of us who, as I have tried to explain, Judge Davis, have given up our residence elsewhere and do consider this our home. That is why for so many years we have devoted our efforts toward the enactment of home rule. Gentlemen, like you, I listen to and make many speeches. Certainly every one of us has a different approach to the vital problems that beset us. Perhaps the one single area of agreement between us might be simply that democracy, with a small "d," is the greatest form of government man has ever devised, and further, that democracy means self-government and self-government requires participation, full participation by the individual in the selection of those who govern them who in turn make those decisions concerning his, or her, should I say, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. May I, in closing, thank you once again, Judge Davis, and the members of this committee for your courtesy and indulgence and express the prayerful hope that local self-government may only be the first step on the path toward full suffrage. The last time I had the satisfaction of casting my vote for the President and Vice President was in 1932. May I express the wish and the hope that I may soon be restored to my full rights as citizen? I am, of course, confident, Judge Davis, and I think you will agree with me, that the next President to be elected in 1960 will be a Democrat and will perhaps make it without my vote. I do not think that I will get my vote, at least for President, in this period of time. Do let me hope, however, as one to whom politics and participation in political decisions is as vital and inspiring and all important as it is to every one of you gentlemen here today, that I may some day soon be exercising this right. Thank you very much. Mr. DAVIS. We appreciate your statement. Mrs. LOUCHHEIM. Thank you very much. I know you do not want to ask me any questions. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Reuss, for yielding. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I shall resume. I will be very brief. I wanted to mention also the expression from the mayor of the city of Milwaukee, the Honorable Frank P. Zeidler, who in a communication to the Congress dated July 1, 1959, says in part: I believe that this home rule proposal would grant considerable home rule to the people of the District while retaining a sound veto power in the Federal Government, which has such a substantial interest in the city. Therefore, I am submitting the attached proposed resolution in support of Mr. Reuss' bill for your consideration. I have also expressions from local governmental officials and organizations of local governments in many of the States of the Union: From the League of Virginia Municipalities: We are much interested in home rule legislation. From the League of Kansas Municipalities: It has always seemed ridiculous that the people of the District of Columbia should be disenfranchised and not in position to determine their own local affairs in government. From a resolution adopted this month, by the Charlotte City Council: Be it resolved, That the Congress be urged to approve home rule legislation to assure self-government to the residents of the District of Columbia. From Mayor William P. Holland of West Palm Beach, Calif.: The District of Columbia has numerous problems, no doubt, that could be expedited by a municipal government which would be in constant touch with the public needs and welfare of its residents. From Mayor Thomas J. Monahan of Lancaster, Pa.: I want to inform you of the support of myself and the city council of the bill which would allow the residents of the District of Columbia to govern themselves in local municipal matters. I have many more such, Mr. Chairman, but I do not wish to burden the record at this time, though if the committee should want, I could of course place them in the record. Let me say in conclusion that I listened very carefully to one of the questions that was asked by various members of the committee of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Multer, on the question of why this bill might conceivably be inadequate, because it does not admittedly give the people of the District full voting rights for national officials-Congressmen, Senators, the President, et cetera. I would hope, as did the gentleman from New York, Mr. Multer, that ultimately the people of the District of Columbia would be given full national voting rights, too. However, if I were told that for a long time to come they might exercise only one of the two sets of democratic voting rights; namely, the right to a voice in a vote in their local government as opposed to the right to a voice and a vote in their National Government, I honestly believe that I would favor giving them just the first, if it were an either/or choice. I say this because one of my most memorable experiences before coming here was as a member of the school board of my home city of Milwaukee and to me Thomas Jefferson was so very right when he pointed to local government as perhaps the finest and fullest expression of democracy. Mr. DAVIS. Do you differ from Jefferson somewhat in that respect? I believe Congressman Multer expressed himself as feeling a strong Central Government was more important than the States rights, believe is the way he put it. Mr. REUSS. I did not quite hear Congressman Multer say that, but I do, I think, slightly differ from the proposition you have just suggested. I am a Jeffersonian and I think that Thomas Jefferson would have felt that if you could only have one of the attributes of democracy it is more important to have the local. Therefore, I think this particular legislation is of the essence and I hope that it will be very promptly, if I may say so, considered. I think there are on the committee its excellent advocates of both points of view and I would hope that in a rather prompt executive session that differences could be thrashed out and a bill reported out to the floor. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Reuss, how does your bill compare with H.R. 4630, which is the bill referred to in House Resolution 320 ? Mr. REUSS. That is the bill by Mr. Multer? Mr. DAVIS. Are there any questions of Mr. Reuss? If not, thank you very much. Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The following remarks were filed with the committee by Mr. Reuss :) THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE A LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, during the current hearings on the bills to provide home rule for the District of Columbia some opponents of the bills have charged that Congress lacks constitutional power to create a local legislative body for the District of Columbia and to confer upon such a body the authority to enact local legislation within the District of Columbia. Those who have raised this constitutional issue would, I am sure, oppose home rule for the District of Columbia irrespective of whether or not Congress has such power under the Constitution. There are, however, some Members of Congress who have not had the opportunity to study this constitutional question, and might be troubled in their minds by the allegation that a home rule bill for the District of Columbia would be unconstitutional. I have, therefore, examined into this question very carefully and I would like to make available to all Members of the Congress the results of my researches. Let me say at the outset that Congress clearly does have constitutional powers to delegate legislative authority to a local body for the District of Columbia. This conclusion rests not only on the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), but also on the views of those who founded our Nation and framed our Constitution, on the consistent action of Congress since 1802, and on a multitude of judicial decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts of the District of Columbia. The allegation against such power is completely without merit. The argument of unconstitutionality rests upon the "exclusive” in article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution which confers upon Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States." Those who argue against the power of Congress to create a local legislative body for the District apparently contend that because of the word "exclusive" every law in the District of Columbia must be passed by Congress itself, and that Congress cannot confer upon any other body any kind of legislative power within the District. Such a contention is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and contrary to the historical and uniform views of both the Congress and the Supreme Court concerning the constitutional power of Congress. The plain fact is that the word "exclusive" does not preclude the Congress from delegating legislative power to a District legislative body that would enact laws solely within the District of Columbia, but rather was designed simply to prevent other States from enacting laws to govern legal relationships within the District of Columbia. THE VIEWS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS James Madison, who perhaps had the largest role in the framing of the Constitution, clearly indicated the intent of the framers when he wrote in The Federalist, No. 43, that the inhabitants of the proposed District "will have had their voice in the election of the Government, which is to exercise authority over them" and that "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will be of course be allowed them." But this famous statement by Madison was not the only expression of the Founding Fathers on this topic. During the fall of 1783, the Continental Congress gave much consideration to the question of where Congress should have its permanent residence. Fresh in the minds of all the Members of the Congress was their experience in June of that year, when mutinous soldiers had stationed themselves with fixed bayonets around the building in Philadelphia where Congress was meeting. Because the State authorities had failed to disperse them or provide any guarantee of protection to Congress, the Continental Congress moved elsewhere. Shortly afterward, a special committee was appointed charged with the specific duty "to consider what jurisdiction may be proper for Congress in the place of their permanent residence." This committee consisted of James Duane, Jacob Read, James McHenry, Samuel Huntington, Richard Peters, James Wilson, and James Madison. On September 22, 1783, this committee reported a resolution dealing with two points; namely, the size of the proposed District, and the extent of the powers which Congress should exercise therein. The resolution stated that Congress "ought to enjoy an exclusive jurisdiction over the District which may be ceded and accepted for their permanent residence." An additional resolution was presented on the motion of James Madison which specified that the District "ought to be entirely exempted from the authority of the State ceding the same; and the organization and administration of the powers of government within the said District concerted between Congress and the inhabitants thereof." Still another resolution was presented on motion of Arthur Lee which specified: "Resolved, That the people inhabiting within said territory should enjoy the privilege of trial by jury, and of being governed by laws made by representatives of their own selection." (Journals of the Continental Congress (1774-89)," pp. 603–604 (Sept. 22, 1783).) It is thus quite clear that the committee, in using the word "exclusive," intended only to preclude the exercise of power by any State which ceded the area of the District. Madison's resolution clearly envisaged that the inhabitants of the territory would concert with Congress in relation to the organization and administration of the powers of government within the said District. Even more clearly, Lee's resolution declared that the residents of the District should have the privilege "of being governed by laws made by representatives of their own selection." Since Congress would, of course, consist of representatives chosen by all the States, it is obvious that the words "representatives of their own selection" meant persons selected by the District residents to represent them in a municipal legislature. Equally significant in indicating the general understanding of the Founding Fathers was Thomas Jefferson's "Opinion Relative to Locating the 10-Mile Square for the Federal Government and Completing the Federal City," which he wrote on March 11, 1791. This opinion is reprinted in Padover, "Thomas Jefferson and the National Capital," pages 47-48-GPO, 1946. Thomas Jefferson stated, page 48, line 10, and the following: "Terms of sale to be settled. As there is not as yet a town legislature, and things may be done before there is one to prevent them, which yet it would be desirable to prevent, it would seem justifiable and expedient that the President should form a capitulary of such regulations as he may think necessary to be observed, until there shall be a town legislature to undertake this office; such capitulary to be indented, signed, sealed, and recorded, according to the laws of conveyance in Maryland." It is clear, by his reference to the "town legislature" which was "as yet" not established and his reference to the time "until there shall bea town legislature to undertake this office," that Jefferson fully understood and contemplated that a municipal legislature would be provided for the Federal City. It is inconceivable that Jefferson would have made such an assumption if he had thought that the establishment of a municipal legislature within the District would violate the newly established Constitution. The unanimity of this understanding is underscored by the fact that John Adams, who was one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers and who vigorously opposed most of Jefferson's views, thoroughly agreed with Madison and Jefferson on this point. Adams had been Vice President during Washington's two terms and succeeded him as President. In November 1800, as Congress began its first session in the newly established Federal City, President John Adams, in his welcoming address to Congress, referred to the need for "local powers" within the newly established District and said "Annals of Congress," November 22, 1800, page 723, Sixth Congress, second session: "You will consider it as the Capital of a great nation, advancing, with unexampled rapidly, in arts, in commerce, in wealth, and in population; and possessing, within itself, those energies and resources, which, if not thrown away, or lamentably misdirected, will secure to it a long course of prosperity and selfgovernment." THE VIEWS AND ENACTMENTS OF CONGRESS Congress acted almost immediately on President Adams' recommendation by establishing a municipal corporation with a council of 12 persons elected by the qualified voters and exercising legislative authority for the city of Washington— act of May 3, 1802 (2 Stat. 195, 197). Thereafter, from time to time, Congress enacted other statutes broadening and extending the legislative powers of the city of Washington--act of February 24, 1804 (2 Stat. 254, 255); act of May 4, 1812 (2 Stat. 721, 725); act of May 15, 1820 (3 Stat. 583, 587); act of May 17, 1848 (9 Stat. 223, 224). Thus the act of 1812 added a Board of Aldermen of eight persons also elected by the voters; the act of 1820 further provided that the Mayor, who was previously an appointed official, would thereafter be elected by the qualified voters; and the act of 1848 made other public offices, namely, the assessor, register, collector, and surveyor, subject to election by the qualified voters. The city of Georgetown which had been established as a municipal corporation in 1789, prior to the creation of the District of Columbia, continued to exist after the District was established, and to exercise municipal legislative authority with a council of 10 members elected by the qualified voters of the city. No one questioned the power of the city of Georgetown to exercise local legislative power, even though the city of Georgetown was completely within the boundaries of the new District. On the contrary, Congress quickly enacted legislation to expand the legislative power of the city of Georgetown and authorized popular election of the board of aldermen also-act of March 3, 1805 (2 Stat. 332, 334335). In 1830, Congress provided that the mayor, who previously was chosen by the council, aldermen, and recorder, should thereafter be elected by the qualified voters of Georgetown-act of May 31, 1830 (4 Stat. 426). In 1856, Congress further liberalized the requirements for voting in the city of Georgetownact of August 11, 1856 (11 Stat. 32, sec. 2). The city of Alexandria, which was within the District of Columbia until the portion of the District on the Virginia side of the Potomac was retroceded to Virginia, had been incorporated in 1779, with provision for popular election of officials who enacted city ordinances. Congress expanded this legislative authority in 1804 (2 Stat. 255), and in 1843 (5 Stat. 599). The remainder of the District-the counties of Washington and Alexandria— were governed by their respective levy courts, which consisted of appointive officials with certain limited powers, some of which were legislative in nature. See, for example, act of June 12, 1860 (12 Stat. 29)-act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 799). In 1867, Congress enacted legislation further extending the right of the residents of the cities of Washington and Georgetown to vote in municipal electionsact of January 8, 1867 (14 Stat. 375). In 1871, Congress abolished the legislative bodies which then existed in the District, and established a territorial government, with an appointed Governor, an elected delegate to the House of Representatives with the same rights as delegates from other Federal Territories, and a legislative assembly consisting of an appointed 11-member council and a 22-member house of delegates elected by the voters of the entire District-act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419). This act granted to the legislative assembly "the legislative power of the District" over "all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the provisions of this act" and the constitution-section 18. Although the legislative assembly was abolished by the act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. 116), which substituted the commissioner form of government, Congress continued to delegate extensive powers of legislation on local matters to be exercised by the Board of Commissioners-act of June 20, 1874, supra, sections 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9; act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. 103, sec. 3); act of January 26, 1887 (24 Stat. 368; District of Columbia Code, 1951 ed., sec. 1-224); act of February 26, 1892 (27 Stat. 394; District of Columbia Code, 1951 ed., sec. 1–226). The latter act authorizes the Commissioners "to make and enforce all such reasonable and usual police regulation as they may deem necessary for the protection of lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of all persons and the protection of all property within the District of Columbia." In addition to these general statutes, Congress has enacted literally dozens of statutes conferring upon the Commissioners the power to make regulations, which are essentially legislative in character, in a large variety of situations. See cross-reference note under section 1-226, District of Columbia Code--1951 edition. All of these enactments by Congress clearly demonstrate that Congress did not view the word "exclusive" as preventing it from delegating legislative powers to a local legislative body which was elected by the local qualified voters. |