audit by the Federal Government. If there is no charge for it now, we would like to know what those charges are going to be.

The CHAIRMAN. You think we ought to determine in advance just exactly what it would cost to make that audit and put the amount in the bill?

Mr. MCKEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you could fix the cost of your wife's budget for sugar and coffee and meat and so on next August. Do you suppose you could do that and write it out now?

Mr. MCKEE. Not unless I went to the store and bought it ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think these trivial details we are talking about here should be left to the council you elect yourself, the people you vote for, and put in office for the purpose of representing you?

Mr. McKEE. It may be. But also, Senator, I remind you, as was pointed out, when the work was done, it was done with the intent of letting you gentlemen know that the bill had been studied. If we had crossed over two or three paragraphs, you may say we have not studied the bill, and we believed we should come here to show you that the thing was properly studied by us, and discussed, sir.

Senator CASE. I think that is encouraging.

I think the principle the chairman just stated is a good one, and personally I could carry it even further. If I have any feeling about the bill in that respect, it is that there is too much detail in the bill now. I personally would exercise the principle of home rule further and give the council even more authority to pass on the reorganization of government, and let it work it out. I think that is the principle

of home rule.

Mr. McKEE. In going through it, I have done what I am doing now, sir, to prove we have not come in here without having studied the bill. And as far as going any further, just taking the time, I think I have demonstrated the bill has been studied.

Senator CASE. I think you have. But these details that you are against would be appropriate representations for you to make to your elected council, city council, and let the council work on those things. That would be exercising by them home rule.

Mr. MCKEE. When you are speaking of home rule, I am possibly not as learned--I am not a member of the bar, sir, and I cannot reach back as others would, into a law book. But where else is there a home rule today that is a part of the possession of the United States that we may now be considering for statehood? Is there any such bill existing or area existing under home rule that we could study how they are functioning-whether successful or unsuccessful?

Senator CASE. We have Territorial legislatures in the Territories. Mr. McKEE. I realize we have that, yes, sir, before they became States. But I want to know if it is patterned under this home rule. I am not familiar with it. I am seeking information.

The CHAIRMAN. Cannot you find your illustration of the way home rule operates in municipalities in every city in the United States from New York City to a city of 2,000 population?

Mr. MCKEE. But it is such a difference between this and your city councils, sir, set up by law, to actually do things.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, because the circumstances, as we have already pointed out, are entirely different. Here the Federal Government owns approximately 50 percent of all the property in the District of Columbia. In the matter of the budget to which you refer, the Federal Government must have some representation. That is why we provide that the President appoint two members of the Council to represent approximately 50 percent of the property values in the District.

Mr. MCKEE. All right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that is an unreasonable precaution to take for your Government?

Mr. MCKEE. By the Constitution, as I stated earlier, sir, you are charged with that. You cannot ignore it. You are charged with that. I cannot ask you to divest yourself of something you are charged with by the Constitution.

Senator CASE. Then you are not objecting to that?

Mr. McKEE. What we believe

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; he objected to it before you came in, Senator. At least, I understood you to object to the President appointing two members of the Council on the ground that the people are going to have to pay for it.

Mr. McKEE. If Congress is going to take the same power it does to create legislation for the District, as it is now doing, except for police powers and city ordinances, I do not see why the other expenditure is necessary for two members representing the Federal Government.

You as a body up here represent the Federal Government. If that only means one more teacher in our public schools, I want to eliminate it.

The CHAIRMAN. On the theory that the people of the District of Columbia would have to pay for that extra?

Mr. McKEE. When you talk about home rule, and the Council running it, there are two people in there who may sway these other people on the Council because of their appointment by the President of the United States. I do not say they will attempt to, or will, but it may be possible.

The CHAIRMAN. You are enlarging your objection now. I understood, from what you said awhile ago, that you objected solely on the ground that the people of the District would have to pay the salary of these two members.

Mr. McKEE. It will be in our budget, as so set up in here as an 11-man Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to it on the ground of its cost, or on the ground it violates some principle?

Mr. McKEE. It is superfluous material on the Board.

The CHAIRMAN. You think the people of the District ought not to have to pay for that part of their government?

Mr. MCKEE. If they are going to elect those people, they should be the only ones without confusing it with appointees.

Now, the other thing we have always objected to is your section 1206 on page 81.

Mr. MCKEE. That is the section that provides for dual voting privileges.

In that connection, there have been two towns particularly pointed out in the United States where that exists. One of them is Cheverly, Md., nearby, which was originally inhabited by employees of the Federal Government, who had voting privileges elsewhere, which they would not surrender. So, as they themselves were the only ones in the town, it was conserved for that little area that they would have the right to vote in Cheverly and not forfeit their right in another State. Today the population of that town has grown, by the report of the postmaster, to the huge sum of 2,700 inhabitants.

The other town is across the line, on Rhode Island Avenue NE., known as Brentwood, with a population of 2,400, in the same category of being founded as the other town was there in Cheverly.

Senator CASE. How was that provision made?

Mr. McKEE. The provision for that little area, for that town, provides they will not forfeit their rights in their State, but cannot vote in the State of Maryland for any other offices.

Senator CASE. That was an act by the Legislature of Maryland?

Mr. McKEE. The town council created their own town, and through their own charter created it.

Now we are offering to the residents of the District, regardless of voting privileges elsewhere, the same right in this jurisdiction, which is, mind you, approximately the ninth largest city in the United States.

Senator, I say to you, if you went back to your State and stated that anyone who lived in that area for a year, regardless of where else he is voting, shall have the right to vote in your largest city-I don't have to tell you what would happen. The press would crucify you. Yet you are asking us to do the same thing.

Senator CASE. I am not asking you, if you are addressing your re

mark to me.

Mr. MCKEE. When I say "you," please, sir, remember, I am speaking about the language of the bill, and always referring to the sponsors of the bill only. Sometimes I use the wrong word. When I say "you," I am speaking as to the body of which you are now presiding over the bill.

Senator CASE. Not I; the chairman is.

Mr. MCKEE. Well, you are sitting in on it, too, sir. I wanted you to know I did not mean you, personally. I apologize for it.

If you can convince me on that, I will carry it back to my group. I have an open mind.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any chance of our convincing you that you should support this bill.

Mr. MCKEE. Not this bill. I said on that point of dual voting. The CHAIRMAN. Since there is no chance of convincing you on the whole bill, I am not going to waste time trying to convert you on any part of it.

Mr. McKEE. I think that is as far as I need to go, unless there are

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Case, do you have any questions?

Senator CASE. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

(The American Legion report submitted by Mr. McKee is as follows:)

THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, February 5, 1948.

DEAR POST COMMANDER AND POST LEGISLATIVE OFFICER: Enclosed please find report of the action of the department legislative committee in regard to H. R. 4902, otherwise referred to as the Auchincloss home-rule bill for the District of Columbia.

In it you will find the objections of the legislative committee.

I was unable to obtain enough copies of the bill to forward to each the post commander and the post legislative officer, but am sending to each post commander the bill H. R. 4902.

This is a vital piece of legislation, and it is your duty to study both the report and the bill.

While many of the members of the legislative committee have already been furnished a copy of the bill, I would appreciate if the post commander will immediately contact his legislative officer so that the two of them can go over the material together, and then present it to the members of their respectivě posts at their next meeting, so that the post commander or whoever is delegated to represent him will be prepared to vote either in favor of the action taken or vote against the action taken at the next regular executive committee meeting, scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 1948, at 8 p. m.

May I, in closing, thank the members of the legislative committee for their intelligent analyzation and discussion on the subject matter.

Yours in comradeship,

JEROME B. MCKEE, Chairman, Department Legislative Committee.

THE AMERICAN LEGION,

DEPARTMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
February 5, 1948.

JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE MEMBERS: A subcommittee was assigned the task of analyzing H. R. 4902 in the following manner.

E. W. Luther of the Kenneth H. Nash Post took the first portion of the bill ending with section 710; Charles Tittman, in collaboration with Gibb L. Baker, both of Gardner Post, took sections 711 to 1105, inclusive; Edward B. Williams of Thad Dulin Post took sections 1106 to 1322, inclusive; Abner C. Lakenan of Labor Post took sections 1323 to 2201, inclusive. To the chairman, Jerome B. McKee, was delegated the task of covering the mandate of Congress as embodied in article 1, section 8, of the Constitution, together with defining the purpose of the proposed H. R. 4902, together with the findings of the full committee.

A special meeting of the full committee to discuss the bill was held Thursday, January 29, 1948, at the American Legion headquarters, and 34 posts were represented.

Each member of the subcommittee thoroughly analyzed the various sections of the bill with full discussion on its parts as set forth herein.

Upon conclusion of discussion, the following motion was approved by 27 members, the other 7 members being recorded as not voting.

"Resolved, That the legislative committee of the American Legion, Department of the District of Columbia, is opposed to H. R. 4902 in toto and that the chairman, Jerome B. McKee, so advise the department executive committee of its findings."

An additional motion was voted upon wherein 33 voted in favor and 1 was recorded as not voting, which motion was as follows:

"Resolved, That our chairman, Jerome B. McKee, be authorized to appear before

to insert his findings as read by him to the committee, and the findings of the committee; also prepare his report for our department executive committee meeting to be held Thursday, February 26, 1948, for their approval or disapproval in compliance with procedure of this department."

The findings of the executive committee will thereafter be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Home Rule for the District of Columbia by our department commander, Owen C. Holleran, in conformity with our procedure.

Our committee recognized that H. R. 4902 could not be discussed intelligently unless they had also studied the report of the subcommittee pursuant to House Resolutions 195 and 228, because embodied in it are the conclusions reached that created H. R. 4902.

Unfortunately, only a few have had the opportunity of studying the statements of all who appeared before the subcommittee, and we doubt if very many will tackle this arduous task.

The three objectives sought by your committee were enumerated as follows: 1. Relieving Congress as much as possible of the burdensome housekeeping function of the District of Columbia while still retaining essential control in Congress as required by the Constitution.

2. Creating a representative local government for the District chosen by qualified electors.

3. Providing an efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia.

In its report your subcommittee had this to say:

If all three of these objectives are to be achieved, it is obvious that the problems of home rule and reorganization of the District government are inextricably tied together.

Home rule by itself might accomplish the first and second objectives, but would not guarantee the third.

Reorganization by itself might achieve the third aim, but would not affect the first and second. Therefore, the subcommittee has considered home rule and reorganization in combination.

But your subcommittee did not say that it could streamline its functions and streamline the functions of the District by combining Nos. (1) and (3). However, it makes reference to such an idea when it states:

"If it were decided that the District should not have local home rule, our recommendations as to reorganization of the District government would be different in several material respects. For example, the subcommittee would be considerably less concerned about a clear separation between Federal and District agencies, if there were no local home rule in the District, because District residents would have nothing to say with respect to either type of agency.

I now present to you the findings of the committee in chronological order. Webster's Dictionary defines "home rule" as

"Government of a district, colony, territory, etc., by the inhabitants themselves, particularly with regard to local matters."

We concur that a reorganization of the District government should be instituted, and our reasons for saying this is embodied further on in this presentation, but for the most part we discussed home-rule provisions.

Title I, section 1, states: "This act may be cited as the 'Charter of the District of Columbia'."

Title II, section 201, states "for government purposes," but governing powers will still lay in the hands of Congress and the President of the United States. Therefore, the charter does not truly create a body politic.

Title III, section D, gives a blank check to spend money which money comes from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia.

Section D, chapter 2, lines 12 to 14, also gives a blank check. Section 303 also gives a blank check. Section 304 (1), (2), and (2B) places control in Congress not control by the citizens.

Title IV permits Federal employees to serve on the elected Council. What special privileges will be granted them to spend the time to attend 48 meetings a year? Will these meetings be full-day meetings, or a couple of hours in the evening each week?

If an Army officer is elected to the Council, and failed to please someone in