Mr. BROYHILL. We had Federal employees appear before the committee and actually oppose any repeal or amendment to the Hatch Act, because they feared that by being given more liberty to participate in partisan elections, they might also be abused by their superiors in Government.

I proposed to the committee in executive session over in the Capitol meeting room the possibility of directing the penalty at supervisors in Government who might apply pressure to Federal employees, rather than putting the restriction or the penalty on the Federal employee himself. But we did not get anywhere with that proposal.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that this is a serious and very sensitive problem. The Federal employees themselves do not know for certain just what amendment to the Hatch Act would be in their best interest. So, since it is a complicated, sensitive problem, and I certainly would be most reluctant to have this committee approve a bill that might start the dominoes to fall, insofar as taking that protection away, I am all for giving them all the liberty that is possible. But I would think it would be wise to consider this point, if the gentleman might consider just eliminating that feature from his bill and not adding any partisan participation on the part of District employees or citizens in this matter.

Mr. SICKLES. Well, my thrust is that I feel the Federal employee does have protection, in that we do now have a good, strong merit system. I know that you are called upon to write letters recommending some of your friends and neighbors, and I am called upon to do so, too. I must admit that my letters are not really trying to bring any pressure on anybody, but just to let them know that I know the people. To the credit of the Federal establishment, they do not really seem to have much effect, which I think is very, very good. But I do think that we do have a good, strong merit system, and that as long as we have this kind of protection, we should allow and I think encourage participation in government on a local level. I think it will make these Federal employees first-class citizens. I think we both agree on this portion of it, and I think they have a responsibility to participate.

So many of these Federal employees, as you know, do have much to contribute. I know they come to see me constantly and give me wise counsel with respect to many of the Federal and other programs. I think if we can encourage their participation in their local government, they have a lot to offer, and they have a responsibility to fulfill. We have many Federal employees, not only locally here but nationwide, and it is just a shame that their talents cannot be used in local operations.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fuqua?

Mr. FUQUA. I have no questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Sickles. We appreciate your being here and giving us some of your valuable time.

Mr. SICKLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Our next scheduled witness is Hon. Richard Barrett Lowe. Mr. Lowe, would you come up, please.

Gentlemen, I wonder if we could agree that questioning could be limited to 3 minutes for each member, of noncongressional witnesses? I will ask one of the staff to keep time.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, if that shoe fits me, I will wear it. Mr. WHITENER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WHITENER. All right, Mr. Lowe, would you identify yourself, please, sir, and proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BARRETT LOWE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF GUAM AND OF AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. Lowe. While I was coming up here, Mr. Chairman, did I understand you to say there was some limitation on the time of noncongressional witnesses?

Mr. WHITENER. No. You go right ahead.

Mr. Lowe. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the outset I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee on this important subject. I have prepared a short statement which I should like to read and have inserted into the record.

My name is Richard Barrett Lowe. I am a specialist in educational and international relations presently working with the National Council for the Social Studies, a department of the National Education Association of the United States, on a project to improve the teaching of world affairs in the schools of this country.

I have been a teacher of American history and American government, a school administrator, a college president, and president of the South Dakota Education Association. I served in the U.S. Navy in World War II, commanding three V-12 programs in Nebraska. At war's end I was a military government officer in the Pacific. In fact, I spent 10 years in the U.S. Navy, and retired as a commander, without any retirement benefits.

I handled educational relations for the U.S. Naval Recruiting Service from 1947 to 1953. During this time I originated the stay in school program-this was the first antidropout program developed by a national organization in the United States-and the Occupational Handbook of the Navy which were adopted by the other branches

of the Armed Forces.

In 1953 I was appointed civil Governor of American Samoa and in 1956 became Governor of Guam. Upon my resignation late in 1959 I received a Presidential commendation for having served "ably and with distinction" as a Governor of two territories.

Since my return from Guam I have served as a consultant to the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization and as United Nations observer for the National Education Association, before associating myself with the National Council for the Social Studies.

I live in Alexandria, Va. I lived for 2 years in the District of Columbia, from 1947 through 1949.

I am now writing a book on my experiences as a Governor in "Paradise," my third book. As a student of government and history I feel that I am qualified to discuss this problem of home rule for the District of Columbia objectively, with no ax to grind save the desire for good government.

52-505-65-22

I am practically retired. I want no job, I seek no honor. I have some ideas that I hope to express, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

This started out, gentlemen, last February, when I wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, the editor of the Evening Star. I put a note on the bottom of the letter, which I headed, "Home Rule for the District of Columbia: No! Representation: Yes!"

But I put a note on this, stating that unless he would print the entire letter, I didn't want him to print it at all. It did not seem to me to be too long a letter, but longer than most letters that are sent to the press. The reply was that it was considered too long, and therefore it was not printed in the Star. But copies were sent to Chairman McMillan of this committee and Chairman Bible of the Senate committee.

In 1950 the U.S. Office of Education published a bulletin entitled "Know Your Capital City." Here is a copy of it. This was reprinted in 1955, and brought up to date in 1958, then reprinted again in 1960 and 1961 as Bulletin No. 15, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Abraham A. Ribicoff, Secretary, Government Printing Office, 25 cents.

This valuable booklet of 49 pages was written for

The

** citizens who wish information of a simple, factual nature * * Columbia Historical Society contributed the time of several of its members * * * who reviewed the manuscript ***

along with representatives of the public schools of the District of Columbia. (See appendix hereof.)

Strangely enough, this bulletin is now out of print and/or has been withdrawn from circulation. It is not obtainable from the Government Printing Office. The one I have here is a library copy. From pages 26 and 27 under the heading "City With a Purpose." This is the book [indicating] and it is called "Know Your Capital City." It is addressed to all the people of the United States. The following is quoted verbatim:

Did this city just happen? Most cities did, but not the Capital City. It was created for a specific and unusual purpose. The Nation needed a single, permanent home for its new Government. When the Revolutionary War ended, the Continental Congress had met in four different places. Its Members had grumbled many times about the hardships of moving. So many moves had made the Government seem weak and unstable. These grumblings were softened after nearly 5 years of sessions in comfortable Philadelphia. Then something happened that stirred the Members into action for one permanent home. One day the Continental Congress was holding its usual, dignified session in Independence Hall. An angry mob of ragged, half-starved soldiers cursed and shouted threats of violence outside the windows. These soldiers wanted their backpay and other claims settled. The Continental Congress had not been able to settle claims earlier because it had no money. The Nation was almost bankrupt.

The Continental Congress rushed a request for protection to the Executive Council of Philadelphia. It was meeting at the same time in Independence Hall. It refused to help and the local police would do nothing. Such unwillingness to cooperate with the Continental Congress was not unusual in any State or city during these early days of our new Government.

Real fear made the Members of the session want to adjourn and leave, but that would seem cowardly. They must face possible physical danger to hold respect of their countrymen for the young, faltering Government.

At the end of the day, however, they voted that after adjourning, in a few days they would convene on the campus of Princeton University. No one had been harmed by brickbats or bullets, but the outrageous happening influenced

action toward a single permanent home for our Government. Such a home must be controlled and protected by Congress, and not by the laws of any State or city. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Lowe, I remember that when they moved the Capital from Philadelphia here, it cost only about $50,000 to move the Government and all the employees' traveling expenses.

Mr. Lowe. I think that is correct. And this was still a little village in 1802, when it got its first little shot of home government.

The design of the city, as we used to teach in high school, was by Major L'Enfant, who was a military engineer. They used to tell us back in schooldays that part of the reason for the circles and the squares in the District of Columbia was to protect the Capital against mobs or invasion, because they could put artillery in these circles.

66*** *

Please note that the conclusions of HEW and the Office of Education under the last three administrations, and apparently of all other administrations since 1874, was that our national capital must be controlled and protected by Congress, and not by the laws of any State or city." What new facts have been brought to light that justify a change in this historical position?

The Pennsylvania veterans' "mutiny" of 1783-and really, it was not a mutiny; I have that in quotation marks-underscored the weakness of a Congress meeting in a city not under Federal control. But the movement to create such an "exempt jurisdiction" was already well underway. Added to the conviction of the Founding Fathers, the excesses of the French Revolution convinced them that there should be a new Capital City beyond the reach of the city mobs or powerful local interests.

Throughout the long disagreements over where the Capital should be located, few men challenged the principle of congressional control over the proposed Federal district. That problem had already been settled by the consensus of opinion within the Continental Congress and outside of it.

In any event, article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

The Congress shall have power * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding 10 square miles) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislatures of the States which same shall be, for erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof.

In view of the fact that the District of Columbia was set up under the Constitution as a "home for our Government *** which must be controlled and protected by Congress, and not by the laws of any State or city" how can justification now be found for placing it under local control?

I came from South Dakota, but I have been practically all over the world, and I have been all over the United States. This is the Capital, this is my Capital. It is for my Government to control. It is not to be under the control, in my opinion, of the people that happen to reside in it, nor was it created for that purpose. It was created as a Federal City, to be controlled by the Federal Government, so we could

have a Federal Government here and not be involved with city mobs or city government to tell the Federal Government or embarrass the Federal Government in any way that might happen to develop.

Even if the Congress can review this and the President can review it, this all would come too late. You cannot veto a mob action in the District of Columbia simply by saying that the Congress does not like it, after it has taken place.

To place the government of the Capital of the United States in the hands of local politicians would place it under an authority outside the Federal Government. In my opinion this would be in violation of the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and would break faith with the Founding Fathers.

In all the history of our great country, the summer of 1965 is the most inauspicious time for considering the abandonment of the Federal responsibility. With marchers, protesters, riots, violence, and death throughout our land, do we now propose to turn our Capital over to the local politicians? If the Congress can be coerced by politics or threats into surrendering its constitutional prerogatives—I am not saying that it is unconstitutional. I do not agree with the chairman of the committee that this is unconstitutional. I think it probably can be delegated. But it is a Congressional prerogative that I do not think it has the right to give out at this point.

If the Congress can be coerced by politics or threats into surrendering its constitutional prerogatives, what kind of coercion or violence will be used in the future to force congressional or Executive capitulation to local demands.

Of course, I do not happen to believe in government by coercion of any kind, whether it comes from on the streets, from people who believe in riots, from the President of the United States, or anybody else. I think the Members of the Congress and I, as an experienced public servant of some 30 years one way or another, should be free to operate without political coercion, either from my political party or from my President or from any of the people who say, "If you don't do this in the District of Columbia, we'll have 200,000 marchers in the streets next week." I don't like that kind of government any more than I like paying tribute to people so that Americans can be free in other parts of the world.

I have some questions here:

Would a city political machine be as efficient as the present government? With marchers, protesters, riots, violence, would bloc voting by political, racial, or special interests groups be suitable for the government of the Capital of the United States?

Would local machine politicians make our Capital more secure, more beautiful, cleaner, or more functional?

And the question might be: Well, why call them politicians? Well, there are politicians in Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, and Boston. Politicians run the cities, and city machine politics have not been particularly clean in the United States for the last hundred years. So when I use the word "politician," I am one myself. However, I think there is a great difference between a pure politician and a pure statesman, but a good statesman has to be something of a politician.

I do not use the word "politician" in a derogatory sense here, but I just say we should not turn the District of Columbia over to politi