In Welch v. Cook (97 U. S. 541 (1878)), the 1873 act of the District of Columbia Legislative Assembly granted 10-year real estate tax exemption to new manufacturing establishments.

Justice Hunt, for the court, in commenting on the validity of the tax said:

It is not open to reasonable doubt that the Congress had the power to invest and did invest the District government with legislative authority, or that the act of the legislative assembly of June 26, 1873, was within that authority.

This is, however, a dictum. The issue before the court was whether an act of Congress, passed in 1874 and taxing all real estate in the District, validly superseded the act of the District of Columbia Legislature. The court held that it did.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything else you want to submit? Senator KEFAUVER. Also I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Auchincloss committee and the House committee last year held the most extensive hearings that I think I have ever seen on any subject. Every organization and every individual and every interest of the Federal Government was present, all of the departments. Those people came in to testify, and it was a very full and complete hearing. The CHAIRMAN. We have copies of those hearings.

Senator KEFAUVER. And in the Senate, before the Senate bill was passed, we had very extensive hearings, in which a great many of the witnesses were the same ones who testified before the House committee.

The issues pro and con were fully gone into and we are all conversant with them, particularly Members of the House, and I do hope-in other words, while I know you don't want to shut off anybody from testifying, the whole thing has been very exhaustively reviewed, and the issue is clear; I do hope that it may be submitted to the House and get a decision one way or the other at this session of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. I guarantee this bill will be considered calmly and thoroughly by every member of the committee. We are going into it thoroughly and will take every item up at its face value.

We certainly appreciate your coming over here.

We will hear from Congressman Marcantonio at a later date.

Mr. O'HARA. The clerk has just handed me a memorandum that the assessed value of real property was $1,625,000,000 as of April 1949. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned, to meet at the call of the chairman.)

HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The Judiciary Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia met in the committee room, 445 Old House Office Building, at 10 a. m., Hon. Oren Harris (subcommittee chairman) presiding. Other subcommittee members present were Hon. Olin E. Teague, Hon. Frank Buchanan, and Hon. James C. Auchincloss.

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order.

This morning we are to resume hearings on H. R. 28, H. R. 2505, H. R. 4281, and S. 1527, generally referred to as the home-rule legislation proposed for the District of Columbia.

At the last meeting of the committee we concluded hearing of the proponents and authors of the various bills. Hearings were announced for today to give opportunity to those representing organizations, groups, and associations to make their desires and wishes known to the committee and give their further expression regarding the proposal referred to provide home rule in the District of Columbia.

The chair would like to state that we regret very much that Mr. McMillan, the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives is unable to be with us this morning, due to the unfortunate death of his brother in South Carolina. I know we all extend to him our deepest sympathies in his bereavement. At the last meeting of the committee to hear the proponents there was some discussion between myself as chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Kefauver, the author of one of the bills, that passed the Senate, providing for home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia, regarding the act in effect during the early history of the District of Columbia.

Reference was made to the act of 1802 which incorporated the city of Washington for a period of 2 years. There was some discussion as to what authority was granted under that act, as to whether or not a precedent might have been established in reference to a city council and certain authority delegated by the city council to others responsible for the plan of the District of Columbia.

I have been doing a little research regarding the early history of this city, the Nation's Capital, and I find the act of 1802 is a very interesting piece of legislation; and for the benefit of the record and Members of the Congress, if there are no objections I would like to include a copy of this act, approved May 3, 1802, in the Congress of

the United States. It is entitled, "An act to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia."

I think it would be very interesting to the Members of the Congress who considered this matter to read this early piece of legislation affecting the inhabitants and incorporating the city of Washington. It shows just what authority was granted by the Congress to the body politic of the city of Washington at that time. It might be interesting to know that it evidently was an experiment which came out of the confusion of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia; and evidently there was some doubt in the minds of the authors of the Constitution and those who were active in the early part of our Nation's Capital, because it provided that the act shall be enforced for only a period of 2 years.

The act is as follows:

ACT OF 1802 INCORPORATING THE CITY OF WASHINGTON

AN ACT To incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the city of Washington be constituted a body politic and corporate, by the name of a mayor and council of the city of Washington, and by their corporate name, may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, grant, receive, and do all other acts as natural persons, and may purchase and hold real, personal and mixed property, or dispose of the same for the benefit of the said city; and may have and use a city seal, which may be broken or altered at pleasure; the city of Washington shall be divided into three divisions or wards, as now divided by the levy court for the county, for the purpose of assessment; but the number may be increased hereafter, as in the wisdom of the city council shall seem most conducive to the general interest and convenience.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the council of the city of Washington shall consist of twelve members, residents of the city, and upwards of twenty-five years of age, to be divided into two chambers, the first chamber to consist of seven members, and the second chamber of five members; the second chamber to be chosen from the whole number of councillors elected, by their joint ballot. The city council to be elected annually, by ballot, in a general ticket, by the free white male inhabitants of full age, who have resided twelve months in the city, and paid taxes therein the year preceding the election's being held: the justices of the county of Washington, resident in the city, or any three of them, to preside as judges of election, with such associates as the council may, from time to time appoint.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the first election of members for the city council shall be held on the first Monday in June next, and in every year afterwards, at such place in each ward as the judges of the election may prescribe.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the polls shall be kept open from eight o'clock in the morning till seven o'clock in the evening, and no longer, for the reception of ballots. On the closing of the poll, the judges shall close and seal their ballot-boxes, and meet on the day following in the presence of the marshal of the district, on the first election, and the council afterwards, when the seals shall be broken, and the votes counted: within three days after such election, they shall give notice to the persons having the greatest number of legal votes, that they are duly elected, and shall make their return to the mayor of the city. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the mayor of the city shall be appointed, annually, by the President of the United States. He must be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the city, prior to his appointment.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall hold their sessions in the city hall, or, until such building is erected, in such place as the mayor may provide for that purpose, on the second Monday in June, in every year; but the mayor may convene them oftener, if the public good require their deliberations. Three fourths of the members of each council may be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day: they may compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as they may, by ordinance, provide: they shall appoint their respective presidents, who shall preside during their sessions, and shall vote on all questions where there is

an equal division; they shall settle their rules of proceedings, appoint their own officers, regulate their respective fees, and remove them at pleasure: they shall judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of their own members, and may, with the concurrence of three fourths of the whole, expel any member for disorderly behavior, or malconduct in office, but not a second time for the same offence: they shall keep a journal of their proceedings, and enter the yeas and nays on any question, resolve or ordinance, at the request of any member, and their deliberations shall be public. The mayor shall appoint to all offices under the corporation. All ordinances or acts passed by the city council shall be sent to the mayor, for his approbation, and when approved by him, shall then be obligatory as such. But if the said mayor shall not approve of such ordinance or act, he shall return the same within five days, with his reasons in writing therefor; and if three-fourths of both branches of the city council, on reconsideration thereof, approve of the same, it shall be in force in like manner as if he had approved it, unless the city council, by their adjournment, prevent its return.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the corporation aforesaid shall have full power and authority to pass all by-laws and ordinances; to prevent and remove nuisances; to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases within the city; to establish night watches or patrols, and erect lamps; to regulate the stationing, anchorage, and mooring of vessels, to provide for licensing and regulating auctions, retailers of liquors, hackney carriages, wagons, carts and drays, and pawnbrokers within the city; to restrain or prohibit gambling and to provide for licensing, regulating or restraining theatrical or other public amusements within the city; to regulate and establish markets; to erect and repair bridges; to keep in repair all necessary streets, avenues, drains and sewers, and to pass regulations necessary for the preservation of the same, agreeably to the plan of the said city; to provide for the safe keeping of the standard of weights and measures fixed by Congress, and for the regulation of all weights and measures used in the city; to provide for the licensing and regulating the sweeping of chimneys and fixing the rates thereof; to establish and regulate fire wards and fire companies; to regulate and establish the size of bricks that are to be made and used in the city; to sink wells, and erect and repair pumps in the streets; to impose and appropriate fines, penalties and forfeitures for breach of their ordinances; to lay and collect taxes; to enact by-laws for the prevention and extinguishment of fire; and to pass all ordinances necessary to give effect and operation to all the powers vested in the corporation of the city of Washington: Provided, That the by-laws or ordinance of the said corporation, shall be, in no wise, obligatory upon the persons of non-residents of the said city, unless in cases of intentional violation of by-laws or ordinances previously promulgated. All the fines, penalties and forfeitures, imposed by the corporation of the city of Washington, if not exceeding twenty dollars, shall be recovered before a single magistrate, as small debts are, by law, recoverable; and if such fines, penalties and forfeitures exceed the sum of twenty dollars, the same shall be recovered by action of debt in the district court of Columbia, for the county of Washington, in the name of the corporation, and for the use of the city of Washington.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the person or persons appointed to collect any tax imposed in virtue of the powers granted by this act, shall have authority to collect the same by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person chargeable therewith; no sale shall be made unless ten days previous notice thereof be given; no law shall be passed by the city council subjecting vacant or unimproved city lots, or parts of lots, to be sold for taxes.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall provide for the support of the poor, infirm and diseased of the city.

SEC. 10. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That no tax shall be imposed by the city council on real property in the said city, at any higher rate than three quarters of one per centum on the assessment valuation of such property.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That this act shall be in force for two years, from the passing thereof, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.

Approved, May 3, 1802 (2 Stat. 195, ch. 53).

Mr. HARRIS. We have a number of witnesses this morning and we are delighted to have them, in order that we may further become advised, in the light of the past year or two and recent acts regarding this very important problem.

This seems to be the day in which the newspapers will have their opportunity to express themselves, and it is one of those very rare

occasions when Members of Congress may have an opportunity to question the newspaper boys on the record.

We have with us this morning Mr. McKelway, editor of the Evening Star, who is first scheduled on the list of those to appear before the committee this morning.

Mr. McKelway, we shall be glad to have your statement at this time. STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN MCKELWAY, EDITOR, THE EVENING STAR

Mr. McKELWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make. Mr. HARRIS. You are a newspaperman. That is, you come to us as a newspaperman; and, after all, you do run a very fine newspaper here in the city of Washington which carries some very fine material. I cannot say I approve of everything you say; but, nevertheless, I do think it is one of the outstanding newspapers of the country. We are glad to have you with us a representative of the Evening Star.

Mr. McKELWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, but I have testified on this subject twice before the previous committee, but I was invited to come over and I am glad to put myself at your disposal if I can be of any help.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you care to indicate what your position was a year ago or 2 years ago or 10 years ago, and whether or not there has been any change in your position, Mr. McKelway?

Mr. McKELWAY. When I appeared here 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I discussed some of the obvious difficulties with which a committee is faced in trying to draft a home-rule bill in this unique city.

I have followed with interest the work of Mr. Auchincloss' committee. I think that the committee spent more time and brought out a better home-rule bill before the House last year than anyone ever did in the past.

I think that the Senate bill is a very good bill, as far as the principle that is concerned in that legislation. That principle is to draw up a plan of home rule that Congress is willing to grant to the people of the District, and then give the people of the District an opportunity to say whether or not they want it-I can find no quarrel with that plan whatever. In fact, it is very difficult for me to see how anyone can oppose the bill, as far as the plan is concerned. If the people here want their vote, I think they should be given the right to vote.

As for the practical success of any such measure in building a better municipal government, I have my own doubts in that respect and I haven't been able to resolve them by anything that I have seen or read in connection with this bill.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Abernethy, a member of this committee, posed what I thought was a very appropriate question to one of the sponsors of the bill last week, and I should like to hear your comment. I believe the question he asked Senator Kefauver was if there was under our Constitution such a thing as real home rule for the District of Columbia.

Mr. McKELWAY. I don't think there is, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Of course, but an amendment to the Constitution could bring that about.

Mr. McKELWAY. Yes, sir.