« 이전계속 »
erally admitted that we have been and are now being served by men who are a credit to the city.
As I said before the reasons which caused the change from the liberal government in 1874 are a present possibility now, and with the presence of pressure groups, cliques, et cetera, the change for political corruption in elections and administration are very apparent. The larger the city the greater the tendency to corruption, and that is more dangerous when you find an ever-changing nonresident population such as we have here. This jurisdiction is so small that the possibility of injury is much greater. This District is 70 square miles in extent, and its problems slop over the borders into Maryland and Virginia. This makes more necessary that Congress manage its affairs, as many of its problems are interstate in character. We need a metropolitan area authority, and such would have to be established by Congress in conjunction with Maryland and Virginia.
If we are looking for a real solution, why not cede back to Maryland all but the Federal Triangle plus the area which includes other Federal holdings, and then the legal voter would have a voice in State affairs in Maryland, and Washington would be a self-governing Maryland city, and that State would have two or three more Members in the House of Representatives, and Washington voters qualified under Maryland could have a voice in all local, State, and national affairs. We submit this as a solution possible within the present structure of the Federal Constitution. · I think the citizens of the Petworth area of the District of Columbia are opposed to the Kefauver bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Have they authorized you to say that in their behalf? Mr. CONNAUGHTON. They have not authorized me to say that. The CHAIRMAN. Then you are not speaking for them? Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I am giving you my opinion because it is based upon the plebiscite held a few years ago in which that area voted against home rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Was there any plebiscite on this bill?
The CHAIRMAN. I don't think the other is relevant. Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I think the other states whether or not they are in favor of that principle and it is relevant because of that fact.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that they, like you, are opposed to home rule or just to this bill ?
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. They are opposed to this bill, and I think a considerable amount of them are opposed to home rule. I don't think it is a majority, but they are opposed to this bill for a number of different reasons.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to home rule or are you in favor of it. · Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I am opposed to home rule.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought so. Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I am opposed to it. I think it is bad for the District.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the people here haven't sense enough to govern themselves or that they don't deserve it?
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. It is because of the peculiar situation.
I am like the founding fathers who believed that the District of Columbia would become a cesspool of political activity in case the vote were given to the citizens of the District of Columbia; and if you look back into history, you will find in 1874 they made a mess of home rule, and then had to be taken into a receivership.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't think it was any worse then than it is at the present time in the District of Columbia. Mr. CONNAUGHTON. You will admit it wasn't good. The CHAIRMAN. I admit neither one of them was what it ought to be.
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. No, and still there was a greater measure of home rule under that bill than there is under this one. For that reason I think it is a bad proposition for home rule in the District of Columbia. I think one evidence of it is that a lot of us keep our voting residence back in the States. I vote in one of the States myself, and I expect to continue that voting residence, and I don't know why I should vote in the District of Columbia and vote in Kansas at the same time.
I think that applies to a lot of other people. Although I own property in the District and am interested in the taxes and the expenditures of District money, there are hundreds and thousands of people in the District of Columbia that have been here more than a quarter of a century and never paid a nickel of tax and never will so long as they live here and then return from whence they came. I think it is a bad proposition to have home rule in that kind of a situation.
The CHAIRMAN. That isn't the only thing you object to. You have made the bald statement you are opposed to home rule. It wouldn't make any difference about that...
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. So far as I am individually concerned, that is right. But I think it makes a lot of difference to a lot of other people.
The CHAIRMAN. No matter what was in the bill, you would be opposed to home-rule bills.
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes; I think most of our problems slop over into Virginia and Maryland and Congress necessarily has to pass upon those things rather than a government in the District of Columbia or the government of Maryland or Virginia solely. For instance, our transportation problem, our electricity problem, our public utility problems, problems of all character, they slop over into the surrounding States and surrounding areas. I think the thing we do need is an authority that would have jurisdiction over all this metropolitan area that could solve our problems jointly rather than severally.
I thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Walter F. Wasson. Is Mr. Wasson present?
If not, is Col. Milo H. Brinkley present?
Is Mr. Louis St. George present ?
Is Mr. Jerome Lynch present, representing the Brentwood Terrace Citizens' Association ?
Is Mr. John B. Dickman, Jr., present, representing the North Cleveland Park Citizens' Association?
Mr. Frank Thompson; is he present?
Please notify each of these persons by telephone or otherwise that a statement of reasonable length will be inserted in the record if they will provide it promptly.
Is Mrs. Branson G. McIlwee present?
STATEMENT OF MRS. BRANSON GILBERT MCILWEE
because the L WEE. That is ripeaking only for you
Mrs. McILWEE. I am opposed to the home-rule bill.
The CHAIRMAN. First give your name and whom you represent, if anybody besides yourself.
Mrs. MCILWEE. Mrs. Branson Gilbert McIlwee. My address is 521 Oneida Place NW., Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking just for yourself or for some organization?
Mrs. McILWEE. I am coming as a mother and interested citizen. I am a member of the Manor Park Citizens' Association and many organizations in Washington.
The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking only for yourself? Mrs. McILWEE. That is right, but I said the citizens' association because the federation at Manor Park is a member of the federation and not all of us who are members of the Manor Park or any other association are interested in this home-rule bill.
I oppose the home-rule bill, S. 656. The present form of government is best for the Nation's Capital. The 10-mile square of the Capital should be controlled by the Federal Government. Beyond that let Virginia and Maryland take over. That will give many people a vote. It was never intended that our Nation's Capital should be a place for saloons, gamblers, crime, slums, and people on relief as it is today. A few Government-owned farms with living quarters for these people that are here on relief would give them employment and a chance to be self-supporting.
Rezone Washington and build Government buildings and living quarters for people employed in the Government within the 10 miles, or perhaps you might shorten it to 5 or 7 miles if that is all we need.
This New Deal, Fair Deal riffraff should not be allowed to change the present form of government of our Nation's Capital. Delay any change until we get a Republican in the White House.
I might say I am opposed also to the Auchincloss bill. I opposed it at that time also.
The CHAIRMAN. You are not against the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, are you?
Mrs. McILWEE. I have made my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any of those whom we called before who have come in since their names were passed ?
If not, we will now proceed with the proponents. Mr. Kenneth Armstrong, is he present?
Is Mr. Alexander B. Hawes present?
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER B. HAWES, CHAIRMAN, SUFFRAGE
COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Mr. HAWES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Alexander B. Hawes. I have a prepared statement which was intended to take up Mr. Colladay's criticisms in detail and criticisms of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
I am appearing as chairman of the suffrage committee of the Federation of Citizens Associations. Mr. Leeman, the president of the federation, has asked me to present to you comments on the specific criticisms of the bill made in the letter of the Commissioners which was submitted to you by the corporation counsel, Mr. Vernon West, and in the statement made on behalf of the Washington Board of Trade by its general counsel, Mr. Colladay.
First, let me say that I have lived in Washington for more than 17 years. I own my own home here. I pay District real estate, personal property and income taxes, among others. I am domiciled here. I do not vote anywhere else and, of course, cannot vote here. I mention these facts only to show that I am one of the body of so-called permanent residents over whose fate under this proposed legislation so many crocodile tears have been shed.
I have read this bill not once but several times, and I have carefully examined the criticisms which have been leveled at it by the Commissioners and the board of trade.
I do not think that any one of these objections is new. As you know, this bill is based upon previous bills which have been the subject of intense study and consideration by preceding committees of both Houses of Congress and their staffs. The answers to the criticisms can be found in almost every instance by reference to the records of hearings of the various committees. However, I think it may be useful to provide in one statement the more obvious answers' which can be given on behalf of the numerous District residents who support this legislation.
It seems to me that three of the objections raised by the Commissioners or the Board of Trade go to fundamentals :
First, as to the constitutionality of the so-called legislative proposal procedure of the bill;
Second, as to the right of persons resident but not domiciled in the District to participate in elections; and
Third, as to the undesirability of home rule in general because it would lead to the loss of the Federal contribution. Constitutionality of legislative proposal procedure:
One of the primary purposes of the proposed legislation is to relieve Congress, to the greatest extent possible, of the burden of legislating for the District of Columbia. No home-rule legislation which merely
transferred to a locally elected Coụncil the present ordinance-making powers of the District Commissioners would accomplish anything in this respect. The draftsmen of this and previous home rule bills have therefore attempted to delegate a wider scope of legislative authority to the local Council. There has been much discussion in prior proceedings of this constitutional question. Responsible lawyers have given opinions that the procedure contemplated is proper and some like Messrs. Colladay and West say it is not. In the main the views expressed reflect the disposition of the particular advocate to favor or oppose the bill. Those who oppose make no conscientious effort to suggest how the constitutional difficulties which they foresee can be remedied.
The constitutionality of the legislative proposal procedure has been supported on a combination of two grounds:
1. That on the analogy to the authority of Congress to delegate legislative power to the governments of Territories, Congress may delegate legislative power to a District of Columbia government, subject, of course, as in the case of the Territories to the right of Congress at any time to intervene and legislate itself.
Ž. If a complete delegation of legislative power to a local District government would be constitutional, as the Territorial analogy would indicate, then, it is argued a delegation subject to veto by concurrent resolution of the Congress or veto by the President is also constitutional. In support of this argument, reference is made to the precedent of the reorganization acts. The Reorganization Act of 1945 provided, as does the proposed home-rule bill, for a veto by concurrent resolution. The present Reorganization Act of 1949 provides for a veto by one House of Congress.
The constitutional issue is very technical and limited. It is conceded by most critics that Congress can delegate complete legislative authority over most matters to the Council. It is also conceded that Congress can retain the right to veto by joint resolution which must go to the President and be subject to his veto before becoming effective. The squabble concerns the constitutionality of a bill which permits Congress to veto by use of a concurrent resolution rather than a joint resolution. This is a question on which all committees considering home-rule legislation have had expert advice. The analogies to the Territorial legislation and the reorganization acts seem sound to me and persuasive in establishing constitutionality, but this is, of course, for the committee to decide.
The Board of Trade and the Commissioners attack the constitutionality of the home-rule bill in two ways. The board of trade takes the flat position that the legislative proposal procedure is unconstitutional. The Commissioners take the position that it is of such doubtful constitutionality that it will cause great confusion and uncertainty.
The statement of the distinguished general counsel of the board of trade attacks the first of the two constitutional arguments, stated above, in the following language, appearing on pages 9 and 10 of the mimeographed copy : . Some claim that Congress can delegate to the District Council its power to legislate over the District of Columbia *