in elections including the approval of bond issues to those people who firmly acknowledged the District of Columbia as their permanent home. I have been reviewing reasons why the so-called home rule bills under discussion are not desirable in the Federal City. Now I invite the committee's attention to the reason why we have for years referred to such bills as so-called home rule. We have steadily maintained that national representation is an essential feature of true home rule for residents of the District. Excerpts from the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 1928 by Henry Glassie, then special assistant to the Attorney General, clearly express our reasoning in support of this statement. Mr. Glassie said: What was the claim of the Americans to full participation before the Revolution? Participation in local government? Not at all. They had that. It was participation in that sovereign imperial parliament which made the law. We have been reproached with the idea that we do not want local government and therefore do not want self-government. But mark the distinction. Local government may be a mere matter of municipal administration. But what selfgovernment means is that the people who are to obey the laws shall have a share in the making of the laws. You (the Congress) make the law. Under the constitutional provisions you will always make the law. Under the principle that the Federal Government shall be supreme, you must continue to make the law. Therefore, when we come to you humbly, and say, "Admit us to participate; admit us to your councils in the making of this law," we are asking for local self-government. *** So I say to you, gentlemen, with profound deference, that these things, first from one side and then from the other, which are constantly thrown against us, will hardly bear scrutiny. We do want self-government, and the essence of self-government is the right to send a man from your community into the legislative representative body which can send you to war, tax your property, do what it pleases with your will, control your domestic relations, your relations with your family, your wife and children, and do all those things which make a government, a government touching intimately the life of the community. Those are the things that are dearest to you and those are the things which, in your respective States, you insist upon having, and which you will never surrender. Despite the virtually unanimous opinion in favor of a vote for President and representation in Congress by residents of the District of Columbia, the Congress consistently refuses to give serious consideration to this matter. I believe the last hearing on this subject was before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1954, more than 5 years ago. For years each Congress has been asked to hold hearings and consider this matter but for some unaccountable reason, the bills languish in the pigeonholes. Still these so-called home rule bills receive attention though they are relatively meaningless and would, in fact, greatly hamper the development and administration of the Nation's Capital. We are encouraged by Senator Keating's statement that he would offer an amendment to the anti-poll-tax resolution that would grant residents of the District the right to vote for President and Vice Presiident. We have asked Senators Randolph and Francis Case to support this effort and will urge other Members to do likewise. Through such action we may attain a portion of our objective for national representation which has been bottled up in the Judiciary Committees of both Houses for years and which neither committee has been willing to even hold hearings on. Through such action we may be able to take the first step toward national representation and real home rule on a sound basis. Through such action we may embark on a course which will give us a meaningful voice in our Government while retaining the basic concept of the Federal City envisaged by the founders. Through such action it would be shown that democracy applies in the District of Columbia to an extent far more basic than is proposed in a government limited to municipal administration. Mr. LOSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for your rather informative statement. It is 2 minutes until 12 o'clock and the House will be in session shortly. Mr. Matthews, do you want to ask a question? Mr. MATTHEWs. Not a thing, except to tell Mr. Davis how much I have enjoyed his testimony. I can understand how anybody in the District with any poverty would be alarmed about the type of home rule bills we are considering. I think your report might well be entitled "The Economic Facts of Home Rule." I want to thank you for it. Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Thank you, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. May I ask a question or two? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I certainly appreciate the desire of the people of the District of Columbia to have some voice in the government of the District. As I stated a moment ago, I support the proposal that has been made here, and I have supported it for years, the right to give them a vote for the President and Vice President, which is a real vote for people who have some power and is not amenable to anyone except his constituents. Now if the Congress sees fit to pass onto the people the very limited powers under the home rule bill, which we all know would require the Congress to circumvent a very specific provision in the Constitution, do you think they would be willing to assume the full burdens of the District government? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. And pay the full bill? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. You do not think they would be willing to assume the $25 million, or whatever it is the Federal Government now contributes to the District? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I do not think they would be willing to, and I do not think they can economically. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to go back and dig up the money the Federal Government has given them in the last few years to build public and religious hospitals in the District? Do you think they would be willing to dig that up? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think they would be willing to pay interest on the small amount that they agreed to pay the Government, which went into the hospitals? You know loans were interest free. Do you think they would be willing to pay the interest on the money which was put here by the people of the 48 States? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I am certain they would resist it. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think they would be willing to pay the Federal Government for the free services which they are now render ing the 20-odd-thousand civil service employees of the District government, providing the screening services and the establishment of civil service registers, all of which does not cost the District a dime? It does not cost the District government one dime. Would they be willing to pay for that? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. They wouldn't be willing. much bargaining power they would have, either. I do not know how Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to let the Federal Government withdraw its guarantee of Federal bonds of this multi-milliondollar stadium that is going to be built in the District? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to pay the $2,600,000 which I helped pass through the Congress the other day for the parking areas out there? Do you think they would be willing to pay for that? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. They do not want that kind of home rule, do they? Do you think they would be willing to establish a system which would permit them to run up a bonded debt which heretofore has been unnecessary in operating the government? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. They would be in favor of that. Mr. ABERNETHY. Why would it be necessary for them to establish a type of government which would permit them to run up a bonded debt; because of the withdrawal of Federal funds? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Basically that, and I think that your cost of operation would be greatly increased and if the result was increased taxes to meet those increased financial obligations, I think your source of income would be reduced. Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LOSER. It is past 12 o'clock. The committee will stand adjourned until next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman. My name is Andrew Fowler, I am the director of the Washington Bureau of the National Fraternal Council of Churches. I would like to submit, if you will permit, my testimony for the organization for the record if it may be done. Mr. LOSER. We will be happy, unless there is objection, to permit your statement to be inserted in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF REV. ANDREW FOWLER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL FRATERNAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, U.S.A., INC. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Andrew Fowler. I am director of the Washington Bureau, National Fraternal Council of Churches, U.S.A., Inc. I wish to thank this committee for the privilege to make a statement setting forth the views of the National Fraternal Council of Churches regarding home rule. The constituents of the Fraternal Council of Churches believes that home rule in the District of Columbia would help lift the cloud and break down the barriers that keep all men from seeing our American dream fulfilled. The Fraternal Council of Churches holds that all taxpaying citizens should have a voice in the Government. A fundamental principle of our Government is that taxpaying citizens have a right to vote. It was on the basis of this principle that we fought for our independence. The Fraternal Council of Churches also maintains that the Government owes the citizens of the District of Columbia the privilege to have all the experiences that come with voting. We therefore urge the members of this committee and the Members of the House of Representatives to join the Senate and enact home rule legislation at this session of Congress. We realize that it is difficult to get a perfect bill. It is better to have, however, a law of promise that can be extended and amended than to have no instrument at all. STATEMENT OF REV. ANDREW FOWLER, PRESIDENT, BAPTIST CONVENTION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND VICINITY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to state the views and wishes of the Baptist Convention, District of Columbia and Vicinity, for this committee. The Baptist convention urges the enactment of a bill giving home rule to the citizens of the District of Columbia. There are several reasons why the consstituents of the convention feel that the District of Columbia should have home rule. First, such a rule would be consistent with Baptist beliefs and Baptist history. The noble John Locke well said "The Baptists were the first propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," and I may add they have ever been the protagonist of civil liberty. Second, it is in keeping with our American democratic way of life from the beginning. Third, from all indications, the fathers who made the District of Columbia the Capital of the Nation intended that the citizens should have local suffrage. That the early fathers believed that the citizens of the District should have a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages was well expressed by the Honorable James Madison. Fourth, from the beginning the residents of the District had a measure of home rule. Fifth, Congress enacted home rule laws immediately after the District became the Capital of the Nation. This move showed that the lawmakers who were not far removed from the Founding Fathers knew and respected the intents of the Founding Fathers. Sixth, votes in the Nation's Capital should set a pattern of good government for other territories and States of the United States. They must, therefore, have the opportunity to demonstrate their ability. Seventh, the fact that the citizens of the District had the privilege to vote for their officers for a substantial period of time is proof that it can work. Eighth, the lawmakers owe it to the Nation to give citizens of the District of Columbia home rule. Ninth, the Supreme Court has said that in its opinion "There is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power, subject, of course, to constitutional limitations to which all lawmaking is subservient and subject, also, to the power of Congress at any time to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted. Tenth, home rule or local suffrage would be an aid to Congress in case of a tendency toward corruption in Government. The constituents of the Baptist convention are aware that in the long past mistakes were made under local suffrage. At the same time advances have been made and knowledge has been acquired which will give a better chance of good government. The fact that home rule bill after home rule bill has been introduced during the past 12 years shows that there is need for some type of home rule legislation. We do hope that Congress will pass adequate and effective home rule laws in this session. Mr. LOSER. Does anyone else want to submit a statement, or would you prefer to return next Wednesday? (No response.) Mr. LOSER. If not, we stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 19, 1959.) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE BILLS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1959 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in Room 445, Old House Office Building, Hon. James C. Davis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Davis, Loser, Harmon, and Broyhill. Also present: William N. McLeod, Jr., clerk of the Committee on the District of Columbia, Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Ann L. Puryear, assistant clerk; Leonard O. Hilder, investigator; and Donald Tubridy, minority clerk. Mr. DAVIS. The committee will come to order, please. We are continuing this morning the hearings on all the bills before this subcommittee dealing with home rule. The first witness this morning will be the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the Honorable Robert E. McLaughlin. He will have some of his associates with him. You may introduce them whenever you are ready. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. McLAUGHLIN, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER GRAY, CORPORATION COUNSEL; SCHUYLER LOWE, DIRECTOR, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION; AND WILLIAM K. HOLL, MANAGEMENT OFFICER Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you. I have with me Mr. Chester H. Gray, who is Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia Government; Mr. Schuyler Lowe, who is the head of the Department of General Administration; and Mr. Holl, who is the Management Officer of the District of Columbia. Mr. DAVIS. We are pleased to have you gentlemen with us and you may proceed with your statement as you wish. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to have the privilege of appearing before you today to discuss home rule for the District. I should like to say that the Engineer Commission traditionally does not participate in this question regarding it as a political question, so I am speaking for Commissioner Karrick and myself. As I have done before, I should like to state that the Commissioners strongly favor home rule, believing that it is in the best interest of |