municipalities are created by a sovereign legislative body, usually a State legislature. As the creator and the sovereign power, the legislature has the power at any time to modify the form of the municipal government, to change or rescind any of its acts, and to define the limits of the powers it may exercise. The Kefauver bill does no more than spell out these limititations.

The Supreme Court of the United States said in the case of Stoutenburgh v. Hennick (129 U. S. 141), "It is a cardinal principal of our system of government that local affairs shall be managed by local authorities and geenral affairs by the central authority, and hence, while the rule is also fundamental that the power to make laws cannot be delegated, the creation of municipalities exercising local self-government has never been held to trench upon that rule. Such legislation is not regarded as a transfer of general legislative power, but rather as the grant of authority to prescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity." [Italics supplied.]

* * *

The Kefauver bill would create a "municipality exercising local self-government" with authority to "prescribe local regulations subject to the interposition of the superior." It would also give the local government authority to make laws, insofar as Congress has the power to delegate such authority. Since "the power to make laws cannot be delegated" this authority is necessarily limited. Therefore, the Kefauver bill provides that laws enacted by the city council shall be subject to disapproval by Congress or the President within a specified time. It is not unreasonable to presume that Congress would exercise this veto power sparingly, since one of the principal arguments for creating a self-governing municipality here is to relieve Congress of the petty details of local affairs.

It must be remembered that Congress, in prior years, did create "municipalities exercising local self-government" here, and that those municipalities continued to operate during the first half of the 150 years which have elapsed since the District of Columbia was founded.

II-RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

The board of trade contends that the Kefauver bill does not "confer American citizenship rights on permanent District residents" because it fails to provide for representation in Congress or a vote for President and Vice President of the United States. It also contends that these rights are "definite prerequisites to workable home rule."

Answer: Representation in Congress and a vote for President and Vice President are not fundamental rights of American citizenship. These rights are, by the Constitution, granted only to citizens of the States. Citizens of the Territories do not have them, and will not have them until the Territories are admitted to the Union as States. Yet the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska have legislatures elected by the people, and their municipalities have popularly elected local governments which exercise normal municipal powers. As the sovereign power, Congress may amend or repeal any act of these legislatures, and may also rescind any or all powers exercised by any municipality. But this sovereign power is seldom exercised. Congress is content to let these Territories and their municipalities function as normal American communities.

While national representation for the District of Columbia is a desirable objective, and should be granted for other reasons than those stated by the board of trade, it does not help the cause to assert that it is a prerequisite for workable home rule, or that it can in any way be a substitute for local self-government. Such assertions must be predicated upon the assumption that there is no home rule in Hawaii or Alaska, which, of course, is contrary to fact.

III-QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING

The board of trade objects to the provision of the Kefauver bill which would permit 1-year residents to qualify as voters in local elections regardless of any right they may have to vote in another jurisdiction.

Answer: There is nothing unusual about this provision. It has been the rule 'for many years in suburban communities in Maryland, and has worked very satisfactorily. Residents of these communities are not required to be State voters in Maryland, nor to relinquish voting rights elsewhere to be eligible to vote in

local elections or to hold local offices. In reply to inquiries by the Auchincloss subcommittee of the Eightieth Congress, most State governors or attorneys general stated that voting in municipal elections in the District of Columbia would not disqualify anyone from also exercising State and National voting rights in their particular State.

The 1-year qualification for voting is customary in most States. The tendency is toward uniformity in this respect as election laws are liberalized. Other communities do not fear the influence of 1-year voters in local affairs. There is no reason why we should fear it. The population of the District of Columbia is not as transient as that.

One of the most persistent arguments against local suffrage in the past has been that so many residents of the District have voting rights elsewhere that minority groups would control local elections here. This voting provision of the Kefauver bill effectually spikes this argument. Perhaps that is the reason why the opponents of home rule oppose it so vehemently.

IV-FEDERAL REPRESENTATION ON THE COUNCIL

The board of trade assumes that the two members of the Council appointed by the President would exert such a powerful influence that the actions of the Council would be seriously affected.

Answer: Many proponents of home rule for the District do not favor this provision of the Kefauver bill, but have accepted it as a reasonable compromise between conflicting viewpoints. They do not, however, fear that these 2 members of an 11-member body will seriously affect its actions. In any event, a Council consisting of nine members elected by the people and two appointed by the President is to be preferred to one consisting only of three members, all of whom are appointed by the President, which is what we now have, or to a two-chamber body, one consisting entirely of Presidential appointees, which is what we had under the "territorial government" of 1871-74.

V-LEGISLATIVE POWERS

The board of trade asserts that the provision in the Kefauver bill granting the Council the power to propose laws subject to disapproval by Congress and the President would cause "confusion and bickering" and would give us “no more home rule than we have today."

Answer: This is merely a variation of the objection answered above under the caption "Home rule and congressional authority." It should be understood that the legislative powers conferred on the Council by the Kefauver bill are in addition to the normal municipal powers which other cities have. This provision in no way limits the power of the Council to pass ordinances, regulate zoǹing matters, and expend local revenues, which powers are specifically conferred upon the Council.

In view of the peculiar problems of the District, which has only the Congress of the United States for a Legislature, we believe that some delegation of legislative power to the local government is desirable. However, even without such delegation the Kefauver bill would give the District as much municipal power as any self-governing community has.

VI-COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT

The board of trade considers that the adoption of the council-manager form of government in the District would be "an unwarranted experimentation," and asserts that "there are compelling reasons for believing it would not work here." It does not give these reasons.

Answer: The council-manager form of local government is in effect in more than 800 communities in the United States, including nearby Alexandria, Arlington County, and Montgomery County. It is true that none of these communities has as large a population as the District of Columbia, but this is mainly due to the power of the national political parties, which are reluctant to give up their control of the larger cities. Nonpartisan local governments are the rule in most of the smaller cities, and it is easier to change their governments from the older forms to the council-manager form. Complaints of corrupt and inefficient municipal governments are mainly applicable to the larger cities which have the mayor

and council form of government, with elections on the basis of national political parties.

In the mayor and council form, the mayor is not only the executive and ceremonial head of the city, but he also has veto power over acts of the council. Experience has shown that such a government may more easily lapse into graft and corruption than the other forms. It depends largely upon the mayor, who who has the opportunity to use his patronage and veto powers to build a political 'machine. In the council-manager form the manager is merely the executive. Though he has patronage the right to hire and fire key personnel in the municipal government-he has no veto power over acts of the council. No one individual has the power to create or sustain a political machine in a council-manager government.

The board of trade appears to be satisfied with the present commission form of government in the District, though it is questionable if it would favor popular election of the Commissioners, as is done in other cities which have the commission form of government. In the commission form the commissioners act individually as administrative heads of particular functions of the local government. Together, they act as a city council. This form is quite successful in small communities. It is not adapted to the needs of larger communities because of the magnitude and diversity of municipal functions. For efficient administration of the affairs of a large city, each function should be handled by a separate department, headed by a specialist in that particular field. Matters of policy should be handled by another group composed of citizens who are responsible to the people through the ballot.

The present local government of the District is wholly unsuited to the needs of a large community, regardless of the manner in which the Commissioners are chosen.

VII-POWERS OF THE DISTRICT MANAGER

The board of trade believes that the Kefauver bill "concentrates an undesirable amount of power in one person-the manager."

Answer: The powers vested in the District Manager by the Kefauver bill are those customarily exercised by city managers elsewhere. They are not as extensive as the powers of the mayor in the mayor and council form of government. The manager does not determine policies; that is the function of the council. Nor does he have the right to veto acts of the council as does a mayor. Efficient administration requires centralization of responsibility. Responsibility is predicated upon power. You cannot hold anybody responsible for something he does not have the power to do, nor for the acts of persons over whom he has no control. The power to hire and fire the heads of the several municipal departments is a necessary concomitant of responsibility for their acts. But the Council-the policy-making body elected by the people has the power to hire and fire the District Manager. So, in the last analysis, all powers go back to the people who elect the Council. A situation has sometimes occurred in council-manager governments where a campaign for election to the council has revolved about the retention or discharge of a city manager. thus affording the people an opportunity to pass directly upon his acts. In our present form of local government in the District, the Commissioners have the power to hire and fire the heads of the departments over which they have direct control, but the people have no way in which they can express their approval or disapproval of the Commissioners' exercise of this power.

A corrollary to the board of trade's objection to the powers of the District Manager is the fact that the Kefauver bill does not limit the choice of the Manager to District residents. This is as it should be, and as is the case in other cities. A city manager should be an experienced administrator-a professional man, not a politician. In fact, city managers are generally career men, who go from one city to another as their accumulated experience and records command higher salaries. The council should choose the best man for the job at the salary offered, and not be restricted in its choice by residence or political affiliations.

VIII-BONDED INDEBTEDNESS

The board of trade objects to the provisions of the Kefauver bill which would permit the local government to incur bonded indebtedness for capital improvements.

Answer: There is nothing unusual about these provisions, except that they are hedged in with more restrictions than most such provisions in city charters elsewhere. The pay-as-you-go policy of municipal financing may be desirable as an objective, but there are many times when it is more desirable to obtain immediately a municipal facility which will be used for many years to come.. It is only fair that those who use it should pay for it, and not require their predecessors to pay the entire cost. It should be noted that, in the Kefauver bill, there is not only a limit upon the total amount of such indebtedness but all bond issues must be allocated to specific projects, and each bond issue must be entirely paid off well within the life of the project for which it is issued. In addition, it is subject to disapproval by Congress or the President, and must be approved by a majority of the voters in a referendum. These restrictions make it certain that no elected city council will mortgage the resources of the District for frivolous purposes.

The matter of interest payments is a minor one. Interest costs are often offset by the reduced costs of constructing or acquiring a facility when it is needed. Examples are acquisition of land before the price increases, or before it is improved with expensive buildings, and saving in operating or maintenance costs by more timely construction of a needed facility.

The District has had one sad experience resulting from interest-free loans by the Federal Government. Most of the neighborhood parks and recreation areas were acquired by the Federal Government with Federal money, and title was taken by the Federal Government. The District subsequently reimbursed the Federal Government for these expenditures, but the Federal Government kept title to the lands, and now presumes, through the Department of the Interior, to dictate how these lands and the recreational facilities thereon shall be used. The Kefauver bill contains a specific provision against a repetition of this injustice.

IX-ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSION

The board of trade believes that the abolition of some of the boards and commissions in the present District government would "lessen citizen participation in some gencies", but admits that "some streamlining and reorganization of the District government is needed."

Answer: The numerous boards and commissions in the present District government are accretions to the local governmental structure since self-government was abolished 75 years ago. In part, they are due to divided authority between the District and the Federal Governments; in part to a natural reluctance on the part of Congress to vest control of certain municipal functions in the Commissioners, who are neither elected by nor responsible to the people. The Kefauver bill does not, as asserted by the board of trade, give the District Manager the power to abolish any of these boards or commissions. That power is vested in the council (sec. 327). It does, however, transfer their functions to the directors of the appropriate departments. These department heads are better equipped, through their office and professional staffs, to administer these functions than are citizen boards, the members of which are not expected to devote full time to the task.

This provision is merely one aspect of streamlining for a more efficient local government. Since, as stated above, power and responsibility should go together, more efficient administration is provided by this than by the present method.

X-THE FEDERAL PAYMENT

The board of trade points out the undisputed fact, with respect to the annual Federal payment toward the expenses of the District government, that "actions of one Congress are not binding on those which follow," and forecasts "rapid reduction if not elimination of the Federal payment if Congress passes this (the Kefauver) bill and appears [sic] to divest itself of control, hence responsibility to the Nation's Capital."

Answer: During all the years of local self-government, from 1800 to 1874, the Federal Government shared in the expenses of the local government, but in an uncertain and inequitable fashion. These payments were generally insufficient to pay the costs of municipal services supplied to the large amount of federally owned tax-exempt property. The result was threatened bankruptcy of the city 81450-51-14

of Washington on several occasions. The Territorial government of 1871-74 did become bankrupt, but through acts of the Presidential-appointed Board of Public Works, not the Territorial legislature. Because of this the Territorial government was abolished in 1874, and all rights of local self-government were taken away. Subsequently, large property owners and business and financial interests (the same interests that are now represented by the board of trade) succeeded in securing legislation which provided that Congress should pay 50 percent of the costs of the local government thereafter. The consideration for this was perpetuation of the loss of self-government. The people of the District as a whole never agreed to this, but they were given no opportunity to vote on the matter. There was no referendum on he so-called organic law of 1878.

Despite the fact that "actions of one Congress are not binding on those which follow," Congress honored this agreement for more than 40 years, by which time the memory of self-government had been pretty well erased. In 1921 Congress began to chisel the payment down, first to 40 percent, and then by lump sums which at first approximated 40 percent, but by the dual process of increasing budgets and decreasing lump sums became a smaller and smaller percentage until it threatened to vanish altogether. Yet, Congress refused to restore local selfgovernment, the abolition of which was the main consideration for the 50-percent payment.

The hope of an equitable sharing by the Federal Government in the expenses of the local government does not lie in continuation of lack of local self-government, but in realization by Congress of the equities of the situation, whereby Congress will make "payments in lieu of taxes" on its tax-exempt properties. There is a strong national movement to accomplish this in other communities which have similar problems, though not, of course, of the magnitude of ours. Certainly nowhere else would the people of a community voluntarily exchange self-government for a mess of pottage, as did the interests now represented by the Board of Trade back in 1878.

XI-SAVING OF CONGRESSIONAL TIME

The Board of Trade contends that the Kefauver bill would not "relieve the Congress of much petty work and permit its Members to give additional time to pressing national and international issues," but would "cause endless argument and bickering about the relative responsibilities of Congress and the Council."

This

Answer: The board of trade's argument is predicated upon the assumption that the sole function of the Council will be to make "legislative proposals," and that such proposals will be "reviewed and debated in detail as bills are now." is an erroneous assumption and a misstatement of the terms of the bill. The main function of any city council is to handle municipal affairs by ordinance. The Kefauver bill gives the District Council full powers to handle municipal affairs by ordinance without review by Congress. Moreover, much of the so-called legislation affecting District affairs which is now handled by Congress is of the type that could and would be handled by ordinance. The saving of congressional time in this respect alone would be quite considerable. Minor matters of legislation, now handled by Congress because there is no other way of handling them, would be handled by the Council subject to congressional or Presidential veto. Much of such minor legislation is now passed by unanimous consent. Individual matters of this sort do not take much time, but in the aggregate they consume considerable time of Congress. The Kefauver bill makes this unnecessary. All Congress would have to do would be to ignore the "legislative proposals" of the Council on such matters. It is a safe prediction that Congress would do so in the majority of instances.

One of the recommendations of the La Follette-Monroney committee on the organization of Congress was that Congress "divest itself of the duty of acting as a city council for Washington and turn the government of the city over to its residents under a charter of self-government." The Kefauver bill would accomplish this.

XII-WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION REALLY SAY?

In its eagerness to support its thesis that "there can be no home rule for the District of Columbia until its residents are first accorded representation in Congress and a vote for President," the Board of Trade not only ignores the fact that