Mr. HARRIS. It occurs to me that the Constitution has something to do with it. Have you forgotten about that altogether? Mr. BRYAN. Well, now, candidly I shot my fireworks on Christmas down in Tennessee and I never heard of the Constitution; never before you heard it in Arkansas or he in Mississippi. It was a Yankee document that somebody had foisted on somebody else, and I do not know where all these great constitutional lawyers come from, from Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Mr. HARRIS. Well, it has been only a very short time, in the course of your statement, that you referred back to the great Madison and the fine accomplishment of Madison in writing this great document; and now you would make such a derogatory statement such as that. I think you would cut it out of the record. Mr. BRYAN. No, sir; that happens to be in my written statement. Mr. HARRIS. I don't mean that. I mean the statement you just made about not having heard of the Constitution, or at least having anything to do with the Constitution, until a certain time in Tennessee and in Arkansas. Mr. BRYAN. Until I went to law school. By the way, I went to Lebanon, where I matriculated but did not graduate; and I hold the gentleman and the chairman in high respect, he having graduated from that school. Mr. HARRIS. And I am proud of it. Mr. BRYAN. You have every reason to be proud of it. It is one of the greatest law schools in this country. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Bryan, I have one or two questions I want to ask you. Mr. BRYAN. Yes, sir. Mr. O'HARA. Do you think there is the problem which the Congress has to determine on this question, where this is the seat of the National Government as well as the District of Columbia? Mr. BRYAN. I am so happy that you brought it up, because I did not want to continue, but it certainly is on my chest and I would love to get it off. This very entertaining 90 minutes of our constitutional circuit judge from Alabama, Mr. Hobbs, gives the pitiful and overwhelming picture that George Washington, the hero of Valley Forge, was running like a scared rabbit because some drunks were coming down from Lancaster, and that George and the Continental Congress were chased from Philadelphia and went to Trenton, and then from Trenton to Annapolis, and finally he got down to the Potomac, down in the virgin soil where the Harrises speak only to McMillans and the McMillans talk only to God, down where they get away from all this clamour and the noise. That is not true at all. The thing that brought the Federal City to the District of Columbia was to give the Federal Government some money, and that the city would be there, and to build the streets and support it, because Congress did not have the money. Mr. O'HARA. You don't think the little trouble they had at Philadelphia when the seat of government was there had anything to do with it? Mr. BRYAN. No, I don't believe George Washington and the rest of them were afraid of a few drunks from Lancaster. I don't think they would have run for Washington. Mr. O'HARA. They went to Princeton. Mr. BRYAN. Yes, and they came to Annapolis. The trouble was the Congress of the United States was not socially the thing where they were in those days. The women were being ostracized; they were being pushed around. There was no dignity given to the Congress of the United States in Philadelphia, Trenton, and somewhat less, not quite so bad, in Annapolis. The people that had the necessity of forming this Government came to the District of Columbia because they wanted to get away, they wanted to get some place where they could build their Capital without having to buy the ground, for one thing, and they came here. And what did they do? They took up some swampy ground. George Washington was the Father of his Country and he was the greatest, about 128 duPonts rolled in one, of his day; and he was shrewd, he was able, and he was patriotic and honorable. But he knew that there was not any income that would establish this District of Columbia. He knew the money had to come from somewhere other than the barrel you reach in that comes from taxation. There was not any barrel. So he came down here and took this farm, and what did he do? If the Securities and Exchange Commission had been in existence then and had acted on the lawmakers under the "blue sky laws," why if we did such things today we would be in jail; because in the District of Columbia there was never such a lottery as was held at that time. There was never such a lottery in this country. Money was obtained on promises that were never fulfilled. This city was built and the city contributed the money that built the Capitol. I think they got about $750,000 on a picnic lottery proposition. That is where they got the money. They laid the foundation of the White House, and ever since that time we have built the streets. Now don't attack poor old Dr. Shepard; somebody had to build the streets. Mr. O'HARA. I am not attacking Dr. Shepard. Mr. BRYAN. I mean the other gentlemen; I am sorry. Mr. O'HARA. Neither am I concerned about your charge about the Ku Klux Klan behind this, because I don't think the Ku Klux Klan affects me very much, in my judgment. Mr. BRYAN. No, I am sure they do not. Mr. O'HARA. I think you could have left that out of your statement. Mr. BRYAN. I know the charges are made and that is what I hear. Why I hear a Member of the House who was for District home rule was a Red and a Communist. I heard that statement made right here on the witness stand. Mr. O'HARA. You made some reference also to the record of the District Committee in the last, the Eightieth Congress, as an example of why we need home rule. What do you mean by that? Mr. BRYAN. I read that testimony thoroughly and the preponderance of it is that the pros had it very much over the antis. Mr. O'HARA. What do you mean, that the pros had it more over the antis? Mr. BRYAN. For home rule as against home rule. Mr. O'HARA. Well the bill came out on the floor of the House, didn't it? Mr. BRYAN. Yes. 95148-49-25 Mr. O'HARA. It was quite obvious that it was not going to pass. Mr. BRYAN. Well, I do not know that I fear that. I will tell you this: If you take this bill to the House, it will pass unanimously, overwhelmingly, and I will make you a bet on it. Mr. O'HARA. Let me ask you this, because of your attitude. Mr. O'HARA. If there was home rule in the District of Columbia, who should run it? Which political party? Mr. BRYAN. I do not want to be flippant, Mr. O'Hara, but I would refer you to the question of who runs the District of Columbia now. Mr. O'HARA. I would like to have you answer my question. Mr. BRYAN. I think it would be almost as important to ask you that question. I presume the Council and Manager would constitute, subject to the approval of this committee, the functioning body. That is the way we wrote the bill anyway. Mr. O'HARA. Do you think you have answered my question as fully as you care to? Mr. BRYAN. Not if I did not answer it fully to your satisfaction. Mr. O'HARA. I will not pursue it any further. That is all. Mr. HARRIS. You say that is the way you wrote the bill? Did you write the Kefauver bill? Mr. BRYAN. No, sir; I was on the committee which wrote one of the original drafts. I did not say the Kefauver bill. The Central Committee appointed a committee to write a bill and I was on that committee, and we studied every phrase and word of the bill which we wrote. The Kefauver bill is the Auchincloss bill generally. Mr. HARRIS. Did you assist in writing the Auchincloss bill? Mr. BRYAN. No, sir; I said the Auchincloss bill is the foundation of them all. Mr. HARRIS. Which bill did your committee write? Mr. BRYAN. My committee wrote a bill which the Senate District Committee had its hearings on, and from that bill and other suggestions the Kefauver Bill was prepared. Mr. HARRIS. I want to know whether or not the Republicancontrolled Congress, in the last Congress, permitted the Democratic Committee of the District of Columbia to write the legislation. Mr. BRYAN. No, sir; they did not. Mr. HARRIS. I do want to refer to the statement you made about members of this committee insulting Senator Kefauver. Personally I have known Estes Kefauver for many years. Mr. BRYAN. I know of your mutual regard and it hurt me all the more. Mr. HARRIS. And during the entire time we have had the privilege of serving in Congress we have had very close associations, inside of Congress and out. In my opinion he is as fine an American as we have anywhere. I disagree with the members of my delegation from my own State and I disagree with other people. Šenator Kefauver and I may have had some disagreements, as perhaps you have had with Senator Kefauver sometime in the past, although I do not know; but the fact that there might be different viewpoints does not mean anyone would reflect on or insult a man for whom we have such high regard. Mr. BRYAN. I am very grateful to the chairman for the explanation, because it made me most unhappy to see a man welcomed one day and maligned the next day. Mr. HARRIS. I disagree with the statement that Senator Kefauver was maligned. Mr. BRYAN. The author of "phony legislation" is not a compliment. Mr. HARRIS. That does not reflect the type of criticism. Mr. BRYAN. Thank you. Mr. HARRIS. Are there any further questions? We thank you. You have had 50 minutes before this committee. Mr. BRYAN. Thank you very much. Mr. HARRIS. The next witness will be Mr. Hildreth, Democratic national committeeman for the District of Columbia. He was here and expressed concern about the hearing. Mr. Hildreth, you have not made a request to appear before this committee. I cannot find anything in these files, neither do I find anything in the files of the committee clerk that you have requested to be heard. We will hear you at this time. Mr. HILDRETH. Thank you. As national committeeman I have no statement. Our Democratic committee selected a representative, who has spoken for our party, namely Mr. James W. Bryan. He has spoken for us. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. The next witness will be Mr. Harry N. Stull, of the Federation of Citizens Associations. STATEMENT OF HARRY N. STULL, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Mr. STULL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Harry N. Stull, and I am here representing the Federation of Citizens Associations. I merely want to make a short statement, Mr. Chairman. I do not expect to reach the heights of oratory that my predecessor indulged in and my statement will be both brief and, I hope, to the point. I would like to identify my organization for the record. The Federation of Citizens Associations consists of 72 organized bodies in the District of Columbia, federated into one group and represented on the floor of our federation by two delegate seats. Consequently our total delegate membership is 144. We made a study of the Auchincloss bill and endorsed it in principle. We omitted any reference to the details of that bill because at the time the Auchincloss bill was merely-I don't think it had been introduced as yet by a committee member. It was just a print. After the Kefauver bill was introduced in the Senate, the first draft, we had a meeting of our committee on suffrage in the federation and we considered it for 2 or 3 hours. The various aspects of the bill were considered, and as a result of that we prepared a report to our federation dealing with the bill as it then existed, and we approved it with certain suggested amendment; and, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to leave that. Mr. HARRIS. Without objection the report of the suffrage committee of the Federation of Citizens Associations may be inserted in the record at this point. (The report is as follows:) APRIL 2, 1949. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPORT OF SUFFRAGE COMMITTEE Your committee on suffrage met Thursday, March 31, 1949, for the consideration of S. 1365 introduced in the United States Senate March 23, 1949, by Senator Estes Kefauver and seven other Senators. Present were: Delegates Meadows, Leeman, Day, Hogkins, Murray, Mrs. Phelps, George Brown, John L. C. Sullivan, Duvall, and your chairman. Delegates Striner, Thatcher, Fred Walker, and Etta Taggart requested to be excused. President John Connaughton was also present. Mr. Wilbur S. Finch, former chairman of this committee, was present by invitation. S. 1365 is entitled "A bill to provide home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia", and has for its purpose the relieving of Congress of much of the burdensome duties of supervising District affairs, creating a representative local government chosen by qualified electors, and providing an efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia. Your committee believes that on the whole this proposed legislation merits our approval. It follows in many respects the provisions of the Auchincloss bill, which was given approval in principle by this body and was subsequently reported favorably to the House in the Eightieth Congress. The one indispensable element of a responsible local government is that it be under the control and direction of persons elected by the qualified electors of the District. It is clear from available records of the Constitutional Convention that it was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution that residents of the District would be deprived of a local legislative body chosen by the residents. For the first 74 years of its existence, from 1800 to 1874, the District had such local legislative bodies chosen by the people. Its absence during the last 74 years has denied District residents the means of deciding local matters for themselves. Succeeding generations of Washingtonians have lived in the Capital City of the world's greatest democracy without exercising the primary duty and privilege of an American citizen-the ballot. The paternal guidance of a benevolent Congress, however beneficial to the District, is not a satisfactory alternative to self-rule by the people. It is the purpose of this proposed act to authorize the locally elected government to exercise all the necessary powers of a local government, taking into consideration the duty imposed by the Constitution on Congress in the matter of District affairs. Hearings were had by a subcommittee of the Senate District Committee looking to securing the views of local citizens before this bill was introduced. Since its introduction additional hearings have been held, at which the subcommittee solicited criticism of the bill. Attention is called to the fact that the bill contains no reference to a fiscal formula to determine the amount to be paid by the Federal Government. Assurance was given by the committee that such would be included in the final draft of the bill. Its omission was due to the fact that certain legislation providing for a determination of this issue is now pending in the Senate. While giving our hearty approval to the main purposes of this bill, your committee makes the following suggestions in the nature of amendments for the consideration of the committee: 1. In section 402 of the bill it is provided that if any legislation adopted by the Council is not disapproved by either House of Congress within 60 days after it has been presented to Congress it shall become a law. Your committee believes that this section should provide that the veto power thus provided for should be by both Houses of Congress. This would subject the Council's proposals to the ordinary methods of legislation, since both Houses of Congress are equally interested in District affairs. It would also follow literally the constitutional requirement that Congress (and not one House thereof) shall have sole jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. 2. Section 321 of this bill provides that "except as otherwise provided in this act, all functions granted to or imposed upon the Board of District Commissioners are hereby transferred to the Council." Section 322 grants certain additional power to the Council in regard to zoning. At the present time the District Commissioners do not possess as complete authority in ordinance making as is exercised by other municipalities. It is suggested, therefore, that language be inserted giving greater authority in ordinance making to the elected Council, thus making |