Mr. WENDER. I would like to say, further, with respect to that that we have had a time of wishful thinking, but I should like to think that, following this hearing, the Secretary of the Interior will want to meet with representatives of the Recreation Board.

I am chairman of a special committee on swimming pools and concessions of the Board, which is composed of myself, Mr. Schwab, Mr. Root, and Mr. Christiansen is an ex officio member as Superintendent of Recreation. We are delaying our reporting on Mr. Hoffman's resolution which deals with the swimming-pool phase of the problem dealt with by Mr. McMillan's bill. We are reserving our comments on that until we have had one final opportunity to meet, if possible, with Mr. Chapman in the hope that he will recognize that the program that we are ready to endorse and carry out is wise and sound and dignified, and compatible with the President's program, and at the same time compatible and realistic in view of our local situation in Washington.

If Mr. Chapman is willing to recognize that in my personal opinion it will be unnecessary to have this legislation, because the memorandum of agreement, Mr. Chairman, which you have asked be placed in the record already has been realistic in recognizing that, and Mr. West has given you the proper answer on the jurisdiction argument over lands purchased with Capper-Crampton money.

Let me remind you, however, that does not apply to those lands, parks, or recreational facilities that may have been created or purchased prior to the passage of the Capper-Crampton Act.

At any rate, after some difficulty in our negotiations the Secretary of the Interior was willing to incorporate in our memorandum agreement this language. As to the legalistic problems that are involved between various attorneys, and I am an attorney myself, I agree personally with Mr. West, but, of course, our opinions are valueless if the Secretary of the Interior is not going to accept them.

Also, it is my personal opinion that nothing short of an atomic bomb will ever dislodge an opinion from the Attorney General because it is very likely if the opinion were to come out it would certainly be contradictory of the opinion of the Solicitor of the Interior Department which, itself, is a contradiction of the opinion of his own predecessor, and he says that he is supported by two precedents of his predecessor, which I think is a rather novel situation. But, referring to this language in this memorandum of agreement, it says in paragraph (10), page 6:

Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as affecting the jurisdictional status of those areas of the Park System assigned for playground purposes under the act of June 6, 1924 (43 Stat. 463), which the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior on August 2, 1948 (M-34963), held are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and subject to agreements between the Board and the National Park Service under the act of April 29, 1942, supra, but which the Chairman of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, in a letter dated August 31, 1948, and the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia in an opinion dated November 16, 1948, held are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

Here we find that so far as this agreement is concerned, the Secretary of the Interior has not questioned the insistence of the Recreation Board, supported by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and the Corporation Counsel and the National Capital Park and Planning Commission which is designated to act for him under the Capper-Crampton Act. He leaves this in abeyance and says this does not affect the jurisdictional status.

Of course, we have always held that the Interior Department had no control whatever over these properties, with the bare possibility, as the Corporation Counsel said in his opinion on it, that in the event the recreational areas under the Capper-Crampton Act are not used for recreational purposes then only could the Federal Government come in as sort of a trustee in the final analysis and find that this purpose which Congress intended the land to be used for is not followed, then the Federal Government can say you are not carrying out the trust placed in you by the Congress, and this land reverts to Federal use, and we will see to it that it is used for recreational purposes, but so long as the land is used as it was originally intended to be used by the Congress, the Interior Department has nothing to do with it, and that is recognized by this agreement.

It is perfectly true that this agreement is subject to cancellation on 30 days' notice at any time.

Mr. ABERNETHY. By either party.

Mr. WENDER. Yes; notice by either party; and it is thoroughly possible that in the event we want to do something that the Interior Department does not like, or the Interior Department wants to do something we do not like, the agreement in its entirety would be cancelled, and this involves all of the recreational facilities.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And then you would be right back with the issue involved, that is, with the jurisdictional question overlapping there which you say exists?

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir; but let me say this, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think in view of the turbid history of our Board's existence and its relationship with the Interior Department that now that we have at least arrived at this stage that the Interior Department is going to lightly set it aside.

If you get the impression that I feel that Congress need not legislate at this time I give you that impression for this reason: Congress originally intended agreements to be made. However, they expected these agreements would be made and wholeheartedly entered into and carried out.

The Interior Department was as much a proponent of this legislation under which our Board was created as any other agency of the Gov

ernment.

The President's Commission, with Mr. Delano, the uncle of President Roosevelt, as its chairman, spent long months and some years working out the very best possible bill, and I still think our act is a good act if the spirit of the act is observed, and I have many times stated that you have to read the simple language of the act to recognize that matters of policy were intended by Congress to be determined by the Recreation Board; and let me read to you the language of the act.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Right there, of course, it is obvious that would be one of the functions of the Recreation Board.

Mr. WENDER. In article III, page 4, section 2, the language says: The control of all land, buildings, and other facilities used by the Board shall be in accordance with agreements reached between the Board and the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over such properties—

and the policy provision, section 1, article II, under "Functions and Administrative Responsibilities of the Board" states:

The Board shall determine all questions of general policy relating to public recreation in and for the District of Columbia, and shall supervise and direct expenditure of all appropriations and/or other funds made available to the Board. Mr. ABERNETHY. You are reading from the act?

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir; from the act of this Congress, an act which emanated from this very committee.

Mr. GRANGER. Why have you not complied with the act? Mr. WENDER. We have endeavored to comply, and we have done everything we possibly could to convince the Secretary of the Interior over a period of 8 years that the act means what it says. We contend that it should be our prerogative, and that it is a duty placed upon us by Congress as the representatives not alone of the citizens of the District of Columbia but these other agencies to determine all matters of policy.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I would like to state that I was a member of this committee when that act was passed, and it certainly was the intention of this committee at that time that the Board should have control of the policy of the recreational facilities in the District of Columbia. That was our reason for passing the act, and that is the reason I introduced this bill here, to find out just why you are not permitted to act as you should under the law.

Mr. WENDER. My only thought on that, Mr. Chairman, is this: This committee has been of invaluable assistance to us all during our existence. It may be that the committee can be of some assistance in getting the Secretary of the Interior and his Solicitor to give a proper interpretation of the language contained in this law. If that could be done, then legislation may not be necessary.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Will you repeat that please, Mr. Wender?

66315-50- -3

Mr. WENDER. Mr. Chairman, if this committee, with the knowledge that is inherent in the committee, because the bill originated in the committee, this is where the hearings were held, for 5 weeks before this committee, Mr. Schwab, Mr. Root, Mr. Christiansen, Miss Baker, and myself came before this committee and attended every hearing of the committee, and Mr. Schwab and Mr. Christiansen and the rest of us did not miss one single hearing of the committee because of our tremendous interest in recreation at that time, and we have the same interest in it today, if this committee should feel that it is the committee's prerogative, in the light of the chairman of the committee's statement to you, that it was the intent of Congress that our Board was to make these determinations, it may very well be that the Secretary of the Interior and his Solicitor might change their position on what they think can or cannot or should or should not be done.

I am personally convinced that we can solve this swimming-pool situation which was so disgraceful here last summer, a black blot on the Nation's Capital with riots and injuries to human beings, and which was plastered all over the newspapers of this country and of Russia, when there were pictures shown of policemen riding down girls. I think you saw the picture which has won now a photographic prize just this past week, a picture made by one of the Washington newspaper photographers, showing a Park policeman astride his charger with a girl lying under the horse where she had been ridden down. It was an accident; yes, it was an accident; nevertheless, there were thousands of people milling around the Anacostia swimming pool, and it was all brought about by a misconceived idea of how recreation should be operated in Washington.

I have said before, and I say now without hesitation before this. committee, that I am personally opposed to segregation, but it cannot be accomplished through coercion. It must be done in the dignified way that the Recreation Board has said it will do it.

Last July, following in general the adoption of a statement of policy, which I think this committee should be familiar with, our Board placed into our regulations this statement:

All matters of policy shall be determined by the Recreation Board. That is article II, section 1, under the heading "By-laws, Rules and Regulations of the District of Columbia Recreation Board." Article II, section 2 states the motivating policy on the subject of segregation, and I ask leave to furnish a copy of this to you.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who participated in the drafting of those regulations, what Departments of the Government as represented on the Board?

Mr. WENDER. All three of them that I have mentioned. The Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Krug, personally approved this language. The District of Columbia Commissioners personally approved this language, and the Board of Education, through its representative, Mr. Steinem, approved this language, and all four lay members of the Board, who are the same now with one exception, approved this language.

I do not pretend as one of the principal authors of the language that it represents any great step forward in world history, but it does represent a great step in the elimination of segregation. This is something which those on our Board can very well be proud of, and

which the Secretary of the Interior ought to accept in good faith. It reads:

The Board will make every possible and realistic effort toward the removal of racial segregation in public recreation in such sequence and at such rate of progression, as may be consistent with the public interest, public order and effective administration. The Board by majority vote of the whole Board at a stated meeting shall from time to time issue necessary orders to the Superintendent to implement this policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. When the vote was put on that, how many "nay" votes were cast?

Mr. WENDER. It was unanimously approved, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ABERNETHY. What date was that agreement reached?

Mr. WENDER. It was first approved June 14, 1949; the language was first approved, and then further amendments to the regulations followed on July 20, and the final language was adopted at that time. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Krug was then Secretary of the Interior? Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Who was Under Secretary in charge of the parks at that time?

Mr. WENDER. Mr. Oscar Chapman was then Under Secretary, and Mr. Davidson was Assistant Secretary.

Mr. MILLER. C. Girard Davidson?

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. He is really the one who is in charge of the national parks and so forth.

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir; but let me make it perfectly clear to this committee that at the time this language was approved I did not deal with Mr. Davidson. I dealt with Mr. Krug, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Davidson, all three. So that there may be no doubt in the minds of this committee as to the meeting of the minds, all of the representatives on this Board and the very highest echelon participated not only in the discussion, but in the actual approval of the language that is here referred to.

Mr. MILLER, The Solicitor's opinion which changed, apparently; the intent of the law in 1942 was signed by what Solicitor, and was it under the direction of C. Girard Davidson, or Mr. Krug?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Under Mr. Davidson, the last one.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davidson signed it?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. The Solicitor's reversal of opinion was under Mr. Davidson, while he was Assistant Secretary.

Mr. WENDER. Yes. However, that occurred prior to the conference with the Secretary of the Interior that I have referred to.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that our Board in every possible way has wisely, properly, and in a dignified manner carried out the exact language of this regulation, this bylaw of our Board.

We have made numerous changes. I shall not take up the time of this committee to enumerate them, but immediately upon the adoption of those regulations we put through a change in the use of public-school buildings and Recreation Board facilities for meeting purposes, which was revolutionary in the schools, such that there had never been anything like it before in the District of Columbia.

We adopted a policy concerning the holding of meetings on a nonsegregated basis, utilizing public facilities for that purpose, and I am happy to report to you that we have not had one single complaint,