The proposition seems to be that the better people will not be able to vote, that the better people will not be able to control the government, and therefore in some way we will not have a very desirable government if this home rule becomes law.

The first answer which comes to mind is unprintable.

The second answer, of course, is that this is not a democratic position, that this is not a democratic argument.

The third answer could be the fifteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which says that no person shall be denied the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The last answer which comes to mind has been mentioned to this committee before, but I think it is the most important one. It is a question of idealism, which I hope is still pertinent in discussing proposed legislation. The people, the young people, all of the people all over the world in our international relations, we hope, look to the United States of America for leadership in democracy, and of course it certainly is a terrible thing that the center of the democracy in this country, the Nation's Capital, is at present an example of nondemocracy; and we also have an internal problem in the United States of America because even the youth of America could be disillusioned if democratic processes are not pursued to the fullest extent.

So I think, as a matter of idealism and as a matter of practice, it would be an excellent thing for the District of Columbia to get home rule under this Kefauver bill. Thank you very much, sir, for your attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for coming, Professor.
The next witness is Mr. Giles Dawson.

STATEMENT OF GILES E. DAWSON

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of any citizens' association? Mr. DAWSON. Yes, the Connecticut Avenue Citizens' Association. The CHAIRMAN. What association?

Mr. DAWSON. Connecticut Avenue, and I am a delegate of the Connecticut Avenue Association to the Northwest Council of Citizens' Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Atherholt?
Mr. DAWSON. No, I didn't. I only had a report on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the reporter please read Mr. Atherholt's statement about whom he represents.

The following statement by Mr. Atherholt was read by the reporter: I speak for the Northwest Council of Citizens Associations.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of the Northwest Council? Mr. DAWSON. I am a delegate of the Connecticut Avenue Association to the Northwest Council, of which Mr. Atherholt is president.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at the action authorizing Mr. Atherholt to appear here?

Mr. DAWSON. No such action has been taken since I have been here this year or last year.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you a member of that association and a delegate from that association to Mr. Atherholt's association on and ever

since the 3d of January, the day on which this session of Congress began?

Mr. DAWSON. January what?

The CHAIRMAN. January 3 of this year.

Mr. DAWSON. Yes, I was. No action has been taken since then. certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as Mr. Atherholt's statement intimated that he was representing that association in offering his protest, would you say that was without authority?

Mr. DAWSON. That was without authority, in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to say anything further on this? Mr. DAWSON. That is all I am really qualified to say at the moment. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Did you give your name and address? Mr. DAWSON. I gave my name; yes. My address is 3434 Thirtyfourth Street NW.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lewis H. Rohrbaugh? Is Mr. Rohrbaugh present?

Dr. George W. Hodgkins? Is Mr. Hodgkins here?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. HODGKINS

Mr. HODGKINS. I am a member of various local organizations but am not officially delegated by any of them to speak in their behalf at this time.

I am a former president of the Kalorama Citizens' Association, which has taken action in favor of the Kefauver bill or home rule of that general type, at least, and I have been for a number of years a member of the board of the Central Suffrage Conference, which is in favor of the Kefauver bill, and some other organizations I am identified with are not in favor of it, such as the Washington Board of Trade, of which I have been a member for more than 30 years, but my testifying contrary to what that organization has already testified will be no news to them, as I have been outspoken in my opposition to their point of view in committee activity and on other occasions.

My personal view is in favor of home rule and to the effect that the Kefauver bill is very definitely a home-rule bill.

I may disagree with some particular provisions of it, but on the whole, I think it would give the city of Washington as extensive a measure of home rule as any city in the country has. There are two essential features to home rule. One is to have a government set up in a local area which depends upon the votes of the people resident in that area. The second feature is that the paramount authority, whether it be Congress or a State legislature, shall let that local government carry on its work without any serious amount of interference.

There are some home-rule cities in the country which are safeguarded in that by constitutional amendments, the United States Constitution, which prohibits the State legislatures from interfering in local affairs.

When the home-rule plan of city government was quite extensively discussed a number of years ago, it was felt by many that such a constitutional provision was highly important. I don't think it is so

regarded now, and there are many cities in the country which enjoy a high measure of home rule simply because the State legislatures feel it is undesirable to interfere with their exercise of local activity and not that they are prohibited from doing so by the State constitution. I think there is no doubt as to the constitutionality of conferring on the District government powers of home rule comparable to that which cities elsewhere in the country enjoy as subordinate areas under a State legislature.

I am particularly concerned about this argument which has been going around for the last couple of years to the effect that national representation is an essential part of home rule. Home rule to me means local self-government and national representation is not an essential part of it. It is quite a distinct part of it.

National representation may help home rule somewhat. Home rule will help the effectiveness of national representation. But to have our representatives up here in Congress, which I should like to have, will not accomplish home rule. Whatever Congress does, even if we are represented in it, is not in itself home rule. The important thing for home rule is for Congress to set up a local government dependent upon the will of the people and then let that local government carry on its work.

I don't see any reason why we should hold off from trying to get local home rule because we have not yet obtained national representation. It seems to be a sort of fear campaign which has been spread quite generally.

It would seem as if we must bell the cat by getting national representation before it would be worth the risk for us little mice to try to step out into the field of self-government in any other respect.

But it seems to me that local self-rule effectively carried on would be a stepping stone to securing the consent of Congress and of the States for our representation in Congress.

If there are objections I would have to the Kefauver bill-and I concur in some of the particular objections which have been made-it is that it tries to combine home rule with reorganization and thereby gets to be an extremely lengthy bill of 119 pages full of a great many detailed provisions, which are an invitation to people to raise objec

tions.

But so far as the Council-Manager plan as a main feature is concerned, it seems to me there has been some misrepresentation spread abroad in assuming that that plan is something new that is being put over on the Washington people; whereas, it is really, of course, a very widespread plan which has worked very successfully. While it has been said that the Council-Manager plan has not been carried out successfully in any city the size of Washington, it does seem to me that a city the size of Cincinnati, with 500,000 population, is enough of an example to point to its probable success in a city of 800,000 like Washington. It does seem to me that there are also other cities which are large enough to be additional examples.

Some of the objections which have been raised, such as to bring in city managers from outside or giving them very extensive powers to appoint and to remove officers, and so forth, have been put for

ward as being something unusual which would be very dangerous, but those in many cases are provisions which are found to work successfully in Cincinnati or other cities of considerable size.

Some of the other provisions, such as the matter of having two members of the Council appointed by the President and the special provision about dual voting, some of those things are peculiar to the Washington situation and it may well be argued if people are sincerely desirous of working out a good home-rule bill, it seems a little good will and sound logic would be able to work out a plan which would work well on those particular details.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and if you wish, you may extend your remarks further by a written statement in the record. Mr. HODGKINS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Frank Tavenner present?

STATEMENT OF FRANK TAVENNER, VICE PRESIDENT, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. TAVENNER. My name is Frank Tavenner. I speak for the Young Democratic Club of the District and for the Young Democratic Clubs of America. I am a lawyer here and also a property owner, but I am in the Young Democratic Clubs of America and they are for home rule. The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia has consistently worked with eternal vigilance toward self-government in the District of Columbia. Though we are behind the Kefauver bill in force, we are not against any bill that would let us crawl before we walk.

We Young Democrats condemn the attitude of those autogenetic rulers of the District of Columbia who would pay homage to home rule but at the same time make every effort to see that it doesn't happen. Their method is to settle for nothing but absolute home rule when they know well that this is the best method to scuttle it. They say that home rule is not practical because of the race problem when they know well that such is not the case and that there would be no real trouble over it.

Senator JOHNSTON. Are you criticizing the Congress for taking a position?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir; I am not.

Senator JOHNSTON. For their opinion? They have a right to their opinion, whether for it or against it.

Mr. TAVENNER. I don't believe I criticized the Congress.
Senator JOHNSTON. Who are you criticizing?

Mr. TAVENNER. I am criticizing those people who would say they want home rule and at the same time use all prejudice, and so forth, to overcome it. In other words, to weaken the will of the people to have home rule.

Home rule is not practical to those who are too selfish or lazy to take on the responsibilities of self-government or to those who fail to see that the people of the District of Columbia are more educated, intelligent, and democratic than the average city in the United States. It is not practical to those who have been sung to sleep through the

years by the hypocritical patriots by the song that the present government works better than self-government. Few people stop to think that a competitive system of appointing local rulers would save them money. The elected government would be forced, in order to retain office, to keep taxes down, avoid wastage, make less regulations and give better government. Who can honestly say that it is less practical to have self-government in the District of Columbia than it is in New Orleans, New York, Atlanta, or San Francisco.

I work quite a bit with automobiles in the District of Columbia. I hear people complain every day that auto tags are too high here. I ask them if they would be willing to go to the polls to vote for lowerprice tags. They always say "Yes." Yet, the same persons when asked if they are in favor of home rule answer that it is not practical. I ask, On what grounds is it not practical?

We Young Democrats feel that this is the year for home rule. Any technical point that continues to curtail it is redundant to the spirit of the Constitution. We Young Democrats are going to ask those Democratic Members of Congress who do not endorse the party plank for home rule in the District just why they are disloyal to their party platform. The minority members will be exposed as to the real reason they oppose it. Those token forces will be uncovered. In this campaign also we will make the public conscious of their rights and duties. I urge all those groups who have shown themselves to be sincerely behind home rule to join forces with the Young Democrats to cover the city with posters, advertisements, radio, and public canvass so that the city will be brought back to a feeling of responsibility that local citizens should have.

Senator JOHNSTON. I want to thank you for mentioning automobile license tags. I am much in favor of that and always have felt that automobile tags ought to be low in price. If you have to get the money, get it from those that use the car after they buy the tags. In my State I had an awful fight down there, even called out the National Guard, in regard to the highway department, and finally we got the lowest tag in America. I guess you know that. It starts at $1. A lightweight car, $1. You have to pay for the postage and things on top of that, and then the insurance. But it is just $1.

Mr. TAVENNER. If I could extend that remark, in the District of Columbia we have 10 miles, approximately 10 miles of territory here. Probably I would say we have the highest automobile tags in the United States. What do we have to say about them? Not a thing in the world.

Now in our campaign, the Young Democrats, we want to rouse the citizens to know just what profit they get from local government. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Huver I. Brown present?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you can make your statement very brief, I am afraid we will be unable to hear you at this time. We have 3 minutes.