As one president of a citizens association, which opposes local suffrage and there are many others-I desire to set forth some of the reasons in support of our position.

Section 8 of article I of the Constitution gives Congress the right to exercise exclusive legislative control over the District and to act as a legislative assembly for its government.

It is thus plain that the founding fathers intended from the start, from the beginning, that Congress, as the representative of the people of all the States, should have supreme power and jurisdiction over the seat of government.

In order that it might exercise such powers, with as little local interference as possible, a small territory, 10 miles square, with a very few residents at the time. of its selection, was procured and set aside for the founding and building of its Capitol.

My observation is that Congress does not shirk this responsibility but, in the main, has given a reasonable amount of time to District matters, and has approached such questions with a fair and open mind.

Some form of local suffrage was tried for many years in the government of the District, with the mayor and some of the principal officers being appointed by the President. In 1871, a so-called territorial form of government was set up, which lasted for about 3 years. This consisted of a governor, a board of public works, a legislative assembly, and a delegate in Congress.

The governor, the board of public works, and part of the legislative assembly were appointed by the President, but a majority of the assembly and the delegate in Congress were elected by the people. This was the nearest approach to government by local suffrage that the District has had, and it proved to be a dismal failure, full of scandal, and almost bankrupted the city.

An excerpt from a congressional report, the Allison Report in 1874, states:

Your committee have unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the existing form of government in the District is a failure.

All the forms of suffrage tried having proved unsatisfactory, Congress in June 1874 provided that the District should be governed by three Commissioners appointed by the President, and in 1878, this form of government was made permanent (20 Stat. 102). This kind of government has lasted now for about 65 years and in my opinion it has proved eminently satisfactory. A recent chairman of the Senate Committee for the District of Columbia, at a meeting of the board of trade, declared that he considered it the best, cleanest, and most efficient government of any of our large cities. A representative of the board of trade has appeared before your committee and expressed the same views.

If suffrage should be granted, it would be very difficult to determine who would be allowed to vote. The civil-service laws provide that Federal appointments under the Civil Service System shall be apportioned among the States, as near as may be, in accordance with the population of the several States. Such employees would not be allowed to vote in two places and it is not probable that they would be

willing to give up their right to vote in the States from which they were appointed.

Therefore a large portion of the residents would be disfranchised because of the necessity of maintaining a residence elsewhere in order to preserve their rights. These employees have just as many rights in the city and just as much interest in it as any of the natives. It would therefore not be right to compel them to be governed by the votes of the natives and non-Government workers.

A fair and just solution of the matter was arrived at by providing that the Congress, elected by the people of all the States, should govern the city and be their legislative assembly. One great advantage of this system is that any resident of the District now has the right and privilege of carrying his wants to any Member of Congress, no matter what State he comes from, nor what party he belongs to.

It is my opinoin that we have the cleanest and best governed city in the United States; that there is less corruption here, lower taxes, and more advantages for less money than any other city in the country. Our real-estate tax is $1.75 per $100, while in many cities of similar size it is double this rate. Our streets are the cleanest and our public parks are the finest in the country. We have excellent schools and colleges, both public and private, and our libraries and art galleries are not excelled by any in the United States. What more can we ask?

Then consider the caliber and ability of the Commissioners selected, the two civilians being appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, from genuine legal residents of the District. The President is free to act on his own best judgment and has every incentive to select the best material available.

The engineer Commissioner comes from the Army and is a man thoroughly trained and educated by the Government for engineering work, and has supervision over the construction of streets, bridges, and public works, in general. Such an officer having a lifetime job with the Government is in a position to be free from the temptation to graft or to be influenced by improper motives.

The record in the District is that they have been men of exceptional ability and have made excellent officers. Take the late chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Hon. Melvin C. C. Hazen, as a sample of the civilian Commissioners. He came up from the ranks and served the District for 50 years honestly, faithfully, and efficiently. If there ever was a more kindly, patient, and devoted public servant, I have never seen him. Consider also the late Dan Donovan, Auditor and Budget Officer for the District of Columbia, and Capt. H. C. Whitehurst, Engineer of Highways. If there were ever more efficient and faithful officers, I have never met them.

It is generally conceded that the government of our large cities by local suffrage is the weakest link in our American system of government, and there has been a tendency to get away from it by the appointment of city managers. There has been too much bribery, corruption, and ballot-box stuffing under the old system. It seems certain that by electing a board of aldermen and a mayor and thus plunging the government of this city into the throes of partisan politics and the corruption that has so frequently followed such government in other cities, would not improve matters. We had better let well enough alone.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you.

Mr. McLEAN. Senator, it has been asserted time and again that Congress does not have time to consider District affairs, but the hearings here indicate that you are always ready to listen, and it does not make any difference what party is in power. I have been going to them for 40 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to make this observation, and I do not think of it as a complaint, but anyone who occupies membership on this committee, and especially the chairmanship of this committee, will, if he takes care of his legislative duties as he should, work many longer hours than he would have to work were he not on this committee. I will be frank with you. I speak from 11 years' experience. Mr. McLEAN. It is really a thankless job.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of thanklessness. It is a question of whether there are hours enough in the day. The question of thanks does not enter into it.

Mr. McLEAN. Now, the substance of the whole thing is, Senator, that myself and our association and my people who think like I do, that we have the best government possible, the best form of government, do not want to change it. We are satisfied with it. This is the Federal Capital; not the Capital of Washington. You in Nevada have as much right here as anybody else. They know it is a Federal city. I do not think it was ever intended it should be governed by local suffrage. I do not think we can get any better assembly than we have right here. The men are appointed by the President and the Senate has the right to reject the appointment. We want to keep our government. We do not want to change it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
We will now hear from Mrs. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY JOHNSON, REPRESENTING THE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I was here to introduce Mrs. Leslie Wright, who was to speak for us, but she had to leave, and will go on the first thing Tuesday morning. The CHAIRMAN. Kindly state your name.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Mrs. Mary Johnson, chairman of the department of legislation, District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs.

I want to ask you a question. My understanding was that the people never exercise the balance of power in any election. An earlier witness said a Senator was elected by the vote from one county. Are you Senators ever elected by the vote of people sitting in one county?

The CHAIRMAN. What he probably meant was one county went solidly for him.

Mrs. JOHNSON. If he had not had the vote from the rest of the State, he would not have been elected anyway.

Another point is this: I have lived in the District of Columbia very nearly 50 years. My observation is whatever political party that happens to be in here, with a slight exception, all the Commissioners are selected from the finest residents and men who are deeply interested in their city, and these men, in some instances, have been called on to be city managers of other places. Colonel Sherrill was a colonel

in the Army and was engineer Commissioner and he has been called into Ohio to become a city manager. Colonel Sherrill started the tourist camps in the District of Columbia.

The speaker just now, speaking of the natives of the District of Columbia, many of the natives of the District of Columbia vote in other States. They are deeply interested in the District, but until they can vote here they cannot give up the vote in other States.

My children vote elsewhere. I vote elsewhere.

There was quite considerable opposition to the appointment of some judges, but no attention was paid to our protests.

You personally are trying to do something nice for the District. Our resolution is against your bill because we are holding to our ideal. My first appearance before a congressional committee was just 40 years ago. There was quite some nice bills, and one of the gentleman said, "Mrs. Johnson, that is your ideal; you stick to it."

Now, the federation is holding to its ideal, and if you will help us in that ideal it will be the nicest thing you ever did.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your ideal?

Mrs. JOHNSON. National representation. Mrs. Wright will present the resolution and the reasons therefor Tuesday morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming now that you finally get national representation, you get the right to vote for President and Vice President, and you get Representatives in the House and Senate-that would be national representation-would you still say you should not have a vote in your own local government?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; I would not say that, but a vote in the local government is no use to us until we have the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not the vote in the local government of any importance in things that touch you most closely?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; the vote in the Nation touches me most closely.

The CHAIRMAN. My thought was the vote in my State touches the people of my State more closely than does national representation. The closer you get Government to the individual the more you touch him. The Government that does not touch him closely interests him very little, if at all. You are a taxpayer in the District of Columbia. Would you like to have a voice in selecting those who spend your taxes? You are interested in the institutions of the District of Columbia. You had a matter of that nature presented to you here and you have not seen one-hundredth of it. There is a picture, if you could see it, that is revolting, in one of your institutions, but all you can do is hold up your hands in holy horror and say, "Isn't it terrible?"

Mrs. JOHNSON. The head of that institution saved my life and he needs money and you cannot do things unless you can get help. The CHAIRMAN. You cannot help him by employing more supervisory help.

Mrs. JOHNSON. I am speaking of general help, labor.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true; but I used that as an illustration to show if the people of the District had the vote, such a condition as that arising in Gallinger Hospital could not exist, because you would say to your Commissioners, "Clean that thing up." This committee has no authority to do so. We tried to do something. What little we did was to bring it out to public view, but we have no authority.

Mrs. JOHNSON. I went before the House District Committee and asked that they be given more money.

The CHAIRMAN. My dear lady, you could lay out a million dollars in that institution and if it was conducted as it had been, it would not change it one iota.

Mrs. JOHNSON. The local vote, if we do not have national representation, will be useless. I believe in both.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe in the local vote and the national vote. Mrs. JOHNSON. It would need to include national representation with it, and I think if you would enlarge your bill to give us national representation as well as local, you will be giving us a perfectly fine bill.

The CHAIRMAN. My hands are entirely tied on that, because it would require a constitutional amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Mrs. Wright will bring forward our resolution Tuesday with the reasons therefor.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

We still have 15 minutes remaining. I will devote that to hearing from anyone who cares to be heard.

STATEMENT OF B. M. SEIBOLD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. SEIBOLD. I am a citizen of Maryland. I have lived in the District from 1892.

The CHAIRMAN. You live in the District now?

Mr. SEIBOLD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You vote in Maryland?

Mr. SEIBOLD. I vote in Maryland.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. SEIBOLD. Gentlemen of the committee, I fail to see any real facts having been laid before you that would bring out the truth in this matter and establish the true standing of the inhabitants in this controversy. Nothing but ideas, mostly based upon erroneous conception, showing lack of proper understanding of the true situation. in the matter.

It does not matter whether the District has a commission or any other form of government, Congress will always have the final say, which obviously excludes the inhabitants from any governing power. It does not matter what the intent of those so-ballyhooed founding fathers of the Constitution had in mind, we know that their primary intent was to rob the people of all powers of any real consequences to them. They undoubtedly have taken their cue from the barons of England, who succeeded in fooling the people that helped them to wrest for themselves more powers from the King.

In this our founding fathers also succeeded through their ambiguous Constitution, which they framed, which made possible its violations. There is nothing in them of primary importance to the people that has not been violated, which makes them a mere scrap of paper.

What is of utmost importance is the intent of the people who accepted them and whose instrument it really is and they most surely would never have accepted them had they understood them and realized the framers' intent.