STATEMENT OF FRANCIS E. JONES, JR., PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am Francis E. Jones, Jr., president of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia, and a professor of law at National University.

I would like to say, before I begin my statement, that I certainly am grateful for having been invited to testify before this committee, and I would certainly like to add my tribute to that which has already been given to the distinguished chairman for the work which he has already done on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia to attain local self-government. I do not deal with the technical arguments against this bill because I frankly cannot understand them. I cannot understand how it is possible to argue in the United States of America in this enlightened age that people should not have a vote to control themselves. That is beyond me, and so I would not attempt in any way to make any technical argument against the bill, but just simply to say that anyone who argues against home rule for the District of Columbia is just simply not sincere.

The importance of my testimony here is not what I say, but it will be the fact that I represent 800 people who are members of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia who unanimously have endorsed this bill, and have urged me to impress upon you how very sincerely and vitally it affects them, and it is the whole reason for existence of our organization, that some day there will be a vote in the District of Columbia.

I am very happy to note that the president of the Young Republicans is here, and that the Republican Party has put its support behind this bill and, of course, we all know that the people in the Democratic Party have been in favor of home rule for the District of Columbia since 1892; the Republicans have been on record as being in favor of it since 1948, and I am very happy to see that they have now decided to join hands with the Democrats.

I must remark that is the first time I have ever known of the Republicans going along with Democratic legislation before it has already been on the books for about 30 years.

I have flown all over the United States in the last couple of years, and been in about half the States, and I have solicited from various young Democratic clubs in the United States their endorsement for this legislation, and also at Kansas City and Chattanooga and Chicago last year, the Young Democrats of America have authorized me to say that the Young Democrats of America endorse the home rule for the District of Columbia.

In view of these considerations, I think that there is no need to belabor the point that this point should be passed to realize the aspirations of the people of the District of Columbia, and the ideals of everybody who believes in democracy all over the world.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

We will insert at this point in the record a prepared statement by Mr. Soterios Nicholson.

(The prepared statement referred to follows:)

VOTELESS WASHINGTON

(By Soterios Nicholson)

Good citizenship is the backbone of community life. Without it, the community would flounder on the rock of indifference.

The good citizen assumes along with his right to reside in the city of his own choosing, a certain responsibility. While he pays taxes for services provided by the city, he also gives voice to the welfare of all the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the District citizen is not able to exercise the vote, which is an inalienable right of all his fellow Americans in the 49 States.

Here in Washington, this denial handicaps the citizen. Without the vote, he cannot register his protest or his individual opinion on what the local government decides or does.

This is a failure in our National Capital's structure that makes the citizenry inarticulate, for, without representation, the citizen's voice is not necessarily heard, or if heard, it is not accepted.

The local resident, however, need not isolate himself from his community even though his right to vote may be denied. He can engage spiritedly in the local citizen's group within his neighborhood. He can contribute his ideas to the forum of local public opinion.

The local civic units form the nuclei for combined action, based on the enlightenment gained by individual members working in collaboration.

The Federation of Citizens Associations, for example, is the striking force for better government. As the representative body of its membership civic groups, it can build a cohesive and molded opinion.

Talk of self-government, national representation, suffrage, has been with us in the District of Columbia since the city of Washington became of age as a metropolis.

Chief proposals, which have been advanced in the press and on the platform, center to two approaches: that of local government and that of national representation.

The desire for these developments take different and varied roads. Some would have us assume local self-government with eventual national representation, after the experience of first governing ourselves.

Other would have us shelve local government for sometime in favor of national representation, for a voice in the running of our Nation's affairs.

Both of these rights are desirable. There are persons who would understandably wish to plunge with both self-government and national representation in the District.

All of these viewpoints are commendable. Perhaps the desire to take up local self-government first is the most reasoned.

There are dissedents to these general expressions of suffrage. Some of this opposition has been recorded on Capitol Hill and has made the rounds of the cloakrooms and has been registered in the legislative chambers

The contention of this group, as the assertions have been made privately and publicly, is that the local citizenry is unprepared to assume the obligation of self-government.

There is the feeling that a balance will be struck in the various voting interests of the city. The argument goes that various minorities can knock fair representation out of kilter.

With these many arguments both pro and con, there is a green pastured middle ground that gives spur to the exercise of the right and responsibilities of local citizens.

This ground is available for those citizens who will participate in the local groups which are open to them. If the local citizens fail to take part in the regular and normal channels of self-expression and self-assertion, then truly

We do not want to develop into a city that is void of civic pride and most important, civic accomplishment.

This type of action can come from the practice of good citizenship. With this type of participation, we (the people) can rightfully maintain that we, and we alone, are fit to run our own affairs.

It is forgotten that the local citizens are able to manage both the social and political responsibilities necessary in the event that suffrage is achieved. The mere fact that an enlightened citizenry is available for leadership and the assumption of departmental duties is proof enough that selfish or minority interests will not prevail over the general welfare.

This is the principle upon which our Nation. has persevered. With the desire to build a community of which every American citizen can be justly proud, the individual civic group member, the enlightened Washington citizen, can take hold of the guiding reins.

In all due time, Washington will get its suffrage. People will vote here as they do in every State of the Union. Washington also will have its vote in Congress as do the member States in this great Nation of ours.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility, the natural interest for each and every citizen to take part in some civic endeavor. The natural heritage of selfassertion must not be lost because taxation without representation is allowed in the District of Columbia.

Regardless of the voting climate, we must continue to keep warm the platforms of local public opinion.

It is, therefore, respectfully suggested:

1. That the Federation of Citizens Associations undertake a campaign to enlist all available citizens to become members of their respective civic associations;

2. That the federation instruct its national and local suffrage committee to write a short explanatory pamphlet to:

(a) State the meaning of local government as set out by the different bills introduced in Congress at this session.

(b) To explain the advisability for a Delegate to Congress to speak for the District pending the amendment to the Constitution for full national representation.

(c) To properly solicit the cooperation of all independent associations in the District of Columbia to organize properly, through committees, and work actively for the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene on Thursday, February 22, 1951, at 10 a. m.)

HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION FOR THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1951

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in the District of Columbia room, United States Capitol, Senator Matthew M. Neely (chairman) presiding.

Present Senators Neely (chairman) and Case.

Also present: Robert H. Mollohan, clerk; Gerhard P. Van Arkel, committee counsel, and William P. Gulledge, assistant committee counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will be in order.

There will be inserted at this point in the record a letter, the original of which was sent by the President to the Speaker of the House of Representaitves, on the 25th of July 1949, relevant to the question before the subcommittee.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

The following letter was sent by the President to the Hon. Sam Rayburn, Speaker, House of Representatives:

JULY 25, 1949.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On May 31, 1949, the Senate passed, without a dissenting vote, S. 1527, a bill to give home rule to the people of the District of Columbia. A subcommittee of the House Committee on the District of Columbia is now holding hearings on this legislation. I am writing to you to express my hope that the House will complete legislative action on a home-rule bill and that it will be sent to me to sign into law before this session of the Eighty-first Congress adjourns.

As passed by the Senate, the bill has three major purposes: (1) to relieve the Congress as much as possible of the burden of District of Columbia affairs, without surrendering its constitutional powers; (2) to create a representative local government for the District of Columbia chosen by the qualified electors; and (3) to provide an efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia.

I am very much in favor of all of these objectives.

It is little short of fantastic that the Congress of the United States shouldas it now does-devote a substantial percentage of its time to acting as a city council for the District of Columbia. During the past 2 years, during which it was confronted with many major problems of national and international importance, the Congress has had to find time to deal with such District matters as parking lots, the regulation of barbers, the removal of street obstructions, and the establishment of a Metropolitan Police Force Band, to name only a few. The people of the District of Columbia should not be placed in a different status from that of the people of all other American cities and almost all democratic capitals of the world insofar as local self-government is concerned. In my message to Congress transmitting the budget for the fiscal year 1947, I said: "The District of Columbia, because of its special relation to the Federal Government, has been treated since 1800 as a dependent area. We should move

toward a greater measure of local self-government consistent with the constitutional status of the District. We should take adequate steps to assure that citizens of the United States are not denied their franchise merely because they reside at the Nation's Capital."

**

It was not the intention of the architects of our Constitution to deprive the District of Columbia of home rule. Writing on this subject in the Federalist, James Madison said that the inhabitants of the District "will have * their choice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them" and that "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them."

The establishment of a well-organized and efficient governmental system in the District of Columbia is a desirable adjunct to the successful operation of the home-rule principle. The present organization of the District government is complicated and administratively cumbersome. I am strongly in favor of better organization and greater efficiency throughout the executive branch. The District of Columbia government should not be an exception carved out from the general rule.

There is nothing partisan about this proposal. The platforms of both major parties urge home rule for the District. The bill which passed the Senate unanimously received the support of both Republican and Democratic Members of that body. I am sure that the great majority of the people of Washington want home rule. I am equally sure that they ought to have it without further delay. I hope that the House will not adjourn this session without completing action on this important measure.

Very sincerely yours,

HARRY S. TRUMAN.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leeman, will you please proceed?

STATEMENT OF HERBERT P. LEEMAN, REPRESENTING THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. LEEMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Herbert P. Leeman. I reside at 1610 Sixteenth Street NW., Washington. I am the president of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. That organization is composed of over 70 individual citizens' associations, which cover the entire area of the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you estimate the total membership of those associations to be, Mr. Leeman?

Mr. LEEMAN. I would say the best estimate that we can give is 80,000, because we do not have individual records of memberships. The federation is made up of delegates from these associations, and we can only estimate that from reports that we have, as to the total membership of these individual associations. But I can say that it is thoroughly representative of the average people of the District of Columbia. Its membership is made up of business, professional people, trade unionists, and other people engaged in other occupations. The CHAIRMAN. And you are speaking as a representative of that estimated 80,000?

Mr. LEEMAN. That is correct, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the membership of the Board of Trade? Mr. LEEMAN. The report that I have is about 8,000. The Federation of Citizens' Associations, when this same bill was before the last Congress, endorsed this bill in principle.

At our meeting about 2 weeks ago, the federation specifically en