It seems to me that the first thing that ought to be understood by the people of this community and by the country is that this proposed amendment, of itself, gives nothing to the District, does not at all change its organic law, does not disturb the fact that the District of Columbia is to be regarded always as the place where is located the workshop of the Government. It does not propose any change which would interfere with its utilization for that purpose. There would be no ousting of the general Federal power; there would be no establishment of local power to control the activties of this community; there would be nothing done that would be irrevocable.

This proposed constitutional amendment is an enabling provision. It gives to the Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility for providing the government for the District, an opportunity to use the additional facility which this resolution, if adopted, would provide if the Congress in its wisdom should determine to use it. It would be a valuable aid to the Congress in the discharge of that responsibility. It would make it possible for the Congress in its judgment to have the people of the District send up to the Congress, to be come a part of the Congress, their selected representatives, to be spokesmen for the people of this District in the council that is to determine their government.

Specifically, the arrangement would be that the people of the District are to have such representation in Congress, in the House and in the Senate, in either or both, as the Congress may determine. Now, considering that arrangement by itself, I cannot see any objection to it from any standpoint. It seems to me that from every standpoint that arrangement would be helpful to the Congress, which has the responsibility of governing the District.

The Congress would have the advantage of the information and advice of the selected representatives of the people, qualified by information and responsible to speak for these people in the only council to which they can look for government.

If this proposed resolution were adopted and experience should determine, in the judgment of the people of the Nation and the Congress, as their representatives that that arrangement was not to the best interests of the Federal Government, it could be amended or abandoned entirely. I recognize, and I believe the people of the District recognize, that the interest of the Federal Government in this particular place, where the seat of the Federal Government is established, must be regarded as dominant in point of relative importance. But this proposed arrangement could not interfere with the Federal interest in the slightest degree, because it always would be subject to the control and determination of the Congress. I want to repeat that this is nothing more than an enabling power to the Congress. So much for that.

This proposed constitutional amendment also would give to the Congress the power, in turn, to give to the people of the District the right to participate in the selection of the President of the United States, who is also a part of their local government-definitely a part of their local government. The President is their Chief Executive. He may make recommendations to Congress. He has the veto power with reference to legislation which affects them. The President is definitely an important part of the legislative branch of the Govern

ment, definitely an important and a tremendously influential part of the legislative branch of the Government itself, the Congress. In the event of a veto, he can speak the voice, I believe it is, of 15 Senators and 71 Members of the House, assuming the entire membership is present.

Thus far, I have discussed this matter solely from the standpoint of local government, because the Congress is the local government. That, perhaps, is not an exact expression, but that conveys the meaning which I have in mind, and I think gives the picture. The Congress and the President are a part of the local government for the District of Columbia. Why these people should be denied the right thus to participate in the selection of these agents, if such participation on their part would not conflict with the Federal interest, and it would not, it is very difficult to understand.

Looking to this matter from a national standpoint, these people are a part of the Nation's citizenship. They contribute with their taxes, they make contribution of their young men in times of war, they bear a share of all the Nation's burdens. It seems to me they ought to be permitted to participate in the selection of those persons who bespeak the voice of the Nation, who can take their money by taxes and take their young men by draft, provided always-I concede this-that such a grant, such a participation does not interfere with the Federal interest.

Looked at from that standpoint, it is perfectly obvious that there could be no conflict between what is proposed and the national interest. The question then arises: Why should not these people be permitted a share in their Government which would not interfere with the Federal interest? Considering our philosophy of Government and all the things we have preached about the right of people not to be taxed without representation, why not grant this right to the people of the District of Columbia?

Certainly, taking their money and taking their boys from their homes in defense of the country, as we are doing now, is a supreme sacrifice without representation. Besides, it is not right to deny the returning soldiers such a share in the Government which would not interfere with the Federal interest.

I want to continue to repeat, for the purposes of emphasis, that not withstanding all the things I have said or that may be said, indicating the rights of the people, there must be no conflict with the public interest. Everybody must concede that the public Federal interest is dominant in the District of Columbia and must remain dominant. Whenever it conflicts with the local interest those things local must disappear, because the Federal Government came over here to establish its workshop. The people understood they could not vote when they came to live in Washington even if they didn't understand it when they were born here. But that does not modify the fundamental, basic human rights of the people here. Those rights are rooted in the philosophy of free government. It is our high duty to give to these people whatever can be given that does not interfere with the public

interest.

That is the picture, gentlemen of the subcommittee, as it presents itself to me. If we can get the country to understand the reasons on which the statement which has just been made are based and, in addi

tion to that, have them also to understand that if the thing does not work, nothing will have been lost-no rights will have been surrendered-they will approve this resolution. The Congress can take back everything they do under this provision if adopted. Permanency will depend always on the fact that the thing is sound and workable. I think if those views could be sold to the country, if they could really understand what we propose to do that this is not a surrender, but an enabling act to the agency of government on which the Constitution has put the responsibility-this measure will be adopted.

Senator HATCH. Senator Čapper is one of the authors of the resolution. Do you want to say anything now in the beginning of the hearing?

STATEMENT BY SENATOR ARTHUR CAPPER, OF KANSAS

Senator CAPPER. Well, all I care to say is that I have been interested in this legislation ever since I have been a Member of the Senate, and that started 26 years ago; really more sincerely interested in it, I think, than any other measure that there is before the Congress.

To me it is just unthinkable that here is the Capital of this greatest democracy in the world, with a million population or more, and its citizens have no voice in their Government. So it seems to me impossible. Now, if that had happened out in Kansas, I think they would be up in arms and down here to get what they thought was a square deal, and I cannot understand it myself, how this Congress, which is the most intelligent lawmaking body in the world, will go along year after year, and deny these people here an opportunity to express their wishes, so far as their Government is concerned.

Now, that is just about all that I care to say.

I am glad to see Mr. Suter here, who has been giving a good deal of time to the program, and trying to get fair consideration for it here on the Hill, and I have entire confidence in what he may present to you in setting forth the merits of the proposal.

Senator HATCH. All right.

Mr. Suter, we will be glad to hear from you at this time.

Mr. SUTER. Mr. Chairman, my manuscript might give the impression of being rather long, but to save the time of the committee I will just read portions of it, with the understanding that the rest of it will go right into the record just as if it were read.

Senator HATCH. The statement as prepared will be incorporated in the record in full.

STATEMENT OF JESSE C. SUTER, VICE CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS' JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Mr. Theodore W. Noyes, the distinguished chairman of the Citizens' Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia, is unable to be present at this hearing because of illness and the weight of his 87 years. In his absence, it becomes my duty and privilege as first vice chairman to represent the joint committee.

Chairman Noyes, in opening the case for the proponents at a hearing before the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia in 1916, said:

This constitutional amendment which we favor does not propose the admission of the District of Columbia as a sovereign State; it does not propose the destruction of the "ten miles square" provision of the Constitution; it does not lessen in the smallest degree the control by the Nation through Congress of what remains of the "ten miles square."

It does not disturb in any way the financial relations of Nation and Capital. It is not complicated with changes in the municipal government of the District. On the question of speedy enactment of this constitutional amendment, I believe that nearly all Washingtonians agree. The fear that Congress will not act quickly upon it and that the justice which it proposes will long be postponed moderates local enthusiasm in respect to it.

Although 29 years have elapsed since Mr. Noyes made his opening in that manner, the same opening is equally appropriate today.

HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT

The constitutional amendment which the people of the District of Columbia have long sought was first suggested, in substance, by Augustus Brevoort Woodward in a pamphlet published in 1801 under the title, "Some Considerations on the Government of the Territory of Columbia." Woodward was not a Member of Congress. He was a brilliant young lawyer and said to have been a protégé of Thomas Jefferson. He later became a Commissioner of the Territory of Michigan, after its being carved out of the Northwest Territory.

Such amendment was advocated by Theodore W. Noyes in the Evening Star in 1888 and was proposed formally in Congress by the late Senator Henry W. Blair, of New Hampshire, in 1888 and 1889, and subsequently ably championed by him. It was renewed by Senator Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, with some verbal changes. The proposed amendment in varying form has been introduced in practically every Congress for many years, the changes in form being made to meet the suggestions of friends and foes in and out of Congress. The Citizens' Joint Committee on National Representation, formed in 1917, has brought together most of the civic, business, labor, and veterans' organizations of the District. These numerous organizations, while differing widely on many matters of local interest and even national policies, have through the years stood together in support of this proposal to give the people the status of citizens of a State for the purpose of electing their own Representatives, Senators, and Presidential electors.

Hearings before committees of Congress have been held on similar proposed amendments as follows: by the Senate District Committee in 1916 and 1921 and by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1941. Hearings before the House Committee on the Judiciary were held in 1921, 1926, 1928, 1938, and 1945.

The amendment was favorably reported by the Senate District Committee in the Sixty-seventh Congress in 1922 and this report, without further hearing, was reaffirmed in two subsequent Congresses. The House Committee on the Judiciary in 1940, without a hearing, reported the amendment with an amendment preventing representa-. tion in the Senate. Efforts to obtain a special rule for consideration were unsuccessful and Congress adjourned without action.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1941 acquired the distinction of being the first committee of Congress to make an adverse report on this proposal to grant to the people of the National Capital those vital and fundamental rights to which they are justly entitled as American citizens, but which they are so unjustly denied.

Reference is here made to the following reports upon similar proposals as follows:

Senate Report No. 507, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, dated February 20, 1922, and entitled "Granting Suffrage to the Residents of the District of Columbia." (Favorable report.)

House of Representatives Report No. 2828, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, dated August 5, 1940, and entitled "National Representation for the District of Columbia." (Favorable report.)

Senate Report No. 646, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, dated August 4 1941, and entitled "National Representation for the District of Columbia.".

The subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee that held a hearing in February 1945, made a favorable report to the full committee but it has not yet been reported out to the House.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM SUPPORTS VOTES FOR THE DISTRICT

For the first time in the history of the movement, a national political party platform has included a plank endorsing suffrage for the District. The Democratic National Convention of 1940 included in its national platform a plank favoring suffrage for the District of Columbia. The National Convention of 1944 continued the plank in its platform of that year. District delegates whose pleadings obtained this recognition in the platform were asking for the right to vote in national elections.

Nothing better illustrates the united community sentiment in favor of national representation for the District of Columbia than the fact that the national committeemen and national committee women for the District of Columbia of the Democratic and Republican Parties are active members of the joint executive committee. In addition, the chairman and vice chairman of both of the local central committees are also members.

UNOFFICIAL REFERENDUM OF 1938

A highlight in the history of the District people's long quest for voting representation in the Government of their country was the unofficial suffrage refrendum of April 30, 1938. This plebiscite, carefully planned by citizen groups and surrounded by every safeguard possible, in the absence of any law for the purpose, was an impressive affair. There were 63 polling places where voters were registered and identified before casting their secret ballots.

Opportunity was afforded to vote on two simple questions-for or against suffrage for local officers and for or against national representation. On local suffrage, the total vote cast was 93,728, of which 82,971 were "for" and 10,757 "against" being 7 to 1 for the election of local officers. On the question of national representation, the total vote cast was 93,840, being 87,092 "for" and 6,748 "against," or 13 to 1 in favor of voting for President and electing Members of Congress.