Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Officer, if anyone attempts any applause or any other demonstration in the room, I want you to see who it is and promptly remove him.

The OFFICER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Proceed, please, Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Addressing myself further for the moment to Chairman McMillan's remarks, it is my firm opinion that the House can work its will on any bill that is brought before it, whether it comes before it through the committee procedure of being reported by a committee and then by a rule, or without either report from the committee or a rule. And when a discharge petition is filed and it is signed by the necessary number constituting a majority of the House, that is the will of the House that the House shall determine whether they shall pass on the legislation. That is the first question the discharge petition puts before the House. The House can then decide it will not consider the matter, or, on the other hand, if the majority says it will consider the matter, the House proceeds to determine what it will do with the bill and perfect the bill if that is the will of the majority. It is my considered opinion that it is and that the majority will so express itself in favor of home rule for the District and will bring forth a bill that will give to the District a modicum of home rule, probably not as much as I would like to see, and probably not as much as other Members would like to see, but, at the expense of referring to the cliche that may be this is just a foot in the door, I for one am willing that we get that foot in the door or that toe in the door and move forward from that. If we get some kind of home rule for the District this year, after we have had some experience under it I hope we can perfect it and give to the District more and more home rule.

I have before me the letter from our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. McMillan, dated July 27, which was addresed to me and I believe to all the authors of other home rule bills, in which he states that among other things he will request the chairman of the subcommittee to insist on all authors of bills making an oral statement so that we will be able to get all the information possible on this subject.

Mr. MCMILLAN. That is correct. That letter was sent to the author of each bill because this is an important question and I think every member who thinks enough of this question to introduce a bill should come in and explain how we can bypass the Constitution by delegating our legislative power to a city council. You are a good lawyer, and we want you to tell us how you can get by article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

Mr. MULTER. I will get to that in a moment, sir.

I would first like to say that this is rather an unusual request. The chairman himself, Mr. McMillan, has been the first to violate it by having the chairman of the subcommittee read his own statement, and I respectfully suggest that other members who desire to file a written statement be permitted to do so and to file it just as though he had made it orally.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Of course, everybody may submit a statement, we will be glad to have it, but we feel any man who introduces a bill

should be willing to come in and explain his bill to the committee. I did not introduce a bill. Hence that is the reason I submitted a statement.

Mr. MULTER. I understand. I do trust the committee will take the view that when 26 Members of the House introduce an identical bill, if one or more come in here and explain the bill and they explain in writing or otherwise that they support that bill, that would be a sufficient record.

I do not pretend to know all about home rule or all about all the bills that have been submitted, but I think it is high time, after the other body has five times in the last 10 years passed a bill for home rule for the District, it is high time this committee report a bill to the House so that the House can decide by vote if it wants home rule for the District and to what extent.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McMillan.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I do not know whether you were here when we had the bill before the House 10 years ago and the House spent 2 whole days debating home rule?

Mr. MULTER. I recall it, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. And the bill was not passed.

Mr. MULTER. I recall it, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. According to the radio and television and the newspapers it would appear we have never reported a bill to the House for consideration and debate.

Mr. MULTER. It has been 10 years since we had one, and I think it is time the House decide whether the people of the District are entitled to the right of representation as well as the burden of taxation. One goes with the other, and without both we do not have the democratic form of government-with a small "d"-that we brag about to the free world and that we like to talk about during campaign time, and that goes whether we believe in States rights or a Central Government. That is unimportant. Certainly all should agree that everybody has a right to vote and elect their representatives and their representatives should have a right to participate by voting on every piece of legislation passed or considered which affects their lives and their property and their rights.

I have introduced two bills. One bill, H.R. 4630, is the bill which is preferred by the administration. While I have disagreed vigorously from time to time with the administration on many problems-and probably will again many times before this administration leaves oftice this one time I am willing to go along with them again with the idea in mind that this is half a loaf and this half loaf is better than no loaf.

I will not take the time to discuss each of the sections in that bill. I did place a detailed analysis of the bill in the Congressional Record during the course of a special order I had on February 17. It appears at page 2312 of the Record and subsequent pages up to and including page 2317.

The other bill which I introduced, H.R. 8081, is the so-called Morse bill, and it is quite like the one which the Senate has now passed and sent to this body. I will not take the time to analyze that bill either. The first bill calls for elected local legislators and an appointed Governor.

The second bill calls for an elected mayor and city council and so forth.

Both bills present the primary issue

Mr. DAVIS. Will you designate them by number?

Mr. MULTER. Yes, sir. The first bill is H.R. 4630 and the second bill is H.R. 8081.

Both bills present the first and primary issue the Congress must determine, and that is, Shall there be home rule?

Mr. DAVIS. I shall have to ask you to suspend until we can have the noise stopped outside.

(Brief suspension of the hearing.)

Mr. DAVIS. Some of the people who attended the hearing this morning seem to be determined to make this the same kind of situation which prevailed in Havana last week. If we just had the beards and machetes we would have a pretty good duplication of it out in the hall this morning and we apparently would be ready to begin the distribution of land and other property.

We will proceed in an orderly way, and I think you can proceed now, Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I think before we go much further I ought to direct the attention of the committee to one of the primary rights of citizens of our country. It starts with the Declaration of Independence and it is written into our Constitution with such bold letters and big type that none can misunderstand it, and none should ever forget it, and that is the inherent right of citizens of our country to assemble publicly and to peaceably petition their legislators and their Congress, and that is what these people are trying to do who are in this room and out in the hall, and if there is any disorder the committee must bear the responsibility for it by not providing adequate room for these people to come in and quietly attend the hearing and hear what is being said.

Mr. DAVIS. Will you yield at that point?

Mr. MULTER. As soon as I finish this point.

I submit this hearing should be adjourned to a larger room, if one is available, which I am sure it is, so that we can all, citizens outside and citizens inside, listen quietly and orderly and give them the orderly hearing I am sure they all want. I yield, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Multer, as I stated in answer to a question by our colleague, Mr. Wier, a moment ago, we have been able to hear all the legislation that we have had hearings on in this room. We are able to hold these hearings here now and will hold them here in an orderly fashion and will hear everyone who desires to be heard on this legislation.

This is a staged demonstration, as you well know and as all of us well know, and its purpose is not to present any facts to the committee but to bring pressure on it. I do not think it will succeed.

We will be glad to hear you and we will be glad to hear every other interested person.

You may proceed.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman and my distinguished colleagues on the committee, although I did not participate in the preparation for this demonstration or in the march on the Hill, I approve of it and I remind you gentlemen that the Boston Tea Party also was a staged

demonstration, a demonstration against the king and his tyrannical use of his powers. It did have its effect. It resulted in a war, a revolution, and the birth of this country.

I am sure that no such demonstration will ever again result in war in this country to attain for the people the privileges and rights that are guaranteed to them by the Constitution, and I am sure the Congress will eventually give them all the rights they are guaranteed by our Constitution, including the right to elect a voting Representative to the House of Representatives and to elect their own local officials.

With respect to the specific question that was tendered by Mr. McMillan of whether or not home rule legislation would be constitutional, may I suggest that in the same article I, section 8, the Congress is given the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, yet no one denies that the National Bank Act and the Federal Reserve Act are constitutional. They have been tested and found constitutional and I have not heard anybody in recent days argue against the constitutionality of the National Bank Act and the Federal Reserve Act. Both Acts take from the Congress, by the Congress own legislation, and give to the Comptroller of the Currency and to National Banks and to Federal Reserve Banks the right to do that which is reserved to the Congress in this same article, this same section, with reference to money.

How much more important is it that we give personal rights-the right to vote, the right of representation-to these people by legislative enactment. We do it every time we create a State. I know the answer will be, "But look at the particular language of section 8, clause 17." I do look at it, but I do not overlook when I get to the same article, same section, clause 18, the same Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I think that is the complete answer to any argument that may be urged that home rule legislation would be unconstitutional.

Mr. MCMILLAN. While you are on that subject, were you in Con gress when we had the last hearings on this subject?

Mr. MULTER. I came here in 1947, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You were not a member of this committee at that time?

Mr. MULTER. No, sir, I was not.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We had a statement from the late John W. Davis, who I am sure you will agree was one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in the United States?

Mr. MULTER. One of the greatest.

Mr. MCMILLAN. He sent down a statement to the committee stating we did not have the right as Members of Congress to delegate our authority in this respect.

Mr. MULTER. I respect the opinion of the late John W. Davis as a great constitutional lawyer. I disagree with him in this instance, as I have in other instances. Without going into the details, I recall distinctly one case that went to the Supreme Court in which we were on opposite sides. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with

me. And I hope if the home rule bill goes before the Supreme Court it will again agree with me. I think the arguments for constitutionality of the home rule bill are of much greater weight and have more validity than the respected and respectable opinion of the late John W. Davis.

Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MULTER. Yes.

Mr. BROYHILL. We appreciate your stating your views. However, it seems our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to make sure Congress would exercise complete authority over the District of Columbia, because they added some words to emphasize that language that would otherwise be superfluous. They said Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever. The language without the words "exclusive" and "whatsoever" would still make sense, but they added the words "exclusive" legislation in all cases "whatsoever." It seems to me their intent was to exercise the authority of Congress over this city.

There is and has been for several years a resolution pending before the House Committee on the Judiciary to grant to the citizens of the District of Columbia who are American citizens the right to vote for President and Vice President.

To my knowledge no consideration has been given by the Judiciary Committee to that legislation. I have not heard of any Member of Congress who objected to that proposal to give the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, but there does not seem to be the same desire to give them the limited authority involved here. And it will be limited because whatever bill is passed there will be the question of how much voice the local people would have, but in voting for President and Vice President there would be no question about it, and I am certain the House would pass an amendment to give these citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, and it would go through.

I am wondering why the people interested in this legislation do not start a discharge petition to discharge the Judiciary Committee and bring that bill before the House? What do you say about that? Mr. MULTER. I say let us not pass the buck.

Mr. BROYHILL. I am not passing the buck.

Mr. MULTER. I am willing to join with you tomorrow in filing a petition to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the bill to pass a constitutional amendment to give the citizens of the District of Columbia a right to vote for President and Vice President.

Mr. BROYHILL. Do you not think that is a more important bill? Mr. MULTER. I think it is a very important bill and I am willing to join in filing a petition to discharge the Judiciary Committee, but I think we should leave no stone unturned to give them both bills. Mr. BROYHILL. You would eliminate the constitutional question by a constitutional amendment to give them that right.

Mr. MULTER. I do not think you need a constitutional amendment. I agree the weight of authority is with you in saying there is need for a constitutional amendment, but I would risk passing a law and

44015-59--10