ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Author

Your position with organization: Representative to Northwest Council. ity: Appointed by president to communicate position of MacArthur Boulevard Citizens' Association.

I wish to testify-Orally XX. In writing

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Maynard B. DeWitt, representing the American Veterans Committee.

Mr. DEWITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. DeWitt, how much time do you require? It is 10 minutes after 12, and the House is in session and we have to adjourn.

Mr. DEWITT. That would depend upon how interested the members of the committee would be in my testimony. I can limit it or expand it, as it is necessary, depending upon how many questions are asked. I have testified on this previously.

Mr. HARRIS. Well, we are seeking information.

Mr. DEWITT. That is what I am here for, to give you information. Mr. HARRIS. I think, perhaps, we better adjourn the committee. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock next Monday morning.

(Thereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, July 25, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MONDAY, JULY 25, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Oren Harris (chairman) presiding.

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will be in order.

In view of what occurred at the close of the session last week, the chairman feels this statement is appropriate: At the initial opening of the hearings the committee adopted a policy to expedite the bearing as quickly as we could possibly do so consistent with the desire to give an opportunity to all those who wished to express themselves. We felt that the second part of this policy as stated was almost an impossible one, and we had to limit the time to some extent of those who appeared or else we would be here indefinitely.

Consequently it was the committee's policy to hear representatives of organizations and in this way we would be likely to get the views of most everyone who is interested in expressing themselves, and we thought we would be preserving the right of petition to the Congress of the United States.

It was the thought of the committee at that time that within 2 weeks, a reasonable time, with one or two sessions each week, that we could conclude the hearings. Time went on and unfortunately we had some interference with business of the House, and because the membership of this committee, like all other Members of Congress, was exceedingly busy with the affairs of, not only the District of Columbua but of the Nation, and also the committee did not feel it was compelled to treat this any differently than any other legislation affecting the District of Columbia.

Consequently the concern that was expressed last week at the close of the session, the committee did not feel was justified. Every organization and individual who insists on being heard will be heard. There has been no preference whatsoever so far as witnesses are concerned and so far as placing them on the agenda by the committee.

And it might be said, to preserve the record, that the first 2 days, and I believe the third day was taken up by proponents, including Members of Congress; that witnesses have been interspersed in accordance with the requests made to the clerk of this committee and to members of this committee, and it shall be our purpose to carry out that policy.

Again I would like to express on behalf of the committee our sincere desire to complete these hearings within this week, and in this respect

I should like to refer to an editorial that appeared in one of the great papers of the District of Columbia, the Washington Post, on yesterday, Sunday, July 24, 1949, entitled "Home-Rule Bogey.'

[ocr errors]

I can appreciate the editorial policy of any paper; I think I can appreciate the interest that some people manifest in a problem like this that is so far reaching, and I think I can appreciate the situation where there is prejudice and bias involved, but the unwarranted attack, apparently, the deliberate distortion of facts that actually occurred in that great paper seems to me somewhat unfortunate. I should like to quote a part of this editorial as follows:

If endless talk to prevent legislative action is a filibuster, the home-rule hearings before Representative Oren Harris are getting close to the point of qualifying. I feel that is a reflection, full of implication, which does not state the actual facts as the record will show.

As the hearings go on and on, the chance of getting action on the Senate-passed Kefauver bill fades. Mr. Harris says that he would like to end the hearings, yet he appears happy to listen to any kind of lengthy argument against the bill.

That, in my opinion, is nothing but a reflection of ill repute and it seems to me deserves an apology. The editorial certainly could have carried the truth by stating the facts; that more than one Member of Congress, in fact, those who were sponsoring the bill took the first and second days; that another Member of Congress, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, took over an hour expressing himself before the committee in support of so-called home rule; that the chairman of this committee had indicated for the last 10 days that he hoped these hearings could be completed; notwithstanding this, on July 9, 1949, a communication carried through this paper was transmitted to me and to this committee, which I will have inserted in the record at this point, in which it was stated that in view of the fact that these hearings should be expedited, those interested and wanting their interest to be made known would defer appearing before the committee, and would file their statements if they felt desirable. That statement was signed by the Washington Home Rule Committee, the Central Suffrage Conference, the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action, and the Democratic Central Committee for the District of Columbia. (The letter referred to follows:)

To the CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE:

JULY 9, 1949.

The Kefauver bill for home rule in the District of Columbia was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate on May 31, 1949, and sent to the House. The bill was referred to the House District Committee on June 1, 1949, almost 6 weeks ago. During the past 6 weeks the Judiciary Subcommittee of the House District Committee has held only three morning sessions to hear witnesses on home-rule legislation. Only a handful of the many witnesses requesting to appear have so far been heard. The Judiciary Subcommittee has not yet set a date for its next hearing.

If the subcommittee does not take prompt and effective action to speed up its hearings and reach a decision, the House of Representatives will be denied the opportunity to take action on the measure before adjournment.

We, therefore, urge the District Committee to do everything in its power to hold successive daily hearings and make a decision on home rule. If it will assist the committee in any way to wind up its deliberations, we feel confident that the fifty-odd remaining witnesses requesting to testify in favor of home rule would be glad to submit written statements, and limit themselves to brief 5minute apprarances before the committee. Home rule has been exhaustively studied and debated by the House District Committee for the past 2 years, and every member of the subcommittee must now be familiar with the issues involved.

We are confident that the House of Representatives will vote overwhelmingly in favor of home rule as soon as it gets the chance. We hope that the District Committee will allow the House of Representatives to vote on that question.

WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE.

CENTRAL SUFFRAGE CONFERENCE.

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAPTER OF AMERICANS

FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION.

DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. HARRIS. Notwithstanding those who affixed their names, their organization have insisted on appearing since that time and have testified, and one who expressed concern at the last meeting is one of those who signed this resolution in an effort to expedite these hearings. Representatives of these organizations will appear today.

Furthermore, in complete disregard of the facts, this morning the Washington Post-and I regret that this becomes necessary to get the record clear-this morning's Washington Post says:

Hearings were to end last week but subcommittee Chairman Harris (Democrat, Arkansas) has indicated he proably will keep them going as long as possible to avoid a committee vote this session.

I challenge that statement as being the actual facts, and it would seem to me that if those interested in this matter did want to cooperate, such unwarranted statements would not be made, thereby injecting further controversy, insofar as the viewpoints of the people of the District of Columbia are concerned, and thereby continuing these hearings for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, you have just touched on somethink that I came over for the purpose of discussing briefly myself this morning.

I saw the early morning edition of the Washington Post last night but I left it in my room. Just a few moments ago I secured another copy for the purpose of bringing it over.

I do not intend to add any further comments, but I certainly want to indorse all you have to say. So far as I am personally concerned I want to say that Mr. Roberts and the Washington Post or any other newspaper man or newspaper can be assured that I personally am not going to be bulldozed into reporting out a bill today, tomorrow or the next day or any other day until this committee has had an opportunity to function in an orderly manner. The press can be of some help in this matter, if it sees fit. If it does not that is its business, but after all this is my business, too.

Mr. HARRIS. I should like to add that in the editorial of the Washington Post an attack was made on the fact that we heard Congressman Sam Hobbs from Alabama. I think it should be noted that not one word was said about the fact that our colleague from my own State of Arkansas, Congressman Hays, took up most of one morning. I think the fact should have also been noted if the record was to be kept straight that another colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Dean is to be heard, which accounts for some of the reasons why we have to go into this week. But unfortunately and evidently, at least in my opinion, they carry a distorted picture in the editorial and the publicity referred to would try to show that this committee is using such devious means to prevent the consideration of this matter in final resolution by the committee.

The first witness to be heard this morning is Mr. Maynard B. DeWitt, of the American Veterans Committee.

STATEMENT OF MAYNARD B. DEWITT, CIVIC DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE

Mr. DEWITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Maynard B. DeWitt; I am civic director of the American Veterans Committee. Mr. HARRIS. I would like to say, Mr. DeWitt, and I am confident the other members of the committee join me in saying, that we hope you have not been inconvenienced by not being able to appear as scheduled last week, and we trust that you have not been too much put out. At any rate, we are glad to have you appear this morning and we appreciate your interest and your appearing on behalf of the organization you represent to give us your viewpoint this morning.

Mr. DEWITT. Mr. Chairman, most of us have become accustomed to a little inconvenience and have to put up with them and adjust ourselves to them.

I want to speak to you for a very few brief minutes to indorse the Kefauver bill in its entirety as it now stands.

In the Eightieth Congress, in the first session, my organization, the American Veterans Committee, with a membership of some 3,000 organized veterans, that is, of the World War II, here in Washington submitted in writing in advance our detailed testimony, outlining what we felt to be a desirable form of home rule.

That testimony is found on page 601 of the report of the committee, in the first session.

We indorsed the results of the committee's action and findings, with modifications, that are set out in the second session report, and appear on page 233.

My organization feels that the Kefauver bill is an advancement over the Auchincloss bill in the Senate in the sense that we find first plurality voting throughout the city; and we felt that the nature of the congressional action, instead of the veto over positive measures or actions, is a tremendous advancement, in the sense that the Congress, in order to disprove legislation, must act positively within 45 days.

My organization does not quite understand some of the advocates of I raise the question whether or not they are advocates--but nevertheless they advocate something by saying that we should have national representation first. It has always been my understanding of the process of government that it starts with the family, then they banded themselves together as tribes, then they came together in cities, and then later on they had State and National governments. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell at any length on the fact that Washingtonians are as well qualified as anybody else to vote. The fact that I or someone else was born here in Washington and does not have the vote is no argument against our not having it.

At the same time voting is a duty; it is not just a privilege, it is not just a right, but a duty. And even though a majority of the citizens in this city should disagree on what should be the situation in the city of Washington, to my mind, the lack of representation is the biggest single factor which can lead to public apathy.

In other words, to maintain that because we have clean government, that the government is not corrupt in the city, does not mean

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »