Argument: No city the size of Washington has ever had the manager form of government.

Rebuttal: Cleveland, Ohio, with a present estimated population of 900.000, has had the manager form of government. Cincinnati, with a present population estimated at 500,000, is the largest city in the United States now having this form of government. Among other large cities which now have the manager type of government are Rochester, Hartford, Richmond, Dallas, and Oakland. The basic principles of the manager form of government are applicable to cities of any size.

Argument: The District Manager proposed by the Kefauver bill would become the all-powerful boss of Washington.

Rebuttal: Section 502 of the Kefauver bill provides that "the District Manager shall be the chief executive officer of the District government. He shall be responsible to the District Council for the proper administration of the affairs of the District coming under his jurisdiction or control To this end he is given powers of appointment, removal, and supervision commensurate with his responsibilities. But he is subordinate to the council which appoints him and which may remove him at any time. He must perform his duties in such a way as to meet with the approval of the council. Under the manager system, the line of responsibility runs straight up from the bureau chiefs to the department heads to the manager to the council to the electorate. Each has the power to dismiss those below it in case of corruption or incompetence, subject of course to the safeguards of the civil-service merit system. The general experience of the manager cities in the United States has been that the manager has not become the boss of the town.

Argument: Home rule would result in higher real estate and income taxes in the District of Columbia.

Rebuttal: Under the present system, increases in District tax rates must receive congressional approval. Under home rule, bills raising local tax rates would be subject to congressional veto. Taxation without representation is now the rule in the city of Washington. District residents have no voice in the determination of their tax rates or as to how their money shall be spent. Under the Kefauver bill they would have such a voice. Proposed changes in the tax rates would have to be initiated by the representatives of the people in the District Council and could be disapproved by Congress or vetoed by the President. Thus, whether District property and income taxes went up or down, they would change in response to the decisions of the elected representatives of the people in the District Council, subject to a congressional and Presidential veto. Washington would have taxation with representation for the first time in 75 years.

Argument: Transient residents would vote for bond issues which the permanent residents would have to pay for.

Rebuttal: This argument is based upon the false assumption that there are two kinds of people in Washington—the permanent residents and the transient, floating population. The population of Washington is as stable as that of any city in the country. To be sure, the individual composition of the federally employed population in the District of Columbia may change from time to time. But as long as Washington is the Capital of the country there will always be a hard core of Federal employees resident here even if they are not the same people to help pay the carrying charges on a local debt.

No State in the Union limits the right to vote on bond issues to its so-called permanent residents.

It has long been an accepted principle of public finance that governments should pay for their current operating expenses out of their current revenues, and that they may borrow for capital improvements such as schools, highways, plant and equipment, etc. In keeping with this principle, section 701 of the Kefauver bill authorizes the District government to borrow for capital improvements, but limits its maximum indebtedness to an amount not exceeding 5 percent of the assessed value of the taxable real property in the District.

The Kefauver bill also provides a triple hurdle for bond issues. First, they must be approved by majority vote in the District Council. Second, bonds may be issued only after approval by majority vote in a popular referendum. And, third, the bond issue may be disapproved by Congress or the President. These three safeguards, together with the 5-percent debt limit, will prevent the new

Argument: Passage of the Kefauver bill will mean the reduction or elimination of the annual Federal payment to the District.

Rebuttal: Title XX of the Kefauver bill provides for an annual Federal contribution toward the cost of the District government amounting to 20 percent of District local revenues during the preceding fiscal year. This formula, if it were now in effect, would produce a Federal contribution to the District of $20,000,000 in 1950. The actual Federal payment to the District this year is a lump sum amounting to $12,000,000. Thus the formula in the Kefauver bill would increase the Federal payment in 1950 by $8,000,000.

Argument: The passage of the Kefauver bill would not save much congressional time.

Rebuttal: One of the main arguments in favor of home rule for Washington bas been that it would relieve Congress of the onerous task of functioning as a city council for the District of Columbia when it ought to be devoting its full attention to more important national and international problems. It has been carefully estimated that the House of Representatives alone devotes 3,000 manhours each session to the consideration of District affairs. The House and Senate together probably devote at least 5,000 man-hours a year to District of Columbia business. The House of Representatives sets aside 2 days each month for the consideration of District business.

Most of this congressional time would be saved under home rule because the formulation of District legislation-most of the 28 stages in the enactment of an act of Congress-would be devolved upon the District Council and the time spent in its consideration would be spent at the local level instead of at the national level. Under the legislative veto procedure set forth in the Kefauver bill, for possible use in the 10 percent of District legislation subject to congressional review all Congress need do under home rule is vote up or down a concurrent resolution of disapproval if one is introduced.

Argument: If Washington had home rule, the colored people would capture control of the District government.

Rebuttal: This objection is not openly raised by the board of trade, but it is whispered about and is one of the silent obstacles to passage of the Kefauver bill. The truth is that, under the method of voting provided for in the Kefauver bill, no minority group in the District could possibly win a majority of the nine elective seats on the District Council, or a majority of the seven elective seats on the Board of Education. Title XII of the bill provides for a system of city-wide voting in which the candidates who receive the largest number of votes in the general election shall be elected to these offices.

The Negro population of Washington has been remarkably stable through the years. Since 1880 it has varied between one-fourth and one-third of the total population of the District. At the present time, according to the latest census estimates, the Negroes account for about 30 percent of the city's population. This percentage would entitle them to three out of the nine elective seats on the District Council. In Richmond, Va., which has the manager form of government and where 32 percent of the population is colored, only one of the nine members of the city council is a Negro. The colored people have the right to participate in the political life of a community in proportion to their numbers and their qualifications. The experience of other cities in the United States where the colored people are allowed to vote shows that they do not vote en bloc, but scatter their votes as the white people do. In short, it is a myth that home rule for Washingon would mean domination by the Negroes.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission also to include in my remarks another statement by Senator Kefauver in reply to the criticisms made here yesterday by the Board of District Commissioners of this bill. The Commissioners made similar criticisms in July 1949 of an identical bill introduced in the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress by Mr. Klein of New York. Senator Kefauver's reply at that time to the criticisms of the Commissioners applies, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. West's comments yesterday.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY MR. KEFAUVER IN REPLY TO DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS' CRITICISMS OF S. 1527

I have examined with interest the report of the District Commissioners on H. R. 4981, the home rule bill introduced in the House by Mr. Klein which is identical with S. 1527 which the Senate passed on May 31. And I heartily welcome their endorsement of home rule for the people of Washington "as a matter of principle." It is a great gain for the cause of democracy in the Nation's Capital city to have this impressive support from the present heads of the city government.

The Commissioners' letter of July 14, 1949, is largely devoted to a score of technical criticisms of particular provisions of the bill. I think that many of the technical changes they suggest in the home rule bill are deserving of careful consideration and that some of them might well be adopted in the conference report on the measure after it has passed the House of Representatives. Most of their suggested changes are relatively minor in nature and their consideration by the House District Committee at this time would, I think, unnecessarily delay report of the bill to the House. Four of the 21 questions raised by the Commissioners, however, involve major provisions of the bill which I would object to changing.

QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP ON DISTRICT COUNCIL

The Commissioners question the advisability of excluding from membership on the District Council persons who hold appointive office in the District government, while permitting Federal employees to serve on the council (sec. 302). They apparently feel that Federal employees should not be permitted to be members of the council.

In actual practice, few District government employees would be affected by this provision of the bill. If a Federal employee were elected to the council and if some question arose that affected the interests of the Federal agency by which he were employed, he could refrain from voting. Such cases would, I think, be most exceptional. The judges of our Federal courts customarily refrain from participating in the decision of cases in which they have a personal interest. A District councilman could do likewise.

According to reliable estimates, Federal employees constitute 20 percent of the total adult population of the District. Why should Federal employment disqualify a person from part-time service on the District Council? Because of his occupation he probably has a special acquaintance with public affairs which would increase his value as a councilman. Probably he has lived in Washington for many years, owns a home here, pays real estate and other local taxes, sends his children to District schools, and has a stake in the efficiency of the municipal services. If no Federal employee could serve on the District Council, the 137,556 Federal employees in the District of Columbia would have no direct voice in the deliberations of the Council and the special interests of one-fifth of the population of Washington might be discriminated against. Lacking a forum in the council, they would turn to Congress to protect their interests and the stage would be set for conflicts between Congress and the council over the conduct of local affairs.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE VETO PROCEDURE

The second major question raised by the Commissioners relates to the constitutionality of the legislative veto procedure in section 402 of the bill. Until this question has been settled in the courts, they say, great uncertainty would prevail in the District as to what the law really is.

My bill makes a grant of general legislative authority to the proposed District council and conditions its effectiveness upon the absence of congressional disapproval by concurrent resolution of both Houses, within a specified time. The constitutionality of this procedure is now generally conceded. The question was not even raised by Mr. Colladay, general counsel of the Washington Board of Trade, when he recently testified on this legislation before the House District

Reorganization Acts of 1939 and 1945, the constitutionality of which has never been challenged. The validity of this procedure has been upheld in opinions from the Attorney General of the United States, from House and Senate legislative counsel, and from eminent constitutional lawyers.

It is quite possible that a litigant in some case based upon the provisions of a District law adopted under the legislative proposal procedure of this bill might attack the constitutionality of the procedure. A period of uncertainty might ensue, but there exists in the Judicial Code procedure for a rapid resolution of any such question. Upon the challenge of the constitutionality of such a statute, the Federal Government would be notified and would presumably exercise its right to intervene. If the decision of the lower court were against the validity of the statute, an appeal could be taken directly to the United States Supreme Court (28 U. S. C., secs. 2403 and 1252).

BOND ISSUES MIGHT INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES

The third major objection of the Commissioners to the Senate-approved bill is that the burden of financing the bond issues authorized by section 701 of the bill would fall primarily upon the owners of real estate in the District.

* *

My answer to this objection is that section 731 of the bill provides that "the District Council shall apply the proceeds of such taxes and other revenues as may be necessary to pay the principal of and the interest on such bonds The financing of the bonds is to be a charge upon all the revenues of the District, of which in the fiscal year 1948 property taxes yielded 54 percent. Nothing in the home rule bill would eliminate the revenues now derived from local income, sales, or other tax sources; nor would the bill prevent the Council from submitting to Congress a legislative proposal to increase the revenues of the District from sources other than property taxes in order to finance capital improvements.

My bill provides that the debt of the District shall be limited to not more than 5 percent of the assessed value of the taxable real property in the District. This is a conservative debt limit compared with debt limits in other cities of the United States. Moreover, the bill further provides that the bonds shall be issued only after majority approval in a popular referendum of the voters, which is an added safeguard against extravagant borrowing.

DUAL VOTING PRIVILEGES

The fourth major objection of the Commissioners is "to extending the privilege of voting to those who are not domiciled in the District or who retain voting privileges elsewhere." They assert that bond issues might be voted by "temporary residents in the District" and paid for by the "permanent residents" (sec. 1206 (b)).

The fundamental error in this objection is the attempt to distinguish between "permanent" and "temporary" residents, between Federal employees and "the people of the District." This is a false dichotomy. For the reasons given above, Federal employees are "people of the District" as much as anyone else who lives here and has a stake in its government. To suppose that the "genuine" people of the District are a few native sons is a supercilious conceit which is contrary to fact.

The argument that bond issues might be voted by persons here only for a period of years, and paid by the "permanent residents," is based upon the same false assumption that there are two kinds of people in Washington-the floating population and the permanent residents. All the people of the city have a stake in its capital improvements-its schools, hospitals, highways, etc. And all the taxpayers will help pay the carrying charges on such bond issues. Nowhere in the United States is the right to vote on bond issues limited to the so-called "permanent residents" of a community.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Galloway, we are much obliged to you for your testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. If the people of the District are not granted the right of self-government it will not be your fault.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you, sir. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to interrupt the agenda as prepared by the clerk to hear from Senator Smith of Maine. That is always a privilege and a pleasure.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have had the very great privilege of serving on this District of Columbia Committee last year, under the distinguished chairman, Mr. Neely of West Virginia.

I was a cosponsor, you will remember, of the bill last year, and did my bit toward its passage.

I come here to express my continued support of this measure, hoping very much that we can see that it passes both the House and the Senate in this Eighty-second Congress.

I will continue to do my bit, and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to so express myself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Smith. You have been a Joan of Arc in endeavoring to get self-government in the District of Columbia.

Senator SMITH. There is one way that one can learn about the District, and that is to serve on this committee, and it is a privilege that we should all enjoy. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We regret that you are not with us on this committee any longer. We have wonderful persons on the committee now, but we have never ceased to regret that you found it necessary to leave it.

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We hope you will come often.

Senator SMITH. Thank you. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Jesse Manbeck, secretary, Central Suffrage Conference, Inc.

STATEMENT OF JESSE B. MANBECK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CENTRAL SUFFRAGE CONFERENCE, INC.

Mr. MANBECK. Senator, I am going to try to save a little time here, if the committee will so permit, by just reading excerpts, and then giving the stenotypist the complete document.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed as you wish.

Mr. MANBECK. My name is Jesse B. Manbeck of 1 Scott Circle NW. I am appearing here today as an American citizen who has resided in the District of Columbia for more than 15 years, continuously.

I am, and have been, for the past 5 years the executive secretary of the Central Suffrage Conference, Inc., of the District of Columbia. I am a past secretary of the District of Columbia Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and a former president of Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, A. F. of L.-America's oldest labor