Mr. COLLADAY. Well, I find that in every instance of the setting up of the Territory with the territorial form of government, the territorial legislature was given power generally to enact laws, and those laws have been required to be reported to the Congress, placed on the books here, and after the expiration of the then Congress, if Congress did nothing to change those laws, they were effective as the laws of the Territory. We have nothing of that kind, and it is not proposed here in this bill.

Senator CASE. Do you feel that the position of the District in its negotiations with the Federal Government with respect to contributions to the revenues and in other matters would be improved if the District of Columbia had a Delegate in the House of Representatives, the same as Hawaii and Alaska do?

Mr. COLLADAY. That is a matter calling for very serious study. It would involve conflict between the functions of the Delegate and the functions of the District Commissioners in the relations between the District government and the Congress.

The District Commissioners might wish to maintain the contact which they now have to represent the people of the District in relations with Congress. The Delegate would certainly feel he was the official whose office was created for that identical purpose. If he absorbed all those functions, the District Commissioners would occupy a remote position, and in effect only deal with Congress by correspondence, you might say.

It is a matter for study. If it should be pressed, the board of trade is prepared to study it. They have studied it in the past, and rejected it, a number of years ago, as undesirable. They have thought, and many people in the District have thought, that if Congress should authorize a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia, Congress and especially succeeding Congresses would feel that, "Well, we have paid off the District of Columbia, we have solved their problem, and we have given them a Delegate; now we don't want to hear anything more about this national representation idea."

We have felt-and we may be wrong-as I say, that is for further study, and we are perfectly willing to study it, consider it, and discuss it but there is a feeling that if we should go for a District Delegate at this time, we would lose all the advantage of the tremendous interest which has been stirred up throughout the Nation-and there is a tremendous interest thaet never existed before-in favor of solving the problem of the citizenship of the people of the District of Columbia. It is in every State and every corner of this Union.

The chairman of this committee and I have talked about, here this morning, getting a hearing on his resolution for national representation. I think we should not turn aside to take a Delegate, but we should take advantage of this tremendous upsurge of public opinion and have inquiry as to what ought to be done for the District of Columbia and now get this amendment to the conclusion which will give us participation in the Congress and in the Electoral College, and then along with that, if there is a good bill prepared for so-called home rule, of course, we will study that and try to perfect it, but we don't want something intervening that can be regarded by many Members of Congress as a payoff.

Senator CASE. I think I see your point, and it certainly is a complicated problem. It has been kicked around here ever since I have been in Washington, and I think long before that. We hear something about this every year, and it runs into one obstacle after another. The matter of representation in the Congress, it might be approached by making the District of Columbia the equivalent of a State. That, I think, would probably be more difficult to accomplish from a ratification standpoint, at least, than the idea of having a Delegate corresponding to the Territories.

Of course, Delegates from the Territories serve on the committees; they may speak on the floor; they may introduce bills; they do not, however, have a vote. Yet they do give both Alaska and Hawaii a definite representation in the House of Representatives, a voice on the floor, the power to introduce legislation, the right to serve on committees.

Mr. COLLADAY. They have a Governor and levy their own taxes,

et cetera.

Senator CASE. The conflict you suggest that might arise between the position of the Commissioners and the Delegate raises a peculiar problem. It might be that consideration should be given, if we are going to study that aspect of it, to having the Commissioners, giving them the same status as a Delegate, so they serve in a dual capacity as executive Commissioners and also as the representation in the Congress; that, however, to carry out the principle of home rule, would call for election of the Commissioners. I assume any representation in the Congress would be based upon that.

Mr. COLLADAY. Undoubtedly.

Senator CASE. It would be based upon an election.

Mr. COLLADAY. Undoubtedly, it certainly should be.

Senator CASE. But as I have listened to some of the witnesses here on this bill, too, they talk in terms of voting and representation, and some of them, I fear, haven't realized that this bill does not provide for voting on the President nor for voting for representation in the Congress.

Mr. COLLADAY. I think they are ardently in favor of what they call home rule and the right to vote without reading the bill. They don't know what they are advocating, a great many of them.

Senator CASE. I think they know what they are advocating in principle.

Mr. COLLADAY. In principle, yes; but I know of one young man connected with a national organization, who came up here and supported the preceding Kefauver bill, and created the impression that a large body of people in one of the political parties was in favor of it.

I asked him one day-I happened to meet him out in Chicagowhether he had read the bill, and he said, "No, but I have had its principal portions explained to me."

He was in one way one of the most apparently significant witnesses that appeared in the preceding hearings.

Shall I continue, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. If Senator Case is through.
Senator CASE. Yes.

Mr. COLLADAY. Have I answered your questions, Senator?
Senator CASE. At this point, yes.

Mr. COLLADAY. Conclusion: The Board of Trade respectfully submits that there can be no real home rule for the District of Columbia, no real grant of suffrage to the citizens of the District of Columbia, unless the following elements are included in such grant.

First, that, in elections in the District of Columbia, only the genuine citizens, resident and domiciled-not or domiciled-within the District, who maintain no domicile elsewhere, and who do not claim exemption from taxation by the District of Columbia by reason of a domicile elsewhere, shall be permitted to vote.

Second, voting representation in the Congress of the United States, in a number in accordance with the population of the District of Columbia, and in the electoral college.

Point "second" should be implemented.

The bill, S. 656, in title XIX, provides that the charter proposed to be granted by the bill, if it is enacted into law, shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District of Columbia for acceptance or nonacceptance as the charter of the District of Columbia municipality, and title XVIII, section 1801 (b), provides that "The charter shall take effect only if accepted pursuant to title XIX" and “if the charter is so accepted, it shall take effect on the day following the date on which it is accepted

* *

The Board of Trade hereby proposes that, if the bill, S. 656, or any similar bill, is to be passed by the Congress and approved by the President, it should contain a further condition as to its effective date, substantially as follows:

The charter shall take effect only if and when the following constitutional amendment shall have been proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives, as provided in article V of the Constitution and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within seven years of the date of its passage, namely:

"The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine. All legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal."

The provisions of title XVIII, of S. 656, as to effective dates, should be modified accordingly.

Finally, gentlemen, may I express for the Washington Board of Trade the hope that when political rights are granted to this Federal District, they will not be merely the form of so-called home rule set forth in S. 656.

Such a substitute for true self-government-national representation-would mean only further toleration of our present political inequality, when there is hope of an upstanding and American political status for District of Columbia citizens. There are some who would surrender principle for expediency. May I quote for them this proverb, "By perseverance, the snail reached the Ark."

We hope all thinking people of our great Nation who love their Capital City will join with its people in saying: "Speed the day that such Constitution-amending legislation may be enacted—

to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.

81450-51-13

Our statement is concluded and respectfully submitted. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Mr. Colladay, the proposal that you make for writing this contingency for the effective date only goes to the electing of electors for President and Vice President. It does not provide for representation in Congress.

Mr. COLLADAY. I think it does, Senator. "The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress"

Senator CASE. I beg your pardon.

Mr. COLLADAY. "In the Congress”—it does cover it, does it not? Senator CASE. "In the Congress."

Mr. COLLADAY. That is word for word the effective part of the joint resolution which has been fathered by the chairman of this committee, both in the Eighty-first Congress and the present Congress, and in the early part of this session, Senator Case, I call attention to the fact that I urgently requested Senator Neely to immediately ask the Judiciary Committee of the Senate for a hearing on the joint resolution and offered the full support of the board of trade and all its influence in support of it, and we will turn out the people to support your resolution, Mr. Chairman.

We want it and want to take advantage of the present tremendous interest throughout the country in the problems of the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope that you will prepare a paper with the obvious care with which you have prepared this one and present that to the Judiciary Committee in behalf of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. COLLADAY. I will assure you I will obtain authority from the board of trade in the proper procedure, under its bylaws, I am sure that can be obtained, and make such a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have made as good a statement in behalf of a bad cause as any human being could have made. Except in this case, I wish you great success in all your further efforts in regard to the District of Columbia.

Mr. COLLADAY. Thank you.

Senator CASE. One further question, Mr. Chairman. In implementing this proposal for the constitutional amendment to provide for representation in Congress and among the electors, there again you would want this provision that the people who would vote in the District of Columbia would vote only in one place?

Mr. COLLADAY. That is right. I might say, Senator Case, that I would hope also your pending constitutional amendment might be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee at or about the same time as the chairman's constitutional amendment. We would like to have the whole subject canvassed and endeavor to get a satisfactory result.

Senator CASE. I would rather think if the Judiciary Committee scheduled the hearing they would consider them together.

I might say, as far as I am personally concerned, I think that the amendment proposed by the chairman is more consistent with the

complete principle of self-government and representation than mine in that it would permit you to have fullfledged membership in the Congress, a voting membership in the Congress.

The reason I introduced the other amendment, however, is that such observations as I have been able to make in the course of being around here about 14 years makes me think it would be very difficult to get an amendment passed by the Congress in the first place, and in the second place, ratified by a sufficient number of States to secure that.

On the other hand, I do think that without too much difficulty, if support were given to it, you could get the same status as the Territories have, and then at least you would have the right to vote on the President and Vice President-that is, by that amendment-and to give you a representation in the Congress with a voice on the floor, the right to introduce legislation, and the right to serve on the committees. I think that could be accomplished.

I think you run into the very great probability that it would be difficult to get an amendment through the Congress and ratified by the States that provides for adding two Senators. That is in effect what this would be interpreted as opening the door to.

Mr. COLLADAY. Not necessarily.

Senator CASE. Not necessarily.

Mr. COLLADAY. In previous considerations, the thought of one Senator has been advanced and also the thought of giving us representation, voting representation, in the House and not in the Senate. Various phases of the thing have been explored, and I would hope that all those things would be considered at the hearing which Senator Neely with your support undoubtedly can obtain for us on his resolution and on yours before the Judiciary Committee.

Senator CASE. I remember the course of the bills for Hawaii and Alaska in the last Congress. They both passed the House quite readily. They might have passed the Senate if they had been brought to a vote, but by various methods the matters didn't come to a vote. Now if it is difficult to get to a vote in the Senate a bill which would provide for representation in the Senate of the Territories of the District of Columbia, and Alaska, it will be similarly difficult and probably even more difficult without regard to the merits of the difficulties, the difficulties will arise, just as a matter of practical observation.

It seems to me it would make it very difficult to get the Senate to approve or to consider, let me put it that way, to consider an amendment which would seem to open the door to adding two Senators for the District of Columbia. Like it or not, that is just my observation. Mr. COLLADAY. We recognize the difficulties ahead, but we certainly think that all those matters should be explored in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

Senator CASE. You are tieing them in to this hearing by proposing that this bill now before us have a contingent date tied into the submission of this other amendment.

Mr. COLLADAY. That is right. We certainly don't want to get in the attitude of compromising our case before we get it to a conclusion. I