cratic primary in the District of Columbia in 1952 and 1956 there was a question placed upon the ballot seeking to determine the views of the electorate toward home rule. In each of these cases the clear majority of the people of the District of Columbia voted in favor of home rule. In 1956 there were 18,000 votes cast in favor of home rule compared with 1,200 against-a 15 to 1 ratio in Democratic primary. I submit to you that this is convincing evidence of the proportion of the people in the District of Columbia in favor of home rule as contrasted to those opposed to it.

There are a number of very good reasons why the people of the District of Columbia favor home rule apart from the obvious ideological reason. Perhaps the most persuasive practical reason is that the laws of the District of Columbia have become stagnant by virtue of our existing system. As you know, in order for a local law to be enacted in the Senate it must pass on the Consent Calendar. During the last 50 years few local laws except home rule legislation, taxation, and appropriation legislation have been debated on the floor of the Senate. It is far too busy a deliberating body to be concerned with local District of Columbia matters. Consequently, our laws have become archaic and stagnant. Any controversial legislation can always muster a negative Senate vote, thereby requiring full debate on the floor of the Senate.

It was only recently that our corporation laws were overhauled because Senators from Delaware feared that the District of Columbia would be competitive to the Delaware corporation laws if they were modernized. It was only recently that our archaic laws affecting distribution and descent were changed. These laws were more than 200 years old. I could cite numerous other examples of the archaic laws of the District of Columbia resulting from the temporary commissioner forms of government which was later made permanent.

Another consideration which impels me to comment is the sad state of affairs affecting District expenditures for schools and public welfare. In each of the categories the District ranks 49th among all States and districts in the Union (State and Local Government Finances in 1957; Bureau of the Census advance releases, February 1959, p. 23).

This means the District spends less money for education and public welfare than any other State or district in the Union. Moreover, the District of Columbia in the past has had one of the highest serious crime rates of any State or district in the Union. I submit to you that if the city government were directly responsive to the people, the District's plight would be remedied promptly and the Federal City would be a much better place to live for all of us.

Mr. MATTHEWS (presiding). Will you yield, Mr. Wheeler? Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATTHEWs. We have information that indicates that the District does not rank 49th among all States and districts in the Union and with your permission, I would like to check my files and insert at this point in the record the information that we have with the statement that this is the information that we have.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for public elementary
and secondary day schools: 1954

333

Ohio_.

328

Texas__.

325

$264

262

262

256

254

249

247

245

238

233

229

298

Oklahoma..

224

United States (national average)- 265 Mississippi.

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1957, p. 104, U.S. Department of
Commerce; Bureau of the Census.

Total expenditures for public welfare, in the 13 U.S. cities with populations
between 500,000 and 1 million (1950 census)

Source: Compendium of City Government Finances, 1956. U.S. Department of Com-
merce; Bureau of the Census.

Mr. WHEELER. This publication that I have, Mr. Matthews, is called
"The State and Local Government Finances in 1957." It is a Bureau
of Census Report, an official U.S. Government publication, advance
release of February 1959, page 23.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Is that per capita or the gross amount? That might
be the difference we have. Is your 49 the gross amount or is that the
per capita amount?

Mr. WHEELER. Gross amount.

Mr. MATTHEWs. You would not actually be able to tell unless it were
the per capita amount.

Mr. WHEELER. I would like to take a look at that. I am not quite
certain whether it isn't both.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. WHEELER. I will submit the publication in the record at this point, also.

(The information to be supplied was not available at time of going to press.)

Mr. WHEELER. I would like to comment upon certain provisions of the bill, H.R. 4630, in which we suggest certain amendments. First, with respect to section 810, page 61, this section provides for a nonpartisan election. The Democrats in the District are opposed to it. We believe that the strength of our system of government is in bipartisanship, not nonpartisanship. We think partisanship is a virtue and an asset rather than a liability. There are numerous benefits which redound to the public benefit by virtue of partisanship: (1) leadership can be made more responsive through party council; (2) there will be a larger participation by voters because intensive efforts will be made both by the candidate and by the party; (3) party leadership assures a greater continuity of economic, social, and ideological policies; and (4) assumption by the parties of greater responsibility because of the desire by the party for continuity in office.

Moreover, nonpartisanship could easily create a third, or possibly more, parties. This has been the experience with nonpartisanship in Virginia. I submit to you that the multiparty system is as bad as the no-party system. Our democratic experiment is based upon the two-party system which I believe is fundamental to the success of democracy.

I would like to suggest an amendment with respect to section 805, page 56, and section 311, page 61. As I read these sections, they provide for the nomination by wards and election by the District at large. Conceivably the language could be read to mean nomination by wards and election by wards. I believe that the candidates should be nominated at large and elected at large. If this type of procedure in nomination and election is followed, the city will obtain the best possible leadership and would not be inhibited by ward boundaries. The city is ont so large that our neighbors in different sections are unfamiliar with the problems of other sections of the city or that the problems of the city are so complex and peculiar that the people in one district will not be able to understand those of another. Moreover, such an election at large and nomination at large avoids all problems of gerrymandering which are inherent in the construction of any artificial boundary lines. It will also avoid the establishment of a ward political system with its tightly disciplined organization. Party organiation will insure the best cross section of nominees. On the whole, the advantages of an election at large far exceed any disadvantages.

Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. I want to commend your statement regarding partisan elections and state that in substance I agree wholeheartedly with

you.

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BROYHILL. However, there is a question I have in mind. It is a serious question that we have over in some of our sections in northern Virginia. That is in respect to the fact that we have a large number of Federal employees, the Federal Government being our

principal industry here and our principal wage earners are Federal employees and are prohibited by virtue of the Hatch Act from participating in partisan elections.

It is felt by many that they should have a right of freedom of activity, particularly in local elections.

I am wondering whether or not you feel, in view of the large number of Federal employees, whether, by making them strictly partisan—and mind you, I support the principle of the two-party system-whether we are excluding a large segment of the population of the District of Columbia from fully patricipating in their own local government. Mr. WHEELER. As you are familiar, Mr. Broyhill, there is a questionnaire and survey being made by the House Judiciary Committee to amend the Hatch Act.

Mr. BROYHILL. The House Committee on Administration?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. They have sent me questionnaires and I am sure they have sent others around. I am in favor of full particpation by Federal employees in local elections.

I see no reason why, if that bothers you, why a provision cannot be inserted in the law at this time which will permit them to participate as an amendment to the Hatch Act.

Mr. BROYHILL. I think that would be preferable in that it would leave the partisanship in the law but amend the Federal law so Federal employees could participate in partisanship local elections.

Mr. WHEELER. As you recall, that is the opinion of a number of independent groups who have studied this matter.

Mr. BROYHILL. That is correct, except some of the Federal employees themselves have misgivings as to whether or not they will be subjected to sudden reprisal.

Mr. WHEELER. We run across that in national elections, participation of the wives of the employees and they can actually vote in the election. We are not talking about the voting aspect. They can vote in the Federal elections and they can contribute money to the Federal elections. We are only talking about taking an active leadership role in it.

So far as I am concerned, I am ready for them to take an active leadership role in these local elections.

Mr. BROYHILL. I agree with you.

Mr. WHEELER. In the recent bill that has passed the Senate, the Senate has enacted a system whereby the nominations are by wards and elections are at large.

While this is a distinct improvement over the nomination and election by wards, we are still of the opinion that both nomination and election at large will result in a far greater public benefit. Logically, if the elections are at large the nominations should be at large. There is no reason to differentiate.

Moreover, if the Democratic Party has an abundance of qualified candidates in one section of the city and only a few in another section, the public should be able to obtain the best Democratic candidates wherever they may reside in the District. For these and other reasons, I urge this committee in reporting out its bill to change sections 805 and 811 to provide for both elections and nominations at large.

Our next suggested amendment affects section 401 and 403 of the bill, pages 22 and 28. We do not understand the duties of the Secretary. It seems to us that these duties are more in the nature of a Vice Governor. It is our opinion that such a Secretary is not needed. The Governor can have his own staff and the legislature can have its own staff. In the event that the Governor dies or becomes incapacitated, the chairman of the assembly can be the Acting Governor until the President appoints another one. There should either be more uses for the Secretary or the office should be abolished.

Our last suggestion relates to section 804 (c), page 56. This section affects temporary vacancies in the legislature which are to be filled by the Governor. It is an intrusion by the executive branch on the legislative branch.

If the Governor is of one party and the legislature is controlled by another, it would disrupt legislative policy in the middle of the term and may place in power a minority party in the District of Columbia. Moreover, it puts the power of appointment in the Governor who is not responsible in any way to the local electorate. A temporary appointment of an elected representative should be made by an elected representative.

It seems to me that the Declaration of Independence concerned itself with an analogous problem when it said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I thank this committee for the opportunity of presenting this testimony in support of H.R. 4633.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Wheeler, thank you very much. You have given a very fine statement.

I wonder if there are any questions.

Mr. Harmon, do you have any questions?

Mr. HARMON. I have a lot of questions but I will not ask them at

this time.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Broyhill, any further observations?

Mr. BROYHILL. No questions.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.

Is Mr. J. B. Gilliland with us this morning?

Mr. GILLILAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Gilliland, we are delighted to have you appear before us. If you will give your name to the stenographer, please.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GILLILAND, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS

Mr. GILLILAND. My name is John B. Gilliland, past president of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers and at present chairman of the public relations committee of the District of Columbia Congress.