HOLDREDGE, NEB., February 13, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: News & World Report magazine sets out the proposed granting of home rule to our Capital City. Many of us are disturbed. We admire and love Washington. Could you persuade them to use judgment and moderation, in this project? England, in her empire days, trained the local people in government. Could Congress make this turnover gradual? Provide that a certain number (or class) of offices could be elected by residents, the first year? A few more the second year, etc. With a promise that the whole city would be turned over to home rule in 10 years? You are so much better informed on this, than we, by virtue of your service on the District Committee. The magazine states that the President has promised to back this home rule idea. Has the Congress entirely abdicated it's powers to the President? We count on you. Our beautiful Capital City turned over to a group, totally inexperienced in government! Please don't! Don't bother to answer this. I cannot do anything. MRS. ELLA A. SWARTZ, (Not a VIP). WASHINGTON, D.C., March 5, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: May I add my protests to that of many citizens against any bill which purports to give so-called home rule to the District of Columbia. The three Washington newspapers are afraid or do not present the facts of the situation. For the following reasons the District should remain under Congress as the Constitution intended: 1. The District of Columbia is sui generis cannot be compared with any other political units-in this it is the seat of the National Government and, as the Capital, belongs to 50 States, and the framers of the Constitution so intender. 2. Its greatest "industry" is the Government of the United States, which contributes to a great portion of its cost. 3. Its constituent population is not comparable to any other political unit. More than 60 percent is Negro, and its potential voting population probably would rise to 80 percent because so many of its white residents vote in their home States. 4. There is no "discrimination" at present when no one votes on "local issues." 5. There is no better government in any municipality in the United States than the District of Columbia's-tested by result-no corruption, little inefficiency. 6. The Negro population-not because of color-lives on the average in low "mores," and should not be put in position of governing the Nation's Capitalfor doctrinaire considerations. 7. The present Negro "mob rule" and senseless destruction of hundreds of millions of property in Los Angeles illustrate the above points. 8. However to be regretted, the flights of the white population, so marked in recent years, would be accelerated were so-called home rule enacted. 9. It would be a step backward-as already illustrated by certain unconstitutional provisions of the recent so-called Civil Rights Act-further to cheapen the franchise by adding greatly to the illiterate population already permitted to vote on the amazing theory of certain of our high officers of justice that two wrongs make a right. 10. Most of those crying in the street for home rule have self-serving motives or are ignorant of the facts of life. Sincerely, THOMAS M. WOODWARD. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1965. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN : I desire to add my voice to that of many others who will write you about pending home rule legislation for the District of Columbia. As a retired Federal Government employee, and a longtime resident of the District, I feel that a proportionately excessive number of voters in the District are not yet ready for the kind of self-government proposed by the administration. Rather, I submit that as an interim step, the territorial form, with a Governor appointed by the President and an elected legislative assembly with proper provision for veto by the Congress would be preferable. Also, thanks for your efforts over the years to arrive at an acceptable solution to this problem. Sincerely yours, LEON J. COCHRANE. WASHINGTON, D.C. Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: After returning from church today, I read your stand on home rule for the District of Columbia. I put off writing to you last week on your forward looking stand on the District of Columbia budget. Let me congratulate you for the courageous stand you take on both issues. It takes statesmanship to see through both these issues and not just a politician's plan to satisfy people who think they should get everything for asking the Government. If I am not mistaken, this is a Federal City and should not have home rule. I've seen enough corruption in other cities up North and hate to see it here. May the good Lord keep you in good health and wise statesmanship. Most respectfully, JOSEPH M. DAY. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 15, 1965. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: Some of the most talented and able citizens of Washington are employees of the Federal Government prevented from engaging in political activity because of provisions in the Hatch Act. May I suggest that any home rule bill reported out of your committee exempt Federal employees from these provisions to the extent that they may seek elective office not in conflict with their specific employment responsibilities. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee. RICHARD W. NATHAN. TAKOMA PARK, MD., April 15, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a citizen born and raised in the District, I am very much interested what the solution will be for the home rule. I have wondered if the national conventions could when they select the President and Vice President also select a third member that could be the second vice president and who would also be the mayor, etc., of the District. By having the nominee on the national tickets the country would be certain to get top leadership and a national figure who would really represent the Nation's choice. After all it is all taxpayers money used to support the District. I feel that all of our citizens should have something to say who should rule their city. Now I don't know if I have explained my thoughts clearly, but if I have not and you wish, I could tell them more readily than I can write them. Success to you in this most difficult decision. Sincerely, H. CARVER OSBORN. WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: If, as Representative John A. Race, recently stated, "You are 'sitting on' the District of Columbia home rule bill," please continue to sit on it until convinced that we inexperienced self-rulers are actually able to rule ourselves. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN. WILLIAM N. RAMSEY. DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: As taxpayers, we are most opposed to home rule on economic grounds. The support of a huge Government would tax people like us out of the District, and we would prefer to stay. People we know have already moved to Virginia and Maryland; others keep asking "Where are you going, if we get home rule?" It is obviously impossible for a very small percentage of District residents to pay for 20 councilmen, their staffs, and an entire city government. Almost 70 percent of the choicest property belongs to the Federal Government, foreign Embassies, chanceries, and residences, national monuments and centers like the Red Cross, churches, and cathedrals, and the homes of Government people who vote and pay taxes in their own home States. So, for the rest of us, taxes would be unsupportable-real estate, income, sales, personal property, and whatnot-but I realize the District government would still go broke, as more and more taxpayers would be forced to move. We know so many moderate to medium high-income people who feel as we do. We are fortunate that a foreign government wants our house for a residence, and will remove it from the tax rolls. Nonetheless, we can only hope Congress has enough sense and courage to resist the pressure from those who are clamoring for home rule because they don't realize all this government must be paid for. We still hope to say in Washington. Sincerely, DOROTHEA S. FOOTE P.S.-I should be pleased if you could present any of my opinions, as I shall be away all week, so cannot testify. My husband and my son agree. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 12, 1965. Representative JOHN L. MCMILLAN : Even though I am not from your State of South Carolina, but a resident of the District of Columbia, I hope that your committee will take your time and really study all the different home rule bills that are before you, as when Washington should get home rule, it will be here for a long time. I personally believe that we do not need home rule here, and there certainly are a lot more like me. We can only hope that this committee will, under your leadership, feel that it is Thank you. GERARD LAREDO. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 17, 1965. Congressman MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, DEAR SIR: As a 22-year resident of Washington, I am much opposed to home rule. The decision "one man, one vote," with no literacy test, would put our Nation's Capital under the control of reckless, irresponsible persons. That is one of the reasons responsible people do not want it. Would a hired manager be feasible? I agree with your opinion that a constitutional amendment would be needed. Yours truly, NELLIE K. HOUSTON WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: For your information I am sending you copies of letters I have written opposing home rule for the District of Columbia and asking for a vote against it. In addition to Mr. Multer and Mr. Sisk, I have written also to Congressman Sickles, Horton, O'Konski, Roudebush, Nelsen, Mathias, Ford, and to the Evening Star. Enclosed also is copy of a petition opposing home rule which has been signed by some 400 citizens of the District of Columbia. May I call your attention especially to the last paragraph of my letter to Congressman Sisk. It is becoming a serious matter. If you can suggest any further action that might be helpful in defeating any and all so-called home rule legislation, I should be glad to hear from you and do whatever I can upon return from our vacation the middle of September. Respectfully yours, DOROTHY A. CURRAN WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 1965. Hon. H. F. SISK, U.S. House of Representatives, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Those of us who are opposed to so-called home rule for the District of Columbia are hoping sincerely that you will decide to vote against the discharge petition, or, if this should win, that you will vote against any and all home rule legislation. It is very unfortunate that the Reverend Martin Luther King has turned the home rule issue into a civil rights matter. There are many compelling reasons for rejecting home rule for the District that have nothing to do with civil rights or the Negro majority in Washington. May I urge you to read the attached copy of a letter I wrote to Congressman Multer giving some of the reasons why a great many longtime citizens feel that the Nation's Capital should not have home rule. Also enclosed is copy of a petition which a few housewives have been circulating in their spare time. This has not been a highly organized effort and a great many more signatures could be obtained if time permitted and if this were not the vacation season. However, we have gotten nearly 400 signers and I plan to present these to the District Committee to become part of the record at the hearing on Wednesday, August 18. Mr. Sisk, perhaps I should say here that all of us who worked on the petition were appalled to find a number of people (friends and neighbors) who were afraid to sign for fear of reprisal from the Government or some civil rights group. They would spend quite some time saying how opposed they are to home rule, but then they say they were afraid to sign the petition. Are we heading into another McCarthy era? Respectfully yours, MRS. H. W. CURRAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 15, 1965. Hon. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MULTER: Your action in filing for a discharge resolution for the so-called home rule bill for the District of Columbia was very disappointing and disturbing to the considerable number of people in Washington who are stanchly opposed to home rule. Organized groups, made up largely of newcomers to the city, have, unfortunately, made so-called home rule a civil rights question and have been extremely active in pushing the matter. I wonder if Congress, particularly the District Committee, realizes that there are a great many citizens, natives, and longtime residents, who are opposed and whose opposition has nothing to do with the Negro majority. The position taken by the Washington Board of Trade for some 50 years is a very logical and sensible one. The unique character of the District of Columbia as the Nation's Capital City, supported in part by Federal funds, requires and must continue to require congressional direction and supervision in major areas of its government. This is amply provided for in S. 1118, title III, section 324 (a-2) and (f), which is the administration-backed legislation. However, when any official act of the council can be repealed, modified or vetoed by either the Congress or the President, the term “home rule" becomes a misnomer and mere pretense. The present form of government could be a great deal more efficient and Congress could be relieved of much of the time-consuming detail and burden of running the city of Washington if it would delegate more authority to the Commissioners and other appointed officials. This should be tried before any home rule legislation is enacted. Washington has been spared the corrupt political machines which have marred and plagued other large American cities. It is difficult to see what advantages so-called home rule would bring to the taxpaying public that would outweigh the dangers involved. To insist on the democratic right to elect a topheavy superstructure of officials who would be merely play acting at home rule seems somewhat irresponsible and childish. To me, and most of the people I know after 40 years in the District, it would be more satisfying and to the point to be allowed to vote for a representative in Congress with voting rights. If you agree that Congress must retain some legislative control over the District of Columbia, I should be most pleased to hear from you just what advantages you think so-called home rule will provide that could not also be achieved by paragraph 4 above, and at much less expense. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives. Mrs. H. W. CURRAN. ARLINGTON, VA., August 17, 1965. MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I just wish to state that I am thoroughly opposed to home rule for the Nation's Capital for many reasons, most of which have been cited by you. I was born in Washington, D.C., and lived there for 61 years, until moving to Arlington, Va., recently, hence am well acquainted with the past and present problems and conditions of Washington. May I state that I appreciate your every endeavor to prevent this bill becoming a reality, and trust that you and others will succeed in your efforts. Sincerely, PAULINE C. KINNA. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 17, 1965. Re home rule. Hon. JOHN J. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR SIR: It seems to me that the District of Columbia is not just another American city, as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, but rather the Capital of the Nation. It is not, in fact, a city but a district and all its officials are District officials. The District is unique in the American system which usually consists of villages, cities, towns, counties, and States. At present, all Americans of voting age have a say in the administration of the District; this say is exercised through their elected representatives to the national body, the Congress. To let persons who happen to reside in the District direct its administration would be unfair to the vast millions of other Americans who would thus be divested of their right to participate in the administration of their Capital. It is well to remember that the vast majority of the residents of the District feed, directly or indirectly, from national revenues, Federal or private. They have not made the District; the District has made them. |