If improvement is needed in the administration of the District, it should come from all the people of the United States through their elected representatives. Sincerely yours, RICHARD P. BUTRICK. MILLER & CHEVALIER, Washington, D.C., August 18, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I am heartily glad to see that you are bringing out the dangers of having the center of government managed not by the Congress but by the individuals who happen to reside in that small area. I have lived in the District for more than 40 years, and I have had a good chance to observe the workings of the District government, because for several years I was a member of the Advisory Committee of the Welfare Department. You might be interested in the enclosed clipping from the Chicago Tribune of July 28, 1958. The District was certainly set up to provide a place where the United States can house and protect its President, its Congress, and its Supreme Court. That remains its principal function, and those who have moved here have done so with that knowledge. Unless it is clear that the people who happen to live here are better qualified than the Congress of the United States to take care of the running of the District, that running cannot safely be confided to residents of the District. It does not seem reasonable to expect of them anything greater than serving their own individual interests. They are unlikely to have either the knowledge or the inclination to run the District of Columbia for the benefit of the Government. As you have brought out, the experiment has been tried in the past without success. Granted that there are many features of the present running of the District of Columbia which ought to be improved, there is no ground for assuming that the governmental purposes would be better served if the United States abrogated to the residents its duty of providing a safe center of government. The enclosed copy of a memorandum I wrote in 1959 contains nothing, I think, that you do not already have in mind, but I am enclosing it just in case it may be of assistance. This letter requires no answer. ROBERT N. MILLER. [From the Chicago Daily Tribune, July 28, 1958] WARNING TO WASHINGTON CHICAGO, JULY 17.-The bill pending in the Senate which would give local self-government to the citizens of Washington prompts me to say the district had home rule once, but according to Professor Munro in his book, "The Government of the United States," "There was so much extravagance and inefficiency that Congress ultimately decided to intervene, which it did with a drastic hand in 1874." Continuing, the authors says, "As a practical matter, the people of the district are far better off than if Congress allowed them to elect all local officials and pay all their own expenses. They have the most efficiently governed city in the world. Local self-government would more than double the rate of taxation and the people would get less for their increased taxes." Home rule would mean a city hall with life tenure for marble polishers and their helpers, tuckpointers, night cleaners, sanitary engineers, and catch basin bricklayers. It would mean aldermen visiting San Francisco to inspect that city's underground garage, timing their junket to be in Louisville on Derby Day. It would mean a board of election commissioners bargaining for truck hire and storage spaces for voting machines, and a civil service commission giving the pole position to inlaws and municipal judges enjoying sabbatical leaves every fifth year. It would mean buying tickets for ward committeemen's fish fries and for the elevator starter's birthday, all of the above and more to be paid for by the newly enfranchised. Home rule would raise a social barrier that would shake the district from center to circumference, for Federal employees, of whom Jefferson once said "few die and none resign," would not accept the city hall crowd. THOMAS K. DAVEY. MEMORANDUM ABOUT GOVERNING THE DISTRICT The residents of the District of Columbia, being citizens of the United States, should have the right to vote on national issues along with the other citizens of the United States, and should have representation in Congress. But the Constitution designates the District as the "seat of government of the United States," and its government should continue to be the sole responsibility of the United States. The power to "exercise exclusive legislation of such District" is expressly given to the Congress by section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution-makers knew that people would come to live in the Federal District; why then was it decided that those people should not be granted a legislative body of their own, with the right to make the laws of the District? The Constitution-makers so provided because the United States needs to have day-to-day management of the area where the principal members of its executive, legislative, and judicial departments must function. The difference between a "seat of government” and an ordinary city was clear: the voters in cities-New York or Richmond or Charleston, for instance-manage their cities for the benefit of local residents, rather than for the benefit of the United States. A nationally motivated government rather than a locally motivated government of the Federal seat is necessary. To cite only one phase of the governmental problem, disorder in the Federal District is more damaging to the interests of the United States than disorder in any ordinary city, and there are causes of disorder peculiar to a seat of government because people come there from all parts of the world to deal with the Government. Experience shows that not infrequently they are in bad humor or irresponsible, or both. There are, of course, other areas where the Government, rather than the local residents, must manage the local policing, sanitation, welfare, communications, etc. Examples are to be found in governmental areas specially devoted to defense, conservation, recreation, etc. Citizens of the United States who choose to live in such areas do, indeed, have the right to vote in National and State affairs, but not the right to take over from the Government the local control of the Federal area. It would be a disturbing weakness in our system if the United States could not validly set aside an area as its seat of government, to be managed by it in the Government's interest. The present claim that the local voters, and not the voters of the United States, should govern the Federal District seems to deny to the United States that necessary right, in spite of the constitutional policy, and in spite of the reasons why it was adopted. Within the large Metropolitan Washington area the District of Columbia is only a relatively small central area, roughly analogous to the downtown areas of other cities, say the Loop in Chicago or Mid-Manhattan in New York City. While it is true that some of the residents in such downtown areas are well qualified for selecting, by their votes, the executives to govern and the representatives to make local laws, it is also true that such central areas have an especially large percentage of citizens who have had so difficult a time in merely existing as to have had little preparation for wise participation in such selections. The peculiarly transient and fluctuating population of the District of Columbia is also to be considered in deciding whether the United States can safely entrust the management of its seat of government to the local population. Last July Thomas K. Davey, in a letter published in the Chicago Tribune, pointed out the lack of success of a previous experiment. "The bill pending in the Senate which would give local self-government to the citizens of Washington prompts me to say the District had home rule once, but according to Professor Munro in his book, "The Government of the United States,' "There was so much extravagance and inefficiency that Congress ultimately decided to intervene, which it did with a drastic hand in 1874.'" This writer is a citizen of the District and has been so for many years. Can it be sound to say that, merely because I and others are permitted to reside in the constitutionally designated District, we can oust the Government of its right to manage its own Federal District? 52-505 0-6530 Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, PHILLIPS INSURANCE AGENCY, Chairman, District of Columbia Affairs Committee, House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: No doubt many residents and nonresidents of the District will bring pressure on Congress to vote for a local government that fits their own particular designs. As for myself, I enjoy living in the Nation's Capital because I feel it is a singular privilege to be in such historical surroundings where my children can see leaders from all walks of life and all parts of the world, and frankly, I enjoy the low real estate taxes. On the other hand, I am fearful and ashamed of the disregard for law and order in Washington. As for voting, I feel that I vote each month I choose to stay in Washington. If the District government is to be modified, it seems to me it should be done slowly and thoughtfully with the firm resolution of respecting the Constitution. Let us consider No. 1: Crime. If we have home rule as a separate jurisdiction, could the District of Columbia National Guard put down a $200 million riot like the one that is going on in Los Angeles? Or, on the other hand, are we now safer with the protection of the U.S. Armed Forces that Congress or the President might use? A third possibility would be the use of the Maryland National Guard if the Capitol retroceded to Maryland. Second, we are confined by a limited space. Even now, Prince Georges commissioners are unhappy at the prospect of District of Columbia residents living in their jurisdictions. Incidentally, if this is the trend, will District of Columbia residents living in public housing in other jurisdictions have the right to vote in the District of Columbia elections? Third, the argument is proposed that all Americans should be able to vote. If that is the case, shouldn't there be one bill enfranchising residents of military posts and Federal territories under U.S. rule rather than a separate bill for each territory? Fourth. Each State is contributing an average of over $1 million to subsidize the District. This is certainly a generous amount. In weighing the merits of home rule, it seems to me that Congress should determine whether it is in the best interest of the Nation to pour in large sums of money to be used in a way that would make the Capital a place of national pride or whether its purpose is to discontinue these large grants so that the residents might have their own independent home rule. Last, I feel that should home rule come, could there be some way of uniting split communities such as Chevy Chase, and Takoma Park and could there be some way of encouraging the many former residents of Washington now living in the suburbs to move back in? At present, Washington has reached a point where liberal-oriented voters seem to be attracted in and conservative-oriented voters seem to be attracted out. Thus, Washington seems to be developing into a solidly one-party community. I know that you and your committee will give due consideration to this issue. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, WILLIAM R. PHILLIPS, Chairman, 12th Precinct (Republican). House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I want to add my voice to those who spoke today against home rule for the District of Columbia. I have been a resident of the District of Columbia since 1918, have taken an active part in the civic betterment of our city, and am convinced that home rule is not the answer to our problems. In fact, home rule would increase problems. I belong to a number of organizations and while I cannot speak for the organizations as they have taken no formal action, the majority of the members feel as I do. I will not go into detail as my views would be a repetition of some expressed by you and by the people who appeared before your committee today. Sincerely yours, ELLA C. WERNER. P.S.-Knowing how busy you and your staff are, I do not expect a reply to this letter. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee. MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I am writing this for the benefit of the House District Committee. I wish to state to the committee that I am opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia. There are many reasons I could cite, but it should be sufficient to say, "Let us live by our Constitution and not break down that which was set up for the good of our country." I have lived in the District of Columbia for over 25 years, and I feel that my voice should carry more weight than the voices of those people living elsewhere in the United States. Please see that my opinion is properly noted. Yours truly, GRETCHEN J. WILMOTH. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a resident of the District of Columbia for 25 years, and a property owner there, I wish to express my determined opposition to home rule for the District, and that for reasons cited by you to your colleagues a few days ago. Very truly yours, J. GAY SEABOURNE. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. DEAR SIR: I am opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia and oppose the legislation under consideration in the House District Committee designed to bring this about. I am a permanent resident of the District and have owned property and paid taxes here for 30 years. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MARY HASLACKER. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a resident of and a voter in the District of Columbia I agree with the stand you take on the home rule bill for the District of Columbia. Further, I think the Federal Government should be permitted to participate in the elimination or at least reduction of the heavy crime rate in the District so that local residents would not have to constantly live in fear. Sincerely yours, MARIE V. CHOMO. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. DEAR SIR: In reading in the Washington Daily News of your efforts to stop home rule in the District of Columbia. I am a resident here since 1933. I know a little about the Nation's Capital, I came to from Pennsylvania. When I arrived here I knew and all others did, that this was the peoples Capital-not for Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or any other State. It was a beautiful city, no crime, and all had the right to vote in their own States, if they chose to. I support you, the President, and all the things that make good government. But, sir, for all these long years that Washington, D.C., did not have this so-called home rule, you, I, and your constituents lived in a very nice city. It seems now that the Federal Government is being pressured into a position that this Nation's Capital should be handed over to a mob rule. I, for one, don't want to see this. As far as civil rights are concerned, I suppose all of us want rights. But to turn this Capital City over to this kind of thinking is something I just cannot understand. I am fully aware of the pressures brought on the Members of Congress. They don't want to lose their jobs, nor do I. But, sir, there are some times more important things in our life. As for me I am getting old, worked all my life, and am as always very glad that this Nation gave me a chance to life—a very good life. I never received a penny from any source than my own making. I just still work day to day to make a living. I am sure that there are some things, that have to be corrected in our society. But when all the Congress and the Federal Government has done in the past few years to help and then to have to submit in this kind of logic is far beyond me. This has been a lengthy letter and I am sorry. But I just had to state my thoughts. So in closing I will say may God bless you and guide you in your work. Respectfully, JOHN J. DUZER. To the Honorable BASIL WHITENER. WASHINGTON D.C., August 22, 1965. DEAR SIR: I wish to express my strong objection to having home rule in the District of Columbia. I feel that this city should remain in the control of Congress, it being the Capital of the United States, and a Federal Reserve. I am a 62 years' resident of Washington and pay income and numerous other taxes here. Many of my friends speak of moving away if home rule is passed. There is a feeling that incompetency will result if this change takes place. Most sincerely yours, F. E. SIZER. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 1965. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: My parents, my husband, and I have all previously lived in States where we exercised our votes. At first we thought we were missing a great deal in the District, but after 10 years of residence and analysis of the situation, we have concluded that what we're missing is a lot of local graft and expensive infighting among layers of city pressure groups. As a student of political science and a conscientious American citizen, I believe that, at most, District residents and taxpayers (not necessarily relief recipients) should have a voice in local matters through in-residence congressional representatives. A great deal more research needs to be done before drastic steps are taken. And a referendum among city residents is certainly in order. Our experience in the local, previously nonpolitical citizens' groups have taught us the bitter lesson that there is a wild-eyed political clique ready to take over the moment the District of Columbia has "self-government" and only conformity to their demagoguery will be allowed. There will be no place for me or my family in this city if they take over. Yours truly, DOROTHY L. MARSHALL. |