to it under the Constitution "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever."

The preamble of the bill further provides that it is the intention of Congress to restore to the inhabitants of the Nation's Capital the powers of local self-government which are a basic privilege of all American citizens. This is not possible because this bill and all so-called home rule bills cannot authorize the elected city council to enact such laws as pertain to marriages, corporations, legal holidays, taxes applicable to nonresidents, estate and inheritance laws, contracts, titles to real property, commerce, and many other matters that a State legislature could readily enact.

We foresee that for the foregoing and many other reasons the enactment of any of these bills would certainly result in an intolerable conflict of interest between the local people and the U.S. GovernInevitably if these bills are passed, there would be repetitions of the same misunderstandings which characterized the period from 1800 to 1878.

ment.

The Congress would take action on vital issues directly opposed to the action of the council or the will of the people as it did on more than one occasion in that period.

In the absence of a fixed figure or an orderly manner of arriving at an equitable Federal payment, there would result inevitably a situation where the local government would refrain from major public works commitments with the contention that it was a Federal responsibility. The Congress would in many cases refuse to acknowledge such responsibility until conditions became so horrible that they would have to deal with them just as in the case of the water supply and other facilities in the 1800's.

The inevitable result of these situations would be that the local community would be in constant contention with the Congress and that seekers of local political offices would undoubtedly construct their platforms in varying degrees on anti-U.S. Goverment local issues.

I can assure the members of the committee that we dislike injecting such conclusions in the record of these hearings, but we believe they are sound. We believe the committee should be informed of the thinking of an intensely interested group of leaders in this community, and we conclude that the results of the enactment of the legislation under consideration would be so injurious to the Federal City that we would be remiss in our responsibility if we did not review these matters at this time.

While we do not desire to take time to discuss the details of the bills under consideration, I do want to refer to one section which, in our opinion, is completely undesirable and which relates to the fiscal situ ation which we have been discussing. All of these bills define qualified electors as

any person (1) who has maintained a domicile or place of abode in the District continuously during the 1-year period ending on the day of the election, (2) who is a citizen of the United States, (3) who is on the day of the election at least 21 years old, (4) who has never been convicted of a felony in the United States, or if he has been so convicted, has been pardoned, (5) who is not mentally incompetent as adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (6) who certifies that he has not within 1 year immediately preceding the election voted in any election at which candidates for any municipal offices (other than in the District of Columbia) were on the ballot.

44015-59-26

Then the bills provide that the District may issue bonds of indebtedness provided their issuance receives a favorable vote of the qualified electors.

Mr. LOSER. Does the bill provide that they can vote in two elections, that is, in the District and elsewhere?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Thatis right, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I think that is true of some of the bills. I do not know whether that is true of all of them.

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. The bill under consideration provides you can vote elsewhere but you cannot vote here in the District of Columbia and still vote for a municipal officer in the State.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Does the bill which the proponents are attempting to discharge from the committee provide for dual voting?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That point I overlooked. I knew the original bills of years gone by did that. I thought that had been deleted. Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. LOSER. It is unlawful in my State. You just vote once.
Mr. ABERNETHY. You vote in two places?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MATTHEWs. You wouldn't call that second-class citizenship. It would be a superclass citizenship.

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. If you combine it with home rule, it is proper in the mind of a lot of people. It is second class. As Senator Neely said before his death, "It is the best we can give."

Mr. MATTHEWS. Excuse me. I do not believe the gentleman understood me. I was just making a remark that if the citizens of the District of Columbia could vote twice, and have these dual opportunities for voting, that would be granting them sort of a superclass citizenship.

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. That is right, sir.

Mr. MATTHEWs. A right no other citizens have in the country.
Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. That is right.

The Washington Board of Trade has, in every hearing called on home rule bills, vigorously opposed the dual voting provision through which persons residing in the District, though retaining and exercising their right to vote in other jurisdictions, may vote in the District if they have not voted in a municipal election during the preceding

year.

We hold that it is unfair to those exclusively citizens of the District to permit voters in other jurisdictions, many of whom intend to return to their homes in the States next year, the year after, or at some time in the future, to participate in referendums authorizing the creation of large amounts of bonded indebtedness, secure in the knowledge that they will not participate in paying these debts.

Denying the vote only to those who have not participated in an election when municipal officials were on the ballot is a principle which is incomprehensible to us. The District of Columbia performs substantially all the functions of a State, county, municipality, and school district. Why then only exclude those voting for municipal officials? Why not also State and county officials? If this were done, it would, of course, eliminate as qualified electors in the District all those who voted in other jurisdictions and thus reserve participation

in elections including the approval of bond issues to those people who firmly acknowledged the District of Columbia as their permanent home.

I have been reviewing reasons why the so-called home rule bills under discussion are not desirable in the Federal City. Now I invite the committee's attention to the reason why we have for years referred to such bills as so-called home rule. We have steadily maintained that national representation is an essential feature of true home rule for residents of the District. Excerpts from the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in 1928 by Henry Glassie, then special assistant to the Attorney General, clearly express our reasoning in support of this statement. Mr. Glassie said:

What was the claim of the Americans to full participation before the Revolution? Participation in local government? Not at all. They had that. It was participation in that sovereign imperial parliament which made the law.

We have been reproached with the idea that we do not want local government and therefore do not want self-government. But mark the distinction. Local government may be a mere matter of municipal administration. But what selfgovernment means is that the people who are to obey the laws shall have a share in the making of the laws. You (the Congress) make the law. Under the constitutional provisions you will always make the law. Under the principle that the Federal Government shall be supreme, you must continue to make the law.

Therefore, when we come to you humbly, and say, “Admit us to participate; admit us to your councils in the making of this law," we are asking for local self-government.

*** So I say to you, gentlemen, with profound deference, that these things, first from one side and then from the other, which are constantly thrown against us, will hardly bear scrutiny. We do want self-government, and the essence of self-government is the right to send a man from your community into the legislative representative body which can send you to war, tax your property, do what it pleases with your will, control your domestic relations, your relations with your family, your wife and children, and do all those things which make a government, a government touching intimately the life of the community. Those are the things that are dearest to you and those are the things which, in your respective States, you insist upon having, and which you will never surrender.

Despite the virtually unanimous opinion in favor of a vote for President and representation in Congress by residents of the District of Columbia, the Congress consistently refuses to give serious consideration to this matter. I believe the last hearing on this subject was before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1954, more than 5 years ago. For years each Congress has been asked to hold hearings and consider this matter but for some unaccountable reason, the bills languish in the pigeonholes. Still these so-called home rule bills receive attention though they are relatively meaningless and would, in fact, greatly hamper the development and administration of the Nation's Capital.

We are encouraged by Senator Keating's statement that he would offer an amendment to the anti-poll-tax resolution that would grant residents of the District the right to vote for President and Vice Presiident. We have asked Senators Randolph and Francis Case to support this effort and will urge other Members to do likewise. Through such action we may attain a portion of our objective for national representation which has been bottled up in the Judiciary Committees of both Houses for years and which neither committee has been willing to even hold hearings on. Through such action we may be able to take the first step toward national representation and real home rule on a

sound basis. Through such action we may embark on a course which will give us a meaningful voice in our Government while retaining the basic concept of the Federal City envisaged by the founders. Through such action it would be shown that democracy applies in the District of Columbia to an extent far more basic than is proposed in a government limited to municipal administration.

Mr. LOSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for your rather informative statement.

It is 2 minutes until 12 o'clock and the House will be in session shortly.

Mr. Matthews, do you want to ask a question?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Not a thing, except to tell Mr. Davis how much I have enjoyed his testimony. I can understand how anybody in the District with any poverty would be alarmed about the type of home rule bills we are considering.

I think your report might well be entitled "The Economic Facts of Home Rule."

I want to thank you for it.

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. May I ask a question or two?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I certainly appreciate the desire of the people of the District of Columbia to have some voice in the government of the District. As I stated a moment ago, I support the proposal that has been made here, and I have supported it for years, the right to give them a vote for the President and Vice President, which is a real vote for people who have some power and is not amenable to anyone except his constituents.

Now if the Congress sees fit to pass onto the people the very limited powers under the home rule bill, which we all know would require the Congress to circumvent a very specific provision in the Constitution, do you think they would be willing to assume the full burdens of the District government?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And pay the full bill?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You do not think they would be willing to assume the $25 million, or whatever it is the Federal Government now contributes to the District?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I do not think they would be willing to, and I do not think they can economically.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to go back and dig up the money the Federal Government has given them in the last few years to build public and religious hospitals in the District? Do you think they would be willing to dig that up?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think they would be willing to pay interest on the small amount that they agreed to pay the Government, which went into the hospitals? You know loans were interest free. Do you think they would be willing to pay the interest on the money which was put here by the people of the 48 States?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. I am certain they would resist it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think they would be willing to pay the Federal Government for the free services which they are now render

ing the 20-odd-thousand civil service employees of the District government, providing the screening services and the establishment of civil service registers, all of which does not cost the District a dime? It does not cost the District government one dime. Would they be willing to pay for that?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. They wouldn't be willing. I do not know how much bargaining power they would have, either.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to let the Federal Government withdraw its guarantee of Federal bonds of this multi-milliondollar stadium that is going to be built in the District?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would they be willing to pay the $2,600,000 which I helped pass through the Congress the other day for the parking areas out there? Do you think they would be willing to pay for that? Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They do not want that kind of home rule, do they? Do you think they would be willing to establish a system which would permit them to run up a bonded debt which heretofore has been unnecessary in operating the government?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. They would be in favor of that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They would be willing to do that?
Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. And it would be necessary.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why would it be necessary for them to establish a type of government which would permit them to run up a bonded debt; because of the withdrawal of Federal funds?

Mr. ELWOOD DAVIS. Basically that, and I think that your cost of operation would be greatly increased and if the result was increased taxes to meet those increased financial obligations, I think your source of income would be reduced.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOSER. It is past 12 o'clock. The committee will stand adjourned until next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman.

My name is Andrew Fowler, I am the director of the Washington Bureau of the National Fraternal Council of Churches.

I would like to submit, if you will permit, my testimony for the organization for the record if it may be done.

Mr. LOSER. We will be happy, unless there is objection, to permit your statement to be inserted in the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF REV. ANDREW FOWLER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL FRATERNAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, U.S.A., INC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Andrew Fowler. I am director of the Washington Bureau, National Fraternal Council of Churches, U.S.A., Inc.

I wish to thank this committee for the privilege to make a statement setting forth the views of the National Fraternal Council of Churches regarding home rule.

The constituents of the Fraternal Council of Churches believes that home rule in the District of Columbia would help lift the cloud and break down the barriers that keep all men from seeing our American dream fulfilled.

The Fraternal Council of Churches holds that all taxpaying citizens should have a voice in the Government. A fundamental principle of our Government is that taxpaying citizens have a right to vote. It was on the basis of this principle that we fought for our independence.