wit

1

you could not even get a vote tis included.

this: Let us have a vote and we chools, the restaurants, and all the ernment are concerned.

do everything I can to get this bill u cannot put the civil-rights provision ave been a consistent supporter of civilt be a party to putting something in the o kill it.

you will remember that when it was denk it was the Auchincloss bill on which this debate was tantamount to a filibuster, and this and, as I say, while we would like to see it at because it would give full citizenship rights, s what you feel is going to kill it, let us have the take care of legislation that will make us a

. I am not in favor of prejudicing the opportunity ke considerable progress on this home-rule bill at this gress. I am hopeful it will be enacted.

s. Well, I think that I am hoping that all of the prestige by the Senators who have appeared here today will make in the House, that these extensive hearings will not have in here.

you have held numerous hearings, both at this session and essions of Congress, and I think it is about time we did ing.

zain, my feeling is that apathy does not exist in the District as as it does in the Congress; if not apathy, then active antagonism. The CHAIRMAN. I think there has been considerable improvement In the last 12 months.

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE SILLERS, WOMEN'S AUXILIARY, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA

Mrs. SILLERS. I am Mrs. Charlotte Sillers, representing the Women's Auxiliary, United Public Workers of America.

Again I am glad of the opportunity of appearing before Senator Neely to give our support to any measure of home rule for the District of Columbia.

I also am glad to have seen Senator Lehman here. As I testified the last time, we who vote in the States feel as though we are paying a poll tax to vote. I have not given up my right to vote in the State because I have become a resident of the District of Columbia. I think it is a wonderful thing that other Senators have come to testify for home rule, and I hope that it will have its influence not only on the passage this year of this bill in the Senate but also in the House, where it failed of passage.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a favorable circumstance that the senatorial endorsement of the legislation here this afternoon was bipartisan, two Republicans and two Democrats?

Mrs. SILLERS. Yes, I do. I think it is a very good sign.

You have referred, both in this hearing and in the legislative clinic last week, to newspaper articles, one in Bangkok, I think, and some other foreign country, but closer to home

The CHAIRMAN. The other was a broadcast from Moscow.

Mrs. SILLERS. Closer to home in the Post last week was a letter from a Canadian living in the capital city of Canada who very much surprised at the fact that Washingtonians do not vote.

He pointed out that there there is cooperation between the Federal and city government as to planning and the general beautification of the city, but that the city itself is governed by local franchise.

That is a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and we are no longer a part of that. I think that we again ought to raise the Revolutionary slogan and see to it that this time we defeat the same forces that tried to put it over in the eighteenth century.

On the particular bill in question about the same sort of testimony I gave before I would like to give again, but very briefly because it is late.

We approve of the election of the City Council Manager; we approve the particular form of government that is being suggested.

We do think that it ought to be on a ward basis or a precinct basis, instead of city-wide, and in view of the fact that today we are asking young men to fight for us at the age of 18, I think they could be given the privilege of voting at that age.

The financial structure of the city, I think, also could be taken care of in a little fairer manner than it is now, and a provision should be in this bill to allow the Federal Government to contribute its portion of the revenue commensurate with the taxes from which it is exempt.

I think the sales tax should be abolished. Of course, that might not be part of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I was one of the few who voted against the sales tax, but I think inclusion of the provision you suggest would be a great

Mrs. SILLERS. I just mention that in passing. The CHAIRMAN. It would be a handicap if that were incorporated in this bill.

Mrs. SILLERS. The other main item, I think, that should be included is the civil-rights provision in the Kefauver-Taft bill, so that the pattern that exists today in the District of segregation and discrimination will be abolished and will be taken care of at the same time that we are being given our full voting privileges.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you think that ought to be included in this bill?

Mrs. SILLERS. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not want to have a death warrant decreed for the bill?

Mrs. SILLERS. Definitely not.

The CHAIRMAN. If you put the civil-rights provision in this bill you could not get a vote on the bill in the Senate.

Mrs. SILLERS. Well, that is what we were told 2 or 3 years ago when the House practically filibustered it without that provision. We have been told that right along.

The CHAIRMAN. I am certain that you could not even get a vote on the bill if the provision you suggest is included.

Mrs. SILLERS. Then I would say this: Let us have a vote and we will take care of that as far as the schools, the restaurants, and all the other facilities of the District government are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to do everything I can to get this bill passed through the Senate. You cannot put the civil-rights provision in without killing the bill. I have been a consistent supporter of civilrights legislation but I cannot be a party to putting something in the home-rule bill that is going to kill it.

Mrs. SILLERS. Of course, you will remember that when it was debated in the House--I think it was the Auchincloss bill on which this bill was patterned-the debate was tantamount to a filibuster, and this provision was not in it and, as I say, while we would like to see it at this point included because it would give full citizenship rights, nevertheless if that is what you feel is going to kill it, let us have the vote and we will take care of legislation that will make us a democratic-

The CHAIRMAN. I am not in favor of prejudicing the opportunity that exists to make considerable progress on this home-rule bill at this session of Congress. I am hopeful it will be enacted.

Mrs. SILLERS. Well, I think that I am hoping that all of the prestige engendered by the Senators who have appeared here today will make itself felt in the House, that these extensive hearings will not have

been in vain here.

I know you have held numerous hearings, both at this session and other sessions of Congress, and I think it is about time we did. something.

Again, my feeling is that apathy does not exist in the District as much as it does in the Congress; if not apathy, then active antagonism. The CHAIRMAN. I think there has been considerable improvement in the last 12 months.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is more interest in self-government than at any time since I came to the Congress.

Mrs. SILLERS. Well, the District citizens and the Congress working in the same direction cannot help but succeed. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next on the list is Mr. Stanley Gewirtz, representing Americans for Democratic Action.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY GEWIRTZ, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. GEWIRTZ. I am speaking again today, as I did last week, as president of the Washington chapter of Americans for Democratic Action and I appreciate this opportunity in this friendly climate to warm up for your brethren on the other side of the Capitol.

I think, Senator, that you indicated to us in Washington who were so sincerely interested, as you were, in self-government, of your complete cooperation, and the fact that you are making this forum available for us to tell you what we think, so that the people in the city can get a pretty good idea of the fairly unanimous opinion that exists with respect to self-government, and home rule in particular.

The CHAIRMAN. We are grateful to you because you have helped to improve the prospects for success. After you get through Senator Humphrey is going to testify. I am sure he is going to approve everything you say in behalf of the ADA.

Mr. GEWIRTZ. Well, I know we in ADA have not got a better salesman than Senator Humphrey on the Hill.

I do not want to repeat too much of what has been said here yesterday and today, but there are certain portions of it that I think need underscoring.

I was a little shocked when I read the newspaper this morning and saw the statement that had been made here yesterday by the Corporation Counsel, Mr. West.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you suppose was the effect on me?

Mr. GEWIRTZ. Well, sitting here opposite Mr. West, it is hard to imagine or to define precisely the extent of your shock. Mine was via the newspapers and yours was via the ear and eye. I think, as a matter of fact, that that sort of statement on the part of a representative of the officials of the District who, presumably, is speaking on behalf of the District-since I think his statement was made on behalf of the president of the Commissioners-is, in a sense, something that requires an apology on the part of the District Commissioners.

I would like, on behalf of my organization, to applaud Commissioner-designate Donohue's absolutely straightforward approach and, at the same time, to absolutely deplore the weasel-worded statement offered yesterday by the Corporation Counsel, which did nothing except to draw a red herring of constitutionality across the path of the proposed traditional self-government for the citizens of the District. This statement of the Corporation Counsel is a self-serving statement without any affirmative recommendation. It is the polite nod in the direction of home rule rather than the aggressive push that

"we don't believe that home rule would add anything to the cleanness, honesty, and freedom of graft and corruption of our city government," is precisely illustrative of why we here in the District need home rule.

As a matter of fact, an individual responsible to an electorate would find himself a private citizen rather than a public servant shortly after the type of absurd utterance that Mr. West made before this committee yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. I will never knowingly cast my vote for the confirmation of anybody who would make the sort of statement that you just read.

Mr. GEWIRTZ. We heartily concur.

The CHAIRMAN. I felt humiliated that anyone could say that the the people of the District are so incapable and disinterested that they would not clean up the streets, or do anything about crime here. It is preposterous.

Mr. GEWIRTZ. We could not agree with you more heartily, Senator. One of the things that makes us a little unhappy is that not only was this not an affirmative statement, but on reading some portions of the statement that Mr. West delivered yesterday, we must come up with the conclusion that maybe he is not a very good lawyer, because when he comments on the fact that there is some question as to the constitutionality of the legislative proposal, he is flying in the face, as Mr. Galloway previously said, of some very fine statements by some very expert constitutional authorities, and he is particularly refusing to recognize the fact that there is still-if there is any constitutional question-a string in the hands of the Congress in terms of this 45-day opportunity for veto which, in my opinion, would make the thing completely constitutional.

There are some other things in Mr. West's statement that I think I would like to mention again. He points to the fact on page 7 of his statement that the Commissioners are opposed to extending the privilege of voting to those who are not domiciled in the District or to retain the voting privileges elsewhere. Those are the words of Mr. West, and the Commissioners, but I wonder if the thoughts are not the thoughts of other people, a minority in this city, who apparently are still continuing to dictate to the Commissioners.

The number of Federal workers here is just about one-fifth of the population; they will not control this city.

The number of people who are domiciled here constitutes about nine-tenths or eight-ninths of the people who live in Washington. They are entitled to home rule, and the city will not be run by outsiders.

On page 4 of his statement Mr. West, I think, purposely misconstrues a portion of this legislation, by pointing to the fact that the ability to finance capital projects would create an unprecedented bonded indebtedness. What he neglects to point out is that the method of paying that bonded indebtedness by real property assessment is merely one of the methods in which those bonds may be paid off. There are other methods and other revenues which may be