WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: For your information I am sending you copies of letters I have written opposing home rule for the District of Columbia and asking for a vote against it. In addition to Mr. Multer and Mr. Sisk, I have written also to Congressman Sickles, Horton, O'Konski, Roudebush, Nelsen, Mathias, Ford, and to the Evening Star. Enclosed also is copy of a petition opposing home rule which has been signed by some 400 citizens of the District of Columbia. May I call your attention especially to the last paragraph of my letter to Congressman Sisk. It is becoming a serious matter. If you can suggest any further action that might be helpful in defeating any and all so-called home rule legislation, I should be glad to hear from you and do whatever I can upon return from our vacation the middle of September. Respectfully yours, DOROTHY A. CURRAN WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 1965. Hon. H. F. SISK, U.S. House of Representatives, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Those of us who are opposed to so-called home rule for the District of Columbia are hoping sincerely that you will decide to vote against the discharge petition, or, if this should win, that you will vote against any and all home rule legislation. It is very unfortunate that the Reverend Martin Luther King has turned the home rule issue into a civil rights matter. There are many compelling reasons for rejecting home rule for the District that have nothing to do with civil rights or the Negro majority in Washington. May I urge you to read the attached copy of a letter I wrote to Congressman Multer giving some of the reasons why a great many longtime citizens feel that the Nation's Capital should not have home rule. Also enclosed is copy of a petition which a few housewives have been circulating in their spare time. This has not been a highly organized effort and a great many more signatures could be obtained if time permitted and if this were not the vacation season. However, we have gotten nearly 400 signers and I plan to present these to the District Committee to become part of the record at the hearing on Wednesday, August 18. Mr. Sisk, perhaps I should say here that all of us who worked on the petition were appalled to find a number of people (friends and neighbors) who were afraid to sign for fear of reprisal from the Government or some civil rights group. They would spend quite some time saying how opposed they are to home rule, but then they say they were afraid to sign the petition. Are we heading into another McCarthy era? Respectfully yours, MRS. H. W. CURRAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 15, 1965. Hon. ABRAHAM J. MULTER, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MULTER: Your action in filing for a discharge resolution for the so-called home rule bill for the District of Columbia was very disappointing and disturbing to the considerable number of people in Washington who are stanchly opposed to home rule. Organized groups, made up largely of newcomers to the city, have, unfortunately, made so-called home rule a civil rights question and have been extremely active in pushing the matter. I wonder if Congress, particularly the District Committee, realizes that there are a great many citizens, natives, and longtime residents, who are opposed and whose opposition has nothing to do with the Negro majority. The position taken by the Washington Board of Trade for some 50 years is a very logical and sensible one. The unique character of the District of Columbia as the Nation's Capital City, supported in part by Federal funds, requires and must continue to require congressional direction and supervision in major areas of its government. This is amply provided for in S. 1118, title III, section 324 (a-2) and (f), which is the administration-backed legislation. However, when any official act of the council can be repealed, modified or vetoed by either the Congress or the President, the term "home rule" becomes a misnomer and mere pretense. The present form of government could be a great deal more efficient and Congress could be relieved of much of the time-consuming detail and burden of running the city of Washington if it would delegate more authority to the Commissioners and other appointed officials. This should be tried before any home rule legislation is enacted. Washington has been spared the corrupt political machines which have marred and plagued other large American cities. It is difficult to see what advantages so-called home rule would bring to the taxpaying public that would outweigh the dangers involved. To insist on the democratic right to elect a topheavy superstructure of officials who would be merely play acting at home rule seems somewhat irresponsible and childish. To me, and most of the people I know after 40 years in the District, it would be more satisfying and to the point to be allowed to vote for a representative in Congress with voting rights. If you agree that Congress must retain some legislative control over the District of Columbia, I should be most pleased to hear from you just what advantages you think so-called home rule will provide that could not also be achieved by paragraph 4 above, and at much less expense. Respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives. Mrs. H. W. CURRAN. ARLINGTON, VA., August 17, 1965. MY DEAR MR. MOMILLAN: I just wish to state that I am thoroughly opposed to home rule for the Nation's Capital for many reasons, most of which have been cited by you. I was born in Washington, D.C., and lived there for 61 years, until moving to Arlington, Va., recently, hence am well acquainted with the past and present problems and conditions of Washington. May I state that I appreciate your every endeavor to prevent this bill becoming a reality, and trust that you and others will succeed in your efforts. Sincerely, PAULINE C. KINNA. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 17, 1965. Re home rule. Hon. JOHN J. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR SIR: It seems to me that the District of Columbia is not just another American city, as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, but rather the Capital of the Nation. It is not, in fact, a city but a district and all its officials are District officials. The District is unique in the American system which usually consists of villages, cities, towns, counties, and States. At present, all Americans of voting age have a say in the administration of the District; this say is exercised through their elected representatives to the national body, the Congress. To let persons who happen to reside in the District direct its administration would be unfair to the vast millions of other Americans who would thus be divested of their right to participate in the administration of their Capital. It is well to remember that the vast majority of the residents of the District feed, directly or indirectly, from national revenues, Federal or private. They have not made the District; the District has made them. If improvement is needed in the administration of the District, it should come from all the people of the United States through their elected representatives. Sincerely yours, RICHARD P. BUTRICK. MILLER & CHEVALIER, Washington, D.C., August 18, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : I am heartily glad to see that you are bringing out the dangers of having the center of government managed not by the Congress but by the individuals who happen to reside in that small area. I have lived in the District for more than 40 years, and I have had a good chance to observe the workings of the District government, because for several years I was a member of the Advisory Committee of the Welfare Department. You might be interested in the enclosed clipping from the Chicago Tribune of July 28, 1958. The District was certainly set up to provide a place where the United States can house and protect its President, its Congress, and its Supreme Court. That remains its principal function, and those who have moved here have done so with that knowledge. Unless it is clear that the people who happen to live here are better qualified than the Congress of the United States to take care of the running of the District, that running cannot safely be confided to residents of the District. It does not seem reasonable to expect of them anything greater than serving their own individual interests. They are unlikely to have either the knowledge or the inclination to run the District of Columbia for the benefit of the Government. As you have brought out, the experiment has been tried in the past without success. Granted that there are many features of the present running of the District of Columbia which ought to be improved, there is no ground for assuming that the governmental purposes would be better served if the United States abrogated to the residents its duty of providing a safe center of government. The enclosed copy of a memorandum I wrote in 1959 contains nothing, I think, that you do not already have in mind, but I am enclosing it just in case it may be of assistance. This letter requires no answer. ROBERT N. MILLER. [From the Chicago Daily Tribune, July 28, 1958] WARNING TO WASHINGTON CHICAGO, JULY 17.-The bill pending in the Senate which would give local self-government to the citizens of Washington prompts me to say the district had home rule once, but according to Professor Munro in his book, "The Government of the United States," "There was so much extravagance and inefficiency that Congress ultimately decided to intervene, which it did with a drastic hand in 1874." Continuing, the authors says, "As a practical matter, the people of the district are far better off than if Congress allowed them to elect all local officials and pay all their own expenses. They have the most efficiently governed city in the world. Local self-government would more than double the rate of taxation and the people would get less for their increased taxes." Home rule would mean a city hall with life tenure for marble polishers and their helpers, tuckpointers, night cleaners, sanitary engineers, and catch basin bricklayers. It would mean aldermen visiting San Francisco to inspect that city's underground garage, timing their junket to be in Louisville on Derby Day. It would mean a board of election commissioners bargaining for truck hire and storage spaces for voting machines, and a civil service commission giving the pole position to inlaws and municipal judges enjoying sabbatical leaves every fifth year. It would mean buying tickets for ward committeemen's fish fries and for the elevator starter's birthday, all of the above and more to be paid for by the newly enfranchised. Home rule would raise a social barrier that would shake the district from center to circumference, for Federal employees, of whom Jefferson once said "few die and none resign," would not accept the city hall crowd. THOMAS K. DAVEY. MEMORANDUM ABOUT GOVERNING THE DISTRICT The residents of the District of Columbia, being citizens of the United States, should have the right to vote on national issues along with the other citizens of the United States, and should have representation in Congress. But the Constitution designates the District as the "seat of government of the United States," and its government should continue to be the sole responsibility of the United States. The power to "exercise exclusive legislation of such District" is expressly given to the Congress by section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution-makers knew that people would come to live in the Federal District; why then was it decided that those people should not be granted a legislative body of their own, with the right to make the laws of the District? The Constitution-makers so provided 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. The difference between a "seat of government" and an ordinary city was clear: the voters in cities-New York or Richmond or Charleston, for instance-manage their cities for the benefit of local residents, rather than for the benefit of the United States. A nationally motivated government rather than a locally motivated government of the Federal seat is necessary. To cite only one phase of the governmental problem, disorder in the Federal District is more damaging to the interests of the United States than disorder in any ordinary city, and there are causes of disorder peculiar to a seat of government because people come there 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. There are, of course, other areas where the Government, rather than the local residents, must manage the local policing, sanitation, welfare, communications, etc. Examples are to be found in governmental areas specially devoted to defense, conservation, recreation, etc. Citizens of the United States who choose to live in such areas do, indeed, have the right to vote in National and State affairs, but not the right to take over from the Government the local control of the Federal area. It would be a disturbing weakness in our system if the United States could not validly set aside an area as its seat of government, to be managed by it in the Government's interest. The present claim that the local voters, and not the voters of the United States, should govern the Federal District seems to deny to the United States that necessary right, in spite of the con stitutional policy, and in spite of the reasons why it was adopted. Within the large Metropolitan Washington area the District of Columbia is only a relatively small central area, roughly analogous to the downtown areas of other cities, say the Loop in Chicago or Mid-Manhattan in New York City. While it is true that some of the residents in such downtown areas are well qualified for selecting, by their votes, the executives to govern and the representatives to make local laws, it is also true that such central areas have an especially large percentage of citizens who have had so difficult a time in merely existing as to have had little preparation for wise participation in such selections. The peculiarly transient and fluctuating population of the District of Columbia is also to be considered in deciding whether the United States can safely entrust the management of its seat of government to the local population. Last July Thomas K. Davey, in a letter published in the Chicago Tribune, pointed out the lack of success of a previous experiment. "The bill pending in the Senate which would give local self-government to the citizens of Washington prompts me to say the District had home rule once, but according to Professor Munro in his book, 'The Government of the United States,' 'There was so much extravagance and inefficiency that Congress ultimately decided to intervene, which it did with a drastic hand in 1874.'" This writer is a citizen of the District and has been so for many years. Can it be sound to say that, merely because I and others are permitted to reside in the constitutionally designated District, we can oust the Government of its right to manage its own Federal District? 52-505 0-65 -30 Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, PHILLIPS INSURANCE AGENCY, Chairman, District of Columbia Affairs Committee, House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: No doubt many residents and nonresidents of the District will bring pressure on Congress to vote for a local government that fits their own particular designs. As for myself, I enjoy living in the Nation's Capital because I feel it is a singular privilege to be in such historical surroundings where my children can see leaders from all walks of life and all parts of the world, and frankly, I enjoy the low real estate taxes. On the other hand, I am fearful and ashamed of the disregard for law and order in Washington. As for voting, I feel that I vote each month I choose to stay in Washington. If the District government is to be modified, it seems to me it should be done slowly and thoughtfully with the firm resolution of respecting the Constitution. Let us consider No. 1: Crime. If we have home rule as a separate jurisdiction, could the District of Columbia National Guard put down a $200 million riot like the one that is going on in Los Angeles? Or, on the other hand, are we now safer with the protection of the U.S. Armed Forces that Congress or the President might use? A third possibility would be the use of the Maryland National Guard if the Capitol retroceded to Maryland. Second, we are confined by a limited space. Even now, Prince Georges commissioners are unhappy at the prospect of District of Columbia residents living in their jurisdictions. Incidentally, if this is the trend, will District of Columbia residents living in public housing in other jurisdictions have the right to vote in the District of Columbia elections? Third, the argument is proposed that all Americans should be able to vote. If that is the case, shouldn't there be one bill enfranchising residents of military posts and Federal territories under U.S. rule rather than a separate bill for each territory? Fourth. Each State is contributing an average of over $1 million to subsidize the District. This is certainly a generous amount. In weighing the merits of home rule, it seems to me that Congress should determine whether it is in the best interest of the Nation to pour in large sums of money to be used in a way that would make the Capital a place of national pride or whether its purpose is to discontinue these large grants so that the residents might have their own independent home rule. Last, I feel that should home rule come, could there be some way of uniting split communities such as Chevy Chase, and Takoma Park and could there be some way of encouraging the many former residents of Washington now living in the suburbs to move back in? At present, Washington has reached a point where liberal-oriented voters seem to be attracted in and conservative-oriented voters seem to be attracted out. Thus, Washington seems to be developing into a solidly one-party community. I know that you and your committee will give due consideration to this issue. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, WILLIAM R. PHILLIPS, Chairman, 12th Precinct (Republican). House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I want to add my voice to those who spoke today against home rule for the District of Columbia. I have been a resident of the District of Columbia since 1918, have taken an active part in the civic betterment of our city, and am convinced that home rule is not the answer to our problems. In fact, home rule would increase problems. I belong to a number of organizations and while I cannot speak for the organizations as they have taken no formal action, the majority of the members feel as I do. |