NATIONAL INTEREST AFFECTED BY HOME RULE As your committee has indicated previously in this report, many home rule proposals, including the administration bill, do not give the citizens of the District of Columbia full self-determination concerning their affairs, since, in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution, the Congress must continue to exercise its exclusive legislative powers. The concept of home rule as it is applied within the States cannot be put into operation in the District of Columbia. Where a State legislature grants home rule privileges to a city, county, or other local political subdivision, the people within such area enact their own laws, ordinances, and regulations for their own benefit. Their actions do not affect or control the people located outside the boundaries of the political subdivision. They cannot levy taxes on citizens outside the political subdivision. In the absence of retrocession or amendment to the Constitution, a home rule government in Washington, directly or indirectly, legislates concerning the interest of the people in all other States, and, as heretofore noted, can secure tax revenues from all of the people of the States. WHAT THE HOME RULE BILLS (H.R. 4644 AND S. 1118) PROPOSE RE THE HATCH ACT The Hatch Political Activity Act was approved August 2, 1939 (53 Stat. 1147, 5 U.S.C. 118i, as amended). Title 5, Section 118i of that act, entitled "Executive employees; use of official authority; political activity; penalties; reports to Congress," provides: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interferring with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates. For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construed to include (1) the President and Vice President of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President; (3) heads and assistant heads of executive departments; (4) officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to be pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign powers or in the Nation-wide administration of Federal Laws. The provisions of the second sentence of this subsection shall not apply to the employees of The Alaska Railroad, residing in municipalities on the line of the railroad, in respect to activities involving the municipality in which they reside. [Emphasis added.] The proposed amendment to the Hatch Act, as set forth in H.R. 4644 and S. 1118, is as follows: SEC. 810. (c) The second sentence of section 9(a) of the Act entitled "An Act to prevent pernicious political activities:, approved August 2, 1939 (53 Stat. 1147), as amended, shall not be applicable to elections held under this Act or to political management or political campaigns in connection therewith. [Emphasis added.] STATEMENT OF MRS. CHARLES D. COLLINS Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Mrs. Charles D. Collins. I am currently the president of the Kalorama Citizens Association which is a member body of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. I am speaking as an individual although my association is on record against home rule. I believe that the District of Columbia was created by the provisions of the Constitution as a Federal jurisdiction for the seat of a Federal Government. In those chaotic days when this Government was in its formative period and the Congress was desperately trying to create a lasting order; when the young Congress had met in eight different cities, which had been overrun by demanding mobs (not unlike our present-day mobs demanding everything and giving nothing), they met in April 1783 and decided that a permanent place for the seat of this Government must be secured and a permanent Capital established. The Constitution provided in article I, section 8, that the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government of the United States. This power was granted after years of "trial and error" and honest differences of the various politicians had been advanced. It was a period of "blood, sweat, and tears" and was not lightly done. Therefore, President Washington by proclamation dated January 24, 1791, designated the boundaries in Virginia and Maryland as a central and proper place but also provided "That nothing herein contained shall authorize the erection of the public buildings otherwise than on the Maryland side of the River Potomac as required by the act. Boundaries were laid out, and on April 15, 1791, the cornerstone was laid. This effort and agreement was that of dedicated men whose lives, whose possessions, and whose sacred honor were at stake and since through those long years of service, sacrifice, and dedication they had given their consecrated best efforts, I cannot believe the term "exclusive jurisdiction" in all cases whatsoever was lightly given. The Capital of the United States, gentlemen, is the Capital or Arizona, of Utah, of Florida, of Maine, of Wyoming, of Alaska, and of Texas, and of all the other States. Those that were in being, those that were to be acquired. Can you imagine any of those States feeling a loyalty to a county seat town arrangement which "home rule" would foist on the Capital City of this great country of the United States of America? Should a home rule bill be passed this Congress will have abdicated and deeded the heritage of many citizens of the United States to the vociferous alleged rights being demanded by a few. Every Congressman or Senator elected to the Congress takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of his country. The President of the United States takes an oath that he will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. These oaths are presumably taken with the same dedication that the signers of the Constitution had and it is hard to imagine any man who has taken these solemn pledges to speak of the Constitution as "threadbare" or to allege he owes greater loyalty to an individual States than he does to this great Nation. I have paid taxes in the District of Columbia for 40 years, and I have never felt that it was "taxation without representation" because I felt that I was represented by every Member of Congress; neither have I felt that I was a secondclass citizen. There are many and varied ways for residents of the District of Columbia to demonstrate "good citizenship." Rioting is not one of them. Should we have home rule and be subservient to a local government, what provisions could be made to suppress insurrection? That is a power reserved to Congress. The Constitution gives certain powers to the Congress and, if there comes a time when changes are needed, it provides a way for amending the Constitution. If this jurisdiction feels that a vote is imperative, there is a precedent to cede any part of the District (except the Federal area) back to the State from which it came by a vote of all the States who have as much right as the District of Columbia which is also the Capital City of the United States. By ceding the Dictrict back to Maryland, they may have full voting rights. I thank you gentlemen of the committee. (Signed) Mrs. CHARLES D. COLLINS. SEPTEMBER 7, 1965. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman of the House District Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to request that this statement be made part of the record in the recent home rule hearings on H.R. 4644. It is my position that the territory now known as the District of Columbia is still a part of the State of Maryland which Congress can control at the local government level. As a continuing part of a State, this territory's citizens are State citizens and are constitutionally guaranteed a republican form of local government. The present District of Columbia government is a nonrepublican form of government because the subject citizens have no voice in electing either the executive or legislative units of this local government. H.R. 4644 proposes that the District of Columbia government be replaced by a new local government that is republican in form, having both an elected mayor and elected city council. This is a proper change and should be made without delay. The resident citizens of the District of Columbia were never consulted or asked for their consent separately when the territory was originally ceded in 1790, when the territory was illegally disenfranchised by the Organic Act of February 27, 1801, or when the territory was granted second-class voting rights for President in the 23d amendment of April 3, 1961. Congress isn't about to call for a citywide referendum every time Congress wants to amend any city charter that may be adopted. If the citizens don't like any provisions in a city charter approved by Congress, they can easily propose changes within the mechanism written into the proposed city charter that foresees the need for changes. Congress never asked the citizens for their consent when the present nonrepublican form of local government was inaugurated in 1874, and there is no need to waste any time or money asking the local citizens for their permission to remove the present unconstitutional local government. To support my position that the District of Columbia is a continuing part of the State of Maryland and that the District of Columbia citizens are entitled to an equal voice in Congress and in the Maryland State Legislature I would like to invite your committee's attention to the following points of law. The Constitution provides in article IV, section 2, that all citizens shall have equal voting privileges and in article I, section 4, that the State legislatures shall prescribe the rules regulating congressional elections. In subdividing the State into equal population congressional election districts, the State legislatures have a duty to guarantee that the "one man-one vote" rule takes priority over all other rules. Congress has conveniently ignored the point that the Maryland State Legislature had national legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia territory prior to cession and that legislative powers vested in the State legislature by the U.S. Constitution is just as permanent and unremovable as legislative power vested in Congress. With the consent of the Maryland State Legislature, State territory may be transferred to another State where resident citizens of the territory will continue to enjoy all the voting privileges of State citizens. However, it is impossible to remove State territory from the State of Maryland without placing the territory in another State. Such an act would be in violent conflict with article I, section 4, and article IV, section 2. Both Congress and the courts are wrong if they maintain that the District of Columbia territory has been legally separated from the State of Maryland. Both the Act of Cession of 1790 and the Organic Act of 1801, which are the only two acts of Congress cited by anybody for authority supporting the separation claim, clearly state that the territory ceded to Congress by Maryland shall remain under the force of Maryland law. Since Maryland law prescribes Maryland congressional election districts, these two statutes must support the position that the ceded territory is a continuing part of the State of Maryland. Neither Congress nor the courts can produce an act of Congress that separates the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland. Recognizing the District of Columbia as a part of the State of Maryland will generate a slight conflict with the 23d amendment. However, the whole presidential electoral system is obsolete and should be repealed before another President is elected with fewer popular votes than his nearest opponent. There are several ways to cancel this amendment short of repeal. One of the easiest ways is to adopt Mr. Kyl's suggestion that the "seat of government" be redefined to mean the nonresidential part of the Federal triangle. Since the District of Columbia would have an equal voice in electing the President as a part of Maryland, the resident citizens would probably be glad to forget any extra votes that they might be entitled to as a result of this amendment. Finally, it should be obvious to anyone who thinks that the District of Columbia should be an independent State that such a change can be made by a simple act of Congress. If the District of Columbia must be a part of some State, and if Congress and the Maryland State Legislature consent to separate statehood, article IV, section 3, provides that the District of Columbia may be reconstituted into one or more other States. Respectfully yours, MOUNT RAINIER, MD. WILLIAM A. ALBAUGH. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KYLE II, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE KALORAMA CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Chairman, I am John M. Kyle II, executive vice president of the Kalorama Citizens Association. The association was organized in 1919, and there are about 25,000 people in the area served by the organization. By profession I am a legislative research consultant. I have been a citizen of this area for more than 39 years. From 1919 to date our association has supported the present form of District of Columbia government. I have been a student of retrocession all during my residence here. I supported the Kyl retrocession bill in the 88th Congress and I now support the Broyhill bill, H.R. 10264. I may also say that for the past several years I have been preparing a source book of District of Columbia history. Mr. Chairman, I support retrocession of the District to Maryland because it is the only lawful way under the Constitution to provide self-government for the people of the District of Columbia. Any other means would require a constitutional amendment. Once fully informed, however, I seriously doubt if the people of this country, or the several States, would ever consent to placing the vast complex of the National Capital under a local government, regardless of form, to rule over it. There can be no question, however, about the legality of Mr. Broyhill's plan. We have the unshakable precedent of 1846 when the Virginia portion of the original District was retroceded to Virginia. That was 120 years ago. In the 88th Congress there was considerable support for the Kyl bill in this committee and even the present President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia placed the entire Commission on record as having a favorable attitude toward the bill. As was to be expected, however, the Commissioner's favorable remarks touched off violent newspaper opposition, and one paper editorialized that every public official in Maryland was against the bill. But when the editor was asked to furnish the names of such officials the request was not granted. The facts are that the people of Maryland nor the general assembly thereof have never had an opportunity to pass upon the question and the recent curbstone remarks of the Governor of that State, while a bit witty, have no meaning. Then the Attorney General of the United States stepped in and furnished the committee a voluminous adverse report on the Kyl bill and upon which the opponents of the Broyhill bill now rely. That biased and colored report filled throughout with trivia and non sequiturs is a scare document and it is little more than picayunish argument. He cites numerous instances, in disregard of the 1846 precedent, where retrocession might be illegal or unconstitutional once it is placed before the courts, but in another place, and apparently to save face, he tells the committee that the Department of Justice is not passing on the constitutionality of the bill since such must be left to the courts. One argument against the Kyl bill was that retrocession would make Silver Spring a larger city than Baltimore. This was thrown in, no doubt, for Baltimore's consumption; but how does the Attorney General know that Maryland would not fragment the ceded territory by constituting one or more new counties and by chartering new cities and towns in the ceded territory? Certainly Georgetown would ask for the restoration of its 1764 charter. The report is as silent as death on the fact that retrocession would give Maryland two or possibly three additional seats in the House of Representatives and many more seats in the Maryland General Assembly, not to mention the tax revenues paid by an additional half million people. In the report the Attorney General attempts to throw out another scare by pretending that the status of wills and title deeds would be legally affected. But he doesn't say how. Does he not know that these have never presented any trouble with the transference of other jurisdictions during our long history? As another scare he pretends that the transference of public utilities corporations might bring on fatal consequences. Although Mr. Broyhill's bill would make that question moot the Attorney General points out that it would be necessary for the District to obtain a permit from Maryland to put on an inaugural parade as if such parades hold status in law. The indication is, I suppose, that Maryland might not issue the permit so that we couldn't inaugurate a President. In justification of the report the Attorney General claims that with its three electoral votes the District of Columbia holds a life or death stranglehold over the election of a President. He cites the three instances of presidential elections being thrown into the House of Representatives. How stupid does he believe you gentlemen to be? Since when has the most arduous partisan ever claimed that the District has a tie-breaking status? And if the same three electoral votes should be transferred to Maryland could the result not be the same in any close election? How can any Attorney General foresee the result of any election when the most noted pollsters have often been wrong? Perhaps the Attorney General has been reading some old preelection copies of the Literary Digest. Actually the most energetic opponents of retrocession have not scored a single point against Mr. Broyhill's bill, for the simple fact that law, precedent, and history are against them. Do the opponents really want complete self-government plus real voting representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives or do they rather not seek to set up an illegal single-party government in the District of Columbia with an unconstitutional method of financing it as contemplated by the Senate passed bill, S. 1118? Do they not intend to establish a political machine with all the evils of a spoils system? If the Senate passed bill should become law what may we expect? The bill does not provide employment security for the thousands of present District employees. It authorizes the new government to institute its own "merit system." It is generally known that those who would control the new government are bitter enemies of our Police Department and this means the ultimate destruction of that force and its replacement with loyal machine but inexperienced personnel and civilian "review boards" such as are advocated by race agitators, bleeding hearts, and do-gooders about the country. If the crime situation is bad now, what are we to expect under the new government? Although proponents of the Senate bill claim that employees of the new government will be protected by the Hatch Act, such simply isn't the case. These employees will, to all intents and purposes, become cogs in the political machineif they are to survive. As the bill is drawn this is inescapable. The city government payrolls will be doubled in less than 2 years. There is no limitation so that the City Council can create as many new positions as it sees fit. There can be no question about it, the new government will institute and enlarge welfare and "poverty" programs that will practically make every District resident eligible for some form of relief or handout. The man in the house will be here to stay. Prostitutes, homosexuals, and dope pushers could ride the relief roles without detection. There will be no sincere effort to promote training programs looking to the rehabilitation of the unskilled and placing them in self-respecting and gainful employment. The outright dole will be the order of the day. The National Capital Planning Commission will not have veto power over the new Zoning Commission; the Federal Government which owns one-half of the District land area will have no representation on the City Council nor the Zoning Commission. This is absolutely preposterous. To protect the Federal interest it will be vitally necessary for the Congress to intervene from time to time. Not only should at least two members of the City Council be representatives of the Federal Government, at least two members of the Zoning Commission should also be Federal officials. Under this impossible situation but little |