Mr. COLLADAY. The plank which is in the 1948 platform came as a result of hearings before a subcommittee of the resolutions committee of the national convention.

Mrs. William S. Culbertson of this city and I, both delegates to the national convention, appeared before that subcommittee and requested a plank which would state in simple words, "We favor representation in Congress and the electoral college for the citizens of the District of Columbia."

The CHAIRMAN. That isn't what your platform contained.

Mr. COLLADAY. We were not permitted to write the plank. When the plank came out, it was in the form I just recited:

We favor self-government for the residents of the Nation's Capital.

I issued an interview construing that as meaning "self-government," meaning national representation in the Congress and in the electoral college, because that is what we asked.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Colladay, as an able lawyer-and it is no idle gesture to say that, because you are

Mr. COLLADAY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is a fair interpretation of "selfgovernment for the District" that the Republican convention meant simply you should have representation in the Congress?

Mr. COLLADAY. They broadened the phrase to self-government.

The CHAIRMAN. That is just it. Do you think the measure that is pending here now in favor of home rule, if passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President, would be a redemption of the promise contained in your party's last declaration of principle on the subject?

Mr. COLLADAY. No, sir, it would not, and as I go forward with my arguments, you will see my reasons in detail.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think, I presume, that if we were to pass the resolution submitting a constitutional amendment in favor of national representation in the House and Senate, that that would be a redemption of the Republican platform promise?

Mr. COLLADAY. Yes, but at the end of this statement, of which I am about one-third through, I combine the two; so I will ask you to be patient until I get my whole list of facts and arguments and conclusions before you.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't require the exercise of much patience to be interested in anything you have to say.

Mr. COLLADAY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. COLLADAY. In our judgment, the Kefauver bill, S. 656, does not meet the recommendation of the Republican Party platform. There can be no real self-government in the District of Columbia without its citizens having participation in the body which makes its laws and in the election process by which its President is chosen.

You will note that doesn't say anything else can come into it. There are certain features of this proposed legislation to which the board of trade offers unalterable objections. I understand that during hearings held last week, the suggestion was made that specific provi

I believe these hearings are being held to consider this legislation in its entirety: Legislation which may become the law of the land. In the words of Sir John Powell:

Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason. We believe the method which this bill provides for enacting a general law is unconstitutional-the legislative process in this bill we believe to be unconstitutional-that the provision for borrowing money by bond issues is a threat of excessive taxation on private property in the District; that the zoning provisions are detrimental to the property owner's best interests; that the dual voting provisions which permit voters of the 48 States residing here to participate in local elections is unsound; that it would almost certainly result in progressive reduction of the Federal payment and that ultimately it might vanish entirely.

Besides this, S. 656 does not require Congress to take affirmative action on proposed laws. It would permit Congress to take no action for 45 days, and then permit the President of the United States to do nothing about it for 10 days, to make a law effective.

Some claim that Congress can delegate to a District Council its powers to legislate over the District of Columbia in article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

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 *

*

However, the authors of this pending legislation plainly were concerned as to the validity of such a situation. This is emphasized by the fact they included in it the provision for submitting proposed laws to the Congress and the President. Some very able lawyers, including the Honorable William D. Mitchell, former Attorney General of the United States, have questioned the constitutionality of this provision because the Constitution vests in the Congress itself the sole power to legislate for the District of Columbia.

If it were constitutional to make an outright delegation of the power to legislate, Congress might delegate its powers on various subjects to various agencies and adjourn and go home. There would be no need for this hearing today.

But no lawyer will contend this could be done.

The board of trade believes every property owner in the District of Columbia should oppose passage of this bill. We believe a careful examination on their part of the provision which would permit the District to borrow up to 5 percent of the value of taxable real property will convince them of this.

Consider the method proposed. First, the Council-nine elected and two appointed to look after the Federal Government interestswould approve the borrowing. Second, Congress would approve itthrough inaction. Third, it would be submitted to the voters in a referendum and these voters would include all those domiciled in the other States who have lived here 1 year. Testimony submitted previ

$200,000. In other words, 200,000 people still domiciled and voting in the States would be a tremendous-and probably deciding-influence in such a referendum.

Say, for example, the voters have agreed to go in debt to the extent of $83,000,000.

But, such borrowing must be repaid. Section 731 of the Kefauver bill provides that to repay such indebtedness and the interest charged against it there may be levied without limitation ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the District. Clearly, the burden of repayment of such indebtedness would be borne in large measure by the 75,000 home owners and approximately 25,000 owners of other types of real property in the District of Columbia.

The Holy Bible states that "The meek shall inherit the earth." For this purpose, we interpret the meek to be the permanent residents who are going to inherit the city and pay off the debt left them.

In addition to this threat to property owners, there is still another provision in S. 656 which, if enacted, would undoubtedly be harmful to property owners. This concerns zoning provisions.

The bill provides that zoning ordinances shall be passed by the District Council, then referred to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. If disapproved by that body, they must be passed again by a two-thirds vote of the Council to become effective.

Here is a situation where the Council of 9 members-all of whom presumably will have been voted on by the 200,000 people resident but not domiciled here-plus 2 members appointed by the Presidentto look after the Federal interest-adopt zoning regulations which may have serious effect on the value and use of real property.

Then, the NCPPC, a Federal agency, may veto the acts of the Council, after which the ordinance would be dead unless approved by two-thirds of the Council-8 of the 11 members. Two are Federal appointees, so it is apparent that, as a practical matter, control of zoning would rest in the Federal Government, by virtue of those 2 members and 200,000 Federal employees voting.

If certain proposed changes of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission membership composition are approved to include representatives from the neighboring States of Maryland and Virginia, the situation would be still more untenable.

Thus far, our comments have been general. We will now discuss other objectionable features of the bill with numerical reference to their respective sections. We have already stated that we wish to retain the commission form of government. Therefore, we oppose the provisions of S. 656 creating the District Council to replace the three Commissioners.

THE DISTRICT COUNCIL

The provision creating the District Council reads:

SEC. 301. (a) There is hereby created a Council of the District of Columbia consisting of eleven members, nine of whom shall be elected as provided in title XII, and two of whom shall be appointed, without regard to political affiliation,

The functions of the Council are stated as follows:

SEC. 321. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all functions granted to or imposed upon the Board of Commissioners of the District are hereby transferred to the District Council.

By subsequent provisions, the District Council is empowered to pass ordinances and make legislative proposals to Congress. A legislative proposal passed by the Council shall take effect as law only if, after it is reported to Congress, as provided in title IV of the bill, it is not rejected by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress within 45 days, and it is not disapproved by the President within 10 days thereafter.

These provisions will not grant-and I quote from the platforms of the parties-"self-government for the residents of the Nation's Capital," nor the "right of suffrage" in any real sense.

Here we have a city council made up of a majority of members elected by the voting residents of the District of Columbia, but with two appointees of the President, confirmed by the Senate, in their midst, who are not beholden in any manner to those voting residents. It would be a strange thing, indeed, if, in an act of a State legislature granting a charter to a city in which would be included the setting up of a city council, there should be retained the power in the governor to appoint approximately one-fifth of the members of the city council by and with the advice and consent of the State senate. Any attempt to do this would be rejected by the voting citizens of the area to be chartered a city as being an absurdity and an attempt to deprive them of their right to autonomy. The present provision for the appointment by the President of 2 out of 11 members of the District Council, by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, stands on a par with such an action in a State. If this provision should be enacted into law, the President and the Senate would retain a string to be pulled at any time which might affect every action of the District Council. It would tend to deprive Council members of their freedom of thought and action.

The qualifications for membership on the District Council are stated in the bill as follows:

SEC. 302. No person shall hold the office of member of the District Council unless he

.

(1) is a qualified elector,

(2) resides and is domiciled in the District,

(3) holds no other elective public office, and

(4) holds no appointive office for which compensation is provided out of District funds.

These qualifications are objectionable on at least two grounds: 1. There is no requirement of domicile in the District for more than the 1 year required of a qualified voter. This should be extended to at least 3 years.

2. The language as to holding other office is such as to permit a Federal employee holding a high position, whose office is not elective and whose compensation is not provided out of District funds, to be a member of the District Council. He may even be an officer or employee of a governmental agency having business dealings with the

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Section 325 is as follows:

SEC. 325. (a) Except as provided in section 326 (a), the District Council may pass legislative proposals on any subject coming within the scope of the power of Congress in its capacity as legislature for the District of Columbia, as distinguished from its capacity as the National Legislature.

(b) A legislative proposal passed by the District Council shall take effect as law only as provided in title IV.

Title IV provides that such a legislative proposal shall become law only if it is not vetoed by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress within 45 days after it is presented to them, and if not disapproved by the President within 10 days after it is presented to him. By this provision, every proposal by the District Council is left subject to attack in the Congress by any Member of the House or Senate and the complete power over its becoming effective as a law, or failing to become effective, is retained in the hands of the Congress and the President. On this subject of enactment of general laws, the present bill wholly fails to grant the effective-I quote again from the platforms "right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia," as promised by the majority party, or real "self-government for the residents of the Nation's Capital," as promised by the minority party.

FUNCTIONS RELATING TO ZONING

Section 322 abolishes the Zoning Commission and transfers its functions to the District Council. Section 324 provides that a zoning ordinance shall take effect as law only as provided in section 336. Section 336 gives the National Capital Park and Planning Commission powers with respect to zoning ordinances which may be very damaging to the rights of property owners, inasmuch as it provides that if the National Capital Park and Planning Commission disapproves such an ordinance the zoning ordinance shall take effect as law only if the District Council passes, by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members then holding office, a resolution so providing. As the District Commissioners have already pointed out in their report on this bill, this procedure may make it extremely difficult for the Council to pass the proposed zoning ordinances, and yet the property owners affected are given no right of hearing before the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. We endorse the criticisms made by the Commissioners of the several sections of the bill on this subject.

THE DISTRICT MANAGER

The provision for the District Manager is as follows:

SEC. 501. The District Council shall appoint a District Manager who shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and who shall be chosen solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference to his experience in, or his knowledge of, the administration of the affairs of local government.

*

There is no requirement that the District Manager shall ever have