district. But since I am here, I hope you will accord me the same genuine affection for my home town as you have for your own. There are tens of thousands of others whose situation is the same as my own. Therefore the suggestion that we ought to move somewhere else if we want to exercise the right to elect our own municipal representatives is, I think, a harsh and unfair response to a real problem. You don't solve it by telling Washington residents to move away. I am the president of a firm which has been here since 1926. I am a member of the Washington Board of Trade, but I do not at all agree with its stand against home rule. As a matter of fact, I do not remember any poll which it has taken in recent years in order to determine the actual views of its members who live in the District of Columbia. The president and executive vice president of the Washington Board of Trade and many of its directors are excellent friends of mine-at least, until this morning-but I am tempted to repeat Congressman Schwengel's observation at a previous hearing: "Shame on you for not having more confidence in representative government." None of us can fail to recognize the overriding Federal interest in this city. Washington belongs to every citizen of this Nation, just as your State capitals, gentlemen, belong to every citizen of your State. I am not a lawyer, certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think I understand Congress' overriding responsibility for the seat of gov ernment. Yet I submit, gentlemen, that the present bill in no way divests Congress of that responsibility; it merely delegates it, insofar as municipal matters are concerned. Under the present bill, Congress retains full authority to repeal or amend any municipal act, or to act on its own initiative. In addition, the President may veto any act which affects the Federal interest. Certainly these are broad and sufficient safeguards to protect the Federal interest. I think it is a careless misreading of the present bills to suggest that they in any way abrogate the power of the Congress. History shows that what Congress can delegate it can also revoke. Our own city government is a case in point. It is within the power of this Congress to redress a wrong-to restore back to the people of Washington the right to govern themselves. Who are these people of Washington? People like myself; people who paid more taxes into the Federal Treasury than six States combined; people who fought in their country's wars. I don't want to appear sentimental, but I can tell you in all honesty that the shabbiest hour that I ever spent in the Navy was when the other men of my squadron were filling out their absentee ballots-and I had none. Gentlemen, it is not a good thing to be governed by others, no matter how benevolent they may be. I do not say this in any manner of personal criticism. The present Commissioners of the District are able and devoted men, but we have had poor Commissioners. The members of the congressional District Committees are honorable and able men, but they can never be as responsive to our needs as officials whom we elect. I hope that these do not sound like political platitudes, because I feel them very deeply. Over the years, I have given a great deal of my time and energy to community affairs. I want you to believe me that there are many civic and social problems in Washington which cannot be solved until the residents of Washington become citizens of Washington and exercise their franchise. I agree with a previous witness who, acknowledging that there are Washington people who do not want home rule, can only look upon such disinterest as a serious atrophy of the duties of citizenship. I ask you gentlemen of the committee if any of your constituents would be content to have you appointed rather than elected, or if they would long countenance a city council of people from faraway places. One final point: If the citizens of Washington do not want home rule, it cannot be forced upon them. It may indeed be a vain thing for me and for others to be testifying that the citizens of Washington do or do not want home rule. The present bill provides for a referendum on the bill itself; it can only take effect after approval by a majority of those voting in an election. In mentioning referendum it should be noted that two such referendums have been held in the city of Washington on this question of home rule-in April 1938 and in November 1946. In this connection I quote from a book "Our National Capital and Its Un-Americanized Americans," by Theodore W. Noyes, who was from 1908 to 1946 the editor in chief of the Washington Star: A highlight in the history of the District people's long quest for voting representation in the Government of their country was the unofficial suffrage referendum of April 30, 1938. This pleviscite, carefully planned by citizen groups and surrounded by every safeguard possible, in the absence of any law for the purpose, was an impressive affair. There were 63 polling places where voters were registered and identified before casting their secret ballots. Opportunity was afforded to vote on two simple questions—for or against suffrage for local officers and for or against national representation. On local suffrage, the total vote cast was 93,728, of which 82,971 were for and 10,757 against, being 7 to 1 for the election of local officers. On the question of national representation, the total vote cast was 93,840, being 87,092 for and 6,748 against, or 13 to 1 in favor of voting for President and electing Members of Congress. A similar referendum in November 1946 showed the following: On local suffrage, the total vote cast was 167,093, of which 117,393 were for and 49,700 against being 70 percent in favor of the election of local officers. On the question of national representation, the total vote cast was 166,811, being 140,101 for and 26,710 against or 85 percent in favor of voting for President and electing Members of Congress. I think that these polls constitute very weighty evidence, gentlemen of the committee, on how Washington residents feel about home rule, and ought to cause some opponents to consider whether it is intellectually honest to continue to refer to home rule advocates as a small or unrepresentative group. Other witnesses have placed great emphasis on the Federal contribution of $25 million to Washington, indicating that it is their belief that if home rule is obtained, this contribution will cease. We do not share this fear, because history shows quite the contrary. During the 75 years in which Washington enjoyed home rule, not only did the Congress and the President show a continuing solicitude for this Federal City, but congressional contributions to the maintenance of Washington ranged from 30 to 50 percent of the municipal budget which is a great deal more generous than the present Congress whose contribution is about 12 percent. In the American tradition of fair play and majority rule, I ask the gentlemen of this committee to let the people of Washington decide what kind of government is best for them. I know that there are members of this committee who are honorably opposed to home ruleand it would be the height of presumption for me to believe that any words of mine have altered their views-but I ask you gentlemen to ask yourselves whether political parties can long endure if their platforms turn out to be idle words. I deeply believe in the integrity of the American political system. I hope that there is no room in that system for a cynicism which holds out to people that Democrats or Republicans will do certain things, if elected, and then fails to do them. Moreover, I ask you, gentlemen, to ask yourselves whether it is right for any small group of Congressmen, however well intentioned, to substitute their judgment for that of the entire Congress when it involves the disenfranchisement of close to 1 million American citizens. I think you have now the opportunity of redressing a grievous wrong committed by a distant Congress and I suggest that you will commend yourselves to future generations of Americans if you take that wise statesmanlike step. Mr. DAVIS. Are there any questions? Mr. MATTHEWS. I have none. Mr. HARMON. No. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Goldman. Mr. A. L. Wheeler, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, has been in regular attendance at our sessions. We are glad to have him with us this morning and will be glad to have your statement, Mr. Wheeler. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, before the witness proceeds, may I make a brief statement? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. MULTER. Thank you. I have been told-I have not had an opportunity to read that part of the record yet-that one of our colleagues on the committee, during cross-examination of a prior witness, indicated that I, who am a sponsor of one of the home rule bills and a member of the committee, was not genuinely in favor of home rule but that I was doing it because of pressure from some people in my own district. I would like to say for the record that I believe there is nothing that I have testified to before this committee, and nothing I have said anywhere else, that can give rise to any such interpretation of my position. I believe as a matter of principle, conscientious principle, in home rule for the District and I would be for that principle and for home rule for the District even if my district were opposed to it. I am happy to say that I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in my district support my position. I am for home rule for the District as a matter of principle and I hope anything that has been said to the contrary will be corrected. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DAVIS. We are glad to have your statement, Mr. Multer. STATEMENT OF A. L. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. WHEELER. I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony here and to appear out of the order of presentation. My testimony is in support of H.R. 4633. My name is A. L. Wheeler. I am chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia. I have been a member of this committee since 1946 and have been chairman since 1948. I am a former chief clerk and counsel of the Senate District of Columbia Committee. I represent 35,000 registered Democrats in the District of Columbia. On behalf of these Democrats I urge you to immediately recommend out of this committee H.R. 4633, I believe, with certain amendments which I will allude to later in my testimony. Since 1890, the Democratic Party has had a suffrage plank urging the adoption of self-government for the District of Columbia. Some 60 years have now passed yet this plank has not been implemented. The 1956 Democratic platform pledge reads as follows: We favor immediate home rule and ultimate national representation for the District of Columbia. I submit to you that timely action on local self-government is long past due. I urge you to recommend out of this committee legislation which will fulfill the Democratic platform pledges made for more than a half of a century to the people of the United States including the District of Columbia. This action is timely for another reason. The Senate of the United States has only last week passed a local self-government bill for the District of Columbia. Now that this legislation has passed the Senate, we are hopeful that this committee and eventually the House will pass companion legislation making our dream of local self-government a reality. I am myself cognizant of how much the people of the District of Columbia genuinely want home rule. I talk and confer with people daily on this subject. The ultimate question always is, How long are we to wait before we elect our own city officials? I hope to answer this question soon and favorably. In the past 2 months, I have been astonished by the deluge of support that has come into my office from every section of the country, and much more must have come into the offices of the members of this committee. I have in my hands resolutions from the Governors of 13 States. Since drafting this testimony I have received five additional resolutions. The text is identical and reads: As the 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, longsuffering 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 that the people of Washington, D.C., likewise be given the right to govern themselves. Please accept this expression of my stand in this matter as an endorsement of the pending bill, the passage of which will accomplish this objective. Mr. DAVIS. I notice you state that those are identical resolutions, Mr. Wheeler. Who drew them? Mr. WHEELER. Governor Furcolo of Massachusetts, Judge, drew those resolutions and he sent them to the Governors and headed up this committee. Mr. MATTHEWs. Will the chairman yield? Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Matthews. Mr. MATTHEWS. Do you suppose these Governors have had an opportunity to present this problem to the citizens of their States? Is this a resolution expressing the opinion of one man, or did the citizens of the respective States have an opportunity to express their opinions? Mr. WHEELER. Yes. I am coming to that. We have three legislatures that have passed on this matter. Mr. MATTHEWs. You are talking about resolutions, the text of which is identical, coming from Governors of 13 States. My question is, Do you think the Governors presented this problem to the electorate? Mr. WHEELER. No, I do not think the Governors presented the problem to the electorate but they are the representatives of the people. Mr. MATTHEWS. But they are speaking as Governors? Mr. WHEELER. No, I think they are speaking as representatives of the 18 States they represent. They were elected by millions of votes. Mr. MATTHEWS. I do not want to quibble, but it seems to me there would be a difference between a prepared text presented by a Governor and an opinion coming from a representative vote of the electorate. Mr. WHEELER. I will agree no plebescite vote has come from those 18 States, but I am sure the Governors very carefully considered the resolution and it expresses what they think their people want. Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Multer, you are not a member of this subcommittee but we will yield to you at this time? Mr. MULTER. Thank you. I appreciate it is a matter of courtesy. The fact of the matter is that whenever a Governor of a State sends in a recommendation to a congressional committee or appears as a witness he is presumed to be speaking for the people of his State. I think they would not dare present a statement that they did not believe conformed to the opinions of the people of the State. Mr. WHEELER. That is right. Mr. MATTHEWS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Matthews. Mr. MATHEWs. I believe my colleague will agree there is a lot of difference between a Governor speaking as an individual, on the one hand, and trying to speak as the representative of the people of his State, expressing the opinion of the people of his State, on the other hand. Mr. MULTER. May I say to my beloved colleague that when an elected representative speaks, whether as a mayor or as a Governor or even as a Member of Congress, he is presumed to be speaking for the people who elected him unless he disavows that and states, "this is my |