The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the membership of the American Legion in the District?

Miss BACK. I do not know the American Legion membership. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether any of your members are members of the American Legion?

Miss BACK. No, they are not, I feel quite sure. It is not necessary to convince you distinguished gentlemen of the value of self-government, inasmuch as it is the foundation of this democracy.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not think it necessary to convince anyone who had the slightest desire that the American way of life should prevail in the Capital of the greatest Nation in the world.

Miss BACK. Wherever our troops went during World War II and liberated areas, one of the prime objectives was the establishment of self-government. Our leaders believed that by doing this, we could teach the ways of democracy. If self-government is a prerequisite of a democratic society, what excuse can our Government have for ignoring the citizens of the District of Columbia?

Now, after 5 years, as we approach another crisis, the veteran is still denied at home rights and privileges that he has given the peoples of other countries.

The present conflict is being fought not only with guns, but with ideas between totalitarian governments and self-governing peoples, and the only way to develop a program with which to challenge the expansion of communism is to correct the flaws in our democratic structure. One of the most glaring flaws in this structure is the lack of the vote for citizens of the Nation's Capital.

We veterans are looking to our Congress to pass legislation that will assure the residents of Washington that America recognizes them as full-fledged citizens and that the right to participate in local government will be guaranteed by the United States Government. Is it healthy, gentlemen, for us, as a Nation, to have, under our democratic form of government, citizens who have become apathetic under the gross injustice and denial even of the rudimentary opportunity to vote for local representatives? The American Veterans' Committee, however, is continuing its fight for local self-government and the rights given to us by the founding fathers.

We of the American Veterans' Committee, Home Rule for Washington Chapter, put self-government above the high cost of living and other major issues of the day. I must emphasize that the current agitation for self-government is no longer a mere expression of hope. On one hand, there is a positive determination for full citizenship, and on the other hand, an equally determined will to acquiesce to nothing else. The members of the American Veterans' Committee demand local self-government in Washington, and our willingness to serve our community is evidenced in our creed: "Citizens first, veterans second."

We are living today in a sorely distorted world in which grave and complex dangers threaten us. Our safety and well-being depend upon the morale of all the citizens in all the communities of our country. Many men and women gave their lives in the last war for a principle that does not exist in the District of Columbia. The veterans of Wash

ington are loyal citizens, capable of participating in a democratic form of government. These are only a few of the many reasons why we should be allowed to participate fully in the administration of our community.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Miss BACK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point there will be inserted in the record a statement sent me by Mr. Glenn E. Watts, executive secretary of the CIO Industrial Council for the District of Columbia, and also a telegram from Mr. Nathan E. Cowan, director of the CIO legislative department.

Both the statement and the telegram vigorously endorse the bill that is now before the committee.

(The letter and telegram referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTON, D. C., INDUSTRIAL UNION COUNCIL, CIO, BY GLENN E. WATTS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

The Washington, D. C., CIO Industrial Union Council wishes to express its appreciation for the opportunity to present our general views in support of the principle of home rule and reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia.

The manner in which recent proposals for home rule for the District of Columbia have been prepared particularly the bill passed by the Senate last year, has greatly lightened the burden of our testimony before you today. The exhaustive testimony and information developed on this subject over the last few years justifies our endorsement of S. 656.

We wish particularly to express approval of the 11 guiding principles enunciated on pages 3 and 4 of the second report of the House subcommittee of the Eightieth Congress. These principles, setting forth the basic guides for establishing a satisfactory system of home rule in the District, along with an efficient governmental machinery, appear to us to encompass the fundamental considerations which the Congress should have before it in passing upon this legislation. We do not intend to elaborate on these principles. However, we do wish to comment, briefly, on several basic matters.

In light of the solemn pledge of both major political parties, in the form of their platform commitments to the American people, we doubt that it is necessary to argue at any length that the residents of the District should be granted home rule.

We know of no sound argument to justify depriving any community of nearly a million people of the fundamental democratic right and privilege of selecting their local officials. The population of the District exceeds that of a large number of States. A country which has taken the lead in promulgating the Atlantic Charter; a country which has recently passed through the holocaust of a world war to preserve and establish elementary freedoms; a country in the process of defending those freedoms and which has made a monumental financial effort to save democracy in Europe, can scarcely deny to its citizens, in its own Capital City, the right of self-government. Surely, it cannot be said that the residents of the District are not capable of such responsibility. Those who would say so, should have the burden of proving it—and we are not aware of any who have openly assumed or effectively discharged such burden.

There are, in addition, what may be considered more practical grounds for ignoring any sentiment which is adverse to home rule. We believe that for Congress to spend so great a portion of its time on strictly municipal affairs of the District, is positively discriminatory against the rest of the people of this country. The Congress is a National Legislature, set up to deal with the problems of all the people on a national basis. When Congress spends so great a proportion of its time as has been required for the conduct of District affairs, it must, obviously, take time away from far more pressing affairs that affect both the Nation and the world. We suggest, if we may be so bold, that the Congress is even remiss in its duties if it continues to fiddle with the municipal

affairs of the District while there are burning questions of national and international import which demand its full attention.

It is our opinion, consequently, that the basic question for the Congress is not, should there be home rule for the District, but what kind of local government should be set up which best incorporates this idea, within constitutional limitations. We believe the proposed bill meets the fundamental objectives of home rule satisfactorily. Although consideration by the Congress may produce changes in details, we earnestly hope that there will be no reduction in the degree of home rule proposed in the pending bill.

In conclusion we wish to state that public debate seems to have already taken place; that the advocates of home rule seem to be in the majority and that only the vote need be taken. We shall do all in our power to support this bill and earnestly solicit the Congress to pass it.

FEBRUARY 21, 1951.

GLENN WATTS,

Executive Secretary,

District of Columbia Industrial Union Council, CIO: Home rule for the District of Columbia has been advocated by National CIO for many years. No valid reason exists for relegating residents of the District to the status of second-class citizens. It is indefensible that persons residing in the world's focal point of representative government should themselves be denied the right to self-government. The health, safety, and welfare of District residents require the most efficient municipal organization possible. This can be attained only through the efforts of a self-governing people constantly aware of, and vitally concerned with, the manifold problems confronting the community. The Congress of Industrial Organizations fully supports S. 656. Please introduce this message into the record at the conclusion of your own testimony before the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.

NATHAN E. COWAN, Director, CIO Legislative Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elmer Henderson, director, American Council on Human Rights is recognized.

STATEMENT OF ELMER W. HENDERSON, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Elmer W. Henderson, director of the American Council on Human Rights.

Our organization is a national one. We have a local chapter in the city with approximately 1,500 members. It is made up of seven national fraternities, and sororities, with both undergraduates and alumni chapters on college campuses, and in cities throughout the country.

By action of our national body, and also by action of our local body, we fully support and endorse the home-rule bill for the District of Columbia.

We ask that you, as chairman, and we ask this committee to exert your full influence, such as you did in the last Congress of the United States, to attempt to have this bill again pass the Senate. I thought it was a very fine thing on the part of the Senate last year to overcome the very strong objections from some quarters to adopt this bill into law, and we have recognized that unfortunately the main bottleneck to the passage of this legislation is in the District of Columbia Committee of the House of Representatives.

Now that is not a matter that probably should be discussed here. The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. HENDERSON. But we wanted you to know what the difficulties

are.

The CHAIRMAN. You had better take that up with the House.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, our organization, like a number of others that have appeared here, have not been fully in accordance with all of the provisions of this bill, but unlike some of the others, we are willling to subordinate our differences in the general interests, to try to get this legislation through Congress, because if no one ever agrees on any particular bill, you will never get one passed. We have the sense to know that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Now the last question, Mr. Chairman, is that subtle undercurrent that has run through this subject of home rule for the District of Columbia for years, and that is the Negro vote in the District of Columbia. I feel it would be a very tragic thing, in view of the present world situation for such a matter as that to have any effect whatever in causing the defeat of this legislation. Because we are out now-I am speaking of our Nation-to try to compete with an adversary who has no hesitation of using these weaknesses and divisions that we have shown on the matter of race and racial prejudice to our great disadvantage.

We are trying to compete for the loyalties of millions of people throughout the world, most of whom are colored, and if we allow a situation like that to affect a piece of beneficial legislation such as this, not just for the District of Columbia, but to make a more healthy American democracy, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our great foreign policy would be thrown into serious jeopardy.

I sincerely hope that the chairman of this committee and his colleagues will do everything they can to see that the Senate again passes the home rule bill for the District of Columbia. [Applause.]

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Margie Malmberg, representing the American Library Association, is recognized.

Is Mrs. Malmberg present?

If not, we will pass her over, and call Mrs. Louis Ottenberg. Mrs. ÓTTENBERG. Senator Neely, I have had the pleasure of appearing before you recently at the clinic, and so today

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. The pleasure was mutual.

Mrs. OTTENBERG. Thank you, sir. And today I would like to present our chairman of legislation for the Council of Jewish Women, Mrs. Frank Rich, who will give the testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear her.

You may give your name, and proceed in your own way, Mrs. Rich. STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANK RICH, CHAIRMAN OF LEGISLATION, WASHINGTON SECTION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

Mrs. RICH. I am Mrs. Frank Rich, chairman of legislation for the Washington section of the National Council of Jewish Women. Our parent body has sections in 239 communities, and a membership of close to 94,000 women.

Their interest in our voteless plight is twofold:

1. They have a deep and abiding faith in our democratic form of government, and the whole national program is predicated on that principle.

2. Congress, which represents the highest legislative body in the land, elected by the people of this country, should not constitute itself a city council for the District of Columbia. That its concern with national and international affairs should not be set aside to pass purely municipal legislation for the District of Columbia, such as the size of rockfish which may be caught in the Potomac, or the snow removal from the streets, and many other bills now before the Senate and House committees of like nature.

For the above and many other reasons, the National Council of Jewish Women has at each triennial since 1923 reiterated its support of suffrage legislation to Americanize the Washingtonian.

Locally our section has cooperated with other organizations to bring the vote to Washington, including support of reorganization features of the bill now before the committee.

Many costly studies made by experts at District expense concerning our complicated form of government have all arrived at the same conclusion: Let the people rule.

The present complicated boards and agencies make for inefficiency in government, and are costly. Those who fear increased taxes because of the vote may take comfort from the thought that a voice in saying how our tax money is to be spent may go far toward reducing the cost of our present government. Citizen participation in government is a cardinal principle of our democratic way of life.

Our organization is ready and willing to join with other organizations in the city to carry on until the cause is won.

Thank you very much, Senator Neely, for your leadership in speeding the legislation on its way, and arousing the citizens to a sense of their responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. RICH. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jerome B. McKee, representing the Federation of Businessmen's Association is the next witness.

Is Mr. McKee present? If not, we will call Capt. J. Walter McDonald.

STATEMENT OF J. WALTER MCDONALD

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, my name is J. Walter McDonald. I have been a resident of Washington for 77 years, and past conditions have been bad. We had two elements that practically ran the District. Those two men did as they pleased. One was Andrew Gleason and the other was Perry Carson. It got so bad the white people would not go to vote at all. His boy was a student at Rock Hill College in North Dakota and when he came home for the summer, they had voting here.

For myself, I went through five or six times, and voted. We all did. We thought it was fun.