I will not go into detail as my views would be a repetition of some expressed by you and by the people who appeared before your committee today. Sincerely yours, ELLA C. WERNER. P.S.-Knowing how busy you and your staff are, I do not expect a reply to this letter. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee. MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: I am writing this for the benefit of the House District Committee. I wish to state to the committee that I am opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia. There are many reasons I could cite, but it should be sufficient to say, "Let us live by our Constitution and not break down that which was set up for the good of our country." I have lived in the District of Columbia for over 25 years, and I feel that my voice should carry more weight than the voices of those people living elsewhere in the United States. Please see that my opinion is properly noted. Yours truly, GRETCHEN J. WILMOTH. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: As a resident of the District of Columbia for 25 years, and a property owner there, I wish to express my determined opposition to home rule for the District, and that for reasons cited by you to your colleagues a few days ago. Very truly yours, J. GAY SEABOURNE. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. CHAIRMAN, HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I am opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia and oppose the legislation under consideration in the House District Committee designed to bring this about. I am a permanent resident of the District and have owned property and paid taxes here for 30 years. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, Washington, D.C. MARY HASLACKER. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : As a resident of and a voter in the District of Columbia I agree with the stand you take on the home rule bill for the District of Columbia. Further, I think the Federal Government should be permitted to participate in the elimination or at least reduction of the heavy crime rate in the District so that local residents would not have to constantly live in fear. Sincerely yours, MARIE V. CHOMO. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 1965. DEAR SIR: In reading in the Washington Daily News of your efforts to stop home rule in the District of Columbia. I am a resident here since 1933. I know a little about the Nation's Capital, I came to from Pennsylvania. When I arrived here I knew and all others did, that this was the peoples Capital-not for Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or any other State. It was a beautiful city, no crime, and all had the right to vote in their own States, if they chose to. I support you, the President, and all the things that make good government. But, sir, for all these long years that Washington, D.C., did not have this so-called home rule, you, I, and your constituents lived in a very nice city. It seems now that the Federal Government is being pressured into a position that this Nation's Capital should be handed over to a mob rule. I, for one, don't want to see this. As far as civil rights are concerned, I suppose all of us want rights. But to turn this Capital City over to this kind of thinking is something I just cannot understand. I am fully aware of the pressures brought on the Members of Congress. They don't want to lose their jobs, nor do I. But, sir, there are some times more important things in our life. As for me I am getting old, worked all my life, and am as always very glad that this Nation gave me a chance to life-a very good life. I never received a penny from any source than my own making. I just still work day to day to make a living. I am sure that there are some things, that have to be corrected in our society. But when all the Congress and the Federal Government has done in the past few years to help and then to have to submit in this kind of logic is far beyond me. This has been a lengthy letter and I am sorry. But I just had to state my thoughts. So in closing I will say may God bless you and guide you in your work. Respectfully, JOHN J. DUZER. To the Honorable BASIL WHITENER. WASHINGTON D.C., August 22, 1965. DEAR SIR: I wish to express my strong objection to having home rule in the District of Columbia. I feel that this city should remain in the control of Congress, it being the Capital of the United States, and a Federal Reserve. I am a 62 years' resident of Washington and pay income and numerous other taxes here. Many of my friends speak of moving away if home rule is passed. There is a feeling that incompetency will result if this change takes place. Most sincerely yours, F. E. SIZER. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 1965. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: My parents, my husband, and I have all previously lived in States where we exercised our votes. At first we thought we were missing a great deal in the District, but after 10 years of residence and analysis of the situation, we have concluded that what we're missing is a lot of local graft and expensive infighting among layers of city pressure groups. As a student of political science and a conscientious American citizen, I believe that, at most, District residents and taxpayers (not necessarily relief recipients) should have a voice in local matters through in-residence congressional representatives. A great deal more research needs to be done before drastic steps are taken. And a referendum among city residents is certainly in order. Our experience in the local, previously nonpolitical citizens' groups have taught us the bitter lesson that there is a wild-eyed political clique ready to take over the moment the District of Columbia has "self-government" and only conformity to their demagoguery will be allowed. There will be no place for me or my family in this city if they take over. Yours truly, DOROTHY L. MARSHALL. HANNAN, CASTIELLO & BERLOW, The HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. (Attention Hon. John L. McMillan). DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: As a Washingtonian I wish to thank you for your many years of excellent service to our community. I particularly wish to thank and support you in your position with respect to the various proposals for home rule for the District of Columbia. Being an active member of the board of trade, the Spring Valley Citizens Association, the West-End Citizens Association, the Washington Heart Association, the Health Facilities Planning Council of Metropolitan Washington, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and several other fraternal and religious groups of the community, I feel that I can speak the sense of a large portion of the people of Washington. While admitting that there is a sense of loss in being precluded from participation and the shaping of the affairs of one's own community, these personal losses should and must be sustained rather than participate in a vote in Washington which would be unlawful and tragic. You have already outlined the legal and constitutional objections to the vote and although they may be deemed "threadbare" by the proponents of these measures, they are there only because their validity has kept them alive though worn. By far the more serious objections (beside the legal) stem from the fact that Washington is composed of 60 percent transients, as it were, with no municipal interests or loyalties so far as Washington is concerned and the fiscal tragedies that would follow such a vote. To one whose forebears came here in 1829 (we never had enough money to move away) the one phenomenon of Washington is the constantly moving population. The corollary of this fact is that no more than a handful of people, comparatively, work at the affairs of the city. This lack of interest is fatal to municipal government and order. Thus far you and the members of your committee have, with a commendable noblesse oblige attacked the problems of our community and have consistently done a wonderful job. You have particularly come through with the financial help and direction that is absolutely necessary lest the taxes become so high and the services so poor that the income tax paying, and real estate tax paying people of Washington would be forced to leave. With a silent vote in Congress as our representation the Congress would no longer feel a duty toward Washington and we would be delivered to fend for ourselves. Presently, despite its unfortunate crime situation which is being attacked energetically, Washington is a clean honest city. Our law firm has approximately 75 years experience in the trial courts of Washington. In that time we know of only one instance where we felt that the court had been venal. The Washington trial lawyer has the happiness of going to court with the assurance that what he will produce in the way of evidence and law will swing the judgment and nothing else. You cannot imagine the feeling that this gives one as against complaints which we hear from so many of our confreres in the surrounding States. There is no air of taint in the District Building and the efficiency of that organization attests to its absence. (It is no accident that we have the lowest fire insurance rate of any city of like size in the world.) We have a fine operating municipal government that has proved itself through the years and should be continued. We would wish to swap Washington government and its results with that of Boston, Newark, Chicago, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and an endless list of countless cities who are suffering from inept, politically ridden cliques or downright grafters? Even though the budget for the District of Columbia is in excess of $300 million, and the Federal contribution is less than 13 percent, while the tax-free land occupied by the Federal Government and others is in excess of 50 percent of the total taxable land value of Washington, nevertheless our taxes are lower than in any of the cities I mentioned. This is no accident. This is good government. Finally, although we live in Washington and try to maintain it, it belongs to the Nation. No more reason obtains today to make Washington a political prize and divest it of the insulation it affords the Congress than obtained at the time the Founding Fathers found it wise to offer those who governed the Nation this protection. But what is more to the point, no one has shown, nor can show, that the vote will correct the evils complained of. To the contrary, the vote would heighten the difficulties and it would not be 10 years before the Congress would have to take back the reins of a wracked city. I apologise for intruding upon your busy schedule to this extent, and again I thank you for what you and the House District Committee has continued to do for Washington. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM T. HANNAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 26, 1965. CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5: As a resident of the District of Columbia for over 50 years, I wish to protest the passage of a home rule bill for the Federal District of Columbia. Politically, economic, and socially it is wrong, to say nothing of the fact that it is unconstitutional. Politically it is a device to add three more electoral votes to the Democratie Party. This is assured if it is passed for the rest of time. Economically it will create an impoverished State run by those who pay now the lowest taxes, who take little pride in the upkeep of their property or the public parks or streets. The District is already deserted by white children, whose parents have taken them to the suburbs rather than send them to public schools, largely colored and inadequately staffed. Adults are already beginning to consider selling property and leaving for apartments on the outskirts where they have no responsibilities as citizens to try to keep up property threatened by deterioration because of growing problems of order and safety. The Capital of the United States belongs to each citizen of the United States and not alone to those who live here. It is Congress' responsibility to see that it is a model city in which any one of the citizens of the United States can feel pride. It is not the responsibility of a small number of people who live here for a small span of years and have interests elsewhere. Most of them leave when retirement comes. Certainly it is not a city belonging to refugees from areas unable to support them. Very respectfully yours, Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN, ELIZABETH H. JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 1965. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: I am writing you for myself as a native of Virginia and resident of the District of Columbia for the past 47 years, and for my husband who is a fourth generation, native-born citizen of the District of Columbia. We are both unalterably opposed to home rule for the District of Columbia. I shall not attempt to spell out our objections, but we are both completely satisfied that we and the other citizens stand to gain little if anything thereby and, if enacted, we stand to lose a great deal. We appreciate and admire your heroic and forceful stand in this matter and we hope and pray that once more your views will prevail. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Mrs. ELSIE C. MATTINGLY. ARLINGTON, VA., August 27, 1965. Chairman, House District of Columbia Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Please tell me in your own words what this country is coming to! The headlines in today's issue of the Washington Daily News reads: "L.B.J. Warns of Possible Violence Here Unless District of Columbia Gets Home Rule" and the opening paragraph of the news story reads: "President Johnson warned today of possible racial violence in the Nation's Capital, similar to the Los Angeles riots, unless the District is given home rule. For the President's sake I hope this news report is in error, but if not then God help us. It would seem to confirm a statement attributed to H.H.H. not long ago to the implied effect that "the boss wants demonstrations." Aside from the fundamental fact that there is positively no basic or constitutional reason for home rule for the District, isn't this type of arm twisting akin to a phase of extreme intimidation, threat, or even what some might be disposed to describe as blackmail? Very truly yours, E. M. NICHOLS. ROCKPORT-CAPE ANN, MASS., August 27, 1965. DEAR SIR: My husband and I as residents of Washington are exceedingly anxious that the home rule bill does not reach and pass on the floor of the House. The District of Columbia should be truly the Nation's Capital belonging to 195 million people, not the political pawn it will be with the present imbalance of voters from a minority group in the United States. Lack of experience and leadership will handicap the people of Washington if put in control of a mayor and 19 advisers. We have felt the Senate and House District Committees have given serious attention to matters we have called to their attention. We appreciate your handling of the hearings and wish we could be present. However we are on vacation. Please do your best for the hundreds of us who are frightened at the thought of what will take place under home rule. Very truly, Mr. and Mrs. BEVERLY ROBINSON. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: Our remarks will be addressed to H.R. 4644, a bill to provide an elected mayor, city council, and nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. We are concerned that this bill abolishes the Organic Act of June 20, 1906, which vested control of the public schools of the District of Columbia in a board of education. Our concern arises from the fact that the present functions of the Board of Education would be "transferred to the District Council for exercise in such manner and by such person or persons as the council may direct." There is no assurance in the bill that control of the public schools would be vested in a board of education. We are concerned, too, because teacher tenure was established by the Organic Act of 1906. If H.R. 4644 is passed in its present form teacher tenure would be abolished. The language of the bill does not guarantee to teachers that future benefits from any of their personnel legislation would be equal to those they now receive. It merely states that their personnel legislation "shall continue to be applicable until such time as the Council shall provide similar or comparable coverage." What assurance is there that "similar or comparable coverage" will provide to retired teachers annuities equal to those they now receive? What assurance is there that they will receive benefits equal to those they now receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act of 1954? It should be pointed out that the District of Columbia teachers retirement law contains a provision which requires the District government to pay its share annually into the teachers' retirement fund. There is no provision in the home rule bill to safeguard this provision nor to insure that these funds will be used solely for the purpose for which they were created. Teachers in active service are just as disturbed about these matters. In addition, they are disturbed about their tenure rights, leave privileges, salary schedule, etc. We respectfully request, therefore, that the language of H.R. 4644 be changed to retain the Organic Act of 1906 so we may be certain that control of the public schools will be vested in a Board of Education and that teacher tenure will be |