strate quite clearly that a number of them represented the same individuals or groups while supporting the bill.

A week ago today, the president of the Federation of Citizens Associations claimed to speak for 80,000 members of that truly fine organization. In May, 1950, the Washington Star polled the 65 neighborhood associations which are members of the Federation, concerning their stand on S. 1527, the same as the present bill, identical with the bill being considered today. Here are the results of that survey, and I am advised there has been no significant change: 17 associations voted approval of the Kefauver bill; 23 had taken no position up to the time of the Star's poll; and 25 voted to oppose its passage.

We debated the questions among the citizens' associations and they voted individually. We, the people who are for and the people who are against-I mean to say this: That certain representative members of the various organizations which appeared here and testified for this bill and certain members of the Washington Board of Trade and other organizations who are opposed to it have appeared from time to time before meetings of citizens' associations and debated the merits and demerits of this bill. And then the associations have voted, and 25 of them voted against the bill, more against it than for it.

By the way, here is the article from the Washington Star giving the results of that poll, showing 25 citizens' associations against.

It has been intimated or stated flatly by some proponents that the Board of Trade is either the only or leading opposition to the Kefauver type home rule. At the same time, they have characterized us as "the vested interests." An even cursory check of previous hearings will show that the following "vested interests" are among those who have recorded opposition to passage of this legislation:

The District of Columbia Department, American Legion;

The District of Columbia Department, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States;

The Junior Chamber of Commerce:

The Federation of Business Men's Associations;

The Washingtonians;

The Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City; and those 25 citizens' associations previously referred to.

I reiterate that I am here at the command of our general membership, as evidenced by polls taken in 1948 and 1949.

Following the first poll then Board of Trade President John A. Reilly appeared before the Joint Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the Senate and House Committees on the District. of Columbia on February 6, 1948, and stated the board's position in opposition to the Auchincloss bill, H. R. 4902, Eightieth Congress. I quote from his statement:

Since 1916 the position of the board has been to support the principle that residents of the District of Columbia should be represented in Congress and in the electoral college. In the lack of such representation it doubts any satisfactory solution of questions arising through operation of nonrepresentative government in Washington.

Broadly speaking, this position has rested upon a conception of Washington as the seat of National Government under exclusive control of Congress. Any form of local autonomy inevitably raises one of two possibilities, expressed as follows:

(A) A delegation of authority by Congress to a local government which, by diluting the authority of Congress, would tend to lessen the responsibility of the Nation to its seat of government which accompanies exclusive control.

(B) A delegation of authority by Congress to a local government which, while retaining undiminished the authority of Congress, would fail to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the residents of the community for any really effective participation in their government and at the same time transfer to them a heavy responsibility without the means of meeting it.

The Washington Board of Trade's directors met Monday of this week, February 26, and adhered to these same principles by unanimous vote to authorize our appearance today.

While the Kefauver bill, S. 1527, was pending in the Eighty-first Congress on the House side I made a careful study of that legislation as general counsel for the Board of Trade, and found many objectionable features. The conclusions of my study were adopted by the board and presented to the House Committee on the District of Columbia July 14, 1949, in a complete oral statement which was also filed in mimeographed form. It was inserted, after some condensation, in the Congressional Record for July 22, 1949. I repeat, S. 1527 was word for word identical with the legislation we are considering today.

In summary, the board of trade's position then was stated as follows, as it had been stated on February 17, 1949, to the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.

I may say I made this statement in this room 2 years ago :

We have concluded, after study over a period of many years, that local suffrage in the District cannot be effective unless the people of the District also have full representation in the Congress of the United States.

No bill to grant local suffrage for the District of Columbia will be complete unless it is accompanied by provision to amend the Constitution of the United States in such a manner as to permit local residents to send representatives to the Congress and to vote for President and Vice President of the United States.

That is the position of the Washington Board of Trade today. Reference has been made in these hearings to planks in the 1948 national platforms of the two great political parties.

The present majority party:

We favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.

The present minority party:

We favor self-government for the residents of the Nation's Capital.

For many years, such expressions by the two great parties have been solicited by our citizens. The adoption of those planks in 1948 was a source of great satisfaction. It may interest you to know that as a deelgate to the Republican National Convention in 1948 I was one of two to appear before the committee on platform to seek inclusion of a plank favoring representation in Congress and a vote in the electoral college. In view of this, the resulting plank is properly construed as a declaration that the citizens of this Federal District should have representation in the Senate and House of Representatives and Presidential electors in the electoral college.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you help to write in the 1948 Republican platform the plank in favor of home rule for the District?

81450-51-12

Mr. COLLADAY. The plank which is in the 1948 platform came as a result of hearings before a subcommittee of the resolutions committee of the national convention.

Mrs. William S. Culbertson of this city and I, both delegates to the national convention, appeared before that subcommittee and requested a plank which would state in simple words, "We favor representation in Congress and the electoral college for the citizens of the District of Columbia."

The CHAIRMAN. That isn't what your platform contained.

Mr. COLLADAY. We were not permitted to write the plank. When the plank came out, it was in the form I just recited:

We favor self-government for the residents of the Nation's Capital.

I issued an interview construing that as meaning "self-government," meaning national representation in the Congress and in the electoral college, because that is what we asked.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Colladay, as an able lawyer—and it is no idle gesture to say that, because you are

Mr. COLLADAY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is a fair interpretation of “selfgovernment for the District" that the Republican convention meant simply you should have representation in the Congress?

Mr. COLLADAY. They broadened the phrase to self-government.

The CHAIRMAN. That is just it. Do you think the measure that is pending here now in favor of home rule, if passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President, would be a redemption of the promise contained in your party's last declaration of principle on the subject?

Mr. COLLADAY. No, sir, it would not, and as I go forward with my arguments, you will see my reasons in detail.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think, I presume, that if we were to pass the resolution submitting a constitutional amendment in favor of national representation in the House and Senate, that that would be a redemption of the Republican platform promise?

Mr. COLLADAY. Yes, but at the end of this statement, of which I am about one-third through, I combine the two; so I will ask you to be patient until I get my whole list of facts and arguments and conclusions before you.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't require the exercise of much patience to be interested in anything you have to say.

Mr. COLLADAY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. COLLADAY. In our judgment, the Kefauver bill, S. 656, does not meet the recommendation of the Republican Party platform. There can be no real self-government in the District of Columbia without its citizens having participation in the body which makes its laws and in the election process by which its President is chosen.

You will note that doesn't say anything else can come into it. There are certain features of this proposed legislation to which the board of trade offers unalterable objections. I understand that during hearings held last week, the suggestion was made that specific provisions should not be attacked in view of the over-all objective of S. 656.

I believe these hearings are being held to consider this legislation in its entirety: Legislation which may become the law of the land. In the words of Sir John Powell:

Let us consider the reason of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason. We believe the method which this bill provides for enacting a general law is unconstitutional-the legislative process in this bill we believe to be unconstitutional-that the provision for borrowing money by bond issues is a threat of excessive taxation on private property in the District; that the zoning provisions are detrimental to the property owner's best interests; that the dual voting provisions which permit voters of the 48 States residing here to participate in local elections is unsound; that it would almost certainly result in progressive reduction of the Federal payment and that ultimately it might vanish entirely.

Besides this, S. 656 does not require Congress to take affirmative action on proposed laws. It would permit Congress to take no action for 45 days, and then permit the President of the United States to do nothing about it for 10 days, to make a law effective.

Some claim that Congress can delegate to a District Council its powers to legislate over the District of Columbia in article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States # * *.

However, the authors of this pending legislation plainly were concerned as to the validity of such a situation. This is emphasized by the fact they included in it the provision for submitting proposed laws to the Congress and the President. Some very able lawyers, including the Honorable William D. Mitchell, former Attorney General of the United States, have questioned the constitutionality of this provision because the Constitution vests in the Congress itself the sole power to legislate for the District of Columbia.

If it were constitutional to make an outright delegation of the power to legislate, Congress might delegate its powers on various subjects to various agencies and adjourn and go home. There would be no need for this hearing today.

But no lawyer will contend this could be done.

The board of trade believes every property owner in the District of Columbia should oppose passage of this bill. We believe a careful examination on their part of the provision which would permit the District to borrow up to 5 percent of the value of taxable real property will convince them of this.

Consider the method proposed. First, the Council-nine elected and two appointed to look after the Federal Government interestswould approve the borrowing. Second, Congress would approve itthrough inaction. Third, it would be submitted to the voters in a referendum and these voters would include all those domiciled in the other States who have lived here 1 year. Testimony submitted previously in these hearings estimates their number at approximately

$200,000. In other words, 200,000 people still domiciled and voting in the States would be a tremendous-and probably deciding-influence in such a referendum.

Say, for example, the voters have agreed to go in debt to the extent of $83,000,000.

But, such borrowing must be repaid. Section 731 of the Kefauver bill provides that to repay such indebtedness and the interest charged against it there may be levied without limitation ad valorem taxes. on all taxable property in the District. Clearly, the burden of repayment of such indebtedness would be borne in large measure by the 75,000 home owners and approximately 25,000 owners of other types of real property in the District of Columbia.

The Holy Bible states that "The meek shall inherit the earth." For this purpose, we interpret the meek to be the permanent residents who are going to inherit the city and pay off the debt left them.

In addition to this threat to property owners, there is still another provision in S. 656 which, if enacted, would undoubtedly be harmful to property owners. This concerns zoning provisions.

The bill provides that zoning ordinances shall be passed by the District Council, then referred to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. If disapproved by that body, they must be passed again by a two-thirds vote of the Council to become effective.

Here is a situation where the Council of 9 members-all of whom presumably will have been voted on by the 200,000 people resident but not domiciled here-plus 2 members appointed by the Presidentto look after the Federal interest-adopt zoning regulations which may have serious effect on the value and use of real property.

Then, the NCPPC, a Federal agency, may veto the acts of the Council, after which the ordinance would be dead unless approved by two-thirds of the Council-8 of the 11 members. Two are Federal appointees, so it is apparent that, as a practical matter, control of zoning would rest in the Federal Government, by virtue of those 2 members and 200,000 Federal employees voting.

If certain proposed changes of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission membership composition are approved to include representatives from the neighboring States of Maryland and Virginia, the situation would be still more untenable.

Thus far, our comments have been general. We will now discuss other objectionable features of the bill with numerical reference to their respective sections. We have already stated that we wish to retain the commission form of government. Therefore, we oppose the provisions of S. 656 creating the District Council to replace the three Commissioners.

THE DISTRICT COUNCIL

The provision creating the District Council reads:

SEC. 301. (a) There is hereby created a Council of the District of Columbia consisting of eleven members, nine of whom shall be elected as provided in title XII, and two of whom shall be appointed, without regard to political affiliation, by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.