HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1951 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in the District of Columbia room, United States Capitol, Senator Matthew M. Neely (chairman) presiding. Present Senators Neely (chairman) and Case. Also present: Robert H. Mollohan, clerk; Gerhard P. Van Arkel, committee counsel, and William P. Gulledge, assistant committee counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will be in order. There will be inserted at this point in the record a letter, the original of which was sent by the President to the Speaker of the House of Representaitves, on the 25th of July 1949, relevant to the question before the subcommittee. (The letter referred to is as follows:) The following letter was sent by the President to the Hon. Sam Rayburn, Speaker, House of Representatives: JULY 25, 1949. MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On May 31, 1949, the Senate passed, without a dissenting vote, S. 1527, a bill to give home rule to the people of the District of Columbia. A subcommittee of the House Committee on the District of Columbia is now holding hearings on this legislation. I am writing to you to express my hope that the House will complete legislative action on a home-rule bill and that it will be sent to me to sign into law before this session of the Eighty-first Congress adjourns. As passed by the Senate, the bill has three major purposes: (1) to relieve the Congress as much as possible of the burden of District of Columbia affairs, without surrendering its constitutional powers; (2) to create a representative local government for the District of Columbia chosen by the qualified electors; and (3) to provide an efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia.. I am very much in favor of all of these objectives. It is little short of fantastic that the Congress of the United States shouldas it now does-devote a substantial percentage of its time to acting as a city council for the District of Columbia. During the past 2 years, during which it was confronted with many major problems of national and international importance, the Congress has had to find time to deal with such District matters as parking lots, the regulation of barbers, the removal of street obstructions, and the establishment of a Metropolitan Police Force Band, to name only a few. The people of the District of Columbia should not be placed in a different status from that of the people of all other American cities and almost all democratic capitals of the world insofar as local self-government is concerned. In my message to Congress transmitting the budget for the fiscal year 1947, I said: "The District of Columbia, because of its special relation to the Federal Government, has been treated since 1800 as a dependent area. We should move 127 toward a greater measure of local self-government consistent with the constitutional status of the District. We should take adequate steps to assure that citizens of the United States are not denied their franchise merely because they reside at the Nation's Capital." It was not the intention of the architects of our Constitution to deprive the District of Columbia of home rule. Writing on this subject in the Federalist, James Madison said that the inhabitants of the District "will have * * * their choice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them" and that "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them." The establishment of a well-organized and efficient governmental system in the District of Columbia is a desirable adjunct to the successful operation of the home-rule principle. The present organization of the District government is complicated and administratively cumbersome. I am strongly in favor of better organization and greater efficiency throughout the executive branch. The District of Columbia government should not be an exception carved out from the general rule. There is nothing partisan about this proposal. The platforms of both major parties urge home rule for the District. The bill which passed the Senate unanimously received the support of both Republican and Democratic Members of that body. I am sure that the great majority of the people of Washington want home rule. I am equally sure that they ought to have it without further delay. I hope that the House will not adjourn this session without completing action on this important measure. Very sincerely yours, HARRY S. TRUMAN. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leeman, will you please proceed? STATEMENT OF HERBERT P. LEEMAN, REPRESENTING THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Mr. LEEMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Herbert P. Leeman. I reside at 1610 Sixteenth Street NW., Washington. I am the presiIdent of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. That organization is composed of over 70 individual citizens' associations, which cover the entire area of the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. What would you estimate the total membership of those associations to be, Mr. Leeman? Mr. LEEMAN. I would say the best estimate that we can give is 80,000, because we do not have individual records of memberships. The federation is made up of delegates from these associations, and we can only estimate that from reports that we have, as to the total membership of these individual associations. But I can say that it is thoroughly representative of the average people of the District of Columbia. Its membership is made up of business, professional people, trade unionists, and other people engaged in other occupations. The CHAIRMAN. And you are speaking as a representative of that estimated 80,000? Mr. LEEMAN. That is correct, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. What is the membership of the Board of Trade? Mr. LEEMAN. The report that I have is about 8,000. The Federation of Citizens' Associations, when this same bill was before the last Congress, endorsed this bill in principle. At our meeting about 2 weeks ago, the federation specifically endorsed this Senate bill 656, and directed me to appear before this committee and any other committees of the Congress considering it, and urge its passage and adoption as law. I want to say that the suffrage committee of the Federation of Citizens Associations last year carefully considered this bill paragraph by paragraph. A report of that consideration was given to the assembly of the federation; the delegates were thoroughly familiar with the contents of this bill when they took the action that they did. I personally know that this bill is the result of hard work on the part of Members of this Congress and the leading citizens of the District of Columbia. It is a carefully thought out piece of legislation, designed to bring a form of government to the District of Columbia, which is in accordance with our democratic principles. For a long time the finger of scorn of representatives of foreign governments has been pointed at us because we advocate democracy, and we maintain taxation without representation in the District of Columbia. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, to your committee for promptly holding hearings on this bili. We think that a situation exists in the District of Columbia which should be ended by affording to the people of the District of Columbia the privilege of self-government. I think that a duty rests upon the Senate to promptly repass this bill, because this bill was considered by the committee before it was passed by the Senate in the last Congress. The opponents of this bill have circulated the report that the Senate carelessly passed this bill in the last Congress believing that it would be killed in the House of Representatives. We know from our experience with the Senate that the Senate has given very careful consideration to the matters that the people of the District of Columbia have brought to it, and I feel and I believe the thoughtful Members of the Senate will feel that it is the duty of the Senate to promptly repass this bill to show that the Senate knew what it was doing, understood this legislation, and intended to pass it when it did. In the last session of Congress, I am informed that at one time. as many as 207 Members of the House of Representatives signed the discharge petition which was designed to bring this bill to a vote in the House of Representatives. The CHAIRMAN. That was only 11 less than a sufficient number? The CHAIRMAN. No; exactly. Mr. LEEMAN. Yes. It required 218 signatures to bring it to a vote. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. LEEMAN. I believe those who have appeared before the committee before have covered objections to this bill, and I will be very glad to answer questions that may be propounded, but I feel that the people of the District of Columbia want home rule, and want the Senate to pass this bill giving us home rule in the District of Columbia. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Paul Matthews. Please proceed, Mr. Matthews. STATEMENT OF PAUL MATTHEWS, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Matthews, immediate past president of the Washington Junior Chamber of Commerce, and director-in-charge of its governmental affairs committee. Our organization consists of approximately 800 young business and professional men between the ages of 21 and 36 years, employed or doing business in the District of Columbia. You are all aware, from the local Junior Chamber of Commerce activities in your own communities, or the purposes and objectives of our organization. As a representative civic organization, we feel obligated to express the views of our membership on the vital issue now before your committee, namely home rule for the District of Columbia. In order to give our membership an opportunity to express its opinion on this issue a poll was conducted when Senator Kefauver introduced S. 1527 in the last Congress. Of the ballots mailed, we received a response from approximately 40 percent of the total membership. The CHAIRMAN. Was that about 300? Mr. MATTHEWS. Forty percent of 800, or 320. There were three issues incorporated in the poll: 1. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia with national representation? 2. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia without national representation? 3. Do you favor representation in Congress for the District of Columbia? On the first question, concerning home rule with national representation, 68 percent voted "yes" and 32 percent voted "no." On the second question, concerning home rule without national representation, 24 percent voted "yes" and 76 percent voted "no." On the third question, concerning only national representation, 80 percent voted "yes" and 20 percent voted "no." From these results it may be concluded the membership of the Junior Chamber of Commerce primarily and overwhelmingly desires national representation. Secondly, if home rule is to be granted to the District of Columbia, national representation should precede or accompany the adoption of any home rule form of government. And thirdly, home rule by itself is definitely opposed by the membership. The CHAIRMAN. Is that because they think the people of the District have not enough sense or patriotism to govern themselves? Mr. MATTHEWS. I think they have enough of both. But I think they should have a true home-rule bill. If the people in Congress, our Senators and Congressmen, are the ones who eventually pass on our bills, I think they should have representation in Congress. The CHAIRMAN. I concur in that opinion. But you cannot get both home rule and congressional representation by means of a single bill or resolution. Mr. MATTHEWS. I would like to make this statement: We are a group of people who have devoted as much energy toward civic affairs in the District of Columbia as any, bar none, the Federation of Citizens' Associations, and so forth. We went to the extent last year, and we have done it before, to get our national organization to pass a resolution which they did, in which they would favor national representation for the District of Columbia. We think that that is a beginning. We went so far as to write all local chapters in the United States asking them to please write their Congressmen and Senators for the specific purpose of trying to get some sort of a constitutional amendment added, so we could precede this and get a true home-rule bill in where we could have it all. The CHAIRMAN. That was commendable. But to oppose home rule simply because you cannot obtain national representation at the same time will, in my opinion, serve no good purpose. Mr. MATTHEWS. We all have our opposing views, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. And I certainly have no objection to your having In conclusion, the membership of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Washington, D. C., has indicated by an overwhelming majority that national representation is the primary consideration in approaching the question of suffrage for the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. Miss Edith Back, representing the Home Rule for Washington Chapter of the American Veterans Committee is recognized. STATEMENT OF EDITH B. BACK, REPRESENTING THE HOME RULE FOR WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE Miss BACK. My name is Edith B. Back. I represent the American Veterans Committee, through its Home Rule for Washington Chapter, and I am testifying in favor of the Kefauver-Taft bill. The CHAIRMAN. You say you are in favor of the bill? Miss BACK. Yes; I am testifying in favor of the Kefauver-Taft bill, and I represent the American Veterans Committee, through the Home Rule for Washington Chapter. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mind telling us the membership of the chapter? Miss BACK. I am here representing the national organization through the Home Rule Chapter, which has been authorized to speak for the national. I am not sure of the recent figures. We are just preparing for a new convention. However, the only figure I can quote is the World Almanac, which lists 35,000 this year. We are compiling the new figures for the new convention, which are not published yet. The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-five thousand in the United States? The CHAIRMAN. You do not know what the number of members is in the District of Columbia? Miss BACK. Approximately 1,000 in the Washington area. |