You cannot have pride of ownership and pride of citizenship unless you were a participant and-

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you enjoy some of the rights.

Senator HUMPHREY (continuing). Enjoy some of the rights of citizenship, and here in the District, the pride of citizenship participation, the honor of being a first-class citizen, and a first-class nation in the world, is denied approximately 800,000 people. It is absolutely incredible to assume that the Government employees would dominate this city, as a previous witness said, is beyond the realm of fact; and the Corporation Counsel who testified-I read his testimony only as it was reported by the press-does not represent what I would call from my part of the country a good citizen. He does not represent that kind of citizenship spirit where people are jealous of their local rights.

As you know very well, in a community of 500,000, 200,000, or a million or a community of 10,000, to amend a city charter arouses the interest of every citizen in the community. Why? Because when an amendment of a city charter comes up, it affects the basic rights of every individual in that community.

Here is a city that has been politically sterilized. It actually has been denied the law of the land; these people have been denied an opportunity to even be what you can call in a democratic sense citizens. I repeat that a community without a vote is a community without spirit, and citizens without a vote are in essence colonial citizens. They represent what we fought against in this country in 1776.

It does not fundamentally affect my State, but it does affect the regard that the people of my State have for their entire Government, and I know that if I went up and down the highways and byways of my State and said that down in Washington, D. C., the Nation's Capital, that the people who have lived there all their lives, have homes, are taxpayers in that community, have not even as much as the right to vote for a Member of Congress, as well as a local alderman or councilman, they would literally be horrified. Why, that just is not heard of any place except in Washington, and, I might say, in the satellite countries. The only place where you are denied the right to vote are in the countries behind the iron curtain. There, at least, you have the right to vote for the slate that is put out by the Cominform. But here you do not even have the right to vote on anybody's slate.

The only people who have the right to vote in Washington, D. C., are the members of the Board of Trade, and they can vote for their own officers, and I must say, while I have no right to criticize the Board of Trade, because I know nothing of its membership except what I have read in the press, I can honestly say that any government, any community that depends for its inspiration and its guidance and its direction upon any private organization, whether it is labor or business or whether it is education or whatever it may be, is a community without any real sense of direction, because the job of government is to work with organizations and to correlate the efforts of these private organizations toward the community's good; and Washington finds itself with many fine private, or what I call semipublic, organizations, labor movements, the Board of Trade, the PTÂ, but no place

The only place that they can go is to the Commissioners appointed by the President.

It would seem to me that the least that could be done, if we are going to have government by indirection in the District of Columbia, is to see that they would have a right to vote for the President of the United States, since he is making the appointments.

But under, of course, S. 656 there will be what I would call a constitutional local government organization in this city, and Washington will become a much more beautiful and much better city for it. I commend your efforts, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the Congress of the United States will see that this great Capital City stands out like-let me put it this way-that it does not stand out like a spot on the sun of democracy-that is the way it stands out now. It is just like a blur on the sun of democracy, and it ought to be one of the stars in the heavenly orbit of freedom. Unfortunately, it is not.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mrs. Helen Duey Hoffman.

STATEMENT OF HELEN DUEY HOFFMAN, WASHINGTON BRANCH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Mrs. HOFFMAN. My testimony, Mr. Senator, will take about 2 minutes. I am speaking for the American Association of University Women, Washington branch.

That organization has 1,100 branches over the country, and is a member of the International Federation of University Women, which has a membership organization all over the world.

About 4 years ago at their biennial convention in Dallas, Tex., they voted that there should be some measure of home rule for the District of Columbia. There was no bill before the Congress at that time, but subsequently the Auchincloss bill was introduced, and they studied it, and the Washington branch endorsed the Auchincloss bill, in principle.

When that bill failed, the following year the Kefauver bill was studied by the Washington branch, and it was approved. That bill, of course, failed, and now, through the legislative committee, which met last night, they have reaffirmed their position on home rule for the District of Columbia and they approve Senate 656, the KefauverTaft bill, and hope that it passes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you ever so much. We hope it passes, too. The next on the list is Mr. Culver Chamberlain, representing the Central Suffrage Conference.

STATEMENT OF CULVER CHAMBERLAIN, PRESIDENT, CENTRAL

SUFFRAGE CONFERENCE

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, here I am again. I am Culver Chamberlain, president of the Central Suffrage Conference of the District of Columbia.

Now, Senator, any attempt at eloquence on my part, after such

would be wearing on your patience, considering the lateness of the hour, and I shall be brief.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I shall be brief, not only in deference to you, but to those particularly desiring to be heard, and also, Senator, we are anxious to expedite your committee hearing of this measure, and get it through the Senate, so that we can take a whack at the other side of Congress in good season.

The Central Suffrage Conference, for which I have the honor to speak, is, of course, unqualifiedly for suffrage in all its aspects for the District.

But first and foremost at this time we are for Senate 656, and the companion measure in the House of Representatives.

The CHAIRMAN. These hearings will presently be adjourned to be continued at 10 o'clock tomorrow. All who are interested will be notified.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. The reason that we emphasize this measure that is before us, Senate 656, is primarily because we believe in first things first. We are no less interested, naturally, in national representation, but this can be realized, as we well know, by the mere action of the two Houses, whereas the other matter will require a matter of probably years to bring about.

The CHAIRMAN. A constitutional amendment, of course, takes time. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is right.

Now, I am much intrigued by the discussion that has been going on here this afternoon, concerning the attitude of the opposition to local self-government.

May I say this: There have always been Tories, Mr. Chairman. We, of course, have some in the District of Columbia. They are usually people who have Tory tendencies, which are motivated, at least in part, by economic, or, shall we say, more frankly, selfish interests.

It is believed that this is true of that minority, and we are confident. that it is a minority, of those opposing self-government for the District of Columbia.

I fear those in opposition are motivated by selfish vested interests and/or by an unreasoning and unreasonable prejudice.

I refer to the racial minority of some 30 percent of our population. I shall not insult the intelligence of this committee by dignifying this latter untenable and ridiculous contention, which is, nevertheless, constantly whispered about. Few have the courage to come out and breathe it in public.

Coming to the Board of Trade, I would like to be charitable to the Board of Trade. Among other reasons, I happen to be a member of the Board of Trade. Therefore, when its, should I say, high command, or invisible government, puts forward the statements which they do, I can assure you that they do not speak unanimously for that organization.

However, I believe, and one of the reasons I retain my membership in the Board of Trade is that I hope we can eventually convert and

measures. There is one other thing I would like to say: I also happen to be a member of the George Washington Post of the American Legion. It is, we are proud to say, the original post of the Legion in the country, and I feel impelled on the eve of George Washington's birthday to recall that the George Washington Post last year-the George Washington Post of the American Legion-went on record last year as favoring, in principle, the matter of self-government for the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as you know, that post is still in favor of self-government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I venture to say that it is.

You have already heard this afternoon the excellent statements of Mr. Manbeck, who is the secretary of the Central Suffrage Conference, and the equally forthright statements of Arthur Clarendon Smith, who is the treasurer of that organization. You have heard the beautifully reasoned and the temperately stated views of Dr. George Galloway, and they will commend themselves to you, and I feel that combined with the statements of the other witnesses, and these ringing statements of the Senators who have appeared before you, make it superfluous for me at this time to add anything further to it.

Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had you.

Mr. Carl Shipley representing the Young Republican National Federation is the next witness.

STATEMENT OF CARL L. SHIPLEY, YOUNG REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

FEDERATION

Mr. SHIPLEY. I am here, Senator.

My name is Carl L. Shipley, and I appear before you as the legislative representative of the Young Republican National Federation.

Mr. John Tope, chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, had planned to appear here today, but he is overcome by illness, and I do not think he will be able to be here.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to hear of your president's illness. We are glad to have you.

Mr. SHIPLEY. The Young Republican National Federation is composed of nearly 3,000 Young Republican clubs and State organizations throughout the United States made up of more than 300,000 young Americans under the age of 36. At the Young Republican national convention in Salt Lake City in 1949 our federation adopted a resolution to the effect that the right to vote for local officials is one of the inalienable privileges of citizenship, and we put ourselves on record as favoring local self-government for the District of Columbia. Local self-government is one of the fundamental and basic traditions of the Republican Party. One of the planks in the Republican platform adopted in convention at Philadelphia in 1948 calls for home rule for the District of Columbia. The young people of American who make up our federation feel that it is the responsibility of every Republican to contribute his utmost in helping to redeem this

rule bill (S. 656) represents the end product of years of study and compromise by the very best legal and civic minds in the District of Columbia and in the Congress of the United States. It is a truly bipartisan measure hammered out in a truly statesmanlike fashion by people whose purposes went far beyond narrow party confines, and whose only motive was to produce the best bill possible, taking into consideration in a most particular manner the different racial groups in the District of Columbia, the large number of Federal employees in the District of Columbia, the high nonresident population of the District of Columbia, and the peculiar problems that grow of the fact that the District of Columbia is the Nation's Capital.

No person who calls himself a Republican can stand in opposition to local self-government for the District of Columbia. No person who is in favor of local self-government for the District of Columbia can honestly oppose the Taft-Kefauver bill, because it just simply isn't physically possible to draft a bill which fairly contemplates all of the problems involved unless it duplicates the Taft-Kafauver bill, or if it is possible, nothing has been produced in the many, many years during which the people of the District of Columbia have been waiting for local self-government.

We condemn those Americans who dwell in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or independent, who cower behind the fear of the colored vote, or a fear of an increase in the local tax rate, or a fear that they might lose the patronage in the Recorder of Deeds Office, or a fear that the Federal contribution might be diminished and object to local selfgovernment for the District of Columbia for these selfish and personal reason. It is fantastic beyond belief that there are in the United States in the year 1951 Americans who violently oppose any effort on the part of the Congress to give them the privilege of electing the local officials who run their daily lives. The Young Republican National Federation firmly believes in local self-government for the District of Columbia and urges this committee to report out favorably the Taft-Kefauver home rule bill because it is a workable and reasonable means of achieving the end that we have in mind.

Thank you, and let me add, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Chamberlain refers to Tories, I do not think this bill is either a Tory or a Liberal measure in the terms that he uses it. It seems to me it is truly a bipartisan effort, and that Republicans in the District of Columbia would be more eager to come forward in support of this bill if it were not always tinted with the notion that it represented a particular point of political view; and it seems to me that one of the problems of the chairman of this committee is to try to impress on the public-at-large that it is a bipartisan effort, and we do not come here as Republicans or Democrats to plug for the bill. We simply want local self-government. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. May I just say this, Mr. Chairman: That in referring to Tories, I was not referring to any existing party in the United States that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Francis E. Jones, Jr., representing the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia, is recognized.