upon the groups now receiving subsistence or minimum wages who must pay a large part of their meager earnings for daily purchases now subject to the sales tax. Accordingly the guild urges the committee to increase the provision for the Federal contribution substantially. We recommend that the committee give favorable consideration to the proposal in H. R. 2505 (Marcantonio bill) that the Federal Government contribute to the District whatever sum would be paid if the Federal property and embassy property were not tax-exempt. IX. CITY MANAGER AND ELECTED CITY COUNCIL The guild desires to express whole-hearted approval, as it has done in all its past testimony on home rule, for the provisions of all home-rule bills before the committee providing for the election of a city council and the appointment of a qualified city manager. We believe such a system will bring maximum efficiency to the city government. X. BORROWING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The guild commends the proposal that the District shall be given the power to float bonds. However, we think too low a limit is set on this power. S. 1527 proposes that the limit shall be 5 percent of taxable real property. H. R. 28 proposes that it shall be 3 percent of taxable real property. The Auchincloss bill of 1948 (H. R. 4902) and the Marcantonio bill (H. Ř. 2505) set the figure at 10 percent of taxable real property. We think the 10-percent figure is proper to provide adequate power for future contingencies. Adequate protection for fiscal security will exist since all bills provide that all bonds must be approved by city-wide referendum. XI. UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE Both S. 1527 and H. R. 28 provide that the United States Employment Service is to be transferred to the District. Normally, the guild would heartily endorse this move. However, since the government of the District of Columbia officially practices a policy of racial discrimination and segregation, which is totally repugnant to the guild, we urge the committee to reject this transfer and the related transfer of the functions of the Bureau of Employees' Compensation and the Employees' Compensation Board in the Federal Security Agency. If this transfer goes through, it will mean in all probability that racial segregation will be brought into being where it does not now exist. The guild believes that legislation recommended by the report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights should be adopted by the Congress. Until that is done, we believe that Federal functions where racial segregation is not now practiced should not be transferred to a District government which officially practices these undemocratic policies. XII. REFERENDUM Both S. 1527 and H. R. 28 provide that the charter is not to become law until approved in a city-wide referendum. Similar referenda The guild believes such a referendum is totally unnecessary. are not held in other instances where Congress enacts legislation within its power and responsibility. Numerous referenda by the city's newspapers have already shown that the majority of the District wants meaningful home rule. Requirement of a referendum will merely give a further opportunity for those who oppose home rule to try to put off home rule for as long as possible. Moreover, many of the provisions of both bills by their very nature are not the sort which belong in any referendum. The detailed changes in city government which would be made by the reorganization procedures of the bill may very well be controversial to some people who fully support home rule. Each change may thus win opponents for the bill as a whole, in view of the need to vote the. entire charter up or down, in spite of the fact that there is clearly majority support in the District for the extension of home rule to the District. The guild therefore urges that the requirement of a charter referendum be dropped, and that the bill should become law immediately upon enactment by Congress and approval by the President. If the committee feels nevertheless that there should be a referendum, we urge that the referendum not include the reorganization provisions and be held merely on approval or rejection of home rule for the District. XIII. ELECTION OF MUNICIPAL JUDGES Home rule will not be completely effective until there is local control over the judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of the government. While conceding that the present court system is working well, we, as lawyers, believe that a definite plan should be drawn up which will preserve the existing efficiency but still enable the citizens to nominate and elect municipal judges as is done in other cities. True democracy will not be completely achieved in the District until the citizens of the District have a voice in choosing judges who deal with purely local affairs. STATEMENT OF M. J. LANE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION AGAINST SUFFRAGE FOR THE DISTRICT Following is the resolution passed by the Southeast Washington Citizens' Association: "We, the Southeast Washington Citizens' Association, oppose the Kefauver home rule plan for the District of Columbia, because it does not permit the people to select their own type of government; it does not permit national representation; it permits people who are not subject to local taxation to vote for municipal officials and bonded indebtedness; it reduces the Federal contribution to the District of Columbia, and if enacted into law, it will greatly increase local taxes." A special resolution asking that the District of Columbia public schools be kept apart from the Kefauver bill and under the present organic act with its modifications was also passed by way of emphasis. Any type of suffrage given to a city in which 50 percent of the land is not taxable will work hardship on the people concerned. Washington is not like any other city because it was originally selected as the seat of government and owns an enormous amount of land which it must protect and control. No other city in the United States has such a large number of residents like foreign diplomats and other foreign agents and employees who certainly should not be voting, even if allowed to do so by the Kefauver bill. No other city has such a large number of government officials and employees from other States who, even if they are told they will not lose their residence and voting privileges in other States, will not risk losing their positions or chances for advancement due to the quota law, no matter how often they are reassured that it will not operate against them. Many residents refuse to join a citizens Association in this city for fear it will change their status in the home State. The residents of Washington are not accustomed to voting and have no idea of assuming such a responsibility, even if born here. According to the recent Strayer report on the public schools, less than 50 percent of the parents join the parent teacher association, although the small fee for dues is used only for bettering the public schools; they are not interested. Under the Commissioner form of government, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission has performed a wonderful service. Washington is the most beautiful city in the United States. In the Kefauver bill, this Commission will have no authority, except on government property, and the city, instead of being unified in its charm, will soon begin to deteriorate in beauty. The Southeast Washington Citizens' Association is opposed to the Kefauver bill. STATEMENT BY M. J. LANE, PRESIDENT, AGAINST SUFFRAGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY CAPITOL HILL INTERNATIONAL Lions Club, WASHINGTON, D. C. The Capitol Hill Lions Club is opposed to suffrage for the District. The organization feels that while the present form of government can be made more efficient, it is now far ahead of what the situation will be under an elected government, and the heavy expense of conducting elections coupled with the inability to get outstanding people to run for office will make the future far worse than the present. Fine people can always find a way to serve the community by giving their services without becoming embroiled in an argument among minority groups. which is what the elections will probably be. An excellent example of what the future will be was recently given at the Anacostia swimming pool. The Capitol Hill Lions Club feels sure that the best qualified people will not trouble to run for office; if it is offered to them as an honor, they accept under present circumstances, but they will not spend the time or money to run for an office paying little. Those who are anxious to secure control of the city through politics are not of the same high calibre as the present incumbents. Why should a city like Washington have to accept as leaders, those who are not the best? Nothing that the so-called suffrage can offer the District is worth anything without national representation. The hope of securing that is remote. Also, when Congress has left the District to drift or manage its own affairs, it will have no further reason to be concerned with its welfare; that is to be expected. This organization understands why the United States Senate wishes to delegate responsibility for running the District to a board of managers, but it cannot abandon the District entirely. In case of crisis, how will the Federal Government protect governmental property and its own vital interests here? Washington was originally selected as the seat of government because Congress desired a Federal City that it could control and defend at all times, and this should always be borne in mind. Therefore the Capitol Hill Lions Club opposes suffrage for the District at the present time and under the Kefauver bill. STATEMENT BY ETTA L. TAGGART, PRESIDENT, THE WASHINGTONIANS, ON The Washingtonians, a citizens group, has for many years recorded itself before congressional committees and other groups as favoring national representation for the District of Columbia, and the group has specifically opposed the Kefauver bill for home rule for the said District of Columbia because it does not provide for national representation. It is believed that no home rule can be legally granted to the District of Columbia unless it is granted through a constitutional amendment, by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. No matter how many efforts are made to wiggle around the provision of the Constitution that Congress "shall have exclusive legislation in all cases" in the District of Columbia, we believe that under this clause Congress cannot legally delegate its power unless it is done by a constitutional amendment. Of course, it is realized that Congress can delegate to the municipal heads power to establish certain ordinances for the District but this is certainly far from genuine suffrage. By the Kefauver bill certain powers are granted to the District government, including powers which Congress could not legally delegate without a constitutional amendment, because of the exclusive-control provision over the District. This Congress fully realizes for by the Kefauver bill it retains a veto power over anything which might be done by the elected council, which is provided for in the Kefauver bill. By this veto power the most vital element of suffrage is lacking, that is the District will not have control of its affairs but Congress will still have control over the District affairs. It is believed that the Congress should retain this control because it cannot delegate its authority to anyone else to initiate legislation, and especially tax legislation. We wish to express our condemnation of the Kefauver bill, and especially the following provisions, which contain so many political angles, that neither of the provisions could possibly be for the best welfare of the voteless residents of the District but would result in the same old political situation with which the District has had to contend for many years: Section 301 provides for a Council of 11, 2 of whom shall be Presidential appointees. Section 404 provides for reservation of congressional authority giving a veto power over any acts of an elected Council. Section 1206 provides that to be qualified to vote in the District, it is not intended that a person be required to relinquish his rights in another jurisdiction, resulting in voting residents of another jurisdiction casting a vote for the election of our officials, which is dual voting. Section 1210 provides that ballots and voting machines shall show no party affiliations, emblem, or slogan, which would open the doors to many Communists who would not have to declare their party affiliation. There are other provisions which are just as obnoxious as the ones mentioned above but the above are outstanding objections. The group, representing the Washingtonians, sincerely deplores the fact that the voteless residents of the District of Columbia have been deprived for so many years of the right to vote, the greatest privilege of American citizenship, and it believes that there should be no place in this great United States where it can be said some American citizens are subject to taxation without representation under a Government which couples taxation with representation. There is no doubt whatsoever that the sovereign power in the District is lodged in the United States and it possesses full and unlimited jurisdiction. This power cannot be legally delegated except by a constitutional amendment, and we earnestly request that the Congress of the United States take steps for such an amendment which would give complete suffrage to our voteless city. Congress has a difficult road to travel in order to overcome that constitutional provision which gives exclusive legislation to Congress over the District, and it seems, as we have said many times before, that the only sure way to get the vote in the District is by amending the Constitution of the United States, cede us back to Maryland, or make us a State. STATEMENT OF MRS. WILLIS WHITE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SUFFRAGE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INC., FOR INCLUSION OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED HOME-RULE CHARTER Now UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D. C., June 20, 1949. The District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations requests the inclusion of the following specific legislative provisions in the proposed Home Rule Charter now under consideration by the honorable House Committee on the District of Columbia: 1. Home rule (self-government) for the District of Columbia (with national representation at the pleasure of the Congress). 2. A Council of the District of Columbia of locally elected representatives and chosen representatives of the National Government. 3. Election of members of the Council of the District of Columbia from uniform precincts set up into wards-not voted for at large. 4. A Board of Education of the District of Columbia elected in the same manner as members of the Council of the District of Columbia. 5. A District Manager appointed by the Council. 6. Barring from registration for voting of persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude (unless pardoned), and of persons of less than 2 years of actual continuous legal residence here. (We oppose educational tests of the type in Sec. 1207-A (3) of Senate bill 1527.) 7. Public housing rather than private exploitation under cover of slum clearance through exercise of the power of eminent domain by Government. Finally, the District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations expresses the hope that the Congress will be pleased to provide a flawless model of honest municipal government which will be a credit to the Capital of the United States both now and ever. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL WOMEN'S TRADE UNION LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WashINGTON, D. C.-TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY MRS. MARGARET F. STONE, CHAIRMAN OF LEGISLATION The National Women's Trade Union League has supported home rule for the District of Columbia for many years, and now urges a favorable report on S. 1527 so that action may be completed in this session of Congress. It seems self-evident that all citizens in a democracy should have a voice in their own government, and the modest home rule bill before your committee gives the citizens of the voteless District that voice without removing the Constitutional responsibility of Congress for the District of Columbia. It seems to us that the provision for review by Congress and the President of legislative proposals made by the City Council adequately safeguards the national interest, and eliminates any logical basis for opposition to home rule. An added advantage of home rule is that it will eliminate housekeeping details of the District from the badly overcrowded calendar of Congress and release much needed time for other legislation of national and international concern. A final point is that, at a time when emphasis is being placed on citizenship responsibility, it is important that individuals should not be penalized because they live at the seat of Government, by being denied the opportunity to assume the normal responsibilities of citizenship. We therefore urge prompt favorable action on home rule legislation as passed by the Senate in S. 1527. Hon. OREN HARRIS, WASHINGTON 18, D. C., July 28, 1949. Chairman, District of Columbia Subcommittee on Home Rule, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The following is a statement which I would like to submit to your committee for its consideration in studying the question of home rule for the District of Columbia as embodied by the Kefauver bill (S. 1527). My views are presented to the committee as those of an individual resident and taxpayer; as none of the testimony thus far given expresses my thoughts in toto, I thought it better to submit it for myself. I have lived in the District and owned my house here since 1932; I have joined civic organizations and taken part in efforts to improve the community. In doing this work I have found that there are two classes of interest in civic affairs: Those who are interested in the improvement and welfare of the city as a whole, and those interested only in the improvement of their particular section. As both factors work for the common good, if the people who hold these sentiments can be induced to be active, so that a nucleus of average, everyday citizens can be started from the first, and we can thus secure the benefit of honest and conscientious citizens working for the common good without bias or partisan politics, then we should have home rule and also some representation in Congress. I believe that can be done, but the people here need to be assured by Congress that the Congress will stand by them in the initial and crucial elections. While I have not always seen eye to eye with the Commissioners, I think we have had good men who would be hard to replace. Item 2 is the fiscal situation. The sales tax is something which may prove to be very unpopular, as it has elsewhere. People here were led to believe that the personal property tax on tangibles was going to be taken off, another unfair tax, but it appears that it is still with us. If we are going to have self-government, every resident, government employee or not, must pay income tax. Also, the Government must be restricted from taking any more land in the District, because we haven't enough to tax now. And I still believe in the "pay as you go" plan for District of Columbia expenditures. Item 3 is the organization of the Departments. The Kefauver plan and the Auchincloss plan both provide for 12 departments. These gentlemen and their aides have worked long and conscientiously, and great credit is due them, but I do not agree with their break-down of the city functions. I have been interested enough in the topic of city government in Washington, and the appalling lack of interest in, or knowledge of, its functions, by the very one who is most affected (the average taxpayer), and have compiled, for my own satisfaction, some sixtyodd pages of data concerning the District of Columbia and the plans for reorganization of the District of Columbia government from the Schmeckibier-Willoughby plan to the present, which I will be glad to submit for the committee's consideration. This is a sort of treatise which contains my own views, written in a manner to reach other "average citzens," and I believe that the committee would find it helpful. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, WILLIAM P. THOMAS, Jr. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee, SIR: The National Council of Jewish Women, an organization with over 84,000 members in over 220 sections throughout the country wishes to go on record in support of legislation to grant home rule to the District of Columbia. We have taken this position because we believe that the basic tenets of our democratic system require that people be given the opportunity to vote for the men who will govern their cities. To deprive this right to the citizens of the District of Columbia is an unfair discrimination against them. We believe further, that the Members of Congress who have many vitally important national and international problems before them should be relieved of |