Then it was done away with, and then we got the Commissioners. Now, the question is: Are we going to have the same condition again here in the District?

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think it could be worse than now, do you?

Mr. McDONALD. It cannot be any worse.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been my theory that when things get so bad they cannot be any worse, a change will do no harm.

Mr. McDONALD. I am not either against it, nor am I for it. But what are they going to do with people from other States that hold Government positions that vote now by proxy?

The CHAIRMAN. If this bill becomes law the people will be permitted to vote on these local affairs, and still have their right to vote back home.

Mr. McDONALD. Would it do away with our Commissioners?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I would hope that it would.

Mr. McDONALD. Would that give us

The CHAIRMAN. How old did you say you are, Captain?

Mr. McDONALD. 1874, June 10. I will be 77 my next birthday.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you say you voted here several times?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. For whom?

Mr. McDONALD. This fellow Gleason had a saloon

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean that you voted?

Mr. McDONALD. I was a schoolboy when I voted. We all came back from playing baseball

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was wondering about. They have not had a vote here for how long?

Mr. VAN ARKEL. 1872 was the last year they voted here in the District.

The CHAIRMAN. I am told that they have not had a vote here since 1872.

Mr. McDONALD. Here is the story

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me a minute.

I understand there has not been any official vote cast in the city of Washington since the year That is 2 years before you were born.

1872.

Mr. McDONALD. Before I was born, but I voted, went through the saloon, and went out the back door, and young Martin Gleason. We went around-nine, and two or three substitutes. There must have been 12 that went around five times, and I thought it was fun. Today I would get locked up for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Evidently that was a spurious election. There has been no official election in the city of Washington since 1872.

Mr. McDONALD. I was a delegate in 1908. I picked this [indicating] up this morning. I was a delegate to the Democratic Convention of the District of Columbia in 1908.

The CHAIRMAN. What you are talking about is the election of delegates to the national convention. You are not talking about a vote for the election of officials to administer the affairs of the District of Columbia.

Mr. McDONALD. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you were talking about a vote for officials here in the District of Columbia for local governmental purposes. There has been no such election.

Mr. McDONALD. These two men ran everything in the District. One is Perry Carson, who used to wear a chain as big as a dog chain on his watch.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you for this bill, Captain?

Mr. McDONALD. I am in favor of anything to give us good cleancut government here. We haven't got it now.

The CHAIRMAN. That does not answer my question. We always have to take a chance on that. Congress no doubt hoped to achieve good government through the commissioner structure. Yet the commissioner structure has not resulted in good government for the District of Columbia, particularly in recent years.

Mr. McDONALD. Right now.

The CHAIRMAN. That is one of the reasons I am eager for a change. I read in nationally circulated magazines lurid statements that Washington is the worst governed city of its size in the world. It is a disgrace to the Nation to permit its Capital to have that sort of a reputation.

Mr. McDONALD. Are you from West Virginia?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDONALD. Well, I cleaned your State up pretty good for you when you had Mr. Graves out there.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that?

Mr. McDONALD. I was there the day that you ran for the Senate. That time you won. The next time, when I was there with United States Senator Burton, who died-he was from Cleveland, Ohio, and the old man was very fond of me-you were defeated at that time. The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1928.

Mr. McDONALD. I remember it very well. I cleaned up every place you had crime when I was out there. I had Judge Baker in one court and Judge McClinick at the other.

The CHAIRMAN. What office were you holding at that time?

Mr. McDONALD. I was in charge of narcotics for 26 years; for the last 13 years Chairman of the Drug Disposal Committee for the United States Treasury. If anything came in the hands of the Customs, it came to me to keep them or dispose of them. Lots of them were worth keeping, with the war coming on, and were packed up and sent to Rahway, N. J., to be worked over, especially codeine and things of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt you discharged your duties in a proper manner. I am glad to tell you that West Virginia is a wellgoverned State. The times you are talking about, of course, are times back when we had a Republican government. We had a Republican government, Republican governor, and a Republican senate, and a Republican legislature. We have reformed down there, and West Virginia has been Democratic for some time.

Mr. McDONALD. That was after the capital was rebuilt or during the fire?

The CHAIRMAN. The capital was burned down under a Republican administration. [Laughter.]

Mr. McDONALD. It was burned when I was out there.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to state whether you are for or against this particular bill?

Mr. McDONALD. I am for it, provided we do not get any two men to run the whole city.

The CHAIRMAN. You are for it, then, with reservations?

Mr. McDONALD. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, captain.

Mr. McDONALD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next on the list of witnesses is Mrs. Gladys Wheeler.

STATEMENT OF MRS. GLADYS WHEELER, WASHINGTON CHAPTER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN

Mrs. WHEELER. Senator Neely, I am Gladys Wheeler from the Washington chapter of the National Council of Negro Women.

Mrs. Uhle, the president of the District chapter of the National Council of Negro Women, wanted me to say we are for this bill, S. 656, and we appreciate the efforts that this committee has made to bring this bill around. We hope that Senator Neely, and his colleagues will be successful this time.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for that hope, and we hope that your hope will be realized.

Mrs. WHEELER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Ernest W. Howard is recognized.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ERNEST W. HOWARD, DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN, FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I feel like we are getting somewhat repetitious.

I am Mrs. Ernest W. Howard, department chairman of legislation of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs.

As I told you the other day, we have long, since way back in the 1920's, been for a national representation for the District of Columbia, and the last few years we have gone on record for the Auchincloss bill and the Kefauver bill.

We are definitely in favor of this bill, and for national representation and home rule for the District of Columbia.

There are so many reasons, Mr. Chairman, you have heard so many times, the Members of Congress have heard so many times, why we want it. We know there are so many constitutional reasons why we should have it as a people. And so, I think that I will just shorten my statement by saying this one thing, since we are a women's club, and we are over 6,000 members affiliated with the general Federation of Women's Clubs.

I believe that in the next election-as you know women have come to stay in legislation, and particularly they are becoming more and more serious in their thoughts of what is going on in the Congress. We have about decided that the thing that most affects the legisla

81450-51-10

tion, that affects our welfare, is the type of men and women that are sent to Congress. So we are going to have to rely on them.

I was looking over some notes the other day on the percentage of the voting from way back. I tried to pick them up this morning, but I had mislaid them. But they were most interesting, from way back where there were about 82 out of each 100 that voted, and on down into 1948 and 1950, where the percentage went down to 42 out of 100.

Women, since they have been voting, have rather consistently held up their numbers, but we have reason to believe that the next election will be a different story. All of the Members of Congress are going to hear a very different story because we believe that since the women are the ones who are filling the uniforms today for the war, we are going to look at it very seriously, and every woman is going to want to have her say in voting, and who our representatives are in the Congress..

It may very well be that the reason these figures are low in the voting, getting lower every voting year-it may very well be since this is the seat of government, and the people in the States see that the people here do not have the privilege of voting, that they think: Well, that it isn't too necessary; that if the Congress doesn't think it is necessary for us to vote here, it might not be too necessary out there. And it might have very serious repercussions.

There are so many lights we can throw on it.

And certainly in the District of Columbia we in the federation are not those who feel we are senseless and have not sense enough to vote. We do not feel that we are overriden with crime and all that sort of thing. We have our share, but we do feel that we should have the right to vote, have a voice in our Government, and take a part, which gives every citizen a dignified feeling that he does have a great part in this Government.

And since now we are trying to impress the world so very hard at this time, why, the best thing that we could do, we feel, that the Congress could do is to give the people of the District of Columbia, who are citizens, who give a larger quota of soldiers than a great many States put together, and certainly in the payment of taxes more than many States put together-we feel that the Congress should immediately give the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote.

We, of course, appreciate the great stand you have taken, and your leadership in it, and we hope it will not be very long until we will

have it.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Howard.

Mr. Jerome B. McKee.

STATEMENT OF JEROME B. MCKEE, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. MCKEE. Senator, I am Jerome B. McKee, president of the Federation of Businessmen's Association. That organization is composed of 24 representative business groups, having a membership of about 5,400 members of small-business men in the city of Washington.

At our meeting last night, which was our regular monthly meeting, I was first authorized-and at that meeting I would like to preface by saying the reporter of the Times-Herald was present, as well as the Evening Star, so that any question of not having the facts in writing of that meeting last night can be substantiated.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not need that. Your word is sufficient. Mr. McKEE. First, I was authorized to inform you that any speakers that appeared before you last week before another hearing that you held had no authority whatsoever from the Federation of Businessmen to either speak for them or to infer in any way that they were speaking for the federation. We deplore the publicity that ensued therefrom, for which we are sending a letter to the Board of Trade regretting statements made by one of the witnesses which would give any indication that the Federation of Businessmen's Association were a part of the remarks of that one gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is family trouble betweeen the Board of Trade and the Businessmen's Association, which they will have to settle.

Mr. McKEE. I appreciate that, but I wanted to, and I am glad to state that publicly, sir.

I was also authorized, sir, to restate exactly what we restated last year and the prior years thereto.

I would like to call your attention that this statement of last year was dated February 23, before the present war we are now engaged in under the UN. Therefore, I would like you to take note of how that language was stated on February 23, before Hon. John L. McMillan [reading]:

I again would like to reiterate the Federation of Businessmen's Association opposition to home rule for the District of Columbia as contained in the bill now before your committee. The record is clear as to our reasons of opposing this bill as was outlined before your committee. However, events move rapidly, and those that favor this legislation are pestering all the Members of Congress to sign a petition to bring this out on the floor. The possibility of conflict by our Nation

The CHAIRMAN. You are not opposed to the constitutional right of the people to petition governmental officials, are you?

Mr. MCKEE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You refer to people who were asking Congress to do things as being "pests."

Mr. McKEE. I recognize, Senator, you are referring to one paragraph in the letter. I say that sometimes one paragraph is put in there, but the paragraphs together tell the story.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not object to the people of the District of Columbia exercising the right of petition guaranteed them by the Constitution?

Mr. McKEE. No, sir; but I think when you have public hearings, sir. But to carry on, to do what I would constitute lobbying, and in many instances maybe they were not registered lobbyists, that is what is referred to in that paragraph.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure no business organization or corporation is opposed to lobbying. They have spent a few million dollars a month.