with the one industry in a city, you know what happens in that city.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would not be able to envisage any possibility of the destruction of that single industry by this measure.

I don't quite understand the question.

Do you?

Mr. HARRIS. I am trying to point out, not that there is going to be any destruction of the Nation's Capital; in fact, it will continue to improve and progress.

Mr. GRAHAM. Right.

Mr. HARRIS. Because it belongs to all the people and not the 600,000.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think there are 850,000 people.

Mr. HARRIS. The point I am trying to make here is that the very interests that built up the city of Washington were what was done by the Congress of the United States and people throughout the United States. Is that true or not?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is true; sure.

Mr. HARRIS. Now it means that this, the Nation's Capital, belongs to all of the people.

Mr. GRAHAM. Right.

Mr. HARRIS. Therefore, responsibility cannot become only local; can it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Responsibility can become a greater local matter than it is now. I don't want to end on that, but I think that is the

answer you have today.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, maybe so. You told me the principal people in Washington have a feeling of a sense of restraint, as far as Congress is concerned. I must differ from that because, from my own personal experience, I haven't seen a great deal of restraint by a lot of people in the District of Columbia in making requests.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I am sure people are exercising a great deal of restraint or you might be suffering a total nervous collapse at the present time, Congressman.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, along with responsibility would come the cost, the expenditure that the people of the District of Columbia would not be willing, of course, to bear all the expenses in connection with the District; would they?

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't think because of the economic position of this city, on which we are in agreement-I don't think it would be equitable or fair for the Federal Government ever to cease making an equitable contribution toward municipal services. I don't say that it is connected directly with the issue of home rule or delegates or some of those unrestrained interferences on the local level.

Mr. HARRIS. It has always been my belief that along with responsibility goes the privilege of paying for it. Is that true?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think that is true, but I would not think it answers the question of the Federal payments.

Mr. HARRIS. No; I don't either.

Mr. GRAHAM. There are Federal installations throughout the 48 States, and there are adjustments made on many of those; and here in the Nation's Capital, where the Federal Government owns 51 percent, I don't think the local taxpayers should bear the entire burden. Then, too, we have here the three Commissioners appointed by the President, and the situation is not like that of States where Congressmen and Senators are elected. I think the Federal and local governments are more intermixed here than anywhere else.

Mr. HARRIS. It is rather unusual, when we find out the financial condition of some of the States and the body politic, where the Federal Government has taken over property for various reasons, and we find in many States counties that are almost without any revenue whatsoever.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. And you can see what a time they have trying to get money out of the Treasury of the United States. I am sure you are aware that situation exists.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; but some of them have been more successful than others.

Mr. HARRIS. But not nearly as successful as the District of Columbia.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think I know some who have outdone the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARRIS. Now you talk about local responsibility, relieving such conditions as crime as has been experienced here in the District of Columbia. Do you know of anything approaching the underworld activities that has ever occurred here in the District of Columbia?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I know this, you can't walk one block without tripping over a "numbers operator" here, and I don't think it is run by the churches. [Applause.]

Mr. HARRIS. Well, of course, I am not in the newspaper business, and I do not know of anyone that is going to suggest that the sincere, religious people, the churches of this country, which are the backbone of the home and the family and the people of this country and responsible for the degree of morality and moral responsibility, would enter into such crime or such a degree of crime. I am afraid that the statement has implication which I hope you will take out of the record. Mr. GRAHAM. I hope you will read the record, Mr. Congressman, and on doing so recognize you have misunderstood me and misinterpreted what I have said.

Mr. HARRIS. I don't believe you answered the question by saying the "numbers racket" was not run by the churches of the District of Columbia.

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe I am as good a churchman as you, and have as good feeling as you do. I think I made a statement reductio ad absurdum, and I did not know it was out of order.

Mr. HARRIS. I have been here 9 years, I assure you; and, as I was going to say, I have not been out as a newspaper reporter and haven't had the occasion, but I have never seen anyone that I knew or who was referred to or known as a "numbers operator." [Laughter.] Mr. GRAHAM. That is obviously possible if you say so.

Mr. HARRIS. I would assume that you would find them here the same as you would find them in any of the cities in the United States. Mr. GRAHAM. It has been placed up in the press, and if you will call on the Attorney General he will tell you, sir, that recently one-quarter of a million dollars in $10,000 and $1,000 bills were found in a safedeposit box in a vault that belonged to one of the gambling leaders in the District, and I can't call that "hay."

Mr. HARRIS. I do not, either; and I certainly do not subscribe to such activities, and certainly there is a law that would prohibit it.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think it is a very serious thing from the standpoint of our form of government.

Mr. HARRIS. But the point I make there is the implication from the statement you made that there is somebody in the "numbers racket" on every corner. Maybe I don't go down on every corner, and I may be as busy as you are. But I know there are a lot of people who, just as I am, are not bothered by those in the "numbers racket." Perhaps they know I would not play them. Neither am I bothered by the "bookies."

Mr. GRAHAM. You raise the question of the churches. It might be interesting to you if you would call the Federation of Churches people down here, because they have put a good deal of time on it, and I am in complete agreement with them in regard to crime.

Mr. HARRIS. I am not trying to minimize at all the danger of any degree of crime. I happen to have served in the district attorney's

office 8 years, and I know something of the effect of any crime, petty or otherwise; but I do think there is some question whether anyone can contend that the degree of crime in Washington is greater in that respect than it might be in some of the other larger cities of the country.

Mr. GRAHAM. Uniform crime statistics show you that as a matter of fact, on certain important crimes

Mr. HARRIS (interposing). But you haven't had anything of what is known as gangsterism.

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe where you have a quarter million dollars lying in the safe-deposit box, I think you have gangsterism.

Mr. HARRIS. Is it controlled by one organized group?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, newspapers, wonderful as we are, cannot carry out the functions of an investigative agency. If I knew the full details of the organization, I would publish it.

Mr. HARRIS. I am not asking you that.

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could get the full details, I could publish it in a copyrighted story and pick up quite a bit of circulation. Certainly it is controlled by a small group of people. How many there are, I do not know. The chief of police sent 55 names of leading gamblers to the grand jury.

Mr. HARRIS. And you would indicate that local responsibility, such as proposed in legislation here for home rule, would be in a better position to prevent such crime than the Federal Government of the United States with the FBI?

Mr. GRAHAM. The FBI exercises no responsibility over that, sir. It refuses to do it; it has no jurisdiction and won't get into the situation.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, if the Attorney General's Office were to call upon them, I imagine they would.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is the policy of the Attorney General not to call on them in that respect, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. But it is your feeling that an elected city council would minimize the degree of crime in the District of Columbia?

Mr. GRAHAM. You and I both are familiar with American cities and I have lived in one where crime for a short time had under popular suffrage gained much more control than it has here. I believe in the gample that the founding fathers made that the electorate ultimately will make the right choice. No one can say popular suffrage is a panacea to crime. I believe the way to combat it is by an effective public opinion, effective public suffrage, with the right to control our local affairs, and I believe it is the only way to correct it.

Mr. HARRIS. Now I am trying to keep you on the problems you brought up, the specific problems that you thought might be improved. Mr. GRAHAM. Right.

Mr. HARRIS. The right of the public to vote for somebody. I assume if a lot of people were given the right to vote, well I do not know whether they would be satisfied by just voting for someone, just so they have somebody to vote for. I do not agree with that at all. I think the greatest privilege anyone can have is the right of suffrage and participation in the national elections. We are all part of the National Government and it is a surprise to me that your newspaper and the other newspapers are not putting a great deal of

stress on that right, that principle of democracy, as you are on the smaller degree of suffrage for the District of Columbia..

Mr. GRAHAM. Could I comment on that, sir?

Mr. HARRIS. Sure; I would be glad to have it.

Mr. GRAHAM. As a practical matter we are aware of the constitutional provisions and the necessity for constitutional amendment to have representation in Congress and the right of suffrage and to be able to vote for the President of the United States. I do not believe that there is any other place in America where they are separated. I do not know of any other places in America where those rights are separated, where people can vote for just Members of Congress and for the President. I think the rights are inseparable and I would think organizing on the community level is the first step toward the normal exercise of the right of suffrage. Practically, you told me the right to vote for the President and the right to vote for Members of Congress is to be deferred for members of this community; and I say, because of the American process, I say, give us a chance. See if we are as bad as some skeptics of the plan feel or as good as some proponents of the plan believe we are, and let us come back to you and discuss on the merits the advantages or disadvantages of a constitutional amendment, which I think then can be used as the thing which would solve our present condition.

Mr. HARRIS. Of course, I have no reason to jump at any conclusion, but you referred to "skeptics," and if you are going to refer to one extreme you might refer to the other, say as "cloud walkers" or "utopian dreamers," if you want to refer to any particular description of anyone because of their position regarding this problem.

Now you mentioned a moment ago that one of the local responsibilities that the people might help minimize in this connection was the question of segregation. I am somewhat inclined to think that probably we should discuss it a little more fully. Sometimes I believe that maybe we have a false sense of security when we talk about the high degree of freedom. However, in many instances there is no doubt many times that all of this degree of freedom of speech in the press can bring on a lot of difficulties that might adversely affect the public. Now I do not know just what degree of effect it has on this segregation issue with reference to the pool a few days ago, because of the special attention which has been given to it through the press. I do know this; there are a lot of people throughout the country, if they see there is some trouble going on they are going to make their way to it. That is just natural and it is normal, and if you have 50 people who get in a controversy on some particular subject, or policy or principle, at a swimming pool or any other place, there will probably be one hundred or two hundred or three hundred more who are going to come if they know about it. They are just going to get in on it. That is Americanism, that is all.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I comment?

Mr. HARRIS. If that situation is permitted to exist, and I think if this swimming-pool difficulty had continued as it was for a few days, there is no telling what might have happened and what would have been the final result. I do not know whether the implication is that the Secretary of the Interior closed the pool down a few days ago because of that or because of what happened up on the hill; whether