CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1945

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to notice, the Honorable Carl A. Hatch presiding.

Also present: Senator Capper.

Senator HATCH. Let there be order.

First, I want to include a copy of Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 introduced by Senator Capper, which provides for the submission of the constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to provide for the-giving Congress the power to grant representation in the Congress, and among the electors of President and Vice President to the people of the District of Columbia.

(S. J. Res. 9 is as follows:)

[S. J. Res. 9, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States empowering Congress to grant representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President to the people of the District of Columbia

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be proposed for ratification by the legislatures of the several States which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within seven years of the date of its passage, shall be valid as a part of said Constitution, namely: "The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine. All legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal."

Senator HATCH. I have before me a letter written to the chairman of this committee in 1943 from the President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, on an identical resolution introduced at the last session of the Congress.

I presume that the attitude of the Commissioners is the same, and it favors the resolution.

I would like that it be incorporated in the record.

Mr. KEECH. Mr. Chairman, if I may speak in response to your question, it is still in accord with the letter to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Honorable Frederick Van Nuys, in

1943.

Senator HATCH. Then it will be included in the record.

1

(The matter referred to follows:)

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, July 2, 1943.

Hon. FREDERICK VAN NUYS,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Commissioners have for report Senate Joint Resolution 33 [78th Cong. (same as S. J. Res. 9, 79th Cong.)], entitled "Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States empowering Congress to grant representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President to the people of the District of Columbia." The Commissioners believe that the proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the form of government set up in the Constitution. That document contemplated a government by the people in which taxes were to be levied and laws enacted controlling the actions of the people only through representatives duly elected by the people. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia today must obey laws and pay taxes. without representation in the legislature which enacts the laws or levies the taxes. The population of the District today is in excess of that of 12 States (census of 1940). Certainly it is not in keeping with our theory of government that hundreds of thousands of citizens be disenfranchised merely because they happen to be domiciled within the District of Columbia, when citizens of States containing smaller populations are granted the full right of suffrage.

The bill and report thereon have been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget, and the Director of the Budget advises that enactment of the proposed legislation would not, at least at this time, be in accord with the President's program. Respectfully,

JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG,

President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia. Senator HATCH. I have received a letter from Hugh Miller, president of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, dated September 25, endorsing the resolution and stating that it reversed the position previously taken by the association some years ago.

The letter reads as follows:

It has been brought to my attention that the subcommittee of which you are chairman is to have a hearing at 10:30 today on the Sumners-Capper resolution providing for national representation in the District of Columbia.

It is the desire of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association to be recorded in favor of this resolution, pursuant to a vote of the Association at its last meeting held On Monday, May 7, 1945. This reverses the position previously taken by the association some years ago.

I also have a letter from the Kalorama Citizens' Association dated September 25, asking a favorable report on the resolution, and it reads: As a vice chairman of the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia, as a resident of the city of Washington for 60 years, and as a home owner in a house which I occupy and have owned for 32 years, I write to urge the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 9 to give the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States and to be represented in the Congress of the United States. I myself have never voted in a national election in my entire life, which is a deep regret, but I have done all I could here in the civic and philanthropic life of the city. As the mother of two sons born here, I feel that the one son who has always lived here is unfortunate in that he has never had the privilege of fulfilling the highest obligation of a citizen; that is, to vote for these who plan and carry out our legislative policies. The younger son has been more fortunate in that he has moved to New Jersey, where he has taken an active part in the affairs of his community.

Mine is a typical case. I urge the favorable reporting out of the Senate Resolution No. 9, introduced by Senator Arthur Capper, who is closer to District affairs probably than any other Member of the Senate, and to whom we all owe a deep debt.

That letter is signed by Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley, vice chairman of the Citizens Joint Committee on National Representation and treasurer of the Kalorama Citizens Association.

I also have a letter from the Women's Club of Chevy Chase, Md., with a similar request, and the letter, which is in the form of a resolution, is as follows:

Resolved, That the Women's Club of Chevy Chase, Md., Inc., endorses the pending Sumners-Capper proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States by adding the following:

The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President, members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine. All legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal.

Resolved further, That we earnestly urge the Congress to give prompt and favorable consideration to this proposal of simple justice and submit it to the States for ratification.

The Association of Oldest Inhabitants (Colored), Inc., endorses the resolution, and their letter follows, signed by Frank D. McKinney, under date of February 20, 1945:

We, the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants, join with the progressive citizens of Washington in endorsing the Sumners-Capper bill for a constitutional amendment to grant suffrage to the citizens of the District of Columbia. We urge you to extend every effort to insure the passage of this measure and thus assure to the voteless citizens of Washington, their proper share in the management of their own affairs. Yo umay rest assured that the hopes and aspirations of every progressive citizen of this commonwealth are carried with you in this fight.

I also have a letter from the National Women's Trade Union League of America, of September 20, endorsing the resolution and asking that the amendment be submitted. Their letter is as follows:

The National Women's Trade Union League wishes to submit a statement in support of the proposed constitutional amendment providing for national representation for the District of Columbia for inclusion in the record of the hearings before the subcommittee on September 25.

Rather than delve again into the details involved in granting representation in the Congress to the residents of the District of Columbia-all of which have been explored thoroughly and are a matter of record in the reports of other hearings on this proposal-we wish to base our statement entirely on the simple principle of self-government.

The very root of our Nation is deep in the concept of self-government; our laws, our political institutions, our communiity organizations, as well as the mores of the citizenry, are steeped in self-government.

We have deplored that the Congress of the United States-the representatives of self-governed-should not have seen fit to insist that the principle of selfgovernment exist for the residents of the Capital of the Nation. Now that the war has ended and the attention of Congress can return to this problem, we hope that this deviation from the principle of self-government will be eliminated. The Fairfax Village Citizens Association passed approval of a similar amendment. Their letter of September 20, signed by Mr. Phillip W. Conant, president, reads:

This association wishes to affirm at this time its past approval of the CapperSumners amendment to grant national representation to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Also the Congress Heights Citizens' Association, whose letter reads: The Congress Heights Citizens' Association has endorsed the proposed CapperSumners Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to empower Congress to grant national representation to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Now, I also have a letter from the American University Park Citizens Association, of September 21, also endorsing the resolution—a letter as follows:

In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, the American University Park Citizens Association is of record as favoring the Capper-Sumners national representation bill.

This association will have a representative at the hearings on the 25th in Senator Hatch's subcommittee.

The Government study group of Takoma Park Women's Club endorses the resolution.

I have numerous telegrams and statements here from various people. Here is a letter from the Society of Natives, District of Columbia, dated September 25, signed by Etta L. Taggart, president, which reads:

Reference is made to the statement made on behalf of the Society of Natives of the District of Columbia, at the hearings before a Subcommittee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on February 14, 1945. Further, the society, which has gone on record since its organization in 1920 in favor of national representation, records itself at this hearing by its endorsement of the SumnersCapper joint resolution, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States empowering Congress to grant to the people of the District of Columbia national representation in Congress and the electoral college.

It is believed that such legislation, which simply gives Congress more power over the District of Columbia to use as it deems fit and proper, would be a step toward Americanizing the voteless residents of the greatest capital in the world. It is within your power, gentlemen, to do your part toward placing these voteless residents in the same representative class which you enjoy, and we look to you for your assistance in helping to remove the stigma which they have so long endured.

In reading over the record of these hearings to acquaint yourselves fully as to the contents in order to make your report to the full committee, you are earnestly and respectfully urged to give due consideration to the following questions; and if you agree with them, then it is your duty to favorably report on the resolution in question.

1. Don't you believe that it is a shame and a disgrace that there has been taxation without representation for over 100 years in a city where the people live under the same Government as you live, a Government which is based on the consent of the governed?

2. Don't you think all qualified American citizens in this country should have the right to vote?

3. Don't you think it is unfair and undemocratic to deprive residents of the District of Columbia of the right to vote, yet in time of war, order them to fight when they have no voice in the Government which orders them to fight?

4. Don't you think it is undemocratic to tax the voteless residents of the District of Columbia, when they have nothing to say about the tax laws, where the money is spent, and how it is spent?

5. Don't you think it is impossible for Congress, which acts as the national as well as the local legislature for the District of Columbia, to give the proper time and interest to District affairs because of the many obligations and responsibilities thrust upon each Member of this important body, in connection with the affairs of their own communities, which sent them to Congress?

We believe that you are intelligent and conscientious citizens of the United States, true Americans, and that you will realize that the residents of the District of Columbia have been deprived of one of the most outstanding rights of American citizens, that is, the right to vote.

Your committee is respectfully urged to make the report promptly and favorably on these hearings.

Now, here is a letter from the Washingtonians, Voteless Americans, of September 25, and they say:

At the hearings of the subcommittee of the Judiciary of the House of Repre sentatives on February 14, 1945, a statement was made on behalf of the Washingtonians and reference is made to the same. At that time the Washingtonians

endorsed the Sumners-Capper joint resolution, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, empowering Congress to grant to the people of the District of Columbia national representation in Congress and the electoral college.

The previous stand of the organization is reiterated at this hearing.

Again the members of the Washingtonians wish to express their gratitude to those Congressmen who have already stated that they were willing and ready to do all within their power to right the wrong which has existed in the District of Columbia for over 150 years; that is, the deprivation of a vote for the President of the United States and representation in its Congress.

We request you to make a favorable report on the resolution.

And from the Voteless District of Columbia League of Women Voters comes a statement presented by Mrs. Milton Dunn, chairman of suffrage, under date of September 25, reading as follows:

The Voteless District of Columbia League of Women Voters is an organization of over 600 women. For 25 years we have worked for the establishment of selfgovernment in our Nation's Capital, and we once more are anxious to testify in support of the Sumners-Capper resolution.

Under the proposed amendment Congress may confer on us any degree of congressional representation it deems advisable. It also has the power to remove such representation. We believe this should manimize the objection of those who argue that national representation should confer statehood on us.

The League of Women Voters is vitally interested in the improvement and reorganization of the District Government. Representation in the Congress of the United States is a basic and important step in the direction of selfgovernment for the residents of the District of Columbia.

All these letters will be filed with the records of the committee. There is a supporting letter from the Forest Hills Citizens' Association. Others are too numerous to include in the printed record.

Congressman Sumners, author of a similar resolution in the House, appeared at 10 o'clock. Unfortunately, he had another committee meeting at 10:30 and could not remain here, but has prepared a statement entitled "Our case for the vote," explaining his proposed amendment which is exactly the same as the one Senator Capper has offered in the Senate.

That statement will be incorporated in the record and, of course, if Congressman Sumners finds that he can attend, we will be glad to hear from him personally.

In the meantime, we will have his statement appear in the record here.

STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE HATTON W. SUMNERS,

OF TEXAS

MR. SUMNERS' EXPLANATION OF HIS AMENDMENT

(Reprint)

Mr. SUMNERS. Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief preliminary statement with regard to the proposed amendment to the Constitution. It seems to me that only brief statements may be made with regard to this matter if the discussion is held to the resolution and the need for it.

Unfortunately, there is a good deal of confusion in this community and in the country at large growing out of suggestions which have been made from time to time with regard to these voteless people in the District.

78016-45- -2