As to the other issue with respect to local self-government, Congress now possesses ample authority to establish a form of local automony and to revitalize suffrage in the District. Suffrage has never been taken from the District. It exists today as it did from 1820 to 1874. When in 1874 all elective offices were abolished, the vote remained untouched. Autonomous suffrage could be exercised today if offices were provided.

Should the Congress determine that self-government is desirable for the District, this may be accomplished by an act without a constitutional amendment.

Finally, the resolution makes provision for extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies to which citizens of the District shall be parties the same as to controversies to which citizens of a State shall be parties. Such extension of original jurisdiction has already been provided in Public Law No. 463, Seventy-sixth Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Jacobstein we have asked to be here today, and we are going to ask him now to come forward and discuss the pending measure, in his own way.

Dr. Jacobstein.

STATEMENT OF MEYER JACOBSTEIN, OF THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. You may state for the record your name and the association or organization with which you are associated.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. My name is Meyer Jacobstein. I am a staff member of the Brookings Institution and am appearing here this morning to express my views on several of the bills pending that affect the government of the District of Columbia, and more especially S. 1420 (the McCarran bill). I would like to have it distinctly understood that I appear in my personal capacity. The Brookings Institution has not officially taken any position on this or similar bills, nor has the Institution officially made a study of these bills. As a former member of Congress, I have had some experience with the relation between the Congress and the District government. Moreover, I was a member of the Charter Commission which drafted the city manager plan of government for Rochester, N. Y. As a resident now of the District of Columbia I would like to enjoy the suffrage and have a share in shaping the local government of the District of Columbia.

It does seem like a sad commentary that we here in the District, who are supposed to be intelligent enough, and loyal enough to help run the Federal Government, have nothing to say about our own local affairs; but I am elated to see how much interest is now being manifest by Members of the House and the Senate in this question, with a view of correcting this deplorable situation.

At the outset I especially want to compliment Senator McCarran for his continued and genuine interest in District affairs. Members of the Senate and House have constituents of their own, and when you find a Member of Congress who is willing to give so much of his time to the affairs of the District of Columbia it indicates that he is a broadminded public servant.

I want to go on record as endorsing the main purpose of this bill. It is a proposed charter of local self-government for the District, and emanates from the only authority that can grant such a charter-the Congress. From the time the District of Columbia was organized in 1801 down to 1874 the District of Columbia enjoyed local self-govern

ment in one form or another. Seventy years ago, however, Congress took away our suffrage and our local self-government.

Senator BURTON. Did you say 7 years ago?

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. Seventy years ago; threescore and 10 years ago we lost the right to vote as American citizens in the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. Right there, Doctor, this rather immature thought has always prevailed with me since I made the study with you.

I don't know whether the people of the District lost the right to vote on that occasion or not. I am not at all certain that the people of the District ever did lose the right to vote. This is a wild and immature thought. It would probably merit the scorn of many and the smiles of others, but it has something in it.

This District was carved out of two States. The territory was carved out, but the people were not carved out. They remained in the two States.

The District was separated under constitutional proscription, but did that mean that they lost their suffrage in the respectives States of which they were citizens at the time of the carving of the District?

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. Well, that is a moot question. I am not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert on constitutional matters, but even if it were granted, for the sake of argument, that they did not lose the right to vote in their respective two States-Maryland and Virginia-they certainly lost the right to vote in a local self-government in the District of Columbia, which is the main point at issue in this bill of yours. The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. We bona fide residents of the District want the right to vote and to set up our own local government and run our own local affairs as we see fit, subject, of course, to the limitations imposed upon us by the Congress. If we fail in this enterprise of local self-government, then Congress has it within its power to change or recall the charter. At this point I would like to comment on the Holman bill (S. 1527), which would create a separate charter commission, which in turn would submit its recommendations and outline of a charter to the Congress for them to adopt or reject.

I believe the procedure provided for in the Holman bill is unnecessary. It seems to me that this Senate District Committee can ascertain directly from spokesmen who appear before it what their views are and what kind of a charter we desire, if any. Nothing is gained by presenting our views to a special charter committee, which in turn would present our views and our conclusions to you and to Congress. We are now at these public hearings indicating to you the kind of charter we would like to have you give us.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we have taken a short cut.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. That is right. You have bypassed this other procedure.

Now, there is another disadvantage in the other procedure. Supposing a charter commission were appointed and the citizens finally agreed-and that is always difficult-and then the Congress may not only reject but may change it very drastically. Would that amended or changed draft of the charter go back to the citizens again for approval?

The ball may be tossed back and forth. The only thing you can get is a charter from and by the Congress, and we hope we are getting it in this direct way. So I contend the Holman bill is an unnecessary

step in the procedure of obtaining a self-government charter for the District of Columbia.

I was impressed with a statement made by Senator Burton, a member of this District Committee, before the House Judiciary Committee, on the so-called Delegate bill.

He very correctly and substantially stated this thought: That the Congress of the United States is today the legislative body for the District. It makes its laws, administered by three appointed Commissioners; but the Congress makes the laws for the District; 531 Members thereby constitute themselves a common council of a city government. It is as silly as it is impractical. As Senator Burton said, you just can't function that way.

We have 435 Members of the House trying to legislate for the District; 96 Senators likewise legislating for the District. You never can get the interest of a sufficiently large number of Congressmen in District affairs. They don't know enough about the District, and even if they were informed on District affairs they have other things to occupy their minds and their attention.

The CHAIRMAN. That is illustrated every time that this committee meets. It is a very lucky meeting when we have four or five Members. That is not a criticism. It is due to the fact that today, for instance, our Members are engaged in other exceedingly important committees holding hearings or proceedings at this very moment, and it is a very difficult thing to get a reasonable quorum here from one day to another.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. So, not only for the sake of the District, but also for the sake of the Members of the House and the Senate, the District should make its own laws.

I don't see how you can carry out your obligation under the Constitution. You are supposed under the Constitution to legislate for the District. You can't do it intelligently and efficiently. Under this McCarran bill Congress delegates to the citizens of the District the right to shape their own destinies-relieving the Congress of that work and responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there let me interrupt you again, Doctoryou don't mind, do you?

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. No; not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The thing that annoys or concerns one who presides over this District Committee is the fact that complaints come in from the community almost daily to the counsel for this committee, and to the chairman, that you know and I know should be attended to. Something should be done, but it is physically impossible, and we have no jurisdiction to do what we think we would like to do. We are powerless. That is the thing that annoys us.

If there could be set up in the District a power under the people that would attend to these matters that seek relief here at this committee, it would give us a chance to function.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. I think if you will give us an opportunity to run our own local government, we will help you in that respect. We will assume that responsibility, and if we fail to do our job, you can always take the charter away from us.

I would now like to go to the context of this bill. The Senator was kind enough in his own public statement to say that he welcomed criticisms or suggestions on this proposed charter, and it is in that spirit, Senator, that I am here, hoping that I can be helpful.

I believe that changes can be made that will improve the bill, and I would like to offer a few suggestions. I am sure others, too, will suggest modifications.

May I say now for the record that the Senator certainly has selected. a type of government which is in line with the most progressive thought in this country with regard to municipal government.

The bill would create what is commonly called the council-citymanager form of government. This type of government is the most modernized and up-to-date type of government in the United States.

I think there are something like 528 communities in this country that now have this form of government. So you are not giving the District of Columbia an unprecedented nor an archaic form of government.

In fact, I counted up yesterday the population of these cities. There are 12,500,000 people in this country that now live under a city-manager form of government and exercise this form of government. So there is nothing new about it. You are not experimenting with an untried. device in government.

At this point I would like to present a list of the 10 largest cities that operate under a city-manager form of government:

I have observed the city-manager form of government operate in my home city-Rochester, N. Y.-and have had occasion to observe its virtues and defects as contrasted with the old type of government which it superseded (the mayor-city-council form). The new type of government has been in operation for more than 15 years in Rochester, and while it is not perfect, it is a distinct improvement.

I would like to pass on now to some suggested amendments. In the first place, the councilmen should not be designated as commissioners. They should be called councilmen. The term "commissioner" should be applied to the administrative officer appointed by the city manager as the administrative head of a department such as the commissioner of public works, the commissioner of public welfare, and the commissioner of health, etc. I offer the suggested change in terminology because I want to get away from this idea of government by commissioners which we now have in the District.

The bill provides for the creation of a common council of seven members, each elected from one of the seven wards into which the District is divided.

There might be an advantage also in discarding the use of the word "ward" and using in its place the word "district." The word "ward" suggests "ward politics," "ward heelers," and so forth.

The bill fails to provide for the election or the appointment of councilmen at large. I prefer to have some of the members of the council represent not small areas or segments (wards or districts), but represent instead the entire District of Columbia. These councilmen at large can either be appointed or elected by the voters.

9360644- -2

You will find outstanding citizens unwilling to stand for election in a ward, or a small district, but they are more likely to run on a city-wide ticket. There is more dignity to it, a little more prestige. They represent the whole community. They don't think of themselves as representing small areas within the city.

Senator Burton has suggested that the President appoint a majority of the councilmen. I don't agree with the Senator. I would suggest that at least two be appointed by the President; so if you have seven districts you might have seven elected by the people and two appointed at-large by the President. With that presidential appointment they will exercise a good deal more influence than any two elected councilmen-you can be sure of that. They will be appointees of the President. They will perhaps confer with those close to the President on District affairs. Those appointed by the President would establish and maintain a contact between the President and the local government. Now a word as to the councilman's salary.

I may be mistaken, Senator McCarran, but when you pay a man $8,000 a year, as you do provide in this bill, I assume you think he is going to devote full time to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. JACOBSTEIN. I question whether that is a wise procedure. I, myself, would prefer councilmen who would devote part time to it and draw a smaller salary, perhaps half of that amount.

In fact in many cities the councilmen meet only in the evenings, and only occasionally during the day. I vision this council as being not administrators at all; they are, or should be, policymakers, in the enactment of ordinances. That job can be done, I think, on a part-time basis with much less than an $8,000 salary.

At this point I am putting into the record the following table which shows the salaries paid to councilmen in 10 large cities which operate under the city-manager form of government.

Salaries paid to councilmen in 10 large cities1

Popula-
tion

Salary paid

1 Source: The Municipal Year Book, 1943.

The council in turn would elect a city manager, as provided in your bill, and I approve of that. However, I do not approve your thought that the city manager ought to be appointed for a term of 6 years. I don't think that is sound policy, either in business or in government.

I think he ought to be appointed without any fixed term and he should hold office as long as he is competent and efficient and acceptable. to the council and should be removed not only for misconduct but for general inefficiency.

However, I can easily see how a really competent man might be willing to be a city manager but he might not want to assume the risk of giving up his present job and take a precarious job where he might