PETITION Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We wish to advise you that we are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot but fail again. Leland F. James, Hilda C. James, Mrs. William J. Moloney, Mary E. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, PETITION Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We, the undersigned, wish to advise you that we are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot but fail again. John W. Collier, Kermit S. Murphy, Laura S. Murphy, D. Hubbard WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 1965. Hon. JOHN LANNEAU MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The undersigned wish to advise you that they are against home rule for the District of Columbia. It failed once and cannot help but fail a second time. Respectfully yours, H. McCoy JONES. ROBERT D. TEDROW, Jr. HARVEY L. JONES. VIRGINIA C. JONES. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 1, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: I am taking the liberty of enclosing a copy of my remarks against home rule, which I presented to the Citizens' Council's hearing on home rule legislation on December 29, 1964. I presented this paper as one who has given a great deal of time and effort trying to keep our business community vital. Should there be any statements in my remarks which you feel might be helpful to you on this important home rule question, please feel free to use same or any part thereof. Very truly yours, HENRY TRACHTENBERG. STATEMENT OF HENRY TRACHTENBERG No one can deny that Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, is a city that all citizens of this country can look to with pride. The beautiful buildings, parks, clean thoroughfares, shrines, and historical records attract millions of visitors each year. And rightly so, because Washington, D.C., is every American's city. Our Federal city is the seat of freedom for all the world to see-and they do. Washington, therefore, is a very special city and it requires a special government to govern it. It has been stated that most capital cities of the free world elect their own local governments, but it has not been said what benefits these cities derive from their own self-government and whether these cities are run more efficiently and just what fiscal problems they may or may not have. Also, do these cities compare favorably with Washington, D.C.? Some which I have visited do not, and I refer to London, Paris, and Rome. If those who advocate home rule for our Nation's Capital would lend their energy and efforts to correcting our two major problems, crime and inadequate schools, much would be gained. In fact, with these two problems under control, we could show the world that this is indeed a model city for all the world to see. Home rule will not improve inadequate housing, poverty, and other social problems because it takes money and lots of it. And lots more money would mean higher taxes to all citizens of the city or additional funds from the Federal Government to accomplish these things, and we certainly have no assurance of additional Government funds under the proposed formula for Federal payment. I well realize that over the years efforts have been made to alert Congress to the fiscal needs of our city and the response has left much to be desired— result insufficient funds. Our Government, which is big business, occupies a vast amount of real estate, has the use of all of the facilities of the city and still is not taxed on the same basis as other business and industry and I doubt if it ever will be. Under our present system, I am sure that if we would use all the talents and energy which we have at our command, we could convince Congress more funds must be allocated to our city. Congress must be convinced that this city is also their constituents' city. Home rule will accomplish one thing and that is increased taxes for every District of Columbia resident and property owner because the Congress will say that if the citizens of this city want self-government, then they will have to find a way to pay for it. For those who advocate a mayor at $20,000 or $21,000 per year salary and councilmen at $9,000 or $10,000 per year, someone should tell them about the economic facts of life. This city cannot thrive any better today under home rule than it did when it had self-government in the 1800's because the uncontrollable growth of the suburbs in Maryland and Virginia has drained off thousands of taxpayers, many of whom work for our biggest industry, the Government. And in closing, let me say I fear that under home rule, with increased taxes, we will lose more taxpayers in the surrounding States. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 6, 1965. Hon. J. L. MCMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am a citizen of the District of Columbia, and a property owner. I am very much interested in how the District is governed. I am very much opposed to home rule for the District. I have been a resident here for over 15 years. I want to put emphasis on this. I am a native of Pennsylvania. Those who are for home rule, claim that only people from the South are opposed to it. From the survey I have made there is just as many from the northern States who don't want it. The propaganda is to our opposition that it is racial with us which is untrue. They use that as their main weapon. One of the Commissioners is a Negro and I have never heard anyone speak detrimental of him. I feel that all the citizens throughout the United States have a share in the District of Columbia. I do not desire to see its way of functioning changed. I know all the congressional representatives of my State of Pennsylvania are to be relied on in seeing to it that the laws pertaining to it will probably be enforced. I am sure that congressional representatives of other States can be relied on to act likewise. I do hope that you will do all in your power to prevent such a bill as home rule from being passed. Mrs. CAROLINE BAUGHMAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.U. MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a native Washingtonian I wish to register my protest against the President's proposed home rule for the District of Columbia. My reasons for this stand are as follows: (1) To put this plan into effect it would require a greatly increased tax structure and I feel that those of us who pay taxes in the District would find the burden intolerable. I have spent my whole life here but, if taxes are increased much beyond the present level, my husband and I will have to give up our home here and live where the cost of living would be less. (2) The Capital City belongs to all the people of the United States and I feel that they should have a share in its maintenance. (3) I do not feel that the citizens of the District of Columbia are, generally speaking, either financially or culturally capable of assuming the responsibility of self-government. (4) The recent election demonstrated the fact that a two-party system does not exist in Washington. This being the case the opposition would have little opportunity to make itself heard. I, therefore, feel that the present form of government for the District of Columbia is better, at least for the present. I trust that you will weigh these points carefully when it becomes necessary for you to make your decision on this important question. Sincerely, HELEN L. BLEVINS. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MCMILLAN: As a resident of the Washington area for 20 years, and a property owner in the District of Columbia for 9 years, permit me to tell you how so many owe so much to so few. I refer to the stand your committee has maintained on home rule. May you hold that line against the idle chatter of the Washington Post, and the "me too" echoes of the Washington Star and the Daily News. To begin, I would not favor home rule even though Washington's population were 90 percent white. Washington is truly a Federal city. The salaries of Federal workers and officials are paid by the taxes of all the U.S. citizens across the country. Washington is not a London, a Paris, or a Rome where industry and business dominate government. Washington is almost entirely Government. It produces nothing in GNP, like Detroit's autos, Akron's rubber, Pittsburgh's steel, or Toledo's glass. Since it consumes tax money wildly, why should its citizens expect to form a closed corporation? The reasoning is too dangerous to contemplate. Should your committee come to grips with home rule legislation, I would like to make a suggestion that all Members of Congress, fearful of it, would counter by proposing a much higher Federal contribution to the District. This would give you an offensive position and take home rule advocates off guard. It is difficult to justify the Government's small contribution at the expense of District taxpayers. The fantastic break-ins of our houses started inaugural week when all precinct police available were drawn downtown for special duties. If the District hikes our property 50 percent more as a tax base, what fairness is there for the Government to enjoy the old tax base? I have every hope that you can win this fight for us, and all Americans, and I write this letter in an effort to help and encourage you. Good luck, sir. Sincerely, HOLDREDGE, NEB., February 13, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: News & World Report magazine sets out the proposed granting of home rule to our Capital City. Many of us are disturbed. We admire and love Washington. Could Could you persuade them to use judgment and moderation, in this project? England, in her empire days, trained the local people in government. Congress make this turnover gradual? Provide that a certain number (or class) of offices could be elected by residents, the first year? A few more the second year, etc. With a promise that the whole city would be turned over to home rule in 10 years? You are so much better informed on this, than we, by virtue of your service on the District Committee. The magazine states that the President has promised to back this home rule idea. Has the Congress entirely abdicated it's powers to the President? We count on you. Our beautiful Capital City turned over to a group, totally inexperienced in government! Please don't! Don't bother to answer this. I cannot do anything. MRS. ELLA A. SWARTZ, (Not a VIP). WASHINGTON, D.C., March 5, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: May I add my protests to that of many citizens against any bill which purports to give so-called home rule to the District of Columbia. The three Washington newspapers are afraid or do not present the facts of the situation. For the following reasons the District should remain under Congress as the Constitution intended: 1. The District of Columbia is sui generis cannot be compared with any other political units in this it is the seat of the National Government and, as the Capital, belongs to 50 States, and the framers of the Constitution so intenderl. 2. Its greatest "industry" is the Government of the United States, which contributes to a great portion of its cost. 3. Its constituent population is not comparable to any other political unit. More than 60 percent is Negro, and its potential voting population probably would rise to 80 percent because so many of its white residents vote in their home States. 4. There is no "discrimination" at present when no one votes on "local issues." 5. There is no better government in any municipality in the United States than the District of Columbia's-tested by result-no corruption, little inefficiency. 6. The Negro population-not because of color-lives on the average in low "mores," and should not be put in position of governing the Nation's Capitalfor doctrinaire considerations. 7. The present Negro "mob rule" and senseless destruction of hundreds of millions of property in Los Angeles illustrate the above points. 8. However to be regretted, the flights of the white population, so marked in recent years, would be accelerated were so-called home rule enacted. 9. It would be a step backward-as already illustrated by certain unconstitutional provisions of the recent so-called Civil Rights Act-further to cheapen the franchise by adding greatly to the illiterate population already permitted to vote on the amazing theory of certain of our high officers of justice that two wrongs make a right. 10. Most of those crying in the street for home rule have self-serving motives or are ignorant of the facts of life. Sincerely, THOMAS M. WOODWARD. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 9, 1965. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN : I desire to add my voice to that of many others who will write you about pending home rule legislation for the District of Columbia. As a retired Federal Government employee, and a longtime resident of the District, I feel that a proportionately excessive number of voters in the District are not yet ready for the kind of self-government proposed by the administration. Rather, I submit that as an interim step, the territorial form, with a Governor appointed by the President and an elected legislative assembly with proper provision for veto by the Congress would be preferable. Also, thanks for your efforts over the years to arrive at an acceptable solution to this problem. Sincerely yours, LEON J. COCHRANE. WASHINGTON, D.C. Congressman JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: After returning from church today, I read your stand on home rule for the District of Columbia. I put off writing to you last week on your forward looking stand on the District of Columbia budget. Let me congratulate you for the courageous stand you take on both issues. It takes statesmanship to see through both these issues and not just a politician's plan to satisfy people who think they should get everything for asking the Government. If I am not mistaken, this is a Federal City and should not have home rule. I've seen enough corruption in other cities up North and hate to see it here. May the good Lord keep you in good health and wise statesmanship. Most respectfully, JOSEPH M. DAY. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 15, 1965. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: Some of the most talented and able citizens of Washington are employees of the Federal Government prevented from engaging in political activity because of provisions in the Hatch Act. May I suggest that any home rule bill reported out of your committee exempt Federal employees from these provisions to the extent that they may seek elective office not in conflict with their specific employment responsibilities. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee. RICHARD W. NATHAN. TAKOMA PARK, MD., April 15, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a citizen born and raised in the District, I am very much interested what the solution will be for the home rule. I have wondered if the national conventions could when they select the President and Vice President also select a third member that could be the second vice president and who would also be the mayor, etc., of the District. By having the nominee on the national tickets the country would be certain to get top leadership and a national figure who would really represent the Nation's choice. After all it is all taxpayers money used to support the District. I feel that all of our citizens should have something to say who should rule their city. Now I don't know if I have explained my thoughts clearly, but if I have not and you wish, I could tell them more readily than I can write them. Success to you in this most difficult decision. Sincerely, H. CARVER OSBORN. |