They have virtually no value, and I would not give you 2 cents for what would be left of a recreation board, the functions and the authority of which have been transferred to one man who is in no way— who in no way must accede to the wishes of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you submit an amendment designed to effect the improvement you desire?

Mr. WENDER. I would be delighted to do so, sir. The purpose of the amendment would be merely to permit the City Council to appoint such a board so there would be no question about the representation of this board. It will be thoroughly democratic, would have to accede to the views of the Council, and the board would serve at the pleasure of the Council, for term periods, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Please present your amendment to the committee counsel, Mr. Van Arkel.

Mr. WENDER. Splendid.

The CHAIRMAN. This matter apparently deserves consideration. Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir; I am delighted with your feeling on it.

I will conclude with just one short statement about another phase of the bill which I think might be improved.

One of the witnesses yesterday spoke at some length on the lack of provision for a District Delegate in this bill, and he favored the absence of such a provision. I disagree with him. It is my opinion that if we are to cure this disease we should get as much as quickly as we possibly can. It is within the province of Congress, pending the granting of home rule requiring a constitutional amendment, to give to the District of Columbia a Delegate, voteless as he may be but not voiceless, who will have all of the privileges of a Congressman other than a vote on the floor.

We know the magnificent service the Territories have had from such delegates. I am confident that such a man would not be in conflict with the Council but would be their voice on the Hill, would represent the people of the District of Columbia, and would have to be in concurrence with that Council because elections come up every 2 years, and if he were in conflict with the Council either the Council must be wrong or he must be wrong. I cannot see any difference, utterly no difference, from having a Delegate represent us in Congress and having a Congressman representing Montgomery County in nearby Maryland.

There is no conflict between the county managers of Montgomery County and the Representatives from the State of State of Maryland. They have not got exactly the same job to do, and there must be representation on the floor of Congress for the District of Columbia.

I shall not go into detail, Mr. Chairman, on this point, but if I may: Back in 1943, on June 16, extensive hearings were held before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-eighth Congress on H. R. 2620, which was introduced by then Congressman Walter of Pennsylvania. The bill was entitled "A bill to provide for a Delegate from the District of Columbia." Those hearings are specific, they contain statements from the very best minds in the District of Columbia, and the hearings. brought about virtual unanimous approval from all of the worth

while organizations of the District of Columbia in support of the District Delegate in Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that the authors did not supply it because of the manifest difficulty of obtaining unrestricted congressional representation for the District of Columbia.

Mr. WENDER. That undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, is partially true, but I think also that there are some, like me, who feel that the District Delegate would represent an intervening step because of his right to utilize all the facilities available to a Congressman, he could make the people of the country aware of the fact that we do not have actual representation, in just the same fashion as the Delegates from Hawaii and Alaska are today doing the magnificent job in letting the people of America know their desire for statehood.

Now, it does seem to me that there is a difference to be seen there, and that such a Delegate could perform invaluable service during the interim period in precisely the same manner as the Council that would be created here would be performing a service pending our receipt of full national representation.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that there is a difference of opinion, but I wanted to register my own personal views, because I feel that we should not have these hearings without something being said in support of this proposal.

In conclusion

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that you will not attribute my failure to share your opinion regarding that to my lack of interest in getting anything for a voteless Delegate or to any lack of interest in the welfare of the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. WENDER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I fear that if you get a voteless Delegate you will get nothing more for many years to come.

Mr. WENDER. The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is-I certainly do not want to debate this matter with you, but I do feel that that is precisely the same kind of argument that some of the witnesses who will follow me today and at your next hearings are going to say with respect to the bill before us, that this will prevent us from getting national representation.

I do not say that your remarks are not true. I just do not think that would be the case.

The CHAIRMAN. Those that do not want either home rule or national representation say, "We are not for home rule, but we would not oppose national representation." They apparently believe that a constitutional amendment providing such representation will never be achieved.

Mr. WENDER. That is precisely it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They do not want either. I want both.

Mr. WENDER. So do I.

The CHAIRMAN. And I want the congressional representatives to be empowered to vote as well to speak for the District.

Mr. WENDER. With that I am in accord.

In conclusion, I cannot close my statement without paying tribute to the magnificent representation that was made before you yesterday

by the Commissioner-designate of the District of Columbia, Mr. F. Joseph Donohue.

The CHAIRMAN. It was very encouraging.

Mr. WENDER. I think that you have known that, well, within the past generation we have not ever had a single District Commissioner who has ever forthrightly supported the proposition that you and I support today, and which is presented in this bill, and it is very gratifying to the citizens of the District of Columbia that we at least will have a representative in the District government-and I speak with some authority because I am a representative of the District government and for 9 years have coped with the problems that fall upon me as chairman of one of your boards-and I know of the great apathy that exists in the District government itself on this subject, and if we can have a man with the leadership ability that Mr. Donohue has always demonstrated, supporting us, I think it will go far to combat that apathy, and that we will eventually, and perhaps quite soon, achieve the results that we want.

I will not be able to be before your hearing next Wednesday, I believe it will be, when Mr. Donohue's appointment comes before this committee for confirmation or for consideration rather. I have a trial scheduled for that date in court, but I do want to pay tribute to him and say that I know from his own behavior as a citizen in the past and from the fine integrity that he has shown as a citizen and attorney, that he will serve the District well, and will particularly be of service to us in achieving success in obtaining relief from the "desuffrageitis."

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement.

Mr. WENDER. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will Dr. George B. Galloway please proceed?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE B. GALLOWAY, SENIOR SPECIALIST IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Mr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, my name is George B. Galloway. I am senior specialist in American government at your Legislative Reference Service in the Library of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an indispensable service.
Dr. GALLOWAY. Well, thank you so much.

During the Seventy-ninth Congress, I was staff director of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, which produced the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

One of the principal recommendations of the La Follette-Monroney committee was self-rule for the District of Columbia. The committee made that recommendation primarily with a view to reducing the work load on Congress that arises from its city-council function.

During the Eightieth Congress I was staff director of the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the House Committee on the District of Columbia. That committee produced the so-called Auchincloss bill, which was favorably reported in the Eightieth Congress by the House District Committee.

During the Eighty-first Congress I had the privilege of serving as technical adviser on this legislation to your own subcommittee. Two years ago your subcommittee held hearings on an identical bill. I testified at those hearings, and presented a detailed analysis of the so-called Kefauver bill, and a careful comparison of the provisions of the Kefauver and Auchincloss bills.

That testimony will be found, sir, in part two of the hearings before this subcommittee held in March of 1949, and I will not detain the committee with a repetition of the testimony, but invite your attention to it, if it interests you.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you want that inserted in the record at this point?

Mr. GALLOWAY. Whatever pleases the committee on that point. Mr. Chairman, the testimony is available to you in the records of your committee, and in a House committee print which I prepared, which compares the provisions of the two bills.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in that case it probably is not necessary to set it down in full in this record.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Rather than repeat the testimony which I presented here 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I may this afternoon, to present a brief summary of the principal arguments which have been made in recent years, both for and against home rule for Washington, as those arguments have been developed by the advocates and the opponents of this legislation.

On the one hand, the advocates of home rule begin by pointing out that it was evidently the intention of the founding fathers that the inhabitants of the Federal City should enjoy a large measure of local self-government, for James Madison, who was one of the chief architects of the Constitution, as you know, informed the people back in 1788 in one of his Federalist essays, and I quote his exact words:

"That the inhabitants of the Federal City," he said, "will have a voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them," and he went on to assure them that "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed them."

The advocates of home rule go on to point out that these early promises and expectations were soon fulfilled, and from 1802 until 1871 Congress permitted the people of Washington to elect their mayors and town councils in annual elections.

Then, during the territorial period from 1871 to 1874, Congress allowed the people of Washington to elect each year the 25 members of their municipal house of delegates, as well as the nonvoting Delegate to the National House of Representatives, such as Alaska and Hawaii now have. Thus, we see that during the first half of the history of the Federal City, the people of Washington enjoyed a large measure of local self-government.

The proponents of this legislation further point out that the people of Washington are evidently capable of local self-government because they have an occupational acquaintance with public affairs arising from the fact that upward of 20 percent of their members are em

ployed in the Federal Government; moreover, it is alleged, and I think correctly so, that the people of Washington are the best educated of any American city, according to the census figures, in terms of the number of years of schooling which they have completed.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, in your opinion, why was that backward step taken? Why were the people deprived of self-government? Mr. GALLOWAY. In 1874?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Well, it so happened, Mr. Chairman, that during the previous territorial regime, which followed not long after the Civil War, that the National Capital City was physically very much down at the heel; the streets; were muddy, there were smelly swamps, and great need of many capital improvements.

Under the territorial regime there was a board of public works and a governor, and in order to make up for lost time, the Governor, who was known as Boss Shepherd, and the board of public works, of which he was chairman, launched an ambitious program of public works to improve the physical appearance of the Capital City. They spent over a 4-year period the horrendous sum of $18,000,000, about 4 millions of which they borrowed from the people.

Finally, the taxpayers of the community protested against this "extravagant" expenditure, and Congress responded to their protests by liquidating the territorial regime and setting up in 1875 on a temporary make-shift basis a commission form of government. The functions which had been performed by the Governor and the board of public works were transferred to the Board of Commissioners, appointed by the President.

The legislative functions which had been performed by the municipal legislature were transferred to the Congress, and all suffrage rights were suspended. This temporary make-shift scheme was made permanent by the Charter of 1878, but I would point out that the conditions about which the taxpayers complained at that time were conditions brought about by the activity of a governor and a board of public works who had been appointed by the President, and were not the result of the action of the local legislature elected by the people.

Does that answer your question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. GALLOWAY. The advocates of home rule also point out that taxation without representation is incompatible with our American traditions. We pay today, they say, almost $100,000,000 in taxes each year, but the taxpayers have no voice with regard either to the tax rate or as to how their tax money shall be spent.

In this connection, I would like to invite your attention to an observation made by former Speaker Champ Clark who, in his autobiography, My Quarter Century of American Politics, said this about the government of the District of Columbia, and I quote:

Two days out of every month the House sits as a common council for the half million citizens of the District of Columbia who, living under the shadow of the Capitol, have no more voice in their governmental affairs than if the were denizens of the Cannibal Islands. A man who can think of a sadder commentary