Dr. CORNING. There is just one other generality before I leave this question. The thing most serious in school administration the whole country over is the independence of the Board of Education from any kind of political interference, and by that I don't mean just unfavorable political interference, but the autonomy of a board of education which is operating a highly specialized business. That is very important and if it should come about that this bill would be enacted into law and if the standing city council, be it ever so capable a council, would have the authority to change the basic functions and authority of the board of education, I think it would be very ruinous for the schools of the District of Columbia. I think whatever happens you should preserve in the hands of the board of education the basic authority which it now enjoys and keep it as autonomous as possible. I think that is the most crucial point to be observed.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank your, Dr. Corning. I do feel that notwithstanding a lot of indications otherwise, that you and others have brought before this committee for consideration problems which in my opinion make the necessity of holding these hearings and studying these matters, and not jumping into something for the sake only of merely trying to carry out an ideology. It is certainly fine to promote the interests, the honor, and privileges of the people in the practice of democracy by the application of it in such a way that those things will be protected; and I appreciate the fact that you have been one of those who pointed up those things which we should consider. I think there is a grave responsibility on this committee and Members of Congress in respect to what is provided and brought out in this. regard.

Mr. ALLEN of California. I have been concerned from the outset in regard to the election of the school board, as to the question of the desirability of having each office designated and having the various. candidates for the specific offices contest against each other, as opposed to the system of having a group of candidates run and having to select the three or four receiving the highest number of votes, and I mention this having had some experience serving on an elected school board; and it seemed to me always on the school board where we had an election where the officers were designated and candidates ran specifically for each position, that when the question of public approval of the school system was presented, it was almost invariable that there was a group that definitely approved and fostered the program that was in existence, and there was an opposing group which criticized it and promised a change, and the people of the community had the choice of one group or the other, and the people decided the question as to how the department should be operated in the future. I have always had the thought that where a number of people who got the highest number of votes were selected, say the three or four highest were elected, then the election was merely the result of their voicing their views in advance on which they were elected to the school board; and that they were committed to policies before appointment to the board, rather than deciding policies when members of the board in the light of all the information that became available to them.

Have you any comment from your experience as to the relative desirability of either of the two systems?

Dr. CORNING. Well I believe, sir, that points to a very serious problem in connection with any election of school board members, that problem being that it becomes necessary for candidates for membership on the school board to announce their candidacy, and also for them to withstand the rigors of an election campaign in which they are practically forced to make certain commitments. I don't believe in that. So they are very apt to go on the board of education with closed minds, and I do think particularly in the administration of a business like that of a school system in a community, that the members of the board of education should go on that board with open minds, ready to study the problems and find out what they are, rather than to make commitments that this is wrong or that is right before they are in possession of the background.

I have seen that happen many times where they were all bound with commitments and when they found what the actual facts were, they had to change their point of view and were embarrassed by it.

Frankly, sir, specifically as to your question, it would seem to me it would be better that candidates run for the school board, not for a specific position on the board, and those receiving the highest number of votes should be elected. That is based on the experience that I have had. There is danger in the other thing for sectionalism to creep in. If you are running for a specific position, then you are running to represent a specific element of the community.

Mr. ALLEN of California. I did not have in mind that the seats on the board would be handled that way, but that each of the nine or seven would run as representatives of the whole community.

Dr. CORNING. It would be my opinion that it would be best if the members of the board of education, the individual members, were not running for a specific seat, however, they might be designated, but they would be running for seats on the board of education. Mr. ALLEN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Doctor.

It is way past 12 o'clock and the House is in session. Obviously, we are not going to be able to continue the hearing today, although we had hoped so much to get through with all those who were notified to be here this morning. There were 11 in all and we have only been able to hear 5.

I wonder if I might inquire if any of the other witnesses who came here prepared to testify this morning would desire to file a statement for the record for the information of the committee, which will be considered, and let that suffice as his or her statement; or if you care to make just a brief statement in the presentation of your statement, if you have prepared one, we would be glad to give you that opportunity. But I do want to remind you that we are already over our time.

I am sure no one here would be satisfied with that procedure. Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection I could make a brief statement for the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chapman, you are one of the witnesses who was to appear here this morning?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir. I can read my statement. It is very short.

Mr. HARRIS. You may have the privilege of doing so if you care to. Would you like to make a brief statement?

Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD C. CHAPMAN, FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. CHAPMAN. The District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations requests the inclusion of the following specific legislative provisions in the proposed home rule charter now under consideration by the honorable House Committee on the District of Columbia:

1. Home rule (self-government) for the District of Columbia, with national representation at the pleasure of the Congress.

2. A Council of the District of Columbia of locally elected representatives and chosen representatives of the National Government. 3. Election of members of the Council of the District of Columbia from uniform precincts set up into wards-not voted for at large.

4. A board of education of the District of Columbia to be elected in the same manner as members of the Council of the District of Columbia.

5. A District manager appointed by the Council.

6. Barring from registration for voting of persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (unless pardoned) and of persons of less than 2 years of actual continuous residence here. We oppose educational tests of the type in section 1207-A (3) of Senate bill 1527. 7. Public housing rather than private exploitation under cover of slum clearance through exercise of the power of eminent domain by Government.

8. Finally, the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations expresses the hope that the Congress will be pleased to provide a flawless model of honest municipal government which will be a credit to the capital of the United States, both now and ever.

These provisions were prepared by the Committee on Suffrage of which Mrs. Willis White, of 5212 B Street SE, is the chairman, and were approved by the Federation of Civic Associations.

I think this covers the things our Federation desires. It is a fair statement. There is no use in taking up any more of your time. Mrs. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I think I would be next on the list. Mr. HARRIS. Mrs. Evans, we are glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GERTRUDE EVANS, PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. EVANS. I am Mrs. Gertrude Evans, of the Progressive Party. I do not want to impose on the committee, but I would like to present this short statement. We are for home rule. The Progressive Party of the District of Columbia is gratified that home rule for the District of Columbia and reorganization of the District government is receiving attention by the subcommittee of the District of Columbia Committee. Dr. Clark Foreman, who is our chairman, is at present out of town and unable to attend. He testified before Senator Kefauver's subcommittee on two occasions, pointing out that the restoring of the democratic right to vote to the people of the Nation's Capital is

essential. It has been said many times that we are the only capital where its citizens are denied this elementary right. It has, furthermore, been pointed out that the District of Columbia has a greater population than 13 of the States.

There is before the committee consideration of three bills for home rule and reorganization of the District of Columbia government: The Auchincloss bill, H. R. 28, the Marcantonio bill, H. R. 2505, and the Kefauver bill passed by the Senate on May 31, 1949.

All bills contain provisions for an elected city council with a city manager and an elected board of education, which we support. We feel that the Auchincloss bill and the Kefauver bill have many serious defects, namely in the method of elections; absence of direct responsibility of the council to the people in the matter of civic rights.

The Kefauver bill calls for a referendum of the people of the District before the bill becomes law. This we consider a useless expense as the residents of the District in two plebiscites have declared themselves overwhelmingly for suffrage.

The Progressive Party supports the Marcantonio bill, H. R. 2505, as the bill that gives the greatest measure of democracy to the people of the District.

We urge consideration and adoption of the following provisions in any bill that is reported to the House of Representatives:

1. The Marcantonio bill provides the most practical and democratic method of election for councilmen and members of the Board of Education-proportional representation. This is known as the single transferable vote and has been used successfully in many cities for 50 years. Approximately 30,000 votes will be necessary for election. This method would allow minorities to have representation on the council consistent with their strength. It would also encourage the election of leaders of various sections of the people. The election method of the other bills would result in practically no minority representation on the council. However, the election system in the Kefauver bill is an improvement over the original proposals and the complicated system in the Auchincloss bill.

2. The Marcantonio bill provides that citizens who have resided in the District for 1 year and who have reached the age of 18 years are qualified to register and vote. We feel that the age for military duty should be the required age for voters.

The question of so-called dual voting has received much attention by the committee. We feel that qualified residents should vote for their local officials, regardless of the fact that they vote in the States in State and national elections. As residents of the District they certainly have an interest in local matters and should be allowed to have a voice in their representations. This would furthermore develop a local interest in the city's problems which is now lacking in

some.

3. The Marcantonio bill provides for the Federal contribution to the District to be the amount the District would receive in the form of taxes if the land and property owned by the Federal Government were taxed. Such a provision, together with the floating of long-term bond issues, would provide enough revenue that the recently enacted and burdensome sales tax would not be necessary.

4. The Marcantonio bill provides for a Delegate to Congress from the District. Our position on this matter is that we think this pro

vision is important and also that national representation would be desirable, but home rule should not be held up because of these matters. 5. The Marcantonio bill includes provisions for the initiative, referendum, and recall. All of these provisions allow the people to take action if their representatives refuse the will of the people. We feel that this is an important safeguard which is used in many cities. This is the only bill that contains these democratic provisions.

6. Reorganization of the District government; civic rights: The Marcantonio bill provides that the basic charter of the District of Columbia will guarantee every citizen the right to education, recreation, and employment in the District without discrimination because of race, creed, or color. The bill creates a new agency, a fair employment practices commission, with the power to prohibit discrimination or segregation in the operation of the District government in any facility it operates or in the services contracted for by the Government. This is especially important for in the reorganization of the District government, if such provisions are not enacted, advances made along these lines will be wiped out. The United States Employment Service is now operated on a nondiscriminatory basis. An FEPC must be enacted to extend these gains, not to eliminate them. This would also be essential in the operation of the Recreation Board and the school system. The pattern of discrimination and segregation in the Nation's Capital must be ended.

We, therefore, urge that serious consideration be accorded the civil rights proposals contained in H. R. 2505. It is time that the Nation's capital became a model of democracy, where all its citizens be given their rights and privileges, regardless of race, color, or national origin. We feel that the reorganization of the District government is essential and much can be accomplished in efficiency and economy.

In conclusion, the Progressive Party desires to reaffirm its support for home rule for the District of Columbia. We desire to see the most democratic bill possible enacted, but will support home rule, even if 'given only in some degree.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you prefer Marcantonio's bill to the Kefauver bill?

Mrs. EVANS. Because we think it has in it more democratic provisions. It includes proportional representation, civil rights, and it also provides for a Fair Employment Practices Commission. So we feel a basic charter granting home rule to the District of Columbia should have these fundamental, basic rights, which will give equal opportunity and protection to all citizens of the District of Columbia, regardless of race, color, or national origin.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak at this time or present a statement?

Mr. VAN ARKEL. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing for the Washington Chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action.

Mr. HARRIS. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GERHARD VAN ARKEL, WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. VAN ARKEL. Gentlemen, my name is Gerhard Van Arkel, and I am vice president of the Washington Chapter of Americans for

95148-49- -18