We also have in Washington the highest quality of milk of any place in the country, and the District of Columbia federation worked for years on this legislation.

So we feel that we have done a great deal, and we continue to work for the welfare of the people here in the District of Columbia. Now, my short statement, Mr. Chairman, is:

It may be assumed by now that every facet of the question, "home rule for the District of Columbia" has been fully considered by the Congress. One element of their deliberations, however, which directly affects every Member of our legislature, has received but passing, inadequate study. In fact, one might well characterize it as the "unwritten law" of the Constitution.

This unwritten law is the informal, unexpressed contract between every legislator and his constituency, whether it be the voters of Vermont, California, Utah, et cetera. Its binding force is recognized and ratified when the legislator takes his oath of office, by the terms of which he expressly and solemnly pledges himself to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to it. There is not a single recorded instance where a legislator has made any reservation to this pledge, prior to his election.

We learn from the World Almanac that

The District of Columbia-identical with the city of Washington-is the Capital of the United States, and the first carefully planned capital in the world.

Emphasis is laid on the phrase "Capital of the United States." Thus, by this term, the voters of every State in the Union have a stake in the government of the District of Columbia.

The often tried unsuccessful maneuver, and the present strategy of the liberal residents of the District, to divorce the problem from its constitutional mandate, raises the question: When and by what authority was this divorce granted? Who, opines the voters of Utah, demanded of their representatives that they be deprived of their constitutional right to partake, through the Congress, in the government of the District of Columbia?

Our enlightened press recently printed a cartoon depicting a caricature of the President holding a bull whip, ready to strike a group of cringing characters across whose backs was written one word "Congress." We have frequently been told that one such picture is worth a thousand words.

The history of the District of Columbia began in 1790, when Congress directed selection of a new site for the capital. This was made necessary because of the frequent changes in location from one city to another: Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, York, Pa., Princeton, Annapolis, Lancaster, and Trenton. Finally, the present form of government was established by the Congress on June 11, 1878.

We believe the time is now to demand, of each Member of the National Legislature whether they are physically able and are prepared to honor their pledge to uphold all provisions of the U.S. Constitution without reservation. We believe your answer will be an unequivocal "yes."

Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, thank you very much, ladies. We appreciate your being with us. You certainly have added to the record. Miss BEAN. Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that in the 28 years I have been a member of this committee, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs that is appearing here today has taken an active part in every worthwhile piece of legislation that has come before this committee.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to these ladies that I appreciate the fact that they have been interested in the District of Columbia and the government here. This is very important for people in the United States. I question, though, whether or not you have had a voice in your government.

Mrs. Howard referred to a picture being worth a thousand words. I was reminded just this past weekend, when I saw in my paper a picture of the coffin of a boy whose body was being brought back from Vietnam, that that boy, like many others, had apparently given up his life in an attempt on behalf of this country, to protect the people of South Vietnam, to try to get them the right of self-determination and self-government.

You refer in your statement here or at least, it so appears to me to the fact that all proponents of the bill are interested only in ballots. I cannot subscribe to your statement on page 5 that "most of the long-time inhabitants of the District of Columbia shudder at the thoughts of a return of the vote in the District."

I believe very firmly in the right of the people to a representative form of government. It seems to me that there are areas in the District of Columbia where the people ought to have an opportunity to exercise the vote and have local representation. This is one of the reasons why I support the proposition that the people in the District of Columbia should have a right, consistent with the Federal interests, to have a voice in their local government. To that extent, you and I disagree.

But I certainly do commend your organization for your interest in the District of Columbia's affairs. I question, though, whether or not you have had a voice. You have accomplished a great amount of good, but I am sure that it has been a very uphill type of operation, and I would assume that you had to expend a great amount of time to try to get your views across.

If you had had local representation, at least, you could have had someone locally who was concerned with your problems, and that would respond to the problems and have some interest in the local problems you were trying to bring to the attention of the people who were in charge of the operation of the local affairs.

Miss BEAN. May I answer that, Mr. Horton?

Mr. WHITENER. Go right ahead, Miss Bean.

Miss BEAN. I would like to say that when we have had these various hearings, as before the ABC Board, the Budget, or any other division of the District government, we have found that anyone can go up there and give their opinion. And if they have the facts in back of their opinion, they generally get their ideas across. They help to formulate whatever is decided by that individual commission or board, or by the Commissioners themselves.

Mrs. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, we feel that way about it. We feel that otherwise it would really be predigested information. We feel

that this is a great experience, appearing before this committee, that we are here telling you how we feel about it, and it is not the voice of a rubberstamp representative in the Federal Government.

The only reason we are against home rule is: this is the seat and office of the Federal Government, as so planned by the Founding Fathers, and written into the Constitution of the United States, not for a day, not for a year, but for the ages.

So many of the fundamentals of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution upon which this country was founded, are being whittled away. The next thing you know, we will be like some country in Europe.

As you know, the idea is now for the cities to take over. Those in Washington who want home rule here want to get into the swim. When this research is finished, I think you will find a great plan there to take over another city under this reapportionment.

You speak of the boys in Vietnam, the military; speaking for myself, there has been someone taking part in the defense of this country ever since the American Revolution. We feel that Washington is the office of the Government of the United States, and we want to keep it that way.

Mr. WHITENER. Well, thank you very much, ladies. We appreciate your being with us.

I might say, in response to the suggestion that perhaps you citizens here have not had an opportunity to be heard, that I was told by the staff of this committee that in 1 year this subcommittee, of which I serve as chairman, and which is just one of six subcommittees of the District Committee, held 90 days of hearings on District of Columbia matters.

I know of no city council in America that last year sat for 90 days and heard the testimony of citizens on issues affecting them. It just does not work that way.

So, to say that you have not had an opportunity to be heard by people interested in the District of Columbia, people who are interested in serving the Nation's interests as well as the local interests, as reflected by the members of this committee, is not an accurate statement. We do have an interest. We hear you, we try to do what is best for you, and there are some of us who are not interested in avoiding our responsibility under the Constitution because it is inconvenient to us personally.

We commend you and thank you very much.

Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee.

Mr. WHITENER. Our next witness is Maj. Gen. Louis W. Prentiss, a former Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. General Prentiss.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LOUIS W. PRENTISS, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), FORMER ENGINEER COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

General PRENTISS. Mr. Chairman, Chairman McMillan, and mem-. bers of the committee, my name is Louis W. Prentiss. I am a native. of the District of Columbia. In fact, my family came here on my father's side in 1789, and we have had eight generations live here and

52-505-65--26

six born here. But on my mother's side, the original patentee of Chevy Chase, Md., Col. Joseph Belt, was my grandfather six generations back. So you can see I have roots well laid in this territory.

I am a retired major general of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, and served as Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia in 1953 and 1954, having been appointed by President Truman and having served under President Eisenhower.

The late Maj. Gen. Julian L. Schley, former Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army and, prior to that, a Governor of the Panama Canal Zone, served a number of years ago as an assistant to the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia.

After he retired from active service, he became a permanent resident of Washington until his recent death, and he took a great deal of interest in the city. He did a lot of research and prepared a brief history and proposal concerning government of the Nation's Capital City, which suggests a rather unique method of giving the residents of the District a voice in their government. I think the committee will be interested in General Schley's proposal, and I, therefore, appreciate this opportunity of reading the paper, which was written by him some years ago, a few years before his death.

The policy of the United States concerning the local government of the capital of the Nation was embodied in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, reads in part:

The Congress shall have power: ** To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States * *

Under this authority of the Constitution, the Congress accepted by appropriate acts for the United States the areas ceded by Maryland and Virginia in 1788 and 1789, created a commission to acquire title to the lands, and from time to time amended the charters of the towns situated therein, altered the composition of the counties and amended their governments, but not until about 80 years later, in 1871, did Congress undertake to establish a centralized government for the whole Federal territory suited to the local needs and capable of creating a capital city of the rapidly growing Nation.

Seven years later, in 1878, the Congress enacted what is now referred to as the Organic Act of the District of Columbia which, with amendments from time to time, is the law of the District today.

The experience of the District of Columbia with its government between 1871 and 1878 is worthy of special consideration, and this will be dealt with after reviewing briefly the forms of government in the area of the District prior to that period.

The laws of the States of Maryland and Virginia which were in effect in areas ceded to the United States by these two States were continued in effect "until Congress should provide for the government of the Federal district," and for about 10 years after the ceding of the land to the Federal Government the laws enacted by these States applied to the ceded territories.

Each of the two counties of the State of Maryland in which these lands were located was governed during this period by a "levy court." The county of the State of Virginia was governed by a "county court." The town of Georgetown was situated in the territory ceded by

Maryland, and the town of Alexandria was in the territory ceded by Virginia.

Georgetown was incorporated by the State of Maryland in 1789. It had a mayor elected by the council, 6 aldermen, and 10 elected common councilmen. The aldermen were selected from the council by vote of the mayor, aldermen, and councilmen. Some changes were made in the government of Georgetown by the U.S. Congress from time to time (such as election of the mayor by the people in 1831) until its charter was revoked by the act of 1871.

Alexandria elected 12 freeholders, who chose from their number a mayor and 4 aldermen. The remaining six freeholders formed a common council. Alexandria ceased to be included in the District of Columbia when the area ceded by Virginia was retroceded to the State.

The seat of government of the United States was transferred from Philadelphia to the District of Columbia in 1800, by act of Congress, and the first meeting of Congress in the District of Columbia was held that year.

An additional separate governing body was created in the Federal district when Congress incorporated the city of Washington in 1802, providing for a mayor appointed by the President of the United States and for a city council elected by the people. In 1812 a change was made providing for the mayor to be elected by the city council, and in 1820 a further change providing for the mayor's election by the people.

The subdivisions of territory and the forms of government were changed somewhat as time went on, the most important of which was the creation of two counties by the U.S. Congress, one known as Washington County covering the area east of the Potomac River (ceded by Maryland), and the other covering the area west of the river (ceded by Virginia). The Federal Government assumed more and more control over these two counties until 1871, when an act of Congress revoked the charters of the existing governments in the District, namely of Washington County and of Washington City and the city of Georgetown, and finally created a single government for the entire territory.

Meantime, however, the population of the part of the territory ceded by Virginia became dissatisfied with their status because of the failure of the U.S. Government either to make use of its area in its plans for the National Capital or to improve its form of government, and because the people found the authorities of the State of Virginia more sympathetic than those of the Federal Government in the unfortunate state of their finances. At their insistance, the territory west. of the Potomac River was retroceded to the State of Virginia in

1846.

The remaining area of about 70 square miles originally ceded by Maryland constitutes the District of Columbia today.

It is thus seen that there existed in the Federal territory prior to 1871 several independent governmental entities, each being an outgrowth and development of the State, county, and municipal forms of government of our early history. During this period the Nation was developing and the population increasing rapidly. The population of the Federal territory also grew apace, the greatest increase taking place during the Civil War, caused in part by the administra