COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

The first amendment limits the representation which Congress might bestow upon the District to that of representation in the House of Representatives. Congress would be unable to give the District of Columbia representation in the Senate in view of this amendment by the committee. The second committee amendment merely corrects the punctuation. This correction is made necessary because of the addition of a new section by the third committee amendment.

The third amendment adds a new section having for its purpose the limitation of time within which the amendment may be ratified by the States, that is, within 7 years from the date of submission to the States.

NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AUGUST 4 (legislative day, JULY 28), 1941.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

ADVERSE REPORT

[To accompany S.J. Res. 35]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 35) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for national representation for the people of the District of Columbia, after full consideration, hereby unanimously report the joint resolution adversely with the recommendation that its consideration be indefinitely postponed.

(Senate Joint Resolution 35 is as follows:)

"JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for national representation for the people of the District of Columbia "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be proposed for ratification by the legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid as a part of said Constitution:

""ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The Congress shall have power to provide for the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President no greater than that of the people of the States, and to delegate to such government as Congress may establish therein all or any of its power over said District; and the judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies to which citizens of said District shall be parties the same as to controversies to which citizens of a State shall be parties.

"SECTION 2. All legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal: Provided, That no amendment or repeal shall affect the office of a Senator or Representative during the time for which he was elected.

"SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within 7 years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.'"

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The object of Senate Joint Resolution 35, proposing a constitutional amendment, is basically threefold

(a) To authorize the Congress, in its discretion, to grant to the District of Columbia national representation in the Congress of the United States;

(b) To authorize the Congress, in its discretion, to establish a system of local, self-government in the District of Columbia, to be maintained by local suffrage, and to delegate to such government any or all of its powers over the District of Columbia;

(c) To extend the judicial power of the United States with respect to diversity of citizenship to controversies to which citizens of the District of Columbia may be parties, just as the same now applies to controversies to which citizens of a State shall be parties.

Section 2 of the resolution provides that all legislation which may be enacted under the constitutional amendment shall be subject to amendment and to repeal, with the provision that no amendment or repeal shall affect the office of a Senator or Representative of the District during the term of the office to which he was elected.

Section 3 contains the usual time limitation within which the several States may ratify the amendment.

HISTORY

The District of Columbia owes its origin to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, wherein Congress is empowered--

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States. * * *

Commenting on this clause of the Constitution, Madison, in No. XLII of the Federalist, wrote:

"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it ***. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the General Government on the State comprehending the seat of the Government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national Councils an imputation of awe or influence."

The committee was impressed with the language employed by those who drafted the Constitution. It will be noted that Congress is given not only exclusive legislative jurisdiction in the District but that the phrase "in all cases whatsoever" is added to make doubly certain of the free and uncontested rule of Congress at the seat of Government. The use of this language is by no means mere accident.

Prior to the creation of the District of Columbia, no less than eight cities, in four States, were capitals of the United States, namely, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Lancaster, York, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New York. In no instance did the Federal Government enjoy an uncontested superiority at the seat of Government. On the contrary, in each instance the Federal Government was subjected to the whim and caprice of local administrators. Indeed, in 1783 Pennsylvania troops, stationed at Lancaster, marched on Philadelphia to threaten and frighten Congress into passing increased Army pay legislation, forcing the Congress to flee to Princeton for safety. This flagrant insult to the National dignity was not forgotten by those who drafted the Constitution. When it is recalled that one of the outstanding weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was the lack of exclusive Federal jurisdiction at the seat of Government and that attempts to establish a permanent seat of government in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, after the adoption of the Constitution, were unsuccessful because of the conflict of authority between State and Nation, superimposed on a background of local political intrigue, it will be seen that the constitutional provision for exclusive Federal jurisdiction over a separate district was based upon a bitter experience. Because of the constant threat of political strife and turmoil at the seat of government, the District of Columbia was carved out to be and to remain a neutral entity.

By act of July 16, 1790 (I. Stat. L. 130), Congress provided for a district not exceeding 10 miles square, to be located on the Potomac. Virginia had provided on December 3, 1789, for the cession of such portion of the District as might be located in that State. On January 24, 1791, President Washington issued a proclamation designating the boundaries of the District. Maryland provided for the cession of the portion of the District in that State by an act of December 19, 1791.

The District was thus made up of two municipalities-Georgetown and Alexandria, and Washington and Alexandria Counties. In 1802 (2 Stat. L. 195), the inhabitants of Washington County were incorporated into the city of Washington, headed by a mayor and a council. The mayor of Washington was at first appointed by the President, but by the charter of May 15, 1820 (3 Stat. L. 583), it was provided that he should be elected.

In 1846 the Virginia portion of the District was retroceded to Virginia and the District was reduced to its present limits.

Under the act of August 6, 1861 (12 Stat. L. 320), the municipalities of Georgetown and Washington and the county of Washington were unified to a limited extent by the creation of the Metropolitan Police District of the District of Columbia.

From 1802 to 1871 the cities of Washington and Georgetown were administered by mayor-council types of city government. From 1820 to 1871 these offices were elective, each municipality choosing its own mayor and members of council with full autonomy.

The year 1871 brought a major change when Congress set up a muncipal government for the District, patterned after that in the Territories. Washington and Georgetown charters were repealed and the executive power was vested in a governor, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislative power was vested in an assembly consisting of a council of 11 members appointed by the President, and a House of Delegates of 22 members elected by popular vote.

Under the so-called Territorial government the tax burden was greatly increased, resulting in a series of special assessments. So much antagonism developed over the expanded debt that Congress was forced to make a detailed investigation into the matter, culminating in the act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. L. 116), which repealed all provisions of the Territorial government, so-called. That act further authorized the President to appoint a commission of three persons to administer the affairs of the District, generally called the temporary government. Four years later the act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. L. 102), established the present Board of Commissioners of three members, one to be an officer of the Engineer Corps of the Army. Changes have, of course, been made from time to time, but the present government is essentially that established in 1878.

THE ISSUES

Senate Joint Resolution 35 raises two issues, namely, (a) national representation for the District and (b) automony for the District.

After extensive hearings, your committee unanimously concluded that national representation for the District is both unwise and unsound. It would be contrary to the best interests of the United States, as well as detrimental to the citizens of the District. That there should be no conflict of authority between Nation and State at the seat of Government is admitted, manifest, and imperative. Although the pending resolution is in no sense self-executing in this regard (merely authorizing the Congress to provide national representation for the District at some future time), the committee is of the opinion that such a power vested in Congress would but admit of extreme pressure on the Congress to do that which we deem unwise and unnecessary.

No reference to statehood is made in the resolution, per se, but we believe that national representation as advocated by proponents, and as would be authorized by the measure, can mean no less. The Constitution confers national representation on States alone. Only a State may enjoy this privilege. It is not accorded to the Territories. To grant national representation to the District would confer on the District privileges tantamount to statehood without exacting coextensive responsibilities. Senate Joint Resolution 35, made a part of the Constitution and permitted to operate to its logical conclusion, would transform the District into a super-State with all its attendant possibilities for confusion with the Federal Government. Under existing law, the Federal Government must contribute from the Public Treasury a portion of the cost of maintaining the District. Therefore, in addition to voting for President, Vice President, and Members of Congress (which is national representation for all the States), the District would also continue to draw on every other State in the Union for support of the newly created super-Commonwealth.

To continue with the process of contribution from the Federal Treasury to sustain the District after it had been virtually invested with statehood would be to invite legitimate objection from the States, or to encourage a demand from the States or other municipalities that they, too, be supported from the Federal Treasury.

To withdraw the Federal contribution from the District, which must inevitably result, would but place an additional tax burden on the tax-paying citizens of the District.

54876-60-8

As to the other issue with respect to local self-government, Congress now possesses ample authority to establish a form of local autonomy and to revitalize suffrage in the District. Suffrage has never been taken from the District. It exists today as it did from 1820 to 1874. When in 1874 all elective offices were abolished, the vote remained untouched. Autonomous suffrage could be exercised today if offices were provided.

Should the Congress determine that self-government is desirable for the District, this may be accomplished by an act without a constitutional amendment. Finally, the resolution makes provision for extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies to which citizens of the District shall be parties the same as to controversies to which citizens of a State shall be parties. Such extension of original jurisdiction has already been provided in Public Law No. 463, Seventy-sixth Congress.

The committee recommended that consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 35 be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. WENDER. Surely in the intervening 19 or 20-odd years there has been a remarkable change of atmosphere, both in the Congress and on the part of the people. Not only have two new States been admitted that we didn't dream of 19 or 20 years ago would be admitted as States, but the atmosphere here in Congress, the Senate has passed local home rule bills several times; this House has not considered it. But I would say to you now, that based upon what I consider to be the truth, and based upon my own personal knowledge of the attitude of Congressmen and citizens here, that if this committee will and does report out this joint resolution, that it has the best chance of passing Congress, and subsequently being approved by the Senate and being approved by the States, of any similar legislation that ever came before Congress.

I am personally convinced that the citizens of Washington will catch fire as this committee approves it, and I know that I can pledge the activity of my organization, B'nai B'rith, that throughout the length and breadth of our 50 States we will see to it that the people know in the States the importance of this legislation, and of the constitutional amendment, so that the States, in turn, will approve the amendment.

I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you, and I will be glad to answer any other questions.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I particularly enjoyed hearing the last sentence or two that the gentleman has spoken: This is a lecture which should be directed and is directed at all the States of the Union, and to the people in the District if this resolution is finally a part of our Constitution. I hope that those who are now authorized to exercise the elective franchise will accept the responsibilities and duties that go with it to a greater extent than they have been doing so in the past. Certain segments of our citizenry, for instances, exercise that franchise only to the extent of 10, or 15, or 25 percent where there is no hindrance by any State officials. We have the warning of one of the the Founding Fathers and we should know that liberty isn't something that we just talk about to get newspaper headlines and then do nothing to preserve it.

We can take a lesson from some of the foreign nations which have been without liberty during some of the years in the last two or three decades.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. I am sure my colleague would agree with me that the fact that some citizens don't exercise their rights is no reason why

all citizens should not be entitled to their rights. I am sure he agrees with me on that.

Mr. WENDER. I would like to thank Mr. McCulloch for what he just said because I would like him to know that the organization that I represent here today a year ago was presented with an award by the American Heritage Foundation because it, more than any other organization in America, has devoted its tremendous efforts to do the very thing that you are proposing, that we encourage the American people to exercise their right of franchise. I agree with you that the greatest crime that we probably have in all America is the lack of interest on the part of qualified people to do something about improving their Government wherever they can. This is only more of the reason why we who cry for the opportunity here, beg you for it, are not allowed to participate in it. I think it is all the more good reason why, with the well qualified people we have in America, they ought to be given that opportunity.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I hope you continue to win such awards as you have just mentioned.

Mr. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wender. It was nice having you.

We will hear Commander Borchardt, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT V. HUDGINS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. HUDGINS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Herbert V. Hudgins, I am a citizen and taxpayer of Washington. I live at 3035 Vista Street NE., in this city.

I am a member of the Woodridge Citizens Association.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here this afternoon to appear in behalf of House Joint Resolution 529.

I appear at your invitation to say a few words for this particular bill for the District of Columbia. We have been treated cruelly in the past by the House of Representatives by not being allowed to vote. We in the District are classified as paupers, lunatics, and criminals, and I don't see how you could get any lower than that.

But thank the good Lord I have never been kicked in the head by a horse yet.

We pay taxes and have no say in our government. We have many people working for the District government, living in nearby Maryland and Virginia, and who are now living on the vitals of the taxpayers of the District. They should live where their bread is buttered. This would never happen if you give us the right to govern ourselves. The only reason for this exodus of District employees-I am speaking of the District employees-into nearby Virginia and Maryland, is their hatred of the Negro.

We want to grow and prosper and be happy. This can be done if you give us the right to vote.

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

I do not think it is your intention to treat us cruelly.