measures. There is one other thing I would like to say: I also happen to be a member of the George Washington Post of the American Legion. It is, we are proud to say, the original post of the Legion in the country, and I feel impelled on the eve of George Washington's birthday to recall that the George Washington Post last year-the George Washington Post of the American Legion-went on record last year as favoring, in principle, the matter of self-government for the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as you know, that post is still in favor of self-government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I venture to say that it is.

You have already heard this afternoon the excellent statements of Mr. Manbeck, who is the secretary of the Central Suffrage Conference, and the equally forthright statements of Arthur Clarendon Smith, who is the treasurer of that organization. You have heard the beautifully reasoned and the temperately stated views of Dr. George Galloway, and they will commend themselves to you, and I feel that combined with the statements of the other witnesses, and these ringing statements of the Senators who have appeared before you, make it superfluous for me at this time to add anything further to it.

Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had you.

Mr. Carl Shipley representing the Young Republican National Federation is the next witness.

STATEMENT OF CARL L. SHIPLEY, YOUNG REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

FEDERATION

Mr. SHIPLEY. I am here, Senator.

My name is Carl L. Shipley, and I appear before you as the legis lative representative of the Young Republican National Federation. Mr. John Tope, chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, had planned to appear here today, but he is overcome by illness, and I do not think he will be able to be here.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to hear of your president's illness. We are glad to have you.

Mr. SHIPLEY. The Young Republican National Federation is composed of nearly 3,000 Young Republican clubs and State organizations throughout the United States made up of more than 300,000 young Americans under the age of 36. At the Young Republican national convention in Salt Lake City in 1949 our federation adopted a resolution to the effect that the right to vote for local officials is one of the inalienable privileges of citizenship, and we put ourselves on record as favoring local self-government for the District of Columbia. Local self-government is one of the fundamental and basic traditions of the Republican Party. One of the planks in the Republican platform adopted in convention at Philadelphia in 1948 calls for home rule for the District of Columbia. The young people of American who make up our federation feel that it is the responsibility of every Republican to contribute his utmost in helping to redeem this party pledge at the earliest possible time. The Taft-Kefauver home

rule bill (S. 656) represents the end product of years of study and compromise by the very best legal and civic minds in the District of Columbia and in the Congress of the United States. It is a truly bipartisan measure hammered out in a truly statesmanlike fashion by people whose purposes went far beyond narrow party confines, and whose only motive was to produce the best bill possible, taking into consideration in a most particular manner the different racial groups in the District of Columbia, the large number of Federal employees in the District of Columbia, the high nonresident population of the District of Columbia, and the peculiar problems that grow of the fact that the District of Columbia is the Nation's Capital.

No person who calls himself a Republican can stand in opposition to local self-government for the District of Columbia. No person who is in favor of local self-government for the District of Columbia can honestly oppose the Taft-Kefauver bill, because it just simply isn't physically possible to draft a bill which fairly contemplates all of the problems involved unless it duplicates the Taft-Kafauver bill, or if it is possible, nothing has been produced in the many, many years during which the people of the District of Columbia have been waiting for local self-government.

We condemn those Americans who dwell in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or independent, who cower behind the fear of the colored vote, or a fear of an increase in the local tax rate, or a fear that they might lose the patronage in the Recorder of Deeds Office, or a fear that the Federal contribution might be diminished and object to local selfgovernment for the District of Columbia for these selfish and personal reason. It is fantastic beyond belief that there are in the United States in the year 1951 Americans who violently oppose any effort on the part of the Congress to give them the privilege of electing the local officials who run their daily lives. The Young Republican National Federation firmly believes in local self-government for the District of Columbia and urges this committee to report out favorably the Taft-Kefauver home rule bill because it is a workable and reasonable means of achieving the end that we have in mind.

Thank you, and let me add, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Chamberlain refers to Tories, I do not think this bill is either a Tory or a Liberal measure in the terms that he uses it. It seems to me it is truly a bipartisan effort, and that Republicans in the District of Columbia would be more eager to come forward in support of this bill if it were not always tinted with the notion that it represented a particular point of political view; and it seems to me that one of the problems of the chairman of this committee is to.try to impress on the public-at-large that it is a bipartisan effort, and we do not come here as Republicans or Democrats to plug for the bill. We simply want local self-government. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. May I just say this, Mr. Chairman: That in referring to Tories, I was not referring to any existing party in the United States that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Francis E. Jones, Jr., representing the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia, is recognized.

81450-51-9

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS E. JONES, JR., PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am Francis E. Jones, Jr., president of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia, and a professor of law at National University.

I would like to say, before I begin my statement, that I certainly am grateful for having been invited to testify before this committee, and I would certainly like to add my tribute to that which has already been given to the distinguished chairman for the work which he has already done on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia to attain local self-government. I do not deal with the technical arguments against this bill because I frankly cannot understand them. I cannot understand how it is possible to argue in the United States of America in this enlightened age that people should not have a vote to control themselves. That is beyond me, and so I would not attempt in any way to make any technical argument against the bill, but just simply to say that anyone who argues against home rule for the District of Columbia is just simply not sincere.

The importance of my testimony here is not what I say, but it will be the fact that I represent 800 people who are members of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia who unanimously have endorsed this bill, and have urged me to impress upon you how very sincerely and vitally it affects them, and it is the whole reason for existence of our organization, that some day there will be a vote in the District of Columbia.

I am very happy to note that the president of the Young Republicans is here, and that the Republican Party has put its support behind this bill and, of course, we all know that the people in the Democratic Party have been in favor of home rule for the District of Columbia since 1892; the Republicans have been on record as being in favor of it since 1948, and I am very happy to see that they have now decided to join hands with the Democrats.

I must remark that is the first time I have ever known of the Republicans going along with Democratic legislation before it has already been on the books for about 30 years.

I have flown all over the United States in the last couple of years, and been in about half the States, and I have solicited from various young Democratic clubs in the United States their endorsement for this legislation, and also at Kansas City and Chattanooga and Chicago last year, the Young Democrats of America have authorized me to say that the Young Democrats of America endorse the home rule for the District of Columbia.

In view of these considerations, I think that there is no need to belabor the point that this point should be passed to realize the aspirations of the people of the District of Columbia, and the ideals of everybody who believes in democracy all over the world.

We will insert at this point in the record a prepared statement by Mr. Soterios Nicholson.

(The prepared statement referred to follows:)

VOTELESS WASHINGTON

(By Soterios Nicholson)

Good citizenship is the backbone of community life. would flounder on the rock of indifference.

Without it, the community

The good citizen assumes along with his right to reside in the city of his own choosing, a certain responsibility. While he pays taxes for services provided by the city, he also gives voice to the welfare of all the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the District citizen is not able to exercise the vote, which is an inalienable right of all his fellow Americans in the 49 States.

Here in Washington, this denial handicaps the citizen. Without the vote, he cannot register his protest or his individual opinion on what the local government decides or does.

This is a failure in our National Capital's structure that makes the citizenry inarticulate, for, without representation, the citizen's voice is not necessarily heard, or if heard, it is not accepted.

The local resident, however, need not isolate himself from his community even though his right to vote may be denied. He can engage spiritedly in the local citizen's group within his neighborhood. He can contribute his ideas to the forum of local public opinion.

The local civic units form the nuclei for combined action, based on the enlightenment gained by individual members working in collaboration.

The Federation of Citizens Associations, for example, is the striking force for better government. As the representative body of its membership civic groups, it can build a cohesive and molded opinion.

Talk of self-government, national representation, suffrage, has been with us in the District of Columbia since the city of Washington became of age as a metropolis.

Chief proposals, which have been advanced in the press and on the platform, center to two approaches: that of local government and that of national representation.

The desire for these developments take different and varied roads. Some would have us assume local self-government with eventual national representation, after the experience of first governing ourselves.

Other would have us shelve local government for sometime in favor of national representation, for a voice in the running of our Nation's affairs.

Both of these rights are desirable. There are persons who would understandably wish to plunge with both self-government and national representation in the District.

All of these viewpoints are commendable. Perhaps the desire to take up local self-government first is the most reasoned.

There are dissedents to these general expressions of suffrage. Some of this opposition has been recorded on Capitol Hill and has made the rounds of the cloakrooms and has been registered in the legislative chambers

The contention of this group, as the assertions have been made privately and publicly, is that the local citizenry is unprepared to assume the obligation of self-government.

There is the feeling that a balance will be struck in the various voting interests of the city. The argument goes that various minorities can knock fair representation out of kilter.

With these many arguments both pro and con, there is a green pastured middle ground that gives spur to the exercise of the right and responsibilities of local citizens.

This ground is available for those citizens who will participate in the local groups which are open to them. If the local citizens fail to take part in the regular and normal channels of self-expression and self-assertion, then truly the asset of civil experience is absent.

We do not want to develop into a city that is void of civic pride and most important, civic accomplishment.

This type of action can come from the practice of good citizenship. With this type of participation, we (the people) can rightfully maintain that we, and we alone, are fit to run our own affairs.

It is forgotten that the local citizens are able to manage both the social and political responsibilities necessary in the event that suffrage is achieved. The mere fact that an enlightened citizenry is available for leadership and the assumption of departmental duties is proof enough that selfish or minority interests will not prevail over the general welfare.

This is the principle upon which our Nation has persevered. With the desire to build a community of which every American citizen can be justly proud, the individual civic group member, the enlightened Washington citizen, can take hold of the guiding reins.

In all due time, Washington will get its suffrage. People will vote here as they do in every State of the Union. Washington also will have its vote in Congress as do the member States in this great Nation of ours.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility, the natural interest for each and every citizen to take part in some civic endeavor. The natural heritage of selfassertion must not be lost because taxation without representation is allowed in the District of Columbia.

Regardless of the voting climate, we must continue to keep warm the platforms of local public opinion.

It is, therefore, respectfully suggested:

1. That the Federation of Citizens Associations undertake a campaign to enlist all available citizens to become members of their respective civic associations;

2. That the federation instruct its national and local suffrage committee to write a short explanatory pamphlet to:

(a) State the meaning of local government as set out by the different bills introduced in Congress at this session.

(b) To explain the advisability for a Delegate to Congress to speak for the District pending the amendment to the Constitution for full national representation.

(c) To properly solicit the cooperation of all independent associations in the District of Columbia to organize properly, through committees, and work actively for the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene on Thursday, February 22, 1951, at 10 a. m.)