poll in about 1947, in which we asked people how many of them were registered and how many actually voted, and got a count that was much smaller than that. I forget the actual percent, but I think there is some element of self-interest in saying that "I voted absentee." As you know, sir, everybody in North Carolina voted for you, after you got in, and the same for every other Senator here, and I think people do not want to minimize how many are turning out here, but I think it is substantially less than that, but that is a guess.

Senator SMITH. It struck me that probably it would be less, but I was interested in seeing it.

Now in our State we have got something over 4,000,000 population, and we voted in a joint election about 550,000, I should say. Now I was wondering proportionately how many people in the District did or did not vote, getting to the point whether they really wanted

to vote or not.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think that has another point of relevancy, if I may say so, sir, and that is that this bill, which after all is just voting for the city council-we cannot have anything more than that-also provides that if I live in Raleigh and am up here for a long time, I can vote for the city council here and I can go back to Raleigh and vote in the national elections, and I think somebody this morning questioned the wisdom of that.'

A bunch of us have studied that angle quite a bit over the years, and I am profoundly for it for a variety of reasons. The main one is that there is no finer group of stable and literate and interested people in your community than many of the civil servants who have been here for years, come under the quota system, under the Civil Service quota system and intend to go back to Raleigh or Pasadena or Wichita Falls or what have you when they are 65.

Yet they live here, they may educate their children, may have the deepest civic and cultural interests in our city, and I think they would make a marvelous addition to the electorate, and that you might have some sort of an unbalanced and half-representative electorate without them.

It has been tried I understand out in a little town in Maryland. I think the reason they tried it is because without it there would not have been a whole lot of people to vote, and they found it workable.

Senator SMITH. In other words, if you are going to give the people who really live here most of the time a chance to express themselves, you have got to have that sort of an arrangement?

Mr. GRAHAM. It seems to me so, sir. I think 38 States, probably more now, the attorneys general have written that there is no doubt about its constitutionality as far as their States are concerned.

Senator SMITH. It would not disenfranchise them in their own State?

Mr. GRAHAM. It was 38 at the last count, the last count which I remember, and it is probably a year or two ago. It is more than that now I would say.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, Senator?

Senator SMITH. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. That is all, sir.

81450-51-5

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had you, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Richard Freedman, representing the Washington Home Rule Committee, please come forward.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD FREEDMAN, REPRESENTING THE WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE

Mr. FREEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Freedman. I live at 5033 V Street NW., and I am appearing before you as a representative of the Washington Home Rule Committee.

I do not have any prepared statement, but I would like to make, if I may with your permission, a couple of points respecting this bill, S. 656. The first point I would like to make, sir, is that over a period of 3 years the group which I am representing here, the Washington Home Rule Committee, made up of citizens of the District of a great variety of interests, has been concerned primarily with home rule.

They have been anxious to be of any assistance they could to congressional committees, and they are particularly anxious that I express to you their appreciation for your leadership in this movement and for your interest in and concern for the welfare of the residents of the District, and I am very glad to be able to do so.

Two points which I would like to make very briefly here are, one, the fact that in this town we citizens are very strongly of the view that we should have the opportunity to participate in responsibilities of citizenship. That is the point that has been brought out here frequently this morning. It is one we feel cannot be overstressed. We' feel that our anxiousness to assume responsibilities of citizenship is really the heart of democracy, and it is the thing that we are working for.

The other point that our group is particularly concerned with trying to work for is the problem of relieving the Congress of the burden of the detailed minutiae of District government. If any legislation can be passed that can accomplish that, we believe it would be a boon to you gentlemen, and we believe that this bill does provide for that.

We are familiar with this bill, and members of our group have worked in the drawing up of previous legislation which preceded this. We have asked eminent legal counsel's views on a great many of the substituted points in this legislation.

I am not myself a lawyer, sir, so I will not attempt to address myself to the details of legislative provisions of this bill, but simply to express to you the feeling of our group that if there is any way in which we can be of help either in the legislative aspects of this proposal or in the general problem of attempting to get the home rule for the District and for the residents of the District, we are anxious to cooperate and be of any assistance we can in that regard, and I think that while our group itself is small, it is representative of many. varieties of occupations represented in our membership.

I believe, sir, that we represent in effect a far wider group of people" here in the District who perhaps may appear to be apathetic at times on the subject of home rule, but who are actually deeply concerned

and are unable to make their appearance here, and their interest in home rule apparent, through the fact that over a period of several years they feel that no matter what interest they may show, it is not possible for them to obtain home rule.

I might say that their fears on that score, of course, do not arise from any activities of your committee here. We feel that you are the great friend of the people of the District in this movement.

I will be very glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Fortunately, many Members of the Senate and the House are loyal friends of the District and also of the bill. Have you any questions, Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much Mr. Freedman.

Mr. FREEDMAN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Melvin D. Hildreth, national Democratic committeeman for the District of Columbia, is recognized.

STATEMENT OF MELVIN D. HILDRETH, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEEMAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. HILDRETH. Mr. Chairman, I am the Democratic national committeeman for the District of Columbia, and I have been a resident of the District for more than 30 years.

It was with particular pride, Mr. Chairman, that I heard a few moments ago your reference to the historic position of our party on this very vital issue, and I recall that you referred to the platform

of 1892.

In 1892 the Democratic platform came out wholeheartedly for home rule. That was under the leadership of Cleveland and Stevenson, and that was repeated in 1896, and then we find it repeated in subsequent platforms, continuing down through more than half a century, until 1942, 1944, and 1948.

That I think is significant because I think that the convention does represent a mass membership of the party, and when the convention for more than half a century takes that position, I think that it is significant as far as the historic attitude of our party is concerned. However, this is a nonpartisan bill.

This represents the views of both Republicans and Democrats in our Congress, and I hope and I believe that I will be followed by representatives of the Republican Party who will urge united support for this measure, because it does represent the views, not only the historic views of the Democratic Party but also the platform views of the Republican Party as expressed in their last platform, and certainly there are those of us on the outside who might be termed as party workers, that is the volunteer worker without which no party can succeed. We believe that from our point of view the party platforms do represent a party pledge which is a party promise and should be so regarded.

I feel that there are many here who are going to discuss the details of the bill, and my appearance here as national committeeman is

simply to refer to the historic attitude of our party, and perhaps we can recall one instance which I think is significant, which is a Republican incident. That took place on August 27, 1858, when Mr. Douglas challenged Congressman Lincoln and demanded that he state what he would do in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

Congressman Lincoln replied that while he thought that Congress had all authority to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, that he would refer the matter to the qualified registered voters of the District of Columbia to consider that problem.

I think that is significant because Abraham Lincoln at that time recognized the authority and the power of the voters of the District of Columbia, and while it was unfortunate that it took a very bitter war to solve that problem, I have often wondered if it perhaps could not have been solved if it had been submitted peacefully to the voters of the District of Columbia.

As you recall, it was after that incident that the vote was taken away from the people of the District of Columbia, and I do not know whether or not the question of the attitude of the Northern States and the Southern States in reference to the abolition of slavery had anything to do with it, but certainly it did follow that the vote was taken away from our people, but this has been a never-ending struggle.

This has been a vital struggle, and like most vital causes, it never will end until it ends with the solution that we all hope to see in our lifetime. If we do not, we know that our children will carry it on, because many of those who have passed on have been active workers for this cause, and yet the cause has been so firm, so solid, so wonderful in its conception that those who have come on in subsequent generations have not given up the hope that we will yet win.

We do think, Mr. Chairman, that your reference to the international situation is of the utmost significance, because some of us, while we are in hearty accord with many who regard with a great deal of sorrow the abolition of suffrage in Czechoslovakia, in Latvia, Estonia, and in Poland and the other countries behind the iron curtain, we sincerely believe that it would probably be with much better grace if we could say that in the Capital of these United States, especially in this one hundred and fiftieth year of the continuity of the democratic system, if it could be said that our people in this capital were restored the right to vote, just as we hope it will be restored in the countries behind the iron curtain.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.]

Senator SMITH. May I ask a question. I am new on this committee and new here in Congress, so I am just asking for information. If everybody has been for this bill, why has it not been passed? Now I want the practical aspects.

I do not think that, for example, behind the iron curtain they are going to know what we are doing here in the District, but I am concerned with the right of the people in the District who pay taxes and who live here, to have local self-government so far as they are concerned. Now what is the reason that it has not been passed? Both parties have gone on record for it, and it has been here year after year. Why has it not been passed? Can you tell me very briefly?

Mr. HILDRETH. I think the answer is that the Congress has not been permitted to vote on it. Whenever Congress has had the right to vote upon this bill, it has.

It passed the Senate overwhelmingly, but the House never has had the right, it never has been granted the right to express its opinion one way or another, and even though a considerable number of Congressmen signed a petition and asked that the bill reach the floor, they were denied that privilege.

it?

Senator SMITH. It could not be if a sufficient number signed, could

Mr. HILDRETH. All but 13, I think, signed the bill.

Senator SMITH. It sounds to me like they ought to go on the House side, Mr. Chairman, and work on them. I was interested in the real reasons back of it, why the House has not passed on it.

Mr. HILDRETH. We do not understand why the House has not been permitted to vote on it. We certainly have struggled and many Members of the House have asked that it be brought to the floor, but it has never been released so that the Members of the House could vote on it.

May I add one other point. Mr. Chairman, I think you asked a few minutes ago about the number of people voting by absentee ballot. At the headquarters of our committee in the last election we sent cut more than 130,000 absentee voters' ballots. Those were applied for in person. Sometimes the line of voters went clear around the corner and down the block.

Of the 130,000 ballots that were sent out from our headquarters, more than 7,000 went to the State of Ohio. Out of some 2,000,000 votes cast in the State of Ohio, President Truman carried the State by about 7,000, and, therefore, it was with considerable pride that we felt that the voteless District of Columbia had sent out to the State of Ohio from our headquarters where our personnel could not vote, enough votes to carry the State of Ohio for President Truman.

Senator SMITH. Now if that is correct, then if you had not done. that, if they had to vote here, the President would have lost Ohio. Mr. HILDRETH. No, sir, because this bill provides you can vote here as well as in Ohio.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hildreth.

Mr. William Fadler representing the Democratic Club of the District of Columbia will please proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FADLER, REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. FADLER. Mr. Chairman, my name is William Fadler, Jr. I am an attorney in the District of Columbia and executive vice president of the Democratic Club of the District of Columbia, and a member of the Young Democrats of the District of Columbia.

It is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to speak in favor of the home rule before your committee, on behalf of the Democratic Club of the District, as a member of the Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia. For the first time in many years both of these organi