politics are not of the same high calibre as the present incumbents. Why should a city like Washington have to accept as leaders, those who are not the best? Nothing that the so-called suffrage can offer the District is worth anything without national representation. The hope of securing that is remote. Also, when Congress has left the District to drift or manage its own affairs, it will have no further reason to be concerned with its welfare; that is to be expected. This organization understands why the United States Senate wishes to delegate responsibility for running the District to a board of managers, but it cannot abandon the District entirely. In case of crisis, how will the Federal Government protect governmental property and its own vital interests here? Washington was originally selected as the seat of government because Congress desired a Federal City that it could control and defend at all times, and this should always be borne in mind. Therefore the Capitol Hill Lions Club opposes suffrage for the District at the present time and under the Kefauver bill. STATEMENT BY ETTA L. TACGART, PRESIDENT, THE WASHINGTONIANS, ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTONIANS The Washingtonians, a citizens group, has for many years recorded itself before congressional committees and other groups as favoring national representation for the District of Columbia, and the group has specifically opposed the Kefauver bill for home rule for the said District of Columbia because it does not provide for national representation. It is believed that no home rule can be legally granted to the District of Columbia unless it is granted through a constitutional amendment, by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. No matter how many efforts are made to wiggle around the provision of the Constitution that Congress "shall have exclusive legislation in all s" in the District of Columbia, we believe that under this clause Congress cannot legally delegate its power unless it is done by a constitutional amendment. Of course, it is realized that Congress can delegate to the municipal heads power to establish certain ordinances for the District but this is certainly far from genuine suffrage. cases By the Kefauver bill certain powers are granted to the District government, including powers which Congress could not legally delegate without a constitutional amendment, because of the exclusive-control provision over the District. This Congress fully realizes for by the Kefauver bill it retains a veto power over anything which might be done by the elected council, which is provided for in the Kefauver bill. By this veto power the most vital element of suffrage is lacking, that is the District will not have control of its affairs but Congress will still have control over the District affairs. It is believed that the Congress should retain this control because it cannot delegate its authority to anyone else to initiate legislation, and especially tax legislation. We wish to express our condemnation of the Kefauver bill, and especially the following provisions, which contain so many political angles, that neither of the provisions could possibly be for the best welfare of the voteless residents of the District but would result in the same old political situation with which the District has had to contend for many years: Section 301 provides for a Council of 11, 2 of whom shall be Presidential appointees. Section 404 provides for reservation of congressional authority giving a veto power over any acts of an elected Council. Section 1206 provides that to be qualified to vote in the District, it is not intended that a person be required to relinquish his rights in another jurisdiction, resulting in voting residents of another jurisdiction casting a vote for the election of our officials, which is dual voting. Section 1210 provides that ballots and voting machines shall show no party affiliations, emblem, or slogan, which would open the doors to many Communists who would not have to declare their party affiliation. There are other provisions which are just as obnoxious as the ones mentioned above but the above are outstanding objections. The group, representing the Washingtonians, sincerely deplores the fact that the voteless residents of the District of Columbia have been deprived for so many years of the right to vote, the greatest privilege of American citizenship, and it believes that there should be no place in this great United States where it can be said some American citizens are subject to taxation without representation under a Government which couples taxation with representation. There is no doubt whatsoever that the sovereign power in the District is lodged in the United States and it possesses full and unlimited jurisdiction. This power cannot be legally delegated except by a constitutional amendment, and we earnestly request that the Congress of the United States take steps for such an amendment which would give complete suffrage to our voteless city. Congress has a difficult road to travel in order to overcome that constitutional provision which gives exclusive legislation to Congress over the District, and it seems, as we have said many times before, that the only sure way to get the vote in the District is by amending the Constitution of the United States, cede us back to Maryland, or make us a State. STATEMENT OF MRS. WILLIS WHITE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SUFFRAGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INC., FOR INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED HOME-RULE CHARTER NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT of Columbia, United StatES HOUSE OF RepresentativES WASHINGTON, D. C., June 20, 1949. 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 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 legal residence here. (We oppose educational tests of the type in Sec. 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. 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. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL WOMEN'S TRADE UNION LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.-TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY MRS. MARGARET F. STONE, CHAIRMAN OF LEGISLATION The National Women's Trade Union League has supported home rule for the District of Columbia for many years, and now urges a favorable report on S. 1527 so that action may be completed in this session of Congress. It seems self-evident that all citizens in a democracy should have a voice in their own government, and the modest home rule bill before your committee gives the citizens of the voteless District that voice without removing the Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the District of Columbia. It seems to us that the provision for review by Congress and the President of legislative proposals made by the City Council adequately safeguards the national interest, and eliminates any logical basis for opposition to home rule. An added advantage of home rule is that it will eliminate housekeeping details of the District from the badly overcrowded calendar of Congress and release much needed time for other legislation of national and international concern. A final point is that, at a time when emphasis is being placed on citizenship responsibility, it is important that individuals should not be penalized because they live at the seat of Government, by being denied the opportunity to assume the normal responsibilities of citizenship. We therefore urge prompt favorable action on home rule legislation as passed by the Senate in S. 1527. WASHINGTON 18, D. C., July 28, 1949. Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee on Home Rule, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The following is a statement which I would like to submit to your committee for its consideration in studying the question of home rule for the District of Columbia as embodied by the Kefauver bill (S. 1527). My views are presented to the committee as those of an individual resident and taxpayer; as none of the testimony thus far given expresses my thoughts in toto, I thought it better to submit it for myself. As I have lived in the District and owned my house here since 1932; I have joined civic organizations and taken part in efforts to improve the community. In doing this work I have found that there are two classes of interest in civic affairs: Those who are interested in the improvement and welfare of the city as a whole, and those interested only in the improvement of their particular section. both factors work for the common good, if the people who hold these sentiments can be induced to be active, so that a nucleus of average, everyday citizens can be started from the first, and we can thus secure the benefit of honest and conscientious citizens working for the common good without bias or partisan politics, then we should have home rule and also some representation in Congress. I believe that can be done, but the people here need to be assured by Congress that the Congress will stand by them in the initial and crucial elections. While I have not always seen eye to eye with the Commissioners, I think we have had good men who would be hard to replace. Item 2 is the fiscal situation. The sales tax is something which may prove to be very unpopular, as it has elsewhere. People here were led to believe that the personal property tax on tangibles was going to be taken off, another unfair tax, but it appears that it is still with us. If we are going to have self-government, every resident, government employee or not, must pay income tax. Also, the Government must be restricted from taking any more land in the District, because we haven't enough to tax now. And I still believe in the "pay as you go" plan for District of Columbia expenditures. Item 3 is the organization of the Departments. The Kefauver plan and the Auchincloss plan both provide for 12 departments. These gentlemen and their aides have worked long and conscientiously, and great credit is due them, but I do not agree with their break-down of the city functions. I have been interested enough in the topic of city government in Washington, and the appalling lack of interest in, or knowledge of, its functions, by the very one who is most affected (the average taxpayer), and have compiled, for my own satisfaction, some sixtyodd pages of data concerning the District of Columbia and the plans for reorganization of the District of Columbia government from the Schmeckibier-Willoughby plan to the present, which I will be glad to submit for the committee's consideration. This is a sort of treatise which contains my own views, written in a manner to reach other "average citzens," and I believe that the committee would find it helpful. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, WILLIAM P. THOMAS, Jr. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee, SIR: The National Council of Jewish Women, an organization with over 84,000 members in over 220 sections throughout the country wishes to go on record in support of legislation to grant home rule to the District of Columbia. We have taken this position because we believe that the basic tenets of our democratic system require that people be given the opportunity to vote for the men who will govern their cities. To deprive this right to the citizens of the District of Columbia is an unfair discrimination against them. We believe further, that the Members of Congress who have many vitally important national and international problems before them should be relieved of the responsibility of legislating on local questions for the District of Columbia To grant the citizens of the District of Columbia home rule will not only be democratic, but will almost certainly prove a more efficient and time-conserving way of meeting the local needs,of the Nation's Capital. I am attaching herewith a copy of the National Council of Jewish Women's resolution on "Representation and suffrage for the District of Columbia" which I would also appreciate being included in the record of the hearings. Respectfully yours, Mrs. JOSEPH M. WELT, National President. REPRESENTATION AND SUFFRAGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Whereas the District of Columbia constitutes the only community in the United States which is denied representation in the National Government; therefore be it Resolved, That the National Council of Jewish Women favor granting representation in Congress, self-government and suffrage to the citizens of the United States residing in the District of Columbia. Mr. HARRIS. The committee will adjourn. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) |