erties, and park areas. None of these categories will decrease in their space needs in the future but rather will increase. While this will decrease our tax base, it will increase taxes to the resident and to the businessman. We cannot depend on Congress to appropriate sufficient funds to make up deficits-it has not seen fit to do so in the past.

Gentlemen, if you talk to the people who are paying most of the taxes and whose taxes would have to support the District of Columbia under home rule, you will discover that the majority oppose home rule. Do not be misled by the vocal minority.

We agree with Representative Broyhill when he suggested that some of the home rule crusaders are more interested in ruling the District of Columbia than in home rule itself.

Under the many proposed home rule bills the District would not be getting much home rule even if they were passed. Congress would still be holding the controlling hand-and we think the Congress should hold it. The laws and regulations these bills would allow us to pass could be vetoed by Congress or the President-and that is not real home rule. As for our fiscal situation, whether a mandatory payment to the District is provided for or not, Congress can change that. How much real home rule would this be?

With any form of local home rule there would be an increased number of elected officials on the payroll with the increased amount of patronage that goes along with it. Very surprisingly, in a recently televised debate, one of the District's most ardent supporters of home rule admitted that possible corruption is one of the penalties that goes along with elected office.

Under the Commissioner form of government we have had the most honest form of government that any metropolitan area has enjoyed. We have disagreed on occasion with some decisions of the Commissioners, but not on the basis of honesty. We all know or should now know that corruption of one kind or another has plagued many of the large city administrations. They have elected officials. What reason do we have to believe that an elected administration here would be any better? Home rule cannot give us any better government. Any change would only be for the worse.

We cannot afford to take this chance in the Nation's Capital, the city to which the entire world is looking. We are a Federal City and have our representation in the President of the United States and the Vice President, for whom we have a voice selecting. The District Committees have done very well by us over the years, although some members of past District Committees have complained about the time required of them on District matters. There are still many of these matters which can be delegated to the Commissioners, thereby relieving these committee members. Further, they must take into account that Washington is their constituents' city, also.

Gentlemen, we urge you to take the necessary steps to defeat these home rule measures and keep the District of Columbia from becoming a political football.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to set forth the views of the Chevy Chase Citizens' Association (District of Columbia) in opposition to home rule.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Sullivan for his fine statement and to say that he has always been very helpful and very interested in trying to assist the District government-he has been of great assistance to this committee on many occasions.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. Are there any further questions?

Mr. GRIDER. May I ask Mr. Sullivan one question?
Mr. WHITENER. Yes.

Mr. GRIDER. Mr. Sullivan, you say that you are authorized to appear here today. Was this authorization given you at a meeting of the association?

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was given to me by the president. The president was to be here, and he is tied up with other matters.

Mr. GRIDER. The president of your association was authorized to be present?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRIDER. How many people were present at that meeting?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I would say about 150, 160 people.

Mr. GRIDER. Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, again, and the members of your association for making it possible for you to be with us today, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. We want to commend you for a very fine statement. At this point, we will insert in the record various communications received by the committee respecting the proposals before us.

(The material referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. Chairman, from time to time questions are raised about the constitutionality of legislation granting home rule to the District of Columbia.

I have studied this matter carefully. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present my findings to the House Committee on the District of Columbia. Let me say immediately that Congress clearly does have constitutional power 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 argument of unconstitutionality rests upon the word "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 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, 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 of their own selection." (Journals of the Continental Congress (177489), 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 be a 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 rapidity, 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, 334-335)).

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 Georgetown (act 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 Alexandriawere 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 elections (act 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, secs. 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 Comissioners "to make and enforce all such reasonable and usual police regulations 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. As Justice Story pointed out in 1833 when he wrote his great "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States," section 1223:

"In point of fact, the corporations of the three cities [Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria] within its limits [i.e., within the District of Columbia] possesses and exercise a delegated power of legislation under their charters, granted by Congress, to the full extent of their municipal wants, without any constitutional scruple, or surmise, or doubt."

It is entirely clear that the word "exclusive" was used only for one purpose; namely, to make sure that none of the ceding States would exercise legislative power within the District. This was the view entertained during the debates On the Constitution (3 Elliot's "Debates in the Several States on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution" (2d ed. 1876), pp. 432-433: "The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers," No. 43, p. 239 (Scott ed. 1898)). This was also the view of commentators of the Constitution (2 Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (4th ed. 1873, sec. 1218; 1 Crosskey, "Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States," pp. 493-494 (1953)).

The courts have uniformly held the same view. In 1880 the highest court in the District of Columbia stated "the term 'exclusive' has reference to the States, and simply imports their exclusion from legislative control of the District, and does not necessarily exclude the idea of legislation by some authority subordinate to that of Congress and created by it" (Roach v. Van Riswick, MacArthur and Mackey (11 D.C.) 171, 174 (1880)). (See also opinion of Circuit Judge Taft in Grether v. Wright, 75 Fed. 742, 756-757 (C.A. 6), quoted in O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 539.) The Supreme Court squarely considered the meaning of the word "exclusive" in the case of District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953), and in a unanimous opinion rejected the "suggestion that the power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislation granted by article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution is nondelegable because it is 'exclusive.'" The Supreme Court specifically ruled that "it is clear from the history of the provison that the word 'exclusive' was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District was to be concurrent with that of the cedeing States."

Long before the Supreme Court definitively settled the matter in the Thompson case, both that Court and the courts in the District of Columbia had frequently ruled that Congress has power to delegate legislative authority to a local body for the District. For example, in Welch v. Cook (97 U.S. 541, 542 (1878)), the Supreme Court said:

"It is not open to reasonable doubt that Congress had power to invest, and did invest, the District government with legislative authority, or that the act of the legislative assembly of June 26, 1873, was within that authority. We shall therefore consider the question as if that act exempting manufacturing property from taxation had been passed directly by Congress."