Dr. SHEPARD. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And that is to insist upon an amendment to the Constitution which will give them the privileges which the people in the 48 States enjoy?

Dr. SHEPARD. I think so, gentlemen.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I want to congratulate you on your statement. You are definitely correct in what you have said.

Now, there is just one other point that I want to bring out, and we may find ourselves at a slight difference now.

Dr. SHEPARD. I see.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You stated that, in your opinion, the recorder of deeds probably should be an appointive official, appointed by the President in view of the tremendous interest which the Government has in land within the District of Columbia.

Dr. SHEPARD. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Doctor, might that not also apply to the people in the 48 States when it comes to conferring certain governmental functions upon the people of the District of Columbia? Might that not also apply to the people in the 48 States who also have a very great interest in the properties and the seat of government which is located in the District of Columbia?

Dr. SHEPARD. That is why I do not think it should be changed until we get the advice and consent of the people in the 48 States.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You have just repeated what a distinguished jurist said just before he left here, that the people of the States created it, that it is in the Constitution today, and they have a right to change it if they see fit.

Dr. SHEPARD. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And there is where that issue should be settled.. Dr. SHEPARD. I think so, Mr. Abernethy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you.

Dr. SHEPARD. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Shepard.

Dr. SHEPARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee.

STATEMENT OF ELMER E. BATZELL, REPRESENTING MacARTHUR BOULEVARD CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Elmer E. Batzell, of the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association, who is next on the list of witnesses, will now appear.

Mr. BATZELL. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. What is your address, Mr. Batzell?

Mr. BATZELL. My address?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. BATZELL. 5410 Macomb Street NW.

Mr. HARRIS. All right.

Mr. BATZELL. I am here today as delegate from the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association.

I was appointed to come to inform you of the action taken by that association in its March meeting.

I appeared last year at the request of the president of the association before the Auchincloss Committee with a similar message.

In March the citizens' association, after circulation of notice on the subject, considered the problem of home rule, and at that time discussed at some length the Kefauver bill, which was then pending in the Senate. No legislation, of course, had at that time been enacted by either House of this particular Congress.

At the conclusion of the consideration, which consisted, in large measure, of a discussion of the outlines of the proposed legislation, and floor discussion, a motion was made in favor of home rule, and in general of the principles of this pending legislation.

However, no action was taken specifically to endorse the principles of either the Kefauver bill or the Auchincloss bill which had been introduced last year.

At the same time, this motion carried with it instructions to appoint a delegate to convey this word to the appropriate committees of Congress, and also requested that the delegate convey to the Congress that the citizens' association was in support of the principles they had advanced the previous year in favor of the Auchincloss measure.

To that extent, and to that extent alone, can it be said that the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association has expressed an opinion on either of the home-rule bills which you have before you.

Now, that is all that I am here to tell you. At a subsequent meeting of the association I reported that hearings had been called in the Senate before I was notified of my appointment, and that I had submitted a letter to the committee stating that I would appear before the House when hearings were held there. That action was approved by the association.

I shall be glad to comment personally on any questions you may have, or answer any questions with respect to the action of the association.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Batzell, you noted on the card filled out for the information of the committee, and which was submitted to the clerk on June 24, your home address and other information, that you were acting for the organization, the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association, and you have just indicated today that you appear in their behalf.

Mr. BATZELL. That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. You note on here that your position with the organization is "representative to Northwest Council."

Mr. BATZELL. That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. And you stated that your authority to appear here was by appointment by the president to communicate position of MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association.

Mr. BATZELL. That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. I have here a letter addressed to me. president's name?

What is your

Mr. BATZELL. The president who made the appointment was Mr. Monteith. The present president of the association, I believe, is Mr. Hershman.

Mr. HARRIS. The clerk has just called to my attention a letter from the president of the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association. This letter is addressed to me as chairman of this committee, and he states in part:

I read in today's The Sunday Star that the House District Committee will hold hearings on Wednesday morning at 10 on home-rule legislation for the District.

Among the witnesses scheduled to appear before you is Mr. Elmer Batzell, representing the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association.

As president of this association, I would like to inform you that Mr. Batzell has not been appointed by me or any of the present officers to represent us at this hearing.

I call this to your attention because this is a communication that is directed to the committee, and signed by the president of the association, so I think if the committee is to give serious consideration to the recommendations that you have just outlined here, it might be advisable for you to get cleared up just what your authority is and whom you represent.

Mr. BATZELL. I would be very glad to clear that up at the present time to the extent that I am able to.

Mr. HARRIS. I might indicate further that in this letter it is stated, which is along the line you have just mentioned here, that:

The MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association at a meeting in March went on record in favor of home rule, as they have always done, but the assembly did not study the present bills on this subject. Therefore, it is not fair for any of us in our neighborhood to speak for the citizens when we have not carefully studied the present bills. My fellow officers have asked me to write you and inform you of the present situation. You may put us on record as in favor of home rule, as we have been for 35 years, but we cannot truthfully state the position of the citizens in this area in respect to the present bill.

There are too many pressure groups in Washington at this time trying to persuade Congress to grant home rule. Mr. Batzell is a member of the ADA's and the Central Suffrage Group. Each of these organizations are "too anxious" for home rule, and many of us doubt the sincerity of their intentions.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the witness said he wishes to make a statement.

Mr. BATZELL. It is up to the committee, of course. I have stated that I would be glad to state whatever I could. It seems to me that the action of the MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association is a matter of record. I have merely been asked by the president to carry out the views of the association, or course of conduct which the association put into motion and on which I reported at a subsequent meeting as has been explained to you, and was approved by the association. I was never informed about and did not know of that letter until a member of the press called me on it. To my knowledge, my appointment to appear before you, which was approved by the entire association after representation by the president that I had been appointed, has never been retracted.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Does your association keep minutes of its meetings?

Mr. BATZELL. Yes, indeed, sir; and I shall be glad to supply you with the minutes of these two occasions, if they would be of interest to you.

Mr. HARRIS. I hope you are sure that it is not my intention to question your authority, but this letter was brought to my attention, and I thought I should inquire about it.

Mr. BATZELL. I would like to say one or two words in this connection. Insofar as the statements about my organizational affiliations are concerned, they are not correct.

Mr. HARRIS. I do not know anything about that.

Mr. BATZELL. I just want to put that before you because I think it has some bearing on the general circumstances.

Secondly, I would like to say that insofar as the impression that is conveyed that all of the officers moreover endorsed this, I do not think that is correct. I, for one, did not. You may have certain doubts left there, but the important thing in Mr. Hershman's statement and my statement, as to which is accurate, is that the MacArthur Citizens' Association as an association went on record in favor of home rule, and the minutes will show that, and I shall supply them to your. In addition, the committee asked that the delegate express to the committee that the general position it took last year in favor of the Auchincloss measure was again supported this year. That is the burden of my testimony, and I think that in all fairness to the views of the association that would be the burden of anybody's testimony who was present at that meeting, who understands the action that was taken. However, it takes the association to take action. I am purely an agent, bringing that to your attention.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes; there is no difference evidently in the position you have just stated as the general position in favor of home rule, and that which is stated in this letter. It seems to me the only thing is what is in this statement, which seems to me of little importance. Mr. BATZELL. I think it is of little moment myself.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The association has approved the policy, or whatever you might call it, of home rule for the District of Columbia? Mr. BATZELL. That is correct.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They have left to the committee and the Congress the nature of the legislation and the question as to whether or not the Congress can confer home rule upon the District of Columbia under section 8 of article I of the Constitution?

Mr. BATZELL. They did not consider the constitutional problems that may be involved.

I would say this, however, that the organization did not consider home rule as an abstract proposition. It considered it in terms of the pending legislation. What they did not consider was any of the pros or cons of a particular form of city-manager plan. This was discussed, but they felt that they could not go into the many details involved in that. What they did approve was home rule embodying, in general, the types of principles which are apparent in the current legislation now before you. Now, there may be legal limitations necessitating changes in those principles. They certainly did not consider that, and I am not authorized to make any comment in that respect.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Have you studied these bills?

Mr. BATZELL. Yes, sir; we looked at the bills.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you regard them as home rule?

Mr. BATZELL. I would say this: I regard them in this way-and this is personal, you understand, and has nothing to do with what the feeling of the association-is that they convey a degree of local suffrage on many local matters, which is highly desirable, and they provide to the people of the District of Columbia a procedural mechanism which does not now exist for bringing to the attention of Congress on governmental matters important changes in the laws of the District which should be effected.

I am an attorney. I can think of many instances where the laws of the District of Columbia, by comparison with States, such as New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland,

particularly corporation law, for example, could stand some considerable revision and be of benefit to the tax position of the District, and of benefit in its corporate activity in the District, and general benefit to the welfare of the people of the District. It is difficult because you people are burdened by many other things, responsibilities and duties to bring these things to your attention.

A mechanism is provided in this legislation whereby these local matters can be threshed out and a reasonable decision can be reached on an acceptable measure, and much of that prescreening done, and the pros and cons pitched up to you. That can be presented to you and you will have a much better opportunity for considering it, and seeing the views that there are on it than you have at the present time, I believe, simply because of the many burdens of office that necessarily fall upon a Congressman who conscientiously tries to represent his constituents, and I know Congressmen who try to do that.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Batzell, specifically, do you remember whether the Auchincloss bill of last year had reached its final form before your association considered and approved it? More specifically the final form provided for a procedure under which legislative proposals would be submitted to the Congress and affirmative action taken by both Houses, and the signature of the President was thereafter necessary to give them the force of law.

Now, did your association know when it acted that every legislative proposal by its elected officials would thereafter have to go through that process in the Congress?

Mr. BATZELL. No; we acted at a time when the Auchincloss measure had not reached that degree of completion. It was, as a matter of fact, prior to the actual hearings on the Auchincloss measure that the association acted. The question was raised subsequently, after the Auchincloss measure had gone through revisions, as to whether we should again reconsider it as a body as a whole. No vote was taken on it, but I think the general feeling was that we were in favor of the principles of home rule, and that some of these problems might have to be worked out, but we did not want to get into all of the details that were involved in the measure at that time.

Frankly, our program for the citizens' association did not ever assume responsibility in the spring to reconsider the measure in the detail that would have been warranted. Last year I was program chairman, and I say that with all frankness.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Batzell; we appreciate your appearance and your testimony.

(The following card was submitted for inclusion in the record:)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE

Subject of legislation: District home rule.

Date filed: June 24, 1949. Bill No..

Name: Eimer E. Batzell. Home address: 5410 Macomb Street NW. Home phone: Ordway 3661.

Where employed: Self. Position: Attorney. Business phone: District 0795. If for the legislation, will you propose amendments? No.

For what organization will you testify? MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association. Address: Palisades Park. Membership total approximately 300.