Hearings

Whereas we are cognizant that the proposed bill No. S. 656 is by no means a perfect one, and would not meet the approval of some, we do think however it is a step in the right direction. The proposed bill has many features of which we ourselves disapprove, but for the sake of speeding its commitment for action by the Congress, we shall approve it on its appearance and in principle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Kenneth Adams, representing the Young Republicans Club of the District of Columbia will please proceed.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, before I read this statement I would like to give you a little background on how controversial this issue has been with our club. We considered it off and on in smaller groups for over 2 years. The original Auchincloss plan and recent Kefauver-Taft bill was considered, and last night at our regular meeting when I announced that I was coming here this morning to make this statement, it stirred up quite a bit of difficulty, so eventually we had to take a vote on whether I would be allowed to come down here and make this statement, which some of them felt included some of my personal feelings, and finally the vote won out and I am allowed to make the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to tell us by what majority? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, 13 to 4, so I would like to read this now if I may. Our membership includes over 400 young people, who subscribe to the principles of the Republican Party, and who are vitally interested in the affairs of the city in which they live and earn their livelihood.

Last year our group passed a resolution in favor of the KefauverTaft home-rule bill.

It was a close vote; so close that it appeared on the surface that opinion was closely divided between those for and against home rule for the District. This, however, was not the case.

The topic had been under long consideration by various members of our organization before it was presented for an official vote at a regular meeting. Some of us held an informal seminar, conducted by a staff member of the House District Committee, Dr. George Galloway. Dr. Galloway, together with Representative Auchincloss and other Congressmen on the committee, wrote the original version of a bill that has since evolved into S. 656, which is being considered today. He explained in great detail the various provisions of the bill and the reasons behind including these provisions in the final legislation. We all learned a great deal that evening, and after further study, the Civic Affairs Committee of our club took upon itself the project of explaining the pros and cons of the proposed legislation to the interested citizens of Washington. The members of our committee divided up into teams of three; one for the bill, one against, and the third acting as

organizations, at their regular meetings, and presented all the salient facts contained in the original House bill. We appeared before more than 30 neighborhood groups. From the questions asked after the presentation, we learned one important fact. The majority of Washington residents were heartily in favor of the idea of home rule, but there was a great variance of opinion as to the specific provisions of the bills that have been presented to the Congresses. This was also the case with the membership of our club when the resolution passed by a very small margin. Practically all of us were for home rule, but many of us could not agree on any one, over-all piece of legislation.

This technicality has long been an insurmountable barrier to democracy in the District of Columbia.

Everyone I have talked to has said, at one time or another, "I am for home rule but I don't go for such and such a provision of the soand-so bill.”

Those of us who really want to see the citizens of the District of Columbia enfranchised are just about fed up with this foolish, haveyour-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude. One group says: "No home rule without national representation.'

The most ridiculous, malicious, and odiferous complaint of all is the hatemongers' behind-the-hand remark, that, "If we get home rule the Negroes will take over the city."

That one always burns us up. Few of us are, what you might call, violent advocates of civil rights. Most of us have always felt that the minority groups should be judged individually on their respective merits, regardless of race, color, or creed. Obviously people who make statements like that don't believe in home rule, their idea of democracy is mob rule; and that's all they deserve.

In any event we all are aware that for the past few years, any decisive action on self-government for the District of Columbia has been prevented by the fact that our citizens, either individually or through their various civic organizations, have been unable to reach a unanimous agreement on any one home rule bill. It is my opinion, and that of many of the members of my club, that they never will. If things continue as they have in the recent past, bill after bill will be introduced only to fall by the wayside because somebody objected to a clause in title 4, section 8. The fact of the matter is we have been getting nowhere fast.

This present bill, S. 656, carries on its title page the names of some of our most distinguished Republicans, Senators Taft, Hendrickson, Carlson, Smith of Maine, and Duff, of Pennsylvania. I am sure that each and every one of them is vitally interested in writing the most equitable legislation possible to provide for self-government in the District. Two of their distinguished number have served admirably as governors of great States. Three of their Democrat colleagues, whose names are also on the bill, have served as chief executives of other States equally as great. All of the others, both Republican and Democrat, who have collaborated on this legislation have had long experience in such public matters. None of them would be where he is today if it weren't for the almighty ballot; the free vote which is

them, it is good enough for me, for the Young Republican Club of the District of Columbia, and it should be good enough for all Republicans, Democrats, or other partisans or nonpartisans anywhere. It is high time that we channeled all of our efforts for self-government toward the passage of one bill; S. 656 should be that bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for a very vigorous, clear-cut, and courageous statement.

Mr. A. L. Wheeler, representing the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF A. L. WHEELER, REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend this committee on the prompt action it has taken on the bill. In the clinic which concluded last week, there were a number of issues concerning home rule brought up. With certain of those there was a possibility that the people of the District were apathetic concerning home rule, and that was possibly one of the reasons why home rule has not been achieved. In my opinion, that is not the case.

As you recall, last year there was a real effort made by the people who were interested in home rule to see that this bill was passed. Delegations were constantly on the Hill after the passage of the bill in the Senate, over in the House trying to persuade the Members of the House to first vote the bill out of the committee and second, on a discharge petition to sign it.

In order to get 196 signatures on a discharge petition, it is a job that requires the efforts of many, many people. These people gave of their time and effort unselfishly, and in numbers I would say approaching a thousand people working on it.

In the course of the strategy of how to get the bill out of the House, there were some who thought that a mass meeting whereby public demonstrations could be shown and interest could be manifested, that would be a big help in showing the way. Others interviewed the various Congressmen, discussed this matter with them, and they found that it was not the lack of interest that was causing the bill not to be reported out, but various other reasons.

At this time a group of us considered the getting together of a mass meeting, but it was thought that a meeting could not actually persuade the Congressmen because without a vote they could ignore the feelings of the people, without prejudicing their position with their electorate, and consequently other considerations controlled.

S. 656 has three real purposes in mind. First, it gives the people a democratic way of choosing their representatives by qualified electors. This is the heart of a democracy.

Second, it relieves Congress of the burdensome task of acting as a city council, and this is particularly important now when Congress is busy with more important international affairs. Most of the laws of the District are passed on the Consent Calendar. I would say 99 per

organizations, at their regular meetings, and presented all the salient facts contained in the original House bill. We appeared before more than 30 neighborhood groups. From the questions asked after the presentation, we learned one important fact. The majority of Washington residents were heartily in favor of the idea of home rule, but there was a great variance of opinion as to the specific provisions of the bills that have been presented to the Congresses. This was also the case with the membership of our club when the resolution passed by a very small margin. Practically all of us were for home rule, but many of us could not agree on any one, over-all piece of legislation.

This technicality has long been an insurmountable barrier to democracy in the District of Columbia.

Everyone I have talked to has said, at one time or another, "I am for home rule but I don't go for such and such a provision of the soand-so bill."

Those of us who really want to see the citizens of the District of Columbia enfranchised are just about fed up with this foolish, haveyour-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude. One group says: "No home rule without national representation."