since the 3d of January, the day on which this session of Congress began?

Mr. DAWSON. January what?

The CHAIRMAN. January 3 of this year.

Mr. DAWSON. Yes, I was. No action has been taken since then. certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as Mr. Atherholt's statement intimated that he was representing that association in offering his protest, would you say that was without authority?

Mr. DAWSON. That was without authority, in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to say anything further on this? Mr. DAWSON. That is all I am really qualified to say at the moment. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Did you give your name and address? Mr. DAWSON. I gave my name; yes. My address is 3434 Thirtyfourth Street NW.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lewis H. Rohrbaugh? Is Mr. Rohrbaugh present?

Dr. George W. Hodgkins? Is Mr. Hodgkins here?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. HODGKINS

Mr. HODGKINS. I am a member of various local organizations but am not officially delegated by any of them to speak in their behalf at this time.

I am a former president of the Kalorama Citizens' Association, which has taken action in favor of the Kefauver bill or home rule of that general type, at least, and I have been for a number of years a member of the board of the Central Suffrage Conference, which is in favor of the Kefauver bill, and some other organizations I am identified with are not in favor of it, such as the Washington Board of Trade, of which I have been a member for more than 30 years, but my testifying contrary to what that organization has already testified will be no news to them, as I have been outspoken in my opposition to their point of view in committee activity and on other occasions.

My personal view is in favor of home rule and to the effect that the Kefauver bill is very definitely a home-rule bill.

I may disagree with some particular provisions of it, but on the whole, I think it would give the city of Washington as extensive a measure of home rule as any city in the country has. There are two essential features to home rule. One is to have a government set up in a local area which depends upon the votes of the people resident in that area. The second feature is that the paramount authority, whether it be Congress or a State legislature, shall let that local government carry on its work without any serious amount of interference.

There are some home-rule cities in the country which are safeguarded in that by constitutional amendments, the United States Constitution, which prohibits the State legislatures from interfering in local affairs.

When the home-rule plan of city government was quite extensively discussed a number of years ago, it was felt by many that such a con

regarded now, and there are many cities in the country which enjoy a high measure of home rule simply because the State legislatures feel it is undesirable to interfere with their exercise of local activity and not that they are prohibited from doing so by the State constitution. I think there is no doubt as to the constitutionality of conferring on the District government powers of home rule comparable to that which cities elsewhere in the country enjoy as subordinate areas under a State legislature.

I am particularly concerned about this argument which has been going around for the last couple of years to the effect that national representation is an essential part of home rule. Home rule to me means local self-government and national representation is not an essential part of it. It is quite a distinct part of it.

National representation may help home rule somewhat. Home rule will help the effectiveness of national representation. But to have our representatives up here in Congress, which I should like to have, will not accomplish home rule. Whatever Congress does, even if we are represented in it, is not in itself home rule. The important thing for home rule is for Congress to set up a local government dependent upon the will of the people and then let that local government carry on its work.

I don't see any reason why we should hold off from trying to get local home rule because we have not yet obtained national representation. It seems to be a sort of fear campaign which has been spread quite generally.

It would seem as if we must bell the cat by getting national representation before it would be worth the risk for us little mice to try to step out into the field of self-government in any other respect.

But it seems to me that local self-rule effectively carried on would be a stepping stone to securing the consent of Congress and of the States for our representation in Congress.

If there are objections I would have to the Kefauver bill-and I concur in some of the particular objections which have been made-it is that it tries to combine home rule with reorganization and thereby gets to be an extremely lengthy bill of 119 pages full of a great many detailed provisions, which are an invitation to people to raise objections.

But so far as the Council-Manager plan as a main feature is concerned, it seems to me there has been some misrepresentation spread abroad in assuming that that plan is something new that is being put over on the Washington people; whereas, it is really, of course, a very widespread plan which has worked very successfully. While it has been said that the Council-Manager plan has not been carried out successfully in any city the size of Washington, it does seem to me that a city the size of Cincinnati, with 500,000 population, is enough of an example to point to its probable success in a city of 800,000 like Washington. It does seem to me that there are also other cities which are large enough to be additional examples.

Some of the objections which have been raised, such as to bring in city managers from outside or giving them very extensive powers

since the 3d of January, the day on which this session of Congress began?

Mr. DAWSON. January what?

The CHAIRMAN. January 3 of this year.

Mr. DAWSON. Yes, I was. No action has been taken since then certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as Mr. Atherholt's statement intimated that he was representing that association in offering his protest, would you say that was without authority?

Mr. DAWSON. That was without authority, in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to say anything further on this? Mr. DAWSON. That is all I am really qualified to say at the moment. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Did you give your name and address? Mr. DAWSON. I gave my name; yes. My address is 3434 Thirtyfourth Street NW.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lewis H. Rohrbaugh? Is Mr. Rohrbaugh present?

Dr. George W. Hodgkins? Is Mr. Hodgkins here?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. HODGKINS

Mr. HODGKINS. I am a member of various local organizations but am not officially delegated by any of them to speak in their behalf at this time.

I am a former president of the Kalorama Citizens' Association, which has taken action in favor of the Kefauver bill or home rule of that general type, at least, and I have been for a number of years a member of the board of the Central Suffrage Conference, which is in favor of the Kefauver bill, and some other organizations I am identified with are not in favor of it, such as the Washington Board of Trade, of which I have been a member for more than 30 years, but my testifying contrary to what that organization has already testified will be no news to them, as I have been outspoken in my opposition to their point of view in committee activity and on other occasions.

My personal view is in favor of home rule and to the effect that the Kefauver bill is very definitely a home-rule bill.

I may disagree with some particular provisions of it, but on the whole, I think it would give the city of Washington as extensive a measure of home rule as any city in the country has. There are two essential features to home rule. One is to have a government set up in a local area which depends upon the votes of the people resident in that area. The second feature is that the paramount authority, whether it be Congress or a State legislature, shall let that local government carry on its work without any serious amount of interference.

There are some home-rule cities in the country which are safeguarded in that by constitutional amendments, the United States Constitution, which prohibits the State legislatures from interfering in local affairs.

When the home-rule plan of city government was quite extensively discussed a number of years ago, it was felt by many that such a con

regarded now, and there are many cities in the country which enjoy a high measure of home rule simply because the State legislatures feel it is undesirable to interfere with their exercise of local activity and not that they are prohibited from doing so by the State constitution.

I think there is no doubt as to the constitutionality of conferring on the District government powers of home rule comparable to that which cities elsewhere in the country enjoy as subordinate areas under a State legislature.

I am particularly concerned about this argument which has been going around for the last couple of years to the effect that national representation is an essential part of home rule. Home rule to me means local self-government and national representation is not an essential part of it. It is quite a distinct part of it.

National representation may help home rule somewhat. Home rule will help the effectiveness of national representation. But to have our representatives up here in Congress, which I should like to have, will not accomplish home rule. Whatever Congress does, even if we are represented in it, is not in itself home rule. The important thing for home rule is for Congress to set up a local government dependent upon the will of the people and then let that local government carry on its work.

I don't see any reason why we should hold off from trying to get local home rule because we have not yet obtained national representation. It seems to be a sort of fear campaign which has been spread quite generally.

It would seem as if we must bell the cat by getting national representation before it would be worth the risk for us little mice to try to step out into the field of self-government in any other respect.

But it seems to me that local self-rule effectively carried on would be a stepping stone to securing the consent of Congress and of the States for our representation in Congress.

If there are objections I would have to the Kefauver bill-and I concur in some of the particular objections which have been made-it is that it tries to combine home rule with reorganization and thereby gets to be an extremely lengthy bill of 119 pages full of a great many detailed provisions, which are an invitation to people to raise objections.

But so far as the Council-Manager plan as a main feature is concerned, it seems to me there has been some misrepresentation spread abroad in assuming that that plan is something new that is being put over on the Washington people; whereas, it is really, of course, a very widespread plan which has worked very successfully. While it has been said that the Council-Manager plan has not been carried out successfully in any city the size of Washington, it does seem to me that a city the size of Cincinnati, with 500,000 population, is enough of an example to point to its probable success in a city of 800,000 like Washington. It does seem to me that there are also other cities which are large enough to be additional examples.

Some of the objections which have been raised, such as to bring in city managers from outside or giving them very extensive powers

ward as being something unusual which would be very dangerous, but those in many cases are provisions which are found to work successfully in Cincinnati or other cities of considerable size.

Some of the other provisions, such as the matter of having two members of the Council appointed by the President and the special provision about dual voting, some of those things are peculiar to the Washington situation and it may well be argued if people are sincerely desirous of working out a good home-rule bill, it seems a little good will and sound logic would be able to work out a plan which would work well on those particular details.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and if you wish, you may extend your remarks further by a written statement in the record. Mr. HODGKINS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Frank Tavenner present?

STATEMENT OF FRANK TAVENNER, VICE PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. TAVENNER. My name is Frank Tavenner. I speak for the Young Democratic Club of the District and for the Young Democratic Clubs of America. I am a lawyer here and also a property owner, but I am in the Young Democratic Clubs of America and they are for home rule. The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia has consistently worked with eternal vigilance toward self-government in the District of Columbia. Though we are behind the Kefauver bill in force, we are not against any bill that would let us crawl before we walk.

We Young Democrats condemn the attitude of those autogenetic rulers of the District of Columbia who would pay homage to home rule but at the same time make every effort to see that it doesn't happen. Their method is to settle for nothing but absolute home rule when they know well that this is the best method to scuttle it. They say that home rule is not practical because of the race problem when they know well that such is not the case and that there would be no real trouble over it.

Senator JOHNSTON. Are you criticizing the Congress for taking a position?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir; I am not.

Senator JOHNSTON. For their opinion? They have a right to their opinion, whether for it or against it.

Mr. TAVENNER. I don't believe I criticized the Congress.
Senator JOHNSTON. Who are you criticizing?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am criticizing those people who would say they want home rule and at the same time use all prejudice, and so forth, to overcome it. In other words, to weaken the will of the people to

have home rule.

Home rule is not practical to those who are too selfish or lazy to take on the responsibilities of self-government or to those who fail to see that the people of the District of Columbia are more educated, intelligent, and democratic than the average city in the United States.