the Constitution; and second, the enactment of legislation granting national representation. For the adoption of the amendment the concurrence of two-thirds of each House of Congress and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States is necessary; whereas for the enactment of legislation granting national representation, after an amendment shall have been ratified, no more than a majority of Congress need agree.

UNSOUND OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL

No valid objections, on American grounds, can be raised against the proposed amendment. Some have contended that it was not the intent of the founding fathers to grant to residents of the seat of the Government the right to participate, as other Americans, in the government of their country. The closest students of the acts of the founding fathers are convinced that the failure to define the political status of the future residents of the Federal District was either an oversight or an omission which at the proper time would be remedied through an amendment.

Those who plead the intent of the founding fathers must remember that it was not the intent of the fathers to elect Senators by direct vote of the people, and it was not the intent of the fathers that direct taxes should be levied, except that, like Representatives, they be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers. But the income-tax amendment (XVI) has changed that. Other amendments to the Constitution were not the intent of the founding fathers, but the founding fathers showed by the amendment procedure provided that they intended that the document should be amended when necessary.

The objection most frequently raised against the proposal to give the people of the District representative participation in the National Government is seldom heard above a whisper, in private conversation. "What are you going to do about the Negroes? There is so large a percentage of Negroes living in the District that it will never do to permit District people to vote in the national elections." This objection is based on the theory, the Constitution notwithstanding, that the Negro is not fit to be the political equal of the white citizen.

If we were to apply any such undemocratic theory to the District of Columbia, where the ratio of the population of voting age is about three white to one Negro, it would mean that three white voters must be denied the vote to keep one Negro from voting. Surely that would be carrying race prejudice to an illogical extent.

In other words, to maintain the political equality of the races in the National Capital of the greatest Republic of all time, the Negro would not be elevated to the plane of the white man but the white man would be degraded to the level to which prejudice would relegate the Negro.

OTHER OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

The listing of other objections which proponents have heard from time to time, with brief answers, may be helpful to the subcommittee in its study of the question and is supplied for that purpose.

These objections are given at random and numbered simply for convenient reference.

Objection 1. The power granted to Congress by the proposed amendment is entirely unnecessary, as Congress could limit the District as a sovereign State and thus give the people representation in the National Government.

Answer. There is serious doubt as to the power of Congress to admit the District to full statehood, because of the existing power of Congress over the seat of the Government.

Objection 2. Passage of the pending amendment would give the District modified State status, to which a prominent legislator has declared he is opposed.

Answer. There would really be no State status created, but the people would individually acquire a political status in national affairs paralleling the status of the citizens of a State.

Objection 3. To enact the amendment would make the District into a super-State, with all its attendant possibilities for confusion with the Federal Government.

Answer. The District would acquire no statehood powers, whether super or otherwise, though the District people would participate in the National Government through their elected representatives to the extent authorized by the Congress under its new power acquired under the amendment.

Objection 4. To grant national representation to the District would confer on the District privileges tantamount to statehood without exacting coextensive responsibilities.

Answer. The status of the District under national representation in relation both to the Congress and to the Nation would be unchanged, with the single variation that the individual Americans of the District would participate in the representative National Government. The responsibilities and burdens of the people of the District would continue, as always, coextensive with those of the citizens of the States. Objection 5. "An amendment to our Constitution that would confer such privileges of representation upon a mere territory of the United States is so destructive of the fundamental method of representation in the Congress and among electors of President and Vice President of the United States that it would tear to pieces the Constitution of the United States and rip to shreds the fundamental principle of representation upon which our Union of States was and is established."

Answer. Granting to the Congress the power to provide an equitable and orderly method for permitting these voteless and unrepresented Americans to participate in the National Government could not in any way bring about the disaster predicted by this objector. The objection is as unsound as one claiming that our proposed amendment would be unconstitutional.

Objection 6. The amendment would upset the control of the United States over its seat of Government.

Answer. After the ratification of the pending proposed amendment and subsequent legislation enacted thereunder, the seat of Government would still be under the power of exclusive legislation by Congress. The only change would be that the District people then, through their elected representatives, would be a part of the Congress. Objection 7. National representation for the District is both unwise and unsound, said one legislator, but he failed to state why.

Answer. But this is only one man's unsupported opinion.

Objection 8. Another prominent Member of the Congress, believing that the amendment would result in making a State of the District, has said that he would never support any proposition to make the District a State. He considers that the situation here is too involved, with thousands of people from the States living here but with votes back home. They would probably oppose representation for the District because their enjoyment of a vote back home gives them a certain influence in Congress which the local vote would nullify. He declared the he would never favor giving the District people a vote in Congress. Answer. Such an attitude fails to square with either the fundamental principles of our representative form of government or the Charter of the United Nations. The high value in prestige and influence in Congress placed by him on the votes back home of the people here from the States only emphasizes the very low and helpless political status of the bona fide residents of the District.

Objection 9. National representation would be contrary to the best interests of the United States as well as detrimental to the citizens of the District.

Answer. The proponents are unwilling to concede that this is a valid objection. Why might not national representation be shown to be equally detrimental to the people of any State?

Objection 10. To vest such new power in Congress would but admit of extreme pressure on Congress to do that which is deemed unwise and unnecessary.

Answer. All we, the proponents, are asking is that by two-thirds vote of each House of Congress the proposed amendment be submitted to the American people through their State legislatures for ratification. The amendment is in harmony with both the spirit and the language of the Constitution. The voteless and unrepresented proponents are entirely without the means of forcing action by Congress. They are lacking completely in the prestige and influence with Congress possessed by those here who have a vote back home. They have only the right "peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for the redress of their grievances." By experience they know of what little value is the right of petition unless backed by the right to vote and be represented in that Government.

HOPE INSPIRED BY UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

All peoples of the world are inspired with hope by the Charter of the United Nations adopted and signed in San Francisco and on July 28, 1945, ratified by the United States Senate. In reading this historic document one is bound to be impressed by the strong strain of human sympathy running all through it. It abounds in solicitude and promise of participation of all peoples in the government of their respective countries. If they have not yet attained a condition for such participation, the promise is to prepare them for the ultimate enjoyment of such rights and privileges.

The voteless and unrepresented Americans of the District of Columbia, with other degraded people of the world, see in these promises of the Charter a bright ray of hope. Our country is now definitely committed to helping put these high ideals into practice.

Can the leading nation of the entire world consistently undertake such a task while maintaining at the very heart of the Nation a complete despotism entirely out of line with the professed commitments for other peoples?

We have culled from the Charter of the United Nations a few pertinent quotations which are offered for inclusion in the record of this hearing. However, there are two which I will read as a part of this statement.

From the preamble of the Charter we learn one of the purposes to be

To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.

And in article 73 of chapter XI we read:

Members of the United Nations which have or assumed responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and securiy established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories; and

(B) To develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.

PENDING AMENDMENT ADEQUATE

The reason for placing the seat of government under the power of the Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" was solely for the protection of the national interests. This provision prevented the existence of any dual sovereignty, as would have been the case if the Capital had been located within a sovereign State. This provision created a unique situation for the correction of which a unique remedy is required.

There is nothing whatever antagonistic to the protection of the Federal interests in the pending proposed amendment. With the adoption of the amendment and the enactment of legislation under the new grant of power to Congress, there would be no impairment whatever of the present constitutional power of exclusive legislation.

The only change would be that under their new political status the people of the District of Columbia would, through their own representatives in the Congress and the electoral college, have a part in the National Government of their country. Incidentally, they would then participate in the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the seat of government.

In earlier forms of proposed amendments for the same objectives, Members of Congress have expressed the fear that Congress, in the exercise of the new power, might thereby expend its power and be unable, save through another constitutional amendment, to correct an unforeseen mistake demonstrated in the actual operation of the amendment. The pending proposal is entirely free from such danger. The closing sentence of the amendment provides that "all legislation hereunder shall be subject to amendment and repeal." This means that any plan of representation for the people of the District of

Columbia which the Congress may set up may be modified or repealed if found to be impractical or contrary to the national interests.

This provision would seem to eliminate any possible fear on the part of the Congress that an uncorrectable mistake might be made in its exercise of the proposed new power.

The proposed amendment is a simple enabling provision to be added to the Constitution. Its language is harmonious with the language of the Constitution, and it is entirely free from legislative direction as to how the new power is to be exercised. We believe that the amendment is in every way adequate to meet the needs of both the Congress and the voteless and unrepresented people of the District of Columbia. Failure to remedy this un-American political status of the permanent residents of the National Capital would open to question the sincerity of the Congress and the American people in their professed belief in fundamental American principles. It would challenge the sincerity of the United States Senate which so promptly ratified the United Nations Charter. It would challenge the sincerity of the Democratic Party national platform which has twice recorded its approval of an American political status for these voteless and unrepresented Americans of the District of Columbia.

In conclusion, we submit herewith to be inserted in the record, the statement by the chairman of the Citizens' Joint Committee, Mr. Noyes, as published in the Evening Star on the national election day, November 7, 1944. This contains a wealth of facts and statistics which we are sure will be helpful to the committee and the Congress in reaching a favorable decision on this question which means so much to the voteless and unrepresented people of the District of Columbia.

THE DAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1944-TO THE UN-AMERICANIZED AMERICANS OF THE DISTRICT, A DAY OF HUMILIATION AND MOURNING TO OTHER AMERICANS, A DAY OF NATIONAL ENTHUSIASM AND PATRIOTIC PRIDE

(By Theodore W. Noyes)

On this day the people of the United States, the citizens of the American States, choose their agents to perform the executive and legislative functions of the great representative Republic. American sovereignty is not the possession of one man or of a little group of men, but it is distributed among the whole people. Every American is a sovereign in his own right and on this day he exercises this sovereignty as he deposits his vote in the ballot box.

To all full-fledged Americans this is a day of national inspiration and patriotic pride.

To the un-Americanized Americans of Washington the day is one of humiliation and mourning.

The Americans of the District of Columbia alone are denied the opportunity to exercise now or in future the sovereignty which belongs to them and attaches inseparably to them as Americans.

The 663,091 Americans of the District (1940 census figures) constitute the only community in all the expanse of the continental and contiguous United States populous, intelligent, public-spirited, of adequate resources-which is denied representation in the National Government.

In relation to the national laws the sole function of the District residents is to obey. They take no part in making the laws which they must obey.

DISTRICT MORE POPULOUS THAN 12 STATES

The Americans of the District of Columbia, according to the census of 1940, outnumber the Americans of 12 of the States-South Dakota, North Dakota,