you cannot control? After all the evidence is in, Congress decides how and how much money may be spent.

Congress also takes up many local matters, such as the garnishment of wages for debts, busfares for schoolchildren, and increased benefits for widows and orphans of firemen and policemen, which have been occupying the House committee intermittently since the beginning of the current session.

THE DISFRANCHISED

Washington residents were not always as helpless in relation to the solution of local problems as they are now. Before 1870, residents of the District elected their own mayor and city council. They were represented in Congress by a nonvoting elected Delegate. Between 1871 and 1874 the President appointed a governor, members of a legislative assembly, and a board of public works, and the people elected a 22-member house of delegates and a nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives. Before and during that time the city had contracted a debt for needed improvements, chiefly streets and sewers. A citizen group appealed to Congress to take over the local government, relieving residents of the responsibility of the debt. So Congress provided the form of government in force today, disfranchising District of Columbia citizens in the process.

Since 1946, bills have been before Congress to give Washington some form of self-government. The Senate has passed such bills four times, but the House has never had an opportunity to vote on such a bill.

The bill on which home rule supporters are pinning their hopes this year would provide a territorial form of government-a governor appointed by the President, an elected legislative assembly, a board of education created by the assembly, and a nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives. Congress and the President would retain the right to overrule assembly decisions, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement that "Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District *** as may become the seat of the Government of the United States." The Supreme Court has ruled that this power may be delegated.

***

This is the form of government that Alaska and Hawaii have put aside in becoming States. Can the District now move up the ladder a rung and inherit the mantle of government which they have cast off? Maybe, if there is enough understanding of the District of Columbia problem in the States to convince individual Members of Congress that it is time for Washington residents to assume their civic responsibility.

STATEMENT OF DON B. GOODLOE, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF TEACHERS UNION LOCAL 6 OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Local 6 of the American Federation of Teachers is in favor of self-government for the District of Columbia and supports participation by the citizens of Washington in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States, as well as Members of the Congress of the United States. Specifically, we have been in favor of Senate 1681, which has passed the Senate. That does not mean, however, that we are opposed to the bills that have been introduced into the House of Representatives. It seems to us that the inhabitants of the National Capital are entitled to local self-government, as well as to a share in the Federal Government, and that the 86th Congress should find some way to bring about these changes which have long been overdue.

We have listened to arguments pro and con on this subject. There have been profound constitutional reasons presented for and against this pending legislation. Still, the fact remains that a city containing almost 1 million people is not allowed to govern itself. That is the essential thing that is bothering us. Stripped of details and technicalities, that is how it looks to the world at large. A metropolitan center with a greater population than some States of the United States even more people than some sovereign nations-is not permitted to manage its own affairs. We very rightly champion the cause of the downtrodden and oppressed all over the earth, yet we have failed to grant local autonomy to nearly a million of our own citizens. Alaska and Hawaii have recently been admitted to statehood. Puerto Rico has self-government in our Federal system. Washington, D.C., is now the only very large American community without either the privilege of governing itself or participating in the election of the Chief Executive and the Senators and Representatives of the United States.

Anything happening in our city is of national and international importance. Let us do for the people of our National Capital what we are advocating for human beings in other parts of the world.

STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON CHAPTER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC

ACTION

The Washington Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action is grateful for this opportunity to express its views on self-government for the District of Columbia. These are our views:

We

We favor the speediest possible action to enact home rule legislation. believe it is essential to provide all the Members of the House of Representatives an adequate opportunity to consider the merits of home rule before the final press of business in the closing days of this session of Congress. We therefore urge all Members to sign the discharge petition as soon as it is available. Because we urge speedy action in reporting out a home rule bill, we oppose protracted hearings. To contribute to expeditious action, the Washington Chapter, Americans for Democratic Action, is limiting its comments at this time to this statement for the record.

Americans for Democratic Action always has pressed for the enlargement of freedom and democacry everywhere in the world. Certainly, we can do no less for our own citizens here in the Nation's Capital. It is ironic that Washington is the only corner of these so recently enlarged United States where the citizens cannot vote and have no voice whatsoever in their own local government. It is a paradox, too, that this Nation, the leader of the free world, is the only one of the major democracies that does not permit the citizens of its Capital to govern themselves. We stand ready to pour our resources, perhaps even our blood, into the defense of a free franchise for Berlin, which not very long ago was the capital of an enemy nation. Can we do less for the Capital of the United States?

The Constitution guarantees a "republican form of government" to our people. There is every historic reason to believe that the Founding Fathers and the early Congresses had no intention of depriving the citizens of the District of Columbia of the right to manage their own affairs. The inalienable right of every American to vote is adequate justification for self-government in Washington. There are also many practical reasons for home rule. Counsider the tortuous path even the most routine local ordinance must follow in the course of enactment: from a District department to the District Commissioners; through hearings and floor action in two Houses of Congress; to a conference committee and back again to both Chambers; to the Executive Offices and the President; and finally back to the District government for reassessment. A money bill must go through all of this and more; it must pass twice through two budget offices, District and Federal. No wonder leaks in the roof of the morgue go so long unrepaired. No wonder that a junior high school, designated as a firetrap 11 years ago, is still used to educate our children. No wonder overburdened Congressmen, deeply concerned with the problems of their own constituencies of the Nation and the world, are unable to formulate in exact solutions to local Washington problems.

The Washington Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action believes that the most appropriate form of local government is one that provides for an elected mayor and an elected city council. This is the traditional form of urban government in the United States. We recognize that Washington, as the Nation's Capital, has certain unique problems. We are certain that the ultimate authority of the Congress and the President are sufficient to safeguard the Federal interest under any system. And we are confident that the good sense and responsibility of the people of the District will preclude any need to invoke these safeguards. Although we greatly prefer the mayor-council form of government, we believe that a territorial system, under present conditions, is an acceptable first stepbut only a first step toward full self-government. We are confident that Congress soon will be impressed by the efficacy of local self-government and will extend to District of Columbia citizens the fuller measure of home rule that is appropriate.

For that reason, we pray that Congress soon will activate the careful machinery of constitutional amendment to grant us our just and equal voice in national affairs. There is no practical nor political reason why we should be deprived

of either local or national voting rights. We deplore efforts to confuse the two questions of participation in local and national affairs in an attempt to defeat both measures.

Despite the many points of view local groups are expressing on the several proposed types of city government, we trust that the committee will hear the "ring of truth" in the united claims of the many supporters of self-government. We recognize that the certain expression of local sentiment can come only through referenudm. We are pleased that all proposed legislation on home rule provides for referendums. We are confident the outcome will be overwhelmingly in favor of home rule.

The concept that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" is a keystone of American democracy. The people of the District of Columbia do not consent to their present form of government. Therefore, we most emphatically urge institution of self-government for the long-patient citizens of the District as soon as possible.

Hon. JAMES C. DAVIS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Judiciary,
The House of Representatives.

WOMEN'S CITY CLUB, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1959.

DEAR SIR: On Friday, July 17, at a special meeting of the board of directors of the Women's City Club of Washington, D.C., situated at 2200 20th Street NW., I was directed, as the second vice president, to go to the House hearing on home rule for the District of Columbia, planned for Tuesday, July 28, to present our views against home rule for the District of Columbia, if permitted to do so.

Our stand, along with the stand taken for years by the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, to which we belong, has always been for national representation for the District of Columbia. We do not believe in home rule for the District of Columbia for the following reasons, given below.

The Women's City Club of Washington, D.C., now in its 40th year, owns and operates a clubhouse for its members, one of the few such clubs in the District of Columbia, and takes an active interest in civic affairs.

The newspapers indicate a growing belief in home rule for the District of Columbia. Some accounts state that Members of Congress believe the time has come for the District of Columbia "to attend to its own housekeeping affairs"; "that Congress should treat the District as any other State or city, even denying it the Federal payment except for such items as water and sewer services." This point of view is not realistic. The District of Columbia is the Federal City, created by article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress. Among other duties is stated: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may *** become the seat of government of the United States. * * *” A well-known lawyer of Washington, D.C., Mr. Robert N. Miller, stated in a letter to the News of March 26, 1959, as follows (I have been given permission to quote): "Residents of the District of Columbia should have the right to vote on national issues as do other citizens of the United States and should have representation in Congress. But the Constitution designates the District as the 'seat of government' and its government should continue to be the sole responsibility of the United States.

"The power to 'exercise exclusive jurisdiction' in the District was expressly given to Congress by the Constitution because the United States needs to have day-to-day management of the area where the principal members of its executive, legislative, and judicial departments must function.

"Disorder in the Federal District is more damaging to the interests of the United States than disorders in any ordinary city, and there are causes of disorder peculiar to a seat of government because people come here from all parts of the world to deal with the Government. Experience shows that not infrequently they are in bad humor or irresponsible, or both.

"Within Metropolitan Washington the District of Columbia is a relatively small central area, roughly analogous to the Loop in Chicago, or mid-Manhattan in New York City. Such central areas have an especially large percentage of citizens who have so difficult a time to merely exist as to have little preparation for wise participation in their own government. The peculiarly transient and fluctuating population of the District should also be considered in deciding

whether the United States can safely entrust the management of its seat of government to the local population."

The Women's City Club agrees with Lawyer Miller. As stated above, we have never believed in home rule for the District of Columbia. For years our members have stood for national representation, but now since the Broyhill bill, House Joint Resolution 151, provides a substantial part of the enfranchisement which the citizens of the District of Columbia desire; since the machinery for voting in the District of Columbia has been set set up since the passage of the general primary law of 1955; since "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" just as much now as in the past; since District of Columbia residents in 1956 paid more national taxes than 25 of the States; send their sons into the Armed Forces and fulfill every other requirement of good citizenship, it seems only fair that we, citizens of the District of Columbia, should be given the right to vote for President and Vice President and have such representation in the Congress as Congress in its wisdom may see fit to grant.

Lastly, we have found that the several bills presented to Congress for home rule would cost much more than the present excellent commission form of government we now have. The council of 15, with a Governor or a Mayor and an Assistant Governor or Mayor and all the attendant expenses, would be close to $200,000, whereas our present government is close to $45,000.

We had a territorial form of government here in Washington from 1871 to 1874, consisting of a Governor and a board of public works and a legislative assembly. The legislative assembly consisted of a council of 11 members and a house of delegates of 22 members. We also had a Delegate in the House of Representatives.

That form of government ended in 1874 with a debt of $22 million, which was finally paid off in 1922. On June 11, 1878, the so-called organic act by which the District of Columbia has been governed ever since was approved. Under this measure the District of Columbia became a municipal corporation managed by three Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States. In the creation of the temporary commission form of government in 1874, and the permanent form in 1878, no provision was made for the franchise and so for the first time in three-quarters of a century no part of the District exercised the right of suffrage.

In 1878 the expense of the Federal City was borne jointly by the District and the U.S. Government on a 50-50 basis. In 1922 this was changed to a 60-40 ratio, and in 1938 the share of the United States was changed legally to a lump sum, which today has dwindled to less than 10 percent, at times, of the expense of running the Federal City.

The residents of the District of Columbia have been asking for a long time, and still ask, for national representation for the District of Columbia by a constitutional amendment. We were willing, however, to compromise on the Broyhill bill, House Joint Resolution 151, to give us the right to vote for President and Vice President. Now, however, since Representative Broyhill has also introduced House Joint Resolution 152, which provides for the people of this area to have representation in Congress, the two resolutions complete the picture we in the District of Columbia have had in mind for many years, namely, national representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Respectfully submitted.

ANNA KELTON WILEY,
Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley,
Second Vice President.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, JANUARY 27, 1958, REENDORSING THE BROYHILL BILL HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 18 AND GIVING REASONS FOR OPPOSING HOME RULE

Whereas the population of Washington, D.C., now outnumbers the population of each of 12 States and all national laws apply to District of Columbia citizens, as well as to the people of all the States;

Whereas the people of Washington, D.C., have contributed in national taxes in 1956 more than the citizens of 25 of the States, and more than the citizens of 6 States combined;

Whereas in World War II the citizens of the Nation's Capital served in greater numbers than their fellow citizens from each of 12 States; and because it is within the prerogative of the President to appoint the executive government of

Washington, D.C., either directly or indirectly, he can appoint all officers of the local government and all judges;

Whereas Washington, D.C., residents, although voteless, have the same responsibilities as other Americans: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, at our regular meeting held Monday, January 27, 1958, reendorse our action taken June 28, 1955, to petition Congress for the passage of the Broyhill bill House Joint Resolution 18, for a constitutional amendment to enable the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President of the United States.

But while requesting that this constitutional amendment be enacted, we also wish to go on record, at this time, opposing the so-called home rule for the District of Columbia for the following reasons:

1. Home rule, as provided in Senate bill S. 1846, provides for an assembly of 15, with salaries of $10,000 each; a governor at $21,000 and a Lieutenant Governor at $17,500 with expenses allowed of $2,500, all of which totals up to the sum of $191,000 per annum, which is more expensive than the present form of government with three excellent Commissioners, one of whom, an expert engineer officer of the U.S. Army, is assigned to the job by the U.S. Army, which costs the city the sum of $36,798.24.

2. Home rule would give Congress less responsibility for the upkeep of the Federal City and soon, we fear, Members of Congress might not want to be bothered with the problems of the Federal City, and might also expect District of Columbia residents to furnish all money required to finance the Federal City, of which we taxpayers now occupy 47.1 percent of the land.

3. The 839,000 people living in the District of Columbia are now furnishing most of the money for the police and fire protection, for keeping the streets clean and in repair and for other items too numerous to mention and the Federal contribution is now about 13 percent of the whole. Manifestly Congress must help bear the expense of the necessities of life, in the Federal City, which they also enjoy.

4. A council, as provided in home rule bill S. 1846, in our opinion would not do as good a job of governing the city, as do the three intelligent Commissioners carefully selected by the President, one of whom is an outstanding Army engineer officer.

5. Bill S. 1846 provides that no bond for general expenses shall be issued which shall exceed 12 percent of the assessed value of the "taxable real and tangible personal property of the District" which amounts to $260 million. We do not think this council would be competent to handle this tremendous loan wisely and economically. To revert to past experiences, the $22 million debt authorized by Governor Shepherd in 1871, took from 1871 to 1922, 51 years, to pay back. Finally, the probable dissolution of the two congressional District of Columbia committees, in the Senate and House of Representatives, would in our opinion be a distinct loss to the city. Respectfully submitted.

ANNA KELTON WILEY,
Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley,

Delegate from the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs to the District of Columbia Federation of Citizens' Associations.

Passed unanimously January 27, 1958.

WOMEN'S CITY CLUB,

Washington, D.C., August 18, 1959.

Mr. WILLIAM N. MCLEOD, Jr.,

Clerk, House District of Columbia Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MCLEOD: You were kind enough to tell me over the telephone yesterday that I did not have to come to the hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, August 19, in order to have my testimony put in the record of the hearing against home rule for the District of Columbia.

In harmony with your kind permission I enclose herewith the statement I sent to Representative James C. Davis, of the House District of Columbia Committee, on July 24, 1959.