must obviously take time away from far more pressing affairs that affect both the Nation and the entire world.

We believe the home rule bill should incorporate these fundamental requirements that all of the local legislative and administrative functions should be completely under the control of the local electorate, and the District should have the largest possible degree of participation in making laws for the District itself, as is possible under the Constitution.

We think that the proposed charter in S. 1527, which we endorse, meets these fundamental objectives satisfactorily. Although consideration by various committees of Congress, and by Congress itself, may produce changes in detail, we earnestly hope that there will be a home rule bill and there will be no reduction in the degree of home rule proposed in the pending bill.

In conclusion, we want to emphasize our opinion that the principle of home rule as enunciated in S. 1527 should be put into law as quickly as possible to make democracy in the District of Columbia a living reality.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Liftin. We appreciate having your statement and your giving the views of your organization. Mr. LIFTIN. Thanks very much for permitting us to be heard. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Browne is the next witness.

How much time would you care to take, Mr. Browne?

STATEMENT OF VINCENT J. BROWNE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. BROWNE. About 5 minutes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Of course, we want to give just as much time as people require and feel that they need in connection with this matter. At the same time, we are endeavoring to complete the record in these hearings.

If you could conclude your testimony in 5 minutes, let us say, we would be glad to hear you at this time. Since you are here we do not want to inconvenience you too much by requiring you to come back. This is the second round on the ringing of the bells, and we will have to go right away to answer this roll call.

Mr. BROWNE. I can finish in 5 minutes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Very well. You may proceed.

Mr. BROWNE. My name is Vincent Browne. I am a member of the executive board of the District branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

We wish to express first our appreciation for the privilege of presenting our views regarding the home rule bill which is now being considered.

The District of Columbia branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has a local membership of 7,000 and the statement which is presented at this time was authorized by action of the executive board on June 7, 1949.

The District of Columbia branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People strongly supports the efforts to secure home rule for the District of Columbia and endorses the principles contained in the bills introduced by Senator Kefauver and Congressman Klein. One of the objectives of all mature people is the achieve

ment of the opportunity to govern themselves. This is as true of the people in Washington, D. C., as it is of people in other parts of the world. In unofficial plebiscites the majority of the people in this community have already recorded their desire for home rule. But if there is still doubt about what the people here want, we would urge you to conduct an official poll among those who would constitute the potential electorate in the community to discover their stand on both the questions of home rule and national representation.

One of the most widely raised arguments against home rule is that it would be virtually meaningless without national representation. Yet there are the examples of the fully organized Territories of Hawaii and Alaska in which the people govern themselves without national representation. We also press the fact that the relationship between these Territories and the Government of the United States is clear without question. There is no doubt that the National Government has ultimate responsibility for all Territories. It is interesting to note that some of the people who are saying that home rule for the District wouldn't mean much without national representation are also saying that since Hawaii and Alaska have local self-government, they do not need national representation.

One of the great tragedies of our local community is that there is such a broad cleavage between those few people who are influential in public affairs and the great numbers who find themselves without a voice. A government in which all can participate bridges a great many differences. The election of public officers genuinely represenative of the majority of the people unites a community as nothing else What we are asking for is a local government responsible to the will of the majority of the people as that will is expressed at free elections. We are asking for something that we fought to bring to other parts of the world where it was denied. We are seeking the same opportunity of democracy for ourselves now.

can.

The people who have appeared before you in the interests of home rule have not agreed on all aspects of the organization of the government which they are seeking. But the important thing is that they have agreed on the desirability of home rule. Disagreement over the precise nature of administration and organization of a self-governing group is by no means an unhealthy sign. Unanimity is not possible except in a totalitarian society and there it is the unanimity of the lash. Every community has its own personality and the exact forms of the administration of public services is affected by these varying characteristics. Doubtlessly, if we could organize our public agencies according to the principles most frequently found in American cities we could later make such adjustments as would most fit our peculiar community characteristics.

We have observed that some of the people who have opposed home rule have done so on the grounds that they disapprove of the method of financing the city that has been proposed. It is understandable, of course, that people should want to know the costs of everything. In this connection in a rather philosophical vein, one might raise the question of what is the price tag that comes with the opportunity to govern oneself. Very likely if it is too high for Washington, D. C., it is too high for the rest of the world. Practically, we are in approval of the formula expressed in the Kefauver bill and its companion. We believe that S. 1527 contains adequate insurance against extravagant

spending. And, does not the Congress with respect to the territories as the States with respect to their municipal corporations stand astride the path of those who would engage in reckless spending?

The granting of home rule to the District does not diminish the interests or the influence of the Nation in the Capital City. We clearly perceive that there are affairs of local interest which ought to be the responsibility of an electorate as is true of every other American city. On the other hand, we recognize that there are other public operations here which are more largely the concern of the Nation as a whole and which Congress ought to directly supervise. For example, the local police system ought to be made more responsive to the local citizenry and this would be true under home rule. Yet, Congress might clearly want some additional protective services for national operations and facilities. When broad questions arise concerning the appropriate jurisdiction of one or the other it is left to the Congressas it would be in the case of a state treating its municipal creation-to say what the answer may be.

It seems to us, finally, that there is a kind of moral obligation to grant home rule to the District. Quite apart from any basic philosophy of democracy, the major parties have repeatedly committed themselves to the objectives of home rule.

The organization which I represent takes the attitude that the time is ripe now for the achievement of home rule for the District.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. McMillan wants to ask a question.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I believe you said your organization contains a membership of about 7,000.

Mr. BROWNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Did you take a poll to see how many of them wanted home rule?

Mr. BROWNE. No, sir; we did not. This poll was taken among the members of the executive board, which is elected by the members of the organization. The executive board, 34 in number, was in unanimous agreement.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROWNE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. I am very sorry to announce to those who came here to testify this morning that we are compelled to postpone our hearing until another meeting, in view of the call of the House. We must go

now.

The committee will adjourn until Friday morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 10:40 a. m., Wednesday, July 20, 1949, an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., Friday, July 22, 1949.)

HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The Judiciary Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia met in the committee room, 445 Old House Office Building at 10:25 o'clock a. m., Hon. Oren Harris (subcommittee chairman) presiding.

Other subcommittee members present were: Hon. Thomas Abernethy, Hon. Olin E. Teague, and Hon. John J. Allen, Jr. Hon. John L. McMillan, chairman of the full committee, was also present. Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order.

We are continuing the hearings of the committee on the problem of the home rule question. We are very glad to have with us this morning another very able and outstanding Member of the House of Representatives, who has given a great deal of study to this problem and he has always expressed himself as being highly favorable, so far as it is possible, to extending the privilege of democracy and like benefits to the people within the constitutional limitation and requirements.

Judge Hobbs, we are very glad to have you with us this morning and recognize where you have had years of experience on the great committee, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and with the ability you have displayed here certainly entitles your interpretations and testimony to a great deal of consideration inasmuch as this matter is so involved and so highly technical; there are interpretations that must be placed here, and the fact that the Constitution is involved. You have made a lifetime study of it, and we are happy to have you present your statement and facts on this important study.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM HOBBS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, that is exceedingly gracious of you. I am delighted to be here. It always reminds me of a prayer meeting crowd to attend committee meetings. The ones that need the talk least are the ones who are there. I think it shows that you gentlemen who have honored me to a high degree by being here are demonstrators of the true religion of performance of your congressional duty. I hate to bore you with facts that are perfectly familiar to you.