The Commissioners also criticize the procedures in section 1211 (d), (e), and (f) for the handling of challenged ballots. It is suggested that, in place of the provision in section 1211 (e) for marking and segregating challenged ballots, a provision be included simply authorizing the Board of Elections to make the necessary regulations to permit the appropriate handling of challenged ballots without destroying the secrecy of the vote.

Register of Wills: The Commissioners and board of trade both call attention to the passage, at the last session of Congress, of Public Law No. 201 transferring the Office of the Register of Wills to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Accordingly, it would seem desirable to eliminate section 1404 of the Kefauver-Taft bill.

National Capital Park and Planning Commission: The Commissioners call attention to S. 1931 passed by the Senate at the last session, changing the personnel and powers of the Planning Commission. Since special consideration is being given to the composition and duties of that Commission, it is suggested that section 1405 of the Kefauver-Taft bill might be eliminated.

Surplus revenues: Both the Commissioners and the board of trade criticize section 2001 (c) under which surplus revenues are to be used exclusively for construction, repair, and improvement of public schools. Undoubtedly the purpose of this provision was to prevent what happened recently when Congress cut the Federal contribution because of the existence of a surplus in a previous year. But this purpose cannot be attained with any certainty, since Congress can always defeat it by subsequent legislation. Consequently a simple provision preserving such surplus revenues for all types of future expenditures might be substituted.

National representation: The board of trade has proposed that the Kefauver-Taft bills should contain a provision postponing its effective date until the effective date of a constitutional amendment giving the District national representation. This is the newest wrinkle of an old slogan. For years the board of trade has insisted that national representation must precede home rule. As a result of the board's parrotlike repetition of this statement it has come to be accepted by many gullible persons. No explanation for this position has ever been advanced, even in the elaborate statement Mr. Colladay made before your committee the other day. The effect of the acceptance of this position of the board of trade, however, would undoubtedly be to delay indefinitely the attainment of any degree of home rule for the District. It seems to me that the board has assumed a heavy responsibility in advocating such a position without any reason which will bear the light of day.

Conclusion: It would be a major calamity if these insubstantial objections prevented home-rule legislation for the District of Columbia. Such imperfections as exist can be cured by experience in the gradual democratic way. Washington should have a vote now. The right to vote is a fundamental right which should not be denied to any responsible citizen, perhaps least of all to the citizens of the

argue against the bill seem to have a basic distrust of elected officials and elective processes. Perhaps these people have lived so long in a disenfranchised community that they do not appreciate the basic common sense of the voter and the protection against governmental abuse which is assured through the polls. Those of us who favor the bill want the right to vote and are prepared to accept its responsibilities. We feel that taxation without representation is just as much tyranny today as it was at the Boston Tea Party. We feel that the city will be better governed, the people who live here better citizens, and our children will have far greater appreciation of their heritage if citizens of Washington can vote. This legislation is long overdue. It must be enacted into law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Next is the Reverend Robert Trenbath, rector, Trinity Episcopal Church. Is Reverend Trenbath present?

If not, is Prof. Francis E. Jones present?

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS E. JONES, JR., REPRESENTING THE YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the committee very much for being invited to come back and testify again because the Young Democrats consider it a great privilege to take part in this great clinic on home rule and to have the opportunity to urge our views before you.

I would like to, sir, first of all, say that I am Prof. Francis E. Jones, Jr.; and I am president of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia and I am speaking for the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia by their unanimous authorization and also by the unanimous authorization of their executive committee.

In that connection I should like to reemphasize the fact that whatever I say here is of very little consequence but it is extremely important that I do speak for all these people.

The Young Democrats of the District of Columbia unanimously and also the Young Democrats of America in their last two national conventions have endorsed enthusiastically planks and resolutions urging the adoption of home-rule measures for the District of Columbia, and I think it is so obvious as to not require argument, though perhaps that would be controverted by some we have heard here, that in a democratic society which believes in the ideals of popular representation there can be no real and just argument against the principle of voting for people of a community. I would again like to thank the distinguished chairman for the opportunity to testify here.

The major part of my statement today will be in the nature of a rebuttal to arguments which I have heard here by learned counsel for the board of trade and other counsel in opposition to the home-rule bills, specifically to the Kefauver bill, and while my argument may lack some of the brilliance and I hope some of the other elements which have been present in presentation of other counsel here, I think that the cause for which I argue will perhaps not need so much

I would appreciate it if you would check me about 2 minutes from the end of my statement, because most of my argument will be directed to what I consider rather insubstantial arguments, but they have been raised, and nevertheless I will want to answer them, but at the end I think I should make a comment on what I think is the real argument which is at the bottom of all real opposition to the home-rule bill. First of all, to consider one of the first insubstantial-we had better not say insincere, but at least not-to-the-point arguments, which have been advanced against home rule, the first one being it is not true home rule; it doesn't need much consideration to put that one away. People who are against home rule are objecting to this bill because it really does not give home rule. We do have the constitutional provision which says Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, and we know that must be honored, and therefore I think this bill is entirely workable, and as far as we can go under the present circumstances to acquire real home rule for the District of Columbia.

I am very conscious of the fact that there is action in the Senate for a constitutional amendment to give the people of the District of Columbia representation in national elections and in Congress, and I think that is a wonderful thing. It ill behooves anyone to say he is for home rule and then argue that something which is a long way toward that objective is not a good thing.

The argument that the people-I am still on insubstantial arguments, because they have been raised-the argument that the people of the District of Columbia do not want home rule. I needn't spend too much time on. I think the gentleman who preceded me here did a fine job on that, but I would like to refer to a Washington Post poll, and I think there was also a poll taken in the Washington Star, which very effectively pointed out that about 78 percent of the people in the District of Columbia are for home rule, and surprisingly enough some people would have us think they are the permanent residents who were right up on a par with everybody else voting for the principle of home rule, and very surprisingly, if we would believe their representatives, the people in the Southern States are for the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia. We are very much concerned. The people of the opposition are afraid that home rule may be foisted upon an unwilling populace here, but of course the bill provides for a referendum, so there can be no home rule unless the residents of the District of Columbia want it.

The argument that home rule will cost a lot of money has been answered by the statement that liberty is worth the cost. It provides for a 20 percent contribution by Congress; whereas, we have only about 12 percent contribution to the income of the people of the District. We know in past times the Congress has seen fit to give as high as 50 percent to the District government, but because of their present arbitrary power over the matter, which doesn't primarily concern them, it is down now to 12 percent. As far as the cost is concerned, it seems the bill will give the people of the District of Columbia a better break.

I have to talk somewhat fast to get this in. The real property own

who do not really have a stake in the community, we are told, because they don't have property, which is of course a long and philosophical argument to rebut, but it boils down to the statement that people owning property in a democratic society must pay to a certain extent for protection and services they get, and perhaps under some of the new rules that will be made if there is a democratic vote here, maybe that property will be spread a little more, and they won't have to worry about that quite so much.

Another argument which has been made is that the present government of the District of Columbia is best.

Senator JOHNSTON. How are you going to spread that property? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. JONES. It is just possible that in a democratic form of government legislation could be so arranged that the forces that seem to pile up all of the money in the people who now oppose home rule would not prevail and a little more money would get in the hands of other people, and they would be able to buy more property.

Senator JOHNSTON. Does it pile up any more here in Washington than it does any place else in the United States?

Mr. JONES. No, sir. I think

Senator JOHNSTON. That is, where they vote.

Mr. JONES. I can't say that for sure, whether it piles up more in Washington.

Senator JOHNSTON. Wall Street is just about

Mr. JONES. I think with the democratic legislation there has always been trends and there will continue to be a trend to make a more even distribution of the means of acquiring property, which is the point I had in mind.

The argument has been made that the present District of Columbia government is the best possible form. Even if we would admit that, which we don't, I think it can be pointed out that it is always an argument against democratic government that it is not efficient, and I think it is about 150 years or more too late to argue that one on a philosophical plane in this country.

The argument is raised here that a city manager is not a good form of government when we are taught in government courses that it is a matter of elemental text-book government that city manager governments are supposed to be desirable forms of government.

The point has been raised that the city manager would probably come from outside the District of Columbia, and of course that is usually the desirable practice, to have the city manager come from outside the community which he is going to represent, so that he will not be subject to any of the pressures of personal friendship, and so forth, which might beset normal city-manager types of government. It is designed as a nonpartisan type of government.

I would like to address myself to what I consider are the real arguments against the bill. I must confess when I last testified, I could not discover them, but I have since discovered they were written in lemon juice. They were written in the statements presented before this committee before, but with the heat that has been put on by this

The proposition seems to be that the better people will not be able to vote, that the better people will not be able to control the government, and therefore in some way we will not have a very desirable government if this home rule becomes law.

The first answer which comes to mind is unprintable.

The second answer, of course, is that this is not a democratic position, that this is not a democratic argument.

The third answer could be the fifteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which says that no person shall be denied the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The last answer which comes to mind has been mentioned to this committee before, but I think it is the most important one. It is a question of idealism, which I hope is still pertinent in discussing proposed legislation. The people, the young people, all of the people all over the world in our international relations, we hope, look to the United States of America for leadership in democracy, and of course it certainly is a terrible thing that the center of the democracy in this country, the Nation's Capital, is at present an example of nondemocracy; and we also have an internal problem in the United States of America because even the youth of America could be disillusioned if democratic processes are not pursued to the fullest extent.

So I think, as a matter of idealism and as a matter of practice, it would be an excellent thing for the District of Columbia to get home rule under this Kefauver bill. Thank you very much, sir, for your

attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for coming, Professor.
The next witness is Mr. Giles Dawson.

STATEMENT OF GILES E. DAWSON

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of any citizens' association? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, the Connecticut Avenue Citizens' Association. The CHAIRMAN. What association?

Mr. DAWSON. Connecticut Avenue, and I am a delegate of the Connecticut Avenue Association to the Northwest Council of Citizens' Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Atherholt?
Mr. DAWSON. No, I didn't. I only had a report on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the reporter please read Mr. Atherholt's statement about whom he represents.

The following statement by Mr. Atherholt was read by the reporter: I speak for the Northwest Council of Citizens Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of the Northwest Council? Mr. DAWSON. I am a delegate of the Connecticut Avenue Association to the Northwest Council, of which Mr. Atherholt is president.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at the action authorizing Mr. Atherholt to appear here?

Mr. DAWSON. No such action has been taken since I have been here this year or last year.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you a member of that association and a dele