ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

time to time, which must be enacted, unless it were presented under a closed rule.

I discussed this some with the witness who just preceded you, our colleague, Mr. Multer, and I asked him what procedure would be followed to change any of these restrictive provisions in the bill, and he did not offer any suggestion which I think would be workable. May I ask you what procedure would be feasible and practical now in order to change this?

Mr. SPRINGER. I think the only way in which it could be done under these, and I would certainly want to withhold any comment as to how far I would go, but I think the only possible way of approach on this would be to vote the rule down with an amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the procedure opening an amendment is to vote down the previous question, which was open to an amendment. Mr. SPRINGER. I think that is the only thing that can be done. I do not want to be bound by anything with reference to this until I see what the outcome will be when it reaches the floor, but I will say this: Through the years I have been as much opposed to the gag rule as the chairman. It is a question of how to get a the problem. In other words, if this bill does go to the floor, I will be willing to state on the floor of the House at the time it is under discussion that if there is any possibility of compromise on this at any reasonable hour I will be for it. I will state that.

You asked me what I thought "reasonable" was and just thinking back through the years, I would think that 2 days, or what would be known generally as 8 hours of debate or 10 hours of debate, then read the bill for amendment.

Mr. DAVIS. None of that is provided in here.

Mr. SPRINGER. No. I think that is pretty tightly drawn.

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman.

Are there any further questions?

The next witness, then, is Congressman Peter J. Frelinghuysen, Jr., author of H.R. 4634.

(No response.)

The next witness, Congressman Perkins Bass, author of 4683. (No response.)

Congressman Charles A. Boyle, author of H.R. 5677.

(No response.

Congressman Henry S. Reuss, author of H.R. 4637.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I did not get the one point that I wanted to make and if you will pardon me I want to say frankly I could not and would not support a bill such as was brought from the Senate. I want to make that clear so there will be no misunderstanding.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Reuss.

44015 0-59- -11

Mr. REUSS. My name is Henry Reuss. I am a Representative from the Fifth District of Wisconsin.

I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning. I had intended originally, Mr. Chairman, to simply submit a statement and to leave the presentation as it has been so ably done to members of the committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Multer, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Springer, and others.

However, in view of the thought expressed by the chairman of the full committee, Mr. McMillan, that the committee would prefer oral statements rather than written statements, and because I am such a deep believer in the justice of the various home rule bills that have been offered, I am here this morning in person.

The letter from the chairman of the full committee, Mr. McMillan, asked that those who appeared give their opinions on the applicability of article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which, in a very modest manner, I am delighted to do.

I do not suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I have exhaustively briefed this question. However, in my view the proposed home rule bill such as that offered by Mr. Multer, Mr. Springer, and others would be entirely constitutional.

Article VIII of the Constitution, to be sure, provides the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases over the District not exceeding 10 miles square as may by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the Government of the United States.

First of all, taking it at its verbal value, it seems to me the word "exclusive" was put in there by the Founding Fathers because they wanted to make it clear that the dedicating States, Maryland and Virginia, should not share in the original jurisdiction over the District.

Mr. DAVIS. Why does the gentleman think there was any necessity for taking measures to restrict Maryland and Virginia from exercising jurisdiction over the ceded territory?

Mr. REUSS. In the clause quoted a few lines later the words are contained, "By cession of particular States."

I suggest, therefore, that the former owners of the real estate were very much in the mind of the Founding Fathers and thus that they inserted the word "exclusive" not to mean that Congress could not delegate to people within the District the power in the first instance to govern themselves, subject, of course, to Congress' ultimate approval, but that they did not, or they wanted to make clear that these States were not to participate in the share of the residual jurisdiction.

Mr. DAVIS. Was there anything in the language of cession that would create in the gentleman's mind probability or possibility that Maryland and Virginia might continue to wish to exercise jurisdiction over the territory?

Mr. REUSS. No, sir. I think it was out of abundance of caution that the Founding Fathers put that word in there. They could have achieved this same purpose without it, I quite agree.

Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman does not think that the Founding Fathers had in mind that they wanted the Federal Government to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over this territory rather than to have that jurisdiction partly in the residents of the area?

Mr. REUSS. No, I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, although I am the first to recognize that sincere and learned constitutional lawyers may disagree on this matter.

The case of District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., reported at 346 of the U.S. Report at 100, is further basis it seems to me for the position I advocate, that article I, section 8, does not render unconstitutional the proposed home rule legislation in that case, which upheld, incidentally, the right of the legislative body of the District of Columbia to enact general laws applicable solely within the District.

Mr. Justice Douglas said:

It would seem then that on the analogy of the delegation of powers of selfgovernment and home rule, both to municipalties and to territories, there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power, subject, of course, to constitutional limitations to which all lawmaking is subservient and subject also to the power of Congress at any time to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted.

That is the end of the quotation.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Matthews.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I am delighted to hear your testimony, Mr. Reuss, but I believe Mr. Williams will have an observation to make about that particular case. Mr. Williams is a lawyer of esteem and we have some information about that case. I want to call the attention of the Chair to it and ask permission later for Mr. Williams to come back to it.

Mr. REUSS. I thank my good friend from Florida, Mr. Matthews, and knowing the keenness of the legal mind of the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Williams, I will await with interest his observations on that case.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sorry. I was looking over this case that he mentioned and I did not hear the remark you made about it. Did you make a reference to it?

Mr. REUSS. I made a reference to the keen legal mind of Mr. Williams just now, and I said I would await with interest hearing possible distinctions between the Thompson case and the legislation involved in these home rule cases. As I see the case it is on all fours with the constitutional question presented in the various home rule bills here offered.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me thank the gentleman for his compliment and while of course in all frankness I can say that I do not deserve that compliment, I can say also that it was not necesasry because as the gentleman knows, I do not vote in his district.

Mr. REUSS. That shows how sincere it was.

I will proceed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. REUSS. It seems to me that it is in the best tradition of the democratic process for the citizenry of the District of Columbia to be interested in the problem of home rule, and I for one am very happy to see that this hearing room this morning is occupied by a good many of those citizens, but it is not only the residents of the District of Columbia who are pleading for self-government. The vast majority of citizens everywhere who love our democracy strongly support extension of home rule to the Capital City.

I am very proud that expressions of support for home rule have been received from a leading citizen of my State of Wisconsin, Hon. Gaylord Nelson, Governor of Wisconsin, who has made the following statement:

As Governor of one of the United States I desire to express my firm position for immediate home rule for the people of the District of Columbia. The time has come to redress the denial of suffrage to these patriotic long-suffering American citizens; just as the boundaries of the United States have been extended during the past year to thousands of new Americans who have achieved statehood, it is no more than proper the people of the District of Columbia likewise be given the right to govern themselves.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I have a wire from my Governor concerning the same question. He said he received a wire from Governor Furcolo of Massachusetts, and stated he sent the wire at the request of Mr. A. L. Wheeler of Washington. Was that why your Governor sent you a wire on this subject?

Mr. REUSS. No. As far as I know it was not.

I don't know the background of this particular statement by Gov. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin but I do know from personal conversations with him over a period of years that he feels very keenly that it is a grave injustice to deny the elementary right of local self-government to the people of the District. Therefore, whether or not he is part of a coalition designed to send telegrams around I don't know but he certainly felt this way before.

Mr. DAVIS. I notice Mrs. Louchheim is apparently about to leave the I wanted to give you an opportunity to present your statement this morning.

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I will be glad to.

Mr. DAVIS. I understand she has a trip planned.

STATEMENT OF MRS. KATIE LOUCHHEIM, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. LOUCHHEIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Congressman Reuss. I am delighted.

Mr. DAVIS. You cannot always tell how these hearings will run. I did want you to have the opportunity this morning.

Mrs. LOUCHHEIM. I appreciate it and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, and members of this distinguished committee, the opportunity to present a written statement which will be entered into the record. Mr. DAVIS. That will be done.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT MADE BY MRS. KATIE LOUCHHEIM, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BEFORE THE HOUSE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE, JULY 28, 1959

Gentlemen of the committee, as Democratic national committeewoman for the District of Columbia, I welcome this opportunity to make a very brief statement in support of legislation at this session of the Congress providing home rule for the District of Columbia.

No member of this committee or of this Congress needs to be reminded this Nation was born and founded on the principle that freedom and self-government

is the inalienable right of every man.

No one could have been more aware than the Founding Fathers-who had themselves been the revolutionists-that the right to self-government is the first and most fundamental necessity of any people and truly marks the line between democracy and tyranny. Nothing would have more amazed the Founding Fathers than the suggestion that they had created in the Constitution at the very Capital of the Nation an area within the United States where almost a million people are denied the fundamental right of the franchise and a voice in the election of those who govern them.

I sincerely hope that this committee will not withhold from almost a million citizens their right of democratic self-government.

May I remind the members of this committee that the citizens of the District have long pleaded their cause. I earnestly entreat this committee to act to afford almost a million Americans the right to self-government by reporting a home rule bill to the House of Representatives-now.

Mrs. LOUCHHEIM. If I may have 1 more minute of your time, I would like to read a few remarks that I have prepared.

I would like to say at the beginning that I am here in my capacity as Democratic national committee woman for the voteless District. If I may be permitted, I would like to say that I might justifiably claim that I am appearing here as director of women's activities and vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee since home rule is and has been for many years a plank in the Democratic platform and was adopted again in Chicago in 1956.

Since September of 1934, I have been a voteless taxpaying resident of the Nation's Capital. Contrary to custom, and I think because this has been discussed this morning it is appropriate, I chose not to maintain this fiction that I was a resident of the State that I had previously inhabited. My husband and I chose this beautiful, historically rich, and tradition-haunted city as our permanent home. We brought up our children here, we took part in civic and community endeavor. We helped fight a war and quite properly nowadays we look on all those postwar arrivals as newcomers.

This sacrifice of my franchise was not an easy one to make, nor did I make it lightly. I did it because I realized that one cannot be a participating citizen in two places. I did it because I did not regard myself as a temporary exile from another State but a permanent resident of the new home which I prefer.

I regret, if I may be permitted to make this comment, that I cannot vote or cast my vote for any of you in any of the States that you come from. Perhaps this is why in my experience as vice chairman I am so zealous in my insistence that other women in all your States organize so that they can go to the polls and reaffirm their support and confidence in you as their representative.

How would you feel, gentlemen, if your constituents were disenfranchised?

Mr. DAVIS. You are just talking about Democrats, aren't you? Mrs. LOUCHHEIM. Yes. I thought afterwards, Judge, I should have said that. I was not feeling that this was the moment to be nonpartisan or bipartisan.

How would you feel if your constituents were disenfranchised? I am afraid you would be unhappy, perhaps frustrated, and on occasion find yourself questioning the whole process of democratic government which can function so perfectly and yet withhold this right of the franchise from so many of us.

Being perceptive, you may have guessed that this is the way I feel and the way so many of us feel, for there are many, many thousands

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »