The CHAIRMAN. Where did you have the opportunity?

Mr. BRANCA. I never have had the opportunity, naturally, being born in this city. So I think the question is not so much whether or not we should have local self-government here, but to decide what form should be granted.

The McCarran bill, from a practical point of view, is certainly the one that should be accepted. We could offer a great many amendments and confuse the issue, but, being practical people, we think we must work toward helping present a bill to Congress that Congress would accept, and I think the McCarran bill is pretty much that. So the necessity for the passage of the McCarran bill has been demonstrated by the testimony presented here, by the demonstration of the citizens of Washington in the past, through the referendums, through petitioning campaigns, and through all the other forms of petitioning Congress.

We want to offer these several minor suggestions if the committee is considering changes of some form in the bill.

We feel that the Commissioner should be given some responsibility and authority in the administration and appropriation of the funds of the District of Columbia.

This is a clarification of what they themselves can do in appropriating the funds. We realize, of course, that Washington being a special situation, Congress must have the last word and be able to decide whether any ordinance or law passed by the District of Columbia is detrimental to the National Government. This, as the McCarran bill states, is taken care of.

In other words, the form of government itself is not basically changed, and the Congress has final control over the affairs of the District of Columbia, but the Commissioners take care of the details of running the local affairs.

Second, we feel that the veto power should not be left completely in the hands of the chairman of the two District Committees in both Houses, but if any ordinance or law is passed by the council, the Board of Commissioners, or whatever you want to call them, it is material both Houses of Congress should decide whether or not the ordinance or law is detrimental to the interest of the National Government by majority vote.

Mr. SOURWINE. May I interrupt you?

Mr. BRANCA. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. There has been a good deal of misconception of the bill in that one particular. I think you will find what you refer to as the veto power is actually vested in the Congress as a legal native body, and not in the chairmen of the two committees. There is a provision that the acts of the municipal legislature should become effective if not disapproved by either of the two chairmen of the respective District Committees, acting for their committees, but the effect of that is merely to prevent the law from becoming immediately effective if there is any such objection to it.

The action of either chairman in disapproving is to be signified by reporting a formal resolution of disapproval of the law, which would have to be passed by both Houses to become effective; so the veto power rests with Congress and not with the committee.

Mr. BRANCA. I certainly did misunderstand; I misunderstood that part of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. That is worthy of careful reading and studying. As Mr. Sourwine says, that is the machinery. I should dislike very much to see the chairman of the committee take the sole responsibility. It belongs in the Congress; that is only a short-cut set up to get the question before the Congress promptly, if it is to be raised.

Mr. BRANCA. Certainly, the second suggestion of ours is not in order.

The third point is on the question of the ward set-up and the adequate representation of all minorities.

As to the ward itself, we think that the bill adequately presents a practical voting machinery. We are in favor of P. R., but we would not want to press for the proportional representation method of voting if Congress is not ready to accept it, and we do not think they are at the present moment, so we would acquiesce to the ward set-up.

However, in making a study of the wards, we find that only in one of the wards does a minority group, the Negro population, have an opportunity to elect a representative to the Council.

That is rather peculiar, inherent in the way the housing is set up in Washington on a segregation basis, Jim Crow set-up. Certainly one-third of the population should have more than one representative.

In other words, it seems that ward 7 meanders around in such a way as to take in a large section of the white population north of Florida Avenue, and goes down into the midcity section of Washington.

I know that it is very difficult to divide the city into seven wards, because I attempted, in a sense, to redivide it into seven wards, and that certainly is a job.

We would recommend on this that a Commission be appointed, both Negro and white, to restudy the problem, to see if the other wards could not be

Mr. SOURWINE. What you are recommending is a gerrymander which would insure two Negro wards, is it not?

Mr. BRANCA. Not necessarily, for the simple reason I do not think there would have to be so much gerrymandering, and where the majority of the Negro population is left in one contiguous section of the city, the midcity section, as it is now, part of that midcity section is attached to another ward, and the midcity section is affected differently.

It is pretty hard to see it without a map.

Mr. Chairman, that is all we have to state as to the bill. We certainly feel that the citizens of Washington are willing to make the sacrifices to assume all duties of full citizenship.

Senator BURTON. Are you speaking for the party, or as an individual?

Mr. BRANCA. I am speaking as chairman of the District Communists, not as a member.

Senator BURTON. This report you are reporting on, was that voted on, or what was the nature of the action that was taken?

Mr. BRANCA. This was reported on by the executive committee of the local board, accepted by them unanimously, and in turn, the members of the executive committee brought it back to their branches and clubs, when it was accepted by the full membership.

Senator BURTON. You regard this as being representative of the entire party?

Mr. BRANCA. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. What is your estimate of the size of the party? Mr. BRANCA. I am not at liberty to give the membership of the party in Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Not even approximately? Not the numerical size of the group?

Mr. BRANCA. No.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you present an analysis which you state as coming from the Communist Party.

Now, the Communist Party could be any party, leaving out the word "Communist," could be two, three, or five persons, or two, three, or five thousand. The weight of your comment is here involved. What we are trying to get is the comment and consideration of the largest number of citizens of the District of Columbia that we can secure. I do not care about the normal strength of your party, or what it means; but you come over and give your views. Is it yourself alone, or yourself and half a dozen others, or yourself and five thousand more?

Mr. BRANCA. I am sorry; I do not know whether I am going against the legislative requirements.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not going against anything.

Mr. BRANCA. I am not at liberty to tell you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you representing the party or an individual? Mr. BRANCA. The party.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it consist of more than one?

Mr. BRANCA. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it consist of more than 1,000?
Mr. BRANCA. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you have been a teacher?
Mr. BRANCA. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Mr. BRANCA. In Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. In the public schools?

Mr. BRANCA. Yes; for 5 years.

The CHAIRMAN. In the high schools?

Mr. BRANCA. In the junior high schools.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you teaching now?

Mr. BRANCA. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you sever your connection?
Mr. BRANCA. Last January. I am a cab driver now.
The CHAIRMAN. What did you teach?

Mr. BRANCA. Mathematics.

The CHAIRMAN. What school are you a graduate of?

Mr. BRANCA. The Wilson Teachers College in Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. How long had you been teaching?

Mr. BRANCA. Five years.

The CHAIRMAN. In the schools here?

Mr. BRANCA. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; thank you.

Mr. BRANCA. You are welcome. May I leave this formal statement for the record?

The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted.

(The formal statement submitted by Mr. Branca is as follows:) The Communist Party of the District of Columbia supports, in general, S. 1420, the McCarran bill, which provides for the election of

seven Commissioners and the appointment of a city manager as the local government of the District of Columbia.

That the question of suffrage for the citizens of the District of Columbia should arise during our fight for national liberation from the attacks of the Fascist aggressors-Germany and Japan-demonstrates the necessity of strengthening our democracy here at home in every respect for the fuller mobilization of our country for victory in the shortest possible time.

Congress, which in the past has administered the government of the Nation's Capital, is today faced with tremendous responsibilities which make it impossible for it to devote the adequate time for the solution of many detailed problems of the citizens of this community.

The fact that in the past it has been demonstrated through campaigns, petitions, and referendums, the willingness of the citizens of this community to assume the full responsibilities of citizenship, the time has arrived to remove every obstacle to the fulfillment of this desire. With the greatest interest in the affairs of the community naturally resting with the inhabitants, they should be given the opportunity to make the city an example of democracy to the country and the world.

That there is need for many improvements in the city, such as in the administration of its public institutions and departments and in the solution of its housing and juvenile delinquency problems, these are facts accepted by everyone. But under the present governmental set-up practically nothing is done beyond discussing and so-called planning. No direct responsibility has been established which can be checked by the citizens through the polls.

Some who are opposed to the extension of democracy to the citizens of Washington are raising the question of national representation and participation in national elections as opposed to local self-goverment. This maneuver is intended to confuse the issue, leaving the citizens with nothing. The two issues can, and at this time, must be separated. Conditions as they are indicate that the question that must be settled first is that of local self-government. The other question can be settled at the proper time, without confusing the issue at this time.

The McCarran bill, S. 1420, with certain weaknesses, has only one objective to relieve Congress of the many detailed problems of the District of Columbia by extending representation and responsibility to the citizens of the District through choosing their own representatives. It provides for a modified form of commission form of government, now in use in many communities. At the same time, for all practical purposes, keeps intact the present powers of Congress over the affairs of the District of Columbia.

With this understanding in mind, we offer the following suggestions for the improvement and strengthening of the bill.

First, we feel that the commissioners should be given some responsibility and authority in the administration and appropriation of the funds of the District of Columbia.

Second, veto power should not remain in the hands of the chairman of the District Affairs Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This power should be left for both Houses of Congress to use when they see fit, within specified time limitations.

In other words, any legislation, rules, ordinances, or regulations promulgated by the Commissioners would become law unless both Houses of Congress overrule them by majority vote within 15 or 30 days.

Third, as presently constituted, the wards do not seem to give the fullest opportunity of representation to all groups living within the city. According to latest estimate, our population is one-third Negro, but in only one ward does this section of our population have a clearcut majority of the electorate. In a city based on segregation in housing, this does not seem to give the Negro adequate representation, at least potentially. An interracial committee should be established to see that no ward is gerrymandered, as is obviously the case at the present time.

The McCarren bill, with modifications and clarification, will serve a useful purpose at this time. As the bill does not require constitutional amendment, it can be passed at this session of Congress. It will give Congress the relief it should get from the detailed problems of the District of Columbia and the people added civic and political responsibilities and duties which they do not now have and which they are anxious to assume.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. FOWLER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RHODE ISLAND AVENUE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fowler, we have had you here long enough waiting.

Mr. FOWLER. I hope the Senator did not take offense at my earlier remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.

Mr. FOWLER. I am here on behalf of the Rhode Island Avenue Citizens Association, which is an organization which has been in existence over 35 years.

It operates in that portion of the District of Columbia north of the Arboretum, east of Sixteenth Street, up to Bunker Hill Road, in the neighborhood of some nineteen or twenty thousand people, all but about probably six of them being white.

Senator BURTON. Would you state your full name?

Mr. FOWLER. John L. Fowler, 2005 Otis Street NE.

Senator BURTON. Are you an officer of the Rhode Island Avenue Citizens' Association?

Mr. FOWLER. I am past president, and also chairman of the legislative committee. I am editor of the official publication called the Neighborhood News, and although I have only been the editor for a short time, it is 25 years young.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the circulation?

Mr. FOWLER. Between fourteen and fifteen hundred; 1,475. We had as of November 10, 1943, an actual paid-up membership that was collected in 1943 of 980. For the last 3 or 4 years we have always exceeded an actual bona fide paid-up membership of over a thousand. Our year ends as of the second Wednesday in January each year. The CHAIRMAN. Now, have you through that publication brought this bill to the attention of the readers?