Mr. FADLER. Thank you.

Mr. HARRIS. The next witness will be Mr. Thomas B. Scott, of the Washington Chapter, Unitarian Laymen's League.

(No response.)

Mr. HARRIS. Is Miss Sylvia Altman, of the District Central Suffrage Conference present?

We will call on her later.

The next witness will be Mr. F. S. Tilton, of the Kalorama Citizens Association.

Mr. HODGKINS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tilton, the president of the Kalorama Citizens Association, was unable to be present and I am here to speak for him for the association. Mr. HARRIS. We are glad to hear you.

What is your name?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. HODGKINS, MEMBER, KALORAMA CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HODGKINS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George W. Hodgkins, former president of the Kalorama Citizens Association. I am speaking in behalf of that organization instead of Mr. Tilton, who is the present president of it.

This organization has gone on record several times in favor of local suffrage as well as national representation.

It has not OK'd every detail in the Auchincloss bill or the Kefauver bill, because we feel that it is impracticable to get agreement on all the details. What we are interested in doing is to get a working homerule government so that the citizens of the District of Columbia can participate by the vote in their own local affairs.

The Kalorama Citizens Association went on record in favor of the Auchincloss bill last year, it being at that time the bill current before Congress. There was no one representing the association officially at the hearing last year. I personally appeared at the joint hearings sponsored by both the House and Senate last spring, and shortly after that the organization took the matter up; and in general, not in exactly its terms, approved what I testified to in the hearing at that time. This spring the organization has taken action, approved the Kefauver bill in principle. It has not attempted to go into details or the difference between the two bills. I think there is the general feeling that many of the differences between the two bills are such as could be reasonably enacted in either form, and we would not want to commit our organization to favoring one or the other of those measures. In some ways I think the organization, although not officially on record on this, regrets that Mr. Auchincloss' committee and other groups following them attempted to put so many controversial things into the bills. We are primarily interested in getting home rule and many of those details can be straightened out afterward, either by the procedure of home rule itself under the bill or by further action from Congress. You cannot solve all problems in one bill, but if we do have a home-rule procedure such as is set up in the Kefauver bill or the Auchincloss bill, then we can go on from that to a still more perfected type of governmental organization for the District.

Mr. Chairman, might I take a moment or two to say something about the question you raised with Mr. Deane a few minutes ago about the statement by Mr. Madison. I think I could clear that up.

Mr. HARRIS. We would be very happy to have you clear it up. Mr. HODGKINS. The statement which has been most often quoted from Mr. Madison, "That a municipal legislature derived from their own suffrage would, of course, be allowed them," was in one of the issues of the Federalist; which was, of course, while the Constitution, having been adopted by the Constitutional Convention, was before the people of the various States for their approval; and Mr. Madison, having very shortly before been in that Constitutional Convention, felt that he was reporting their views that the local government of the District should take care of the suffrage rights of the people who might be resident there; and there does not seem to be any dispute on that coming from other members of the Constitutional Convention, many of them who were still living and who were serving in Congress at the time that the Congress set up a municipal legislaure for the District of Columbia.

As far as national representation is concerned, that was not provided for at the time the Convention drafted the Constitution. There was no Federal district; nobody knew where it would be located, how large it would be, what population it would have, and I think that Convention had enough worry to settle the question of representation for the different States and the Senate and House of Representatives, so that it would not be expected to try to settle up the representation, if any, for a nonexistent district. They left that for later determination.

Mr. HARRIS. Where did Madison make that statement?

Mr. HODGKINS. The statement?

Mr. HARRIS. Where did Madison make the statement?

Mr. HODGKINS. About the municipal suffrage?

Mr. HARRIS. That you just referred to.

Mr. HODGKINS. That was in-I don't remember which number of the Federalist.

Mr. HARRIS. I know it was in the Federalist; but where was he when he made the statement?

Mr. HODGKINS. In the ratification campaign in the State of New York.

Mr. O'HARA. He did not make it in contemplation of the set-up of the District of Columbia or that which resulted in the set-up of the District of Clumbia. Isn't that true? I say the statement wasn't made in the light then of any set-up which existed at the time Mr. Madison made the statement.

Mr. HODGKINS. No; there was no such district in existence then. Mr. O'HARA. That is right.

Mr. HODGKINS. He was trying to reflect what he understood was the feeling of the Constitutional Convention as to what ought to be done to safegurrd the rights of the people who might be living in the area which was to be set aside for the purposes of the seat of government.

Mr. O'HARA. Will the gentleman tell us also the answer to the question my colleague Mr. Allen of California brought up this morning, as to what type of government was provided between 1801 and 1872 or 1874, when the District local government was abolished by act of Congress?

Mr. HODGKINS. Between 1800 or thereabouts and 1871, the governments in the District of Columbia resembled quite closely the

governments of the towns and counties in the various States. There were two there, in the early period three municipalities, and then outlying territory which had a county form of government. The municipal governments of Georgetown and Alexandria were continued practically without change. They included the right of their citizens to vote for local officers so far as that was customary in those days, and they had a new city government for the newly created city of Washington, occupying only a relatively small part of the total District area, which was also set up with progressively increasing amounts of popular participation in the votes as the charter was amended from time to time.

Mr. O'HARA. Does the gentleman recall what the qualification of citizenship was, whether they had to be permanent residents of the District and whether they had any right to vote in other States?

Mr. HODGKINS. I don't recall that that matter came to an issue. That is a rather recent development. Of course, the point of it was that would not apply in any other area. There were a good many people, physically residents here in the District of Columbia, but since they are not able to vote in national elections here they wish to retain that right if they can through absentee voting or by going back home in time of national elections.

Mr. O'HARA. Or for any other reason.

Mr. HODGKINS. Or for any other reason; and if we were getting national representation at this same time I think there would be no excuse for that so-called dual-voting provision; even though it might be stated incidentally that the chief example that we have of the right now is some of the suburban towns right now in Maryland, where people coming from some distance stay to work in the Government; and, living in the suburban areas of Maryland, they are granted the right to vote for the town officers in Maryland, but retain national and general State voting rights in the States from which they come.

Now, if those people who make their residence in Maryland, which has national representation, are reluctant to give up their back home voting rights, but still would like to vote for their town officers, it certainly would seem to be still more desirable that those locating here within the District of Columbia should have that same right to participate in local elections and still retain the national voting right they had somewhere else, so long as there is no provision whereby they can have similar rights here in the District of Columbia. That whole question, I think, is a rather unfortunate controversy. I regret it was ever put in there. I am rather in favor of giving such people the right to vote here in the District; and would, if that is going to harm the chances of the bill to pass, I would prefer to have it left out, and I think that is the sentiment of a great many other people. Yet some of the people who are objecting to that provision, if it had been left out they would think the other way and say, "Look at all these people who actually live here but they retain a voting residence somewhere else. Why don't you provide for them to participate?" So it is a matter to be clarified either way, and I think it would be worth trying either way.

Mr. HARRIS. We appreciate having your opinion on that dualvoting question, particularly referring to the situation in Maryland. Mr. HODGKINS. These last things I have been saying, of course, are matters of my personal feelings and do not represent the Kalorama Citizens Association, although I know many agree with me on it.

Mr. O'HARA. The gentleman will agree that the law he refers to in Maryland applies to people temporarily residing in some other city than that of their domicile, but that it does not apply to citizens of other States. Is that the situation?

Mr. HODGKINS. There is a provision whereby citizens of Minnesota, perhaps you, coming to Washington, can work for the Government and can live in perhaps the town of Cheverly out here in Maryland, and it turns out that most of the people living in Cheverly are similarly from some other part of the Union. There would be hardly anybody in Cheverly who would have a right to vote for town officers unless they somehow or other were given the right to vote under those circumstances.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. ALLEN of California. May I ask one question?

With reference to the statement of Mr. Madison in the Federalist, do you know what preceded the making of that statement? whether there was anything which caused him to make it?

Mr. HODGKINS. I understand it is rather evident from the other wording in that particular number of the Federalist that there had been some complaints on the part of anti-Federalists that this idea of giving the Federal Government a piece of property all its own was highly objectionable, and one of the objections raised was that the people might live there would have to give up all of their rights as American citizens; and to answer those objections he pointed out a number of things, among them the purely temporary circumstance, that the ones originally living there would have had their share in consenting to the cession of their area; which, of course, does not affect any of the original residents of the District, having been there 150 years or more; and also the point that so far as local affairs were concerned, the people who might be living there at any one time would be able to vote for their local municipal legislature-as actually was provided, of course, for more than 70 years.

Mr. HARRIS. In other words it is the same issue being raised, and Madison was merely endeavoring to overcome the opposition on the issue raised on that particular point, and he made this statement on that interpretation.

Mr. HODGKINS. He felt that was the feeling of the Constitutional Convention in adopting such a provision and wanted to make it clear to the citizens of New York and any other State that in the ratification of the Constitution that was the saving clause in the whole situation.

Mr. HARRIS. Did they ever raise the question of the right of the people of the District of Columbia to participate in the national elections?

Mr. HODGKINS. I support that objection was one of those that Madison had to consider, just as I mentioned a few minutes ago. Mr. HARRIS. He did not have the answer to that one?

Mr. HODGKINS. I believe all he could have said if he wanted to bring that up was that the Constitutional Convention had so many other things to worry about in respect to representation in Congress and Presidential elections-they had great difficulty in settling it as it was. To add on what to do with a little area which would be set apart, which had not yet come into existence, was something they could leave to the process of amending the Constitution later. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Mrs. Sarah H. Newman, president of the Potomac Cooperative Federation.

STATEMENT OF MRS. SARAH H. NEWMAN, PRESIDENT, POTOMAC COOPERATIVE FEDERATION

Mrs. NEWMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am Mrs. Sarah H. Newman, president of the Potomac Cooperative Federation, which is an organization which does educational and promotional work and is a consumer cooperative in the Potomac area, including Washington, Maryland, and Virginia.

I have a very brief statement I would like to make.

Mr. HARRIS. We are very glad to hear you. You may proceed. Mrs. NEWMAN. We believe it to be a basic right of our democracy that people who are taxed to provide funds for the expenses of their government have the right to elect that government.

The voteless Americans of the District of Columbia find themselves in a truly anomalous situation, being denied all participation in national or local government, while being required to bear the burdens imposed by that government. Why should residents of the District. have a different kind of citizenship, a lower grade of citizenship, from that of people of all other American cities? This was certainly not intended by our founding fathers, who expected a municipal legislature derived from the suffrage of the local citizens to be one of the rights of those citizens. Nor are these present-day citizens of the District of Columbia any less qualified to elect their municipal legislature than were those of the days of our founding fathers or in other parts of our country today.

When we are preaching democracy to the rest of the world, it is certainly no point in our favor to have so large a group of citizens without any say at all in their government-so large a group without that basic right of democracy-suffrage.

We are in favor of home rule, according to either the Kefauver Auchincloss bill, because they would provide the opportunity for citizens of the District of Columbia to arrange for the carrying on of functions of the local government by people and agencies responsible to those citizens, without taking away from the Congress of the United States any of the control over the District which is their responsibility. Passage of such home-rule legislation is desirable not only in order to give rights and privileges to the District residents in accordance with our Declaration of Independence and the United Nations Charter, but because it is imperative that Congress be freed from the laborious and time-consuming task of acting as our city Council.

It is fantastic that Congress should devote time to the consideration of such matters as the removal of stone piers from a street or the matter of parking lots, or the licensing of chiropractors, or the appropriation of every cent the District spends, at a time when grave matters of national and international importance demand their serious attention.

The President of the United States and the two major political parties of the United States have urged home rule for the District. The people of the District of Columbia have indicated strongly that they are in favor of home rule. We join all of these in urging you to