"

which speaks of allowing the people to vote will not give us suffrage because we will have no government here but we should have national representation.

I feel perhaps if in the future, instead of building a cold marble memorial for Thomas Jefferson, if he could have the people from Valhalla speak to you, they would tell you not to offer us any more Sinbad's feasts in the Arabian Nights, but they would tell you that the District of Columbia is a part of the United States that you love so well and you should give to us, the people in the District, the privilege of every citizen, that is the right to vote for representatives of the Government and that is the thing for which the Federation of Women's Clubs is standing, national representation, not this empty husk. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. James Moore here?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John Hicks?

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CONNAUGHTON, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
REPRESENTING THE PETWORTH CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your full name, please?
Mr. CONNAUGHTON. John H. Connaughton.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your place of residence?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. 1718 Decatur Street NW.

The CHAIRMAN. What if any organizations or group do you represent?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I represent the Petworth Citizens' Association. I am a delegate to the Federation of Citizens Associations in the District.

I favor the enactment of this bill. The federation has by an overwhelming vote favored the enactment of the bill.

Reference has been made to the fact that it was not as large a vote, as large an attendance as at other times, but I venture to say that the proportion of those favoring the bill is as great with a full attendance as it was with an attendance not so large at the time that the vote was had.

There is not any question but what the sentiment in the District federation is overwhelmingly for this bill. The federation, according to testimony which has been given on different occasions, represents from 70,000 to 100,000 people in the city of Washington. I think it is the most widely representative organization, representing more people, and a better cross section, than any other organization within the city. You will recall, also, that the vote passing upon the approval of this bill has been a democratic vote. That is, it is a vote in an open session not handled by a committee or a delegated organization of some kind representing the larger body, such as the board of trade, and the matter that they passed on. The different citizens' associations have passed upon this bill in open meeting. The Federation of Citizens' Associations passed upon this bill in open meeting.

This matter has been under consideration by a committee of that federation, which made a report, for a number of months, and it has had wide publicity.

Senator BURTON. The board of trade, as I understood their testimoney, said their report had been submitted to a meeting at which there were several hundred present and ratfied at that meeting.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Submitted to the executive board, as I understand.

Senator BURTON. The board submitted it to a meeting. It was not discussed, but ratified by several hundred.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. That may be but I think a representative vote on this matter has been had in the citizens' asosciation and the approval is by an overwhelming majority.

I am not undertaking to speak for the Federation, but speaking for myself and speaking for the Petworth Citizens' Association, I think this voices also the feeling of the federation. We favor this bill. We think that there ought to be some qualifying amendments, but if those qualifying amendments are going to, in any way, imperil the passage of this bill, I think the bill should be passed as is. I don't think there should be any quibbling in any way that would endanger its passage.

I think there is one thing that deserves attention and that is section 9. I believe, looking somewhat to the validity of the bill, itself, section 9 provides that legislation, ordinances, rules and regulations promulgated by the commission under authority heretofore granted by the Congress and by this act transferred to the commission shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of the respective acts of Congress granting such authority.

I would strike out all after that. I will tell you why:

This act, and I think it is misunderstood largely by a lot of people who have been considering it, is simply a transfer of the authority now held by the present Board of Commissioners to an elective board of commissioners. There is no delegation of legislative authority beyond that that is already held.

I think this section 9 has been misconstrued by some of our people to the point of believing that it delegates some new legislative authority. It does not do that. You recall the legislative authorities to the municipalities of the various States is not done by simply saying that we delegate municipal legislative authority. It is done by saying that the board of commissioners or the council shall be authorized to pass acts providing for keeping the peace, petty acts, regulating the flow of transportation and things of that character, and designating the penalties that they may fix and the limits of the legislation.

I think that that is necessary in the grant of authority. This section does not broaden the authority at all, as you notice; it sets out that "any other laws," but yet you have not delegated.

Senator BURTON. Do I understand your recommendation would be to strike out in section 9 everything after the words "Acts of Congress granting such authority" in line 3?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes; all after that. The rest of it I think is a superfluity.

Senator BURTON. That would strike out the entire balance of pages 9 and 10. Do you strike out section 10, too?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes. I do not think that serves any useful purpose at all and that has caused some confusion, because there was a feeling before any ordinance could go into effect it would have to be transferred to Congress. That is not true under the bill as drafted.

The thing it attempted to provide, in my opinion, was further legislative authority and before that could become effective, it would have to be referred here to a committee of Congress or to the various committees, the District Committee of the Senate and House.

However, such legislation as they can make effective now takes effect without that reference. For instance, the present Board of Commissioners has the authority to fix the rate of speed.

Senator BURTON. Your thought is that so long as the authority is within an act of Congress, that is the end of it.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. If they act without delegated authoritySenator BURTON. Not really delegating legislative authority but giving them administrative authority within certain limits.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. You have already delegated legislative authority to the extent that they can fix the rates of speed and things of that kind. That is legislative authority. There are other grants of legislative authority.

Senator BURTON. There may be a question of language there, Mr. Sourwine, that they don't delegate legislative authority but they grant discretion to exercise administrative ability.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I think that is more a use of words.

Mr. SOURWINE. I think one witness said it should be termed "Municipal legislation."

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes; when there is not, in reality, in law, any such thing. Whenever the legislature of a State delegates to the commission of a city, they define the limits in which that city may enact ordinances, state that they may legislate on specific subjects, and even, in many States, name the extent of penalties they may fix.

I think that is necessary. I believe that the rule of delegation of authority to a city is the same as the rule stated in the sick-chicken case, where Congress undertook to delegate authority to the N. R. A., and it was held that they had not defined that authority. They had given a blank check which they cannot do with reference to the delegation of legislative authority.

The thing you have done here is to transfer from an appointive Board of Commissioners to an elective Board of Commissioners the authority that they have now to enact ordinances. To me that is a very simple process.

The astounding thing to me is that anyone would object to transferring the very same authority, the very same form of city government that we now have, that we all vociferously say we are satisfied with, to an elective Board of Commissioners.

What harm can that do, unless we have not any faith in the ability of the people to govern themselves?

Say there were only 60 percent who voted and they were all inhabitants of the District, born here, from the beginning of time. Are we not willing to delegate to that 60 percent the right to elect a Commission that administers the government under this bill, just as the present appointive Board of Commissioners administers now? There is not a particle of difference.

There has been a lot of furore made about it but if you will examine that bill, the only thing that has been done is to transfer what we now have to an elective commission and I have faith enough in the American people to believe that that is not a bad thing to do. I think it is a good thing to do. If there is anything in democratic

government, if there is anything in the voice of the people, I do not believe that the voice of such people within the District of Columbia, who want to exercise that franchise, will be misguided in its application of whatever powers have already been and are now reposed in the Board of Commissioners. There is no additional power, as I see it. I challenge anyone to point out to me any one additional grant of legislative authority or any other than the present Board of Commissioners now have. I am in favor of that and I think that that question is entirely divorced from and it is entirely separate from the question of the right to vote for President or national representation. They are entirely separate propositions and I will tell you why: This can be established without a constitutional amendment. The others will have to be established by a constitutional amendment. The variations between the kind of government that will be set up, because there are different conditions in the District of Columbia, the variations between the form of the State government as we have it in the States and the government that will have to be set up in the District of Columbia, whatever it may be, can all be covered by the same constitutional amendment that will have to be enacted to give us the right to either vote for President or for representatives in the national Congress, whatever that may be, whether it is Senators, Representatives, or both or whether we elect Representatives in conjunction with the State of Maryland, whatever it may be.

That can all be worked out in a constitutional amendment. That is a long, difficult hard road, because it requires not only two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, but it requires three-fourths of the States.

Here is something that we can get that certainly will not deprive us of one thing that we now have and will give us an opportunity to demonstrate that we, in common with all other citizens of the United States, are capable of local self-government.

That is all there is to it.

The question of whether there ought to be 7 Commissioners, 9 Commissioners, or 11, or 15, and whether 12 of them should be elected by wards and 3 at large is somewhat of a secondary question. It is a question of opinion. This bill as it is now drawn may be the better way of doing it. It is my opinion against your opinion or against somebody else's opinion. We all might differ on it. The thing that we want is a bill of this nature, worked out along the lines of this bill. I say, "along the lines of this bill," because I cannot see where it can do any harm because we are simply transferring an appointive government to an elective Commission. We are transferring what we now have to this elective Commission. If in your conclusion you finally decide that 7 is not a large enough Commission, then whatever your judgment suggests on that, because there will be a difference of opinion, it will finally be for you to compromise it; but do not let any amendatory provisions imperil the passage of the act. It is a workable act as it is. These are, the other things are, a difference of opinion of men as to the administrative application of the act, whether they want 7. So far as that is concerned, if we try it and we conclude that 7 is not enough, you can raise it to 11 by a very simple amendment, but let us get the thing into operation, try it out and see where we get. We know it cannot hurt anything. If we lose both of them we will be clear out.

I think that that voices our opinion on it and as I say, we are satisfied with the bill as it is, if that is your best judgment on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. If there are any question, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you for your consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Miss Dorothy S. Strange here? (No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Cora Wilkinson?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harry Wender; is he here?

Come forward, state your name, residence, and what, if any, organization you assume to represent.

STATEMENT OF HARRY S. WENDER, WASHINGTON, D. C., PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. WENDER. My name is Harry S. Wender. I live at 6432 Thirtyfirst Place NW. I am a member of the District bar, with offices in the Woodward Building.

The CHAIRMAN. General practice?

Mr WENDER. Yes. I have practiced in the District of Columbia— this is now my twelfth year. I am a lifelong resident of the District and my family has lived in Washington for more than 60 years.

I was born in Knoxville, Tenn., but shortly after my birth my family moved back to Washington, where my mother had lived since her early childhood.

I am president of the Federation of Citizens' Associations of the District of Columbia. I shall tell you more about the federation in a moment, but I think it is best for the purpose of the record to state something of my experience in connection with the subject matter of the hearing this morning.

I am now serving my second year as president of the federation. Before that, I served for 3 years as first vice president and for 3 years as chairman of its law and legislation committee.

I have been connected with civic organizations in Washington since my admission to the bar. I have been a delegate to the Federation of Citizens' Associations for 12 years from the Southwest Citizens' Association, and chairman of its law and legislation committee for 12 years. I have served 5 years as president of the Southwest association, which is the oldest citizens' organization in the community.

For 3 years I was its secretary and I am now chairman of its executive committee. I am one of the founders of the District Suffrage Association and for 5 years I have served as a vice president. For a similar period of time, I have served as a member of the citizens' joint committee on national representation, of which Mr. Theodore W. Noyes is chairman.

For 3 years I have been a member of the district delegate committee, of which I was an organizer. Mr. E. Barrett Prettyman is chairman of the committee.

Several months ago I was appointed chairman of the District of Columbia Bar Association committee on suffrage.