not one fight, not one argument, not a scintilla of difficulty in administering what might have been a very dangerous and difficult policy to administer, and we have done it in a way that the public was willing to accept.

We have established nonsegregated playgrounds, and we propose in the future to establish more of them. We are operating a great many kinds of facilities in a nonsegregated manner.

I want to say to this committee that if the Board is left to carry out the purposes or policy that I have outlined, we will take credit not as individuals, but as a Board created by the Congress to carry out the authority you have vested in us, and if there is to be developed conflict, if there is to be any public official who may insist that we do not know what we are doing, it is despite the fact that we have the finest Superintendent of Recreation in the United States here in the District, and I submit the very finest staff of recreation experts in the United States, and despite the fact that in St. Louis at the same time when we were having race riots in Washington they were having them in St. Louis because of the very same reason.

Now, Mr. Chairman, a public commission was set up by the mayor of St. Louis to study the problem and that commission made a number of very important recommendations.

One of the most important if not the most important of all recommendations and conclusions of that public-spirited commission was in regard to unsegregated community activities, in regard to which they handed out a statement that they found in recreation that swimming pools are the last area in which you may have integration in recreation. Now the precise wording of that recommendation is not exactly as I have stated it but that is the substance and purpose of the recommendation and what they meant.

What we have done is starting off and permitting people who want to meet in public places of assembly to do so, in those areas of the playgrounds where we feel there will be no conflict of the races through their intermingling and wherever that is possible we are adopting that policy in that respect. We are carrying this policy forward as rapidly as we can but we don't believe that we can take the swimming pools of Washington in the hot summer months and open them on an interracial basis. We feel there must be a more gradual approach to these problems and we must gradually find out how things are moving and we are perfectly willing to gradually solve these problems and bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.

To that end the McKinley pool, which up to last year was a white pool, at the end of last year was practically a Negro pool with some few whites participating. That pool was given to the Negroes because it was located in a mixed area. We offered to concentrate on that one swimming pool in an effort to see if we could work out a satisfactory interracial program. We felt we should study that one pool and solve all our problems before we went any further, but if we were compelled to take 6, 8, or 10 swimming pools and try to do the same thing at all of them at one time, you could easily conceive and recognize the grief and conflicts and the problems that would likely develop. Recognizing that we had this recent historic affair of last summer we have felt it is necessary to go slow, irrespective of the ideas of any sociological "experts" who may be brought to Washington at Government expense. The reports and conclusions of such experts will not solve such a delicate problem as this.

It must be dealt with by those people who are from day to day concerned with the recreational problems of the swimming pools and by that I don't mean Harry Wender or James E. Schwab who are the lay members of the Recreation Board. However, we do reflect, I think, what is the general thinking of the people of the community. That is our purpose and object in being on the Board and we are not supposed to be experts on recreation.

It is very seldom that our Board has differed from our staff, very few times, but we have said at times we thought they might have a different approach in regard to some problem. We are there for that purpose, acting as a check by the civilian members upon the professional hierarchy I might say and in this instance I may say our entire staff has been in complete agreement and by that I mean both Negro and white assistants.

I mentioned particularly Mr. John Young who has been with us from the inception and who I think has got great love and respect of his people.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Might I inquire, Mr. Wender, whether your statement is endorsed by all lay members of the Recreation Board? Mr. WENDER. No, sir; it is not. I am speaking now for the majority of our Board and the action we have taken in the past.

I will say, however, that the Recreation Board unanimously made the proposal that I have outlined to you last year, namely, that we would ask the Secretary of the Interior to permit us to operate the McKinley swimming pool on an unsegregated basis; to have two pools on a segregated basis and to have two pools for Negroes and three pools for whites; and may I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that that agreement and I don't make any bones about it-not only was concurred in at the time by the Superintendent of Parks office but also by the Associate Director of National Parks, Mr. Demaray, who was then serving as the representative of the Secretary of the Interior who was asked to work this thing out with us; and it had previously actually been approved by Mr. Krug and all the members of his "lower cabinet"; and when those negotiations were entered into between myself and Secretary Krug in the first instance it was done with the fullest understanding that our Board was going to be given authority provided we would recognize the President's policy in adopting the regulations, not in this language because this language was not proposed, but adopting some form of comment on the President's policy to indicate that we progressively would eliminate segregation; and so I say to you, Mr. Chairman, the present Secretary of the Interior of course is not bound by the former Secretary, but I have been quoted in the press before, and I have stated to my Board, and I have stated that if the Secretary of the Interior had gone forward on the negotiation that we had entered into at that time, why, we would not be in the difficulty we are now, and I doubt if we would be sitting in this room today.

I do not know what caused the Secretary of the Interior to change his opinion but I think it was a grave mistake and one for which a lot of people have suffered already and one for which a great many people may suffer in the future and I hope that this committee will use its influence with the present Secretary of the Interior, who is a man of great good will, a man of great standing and a man for whom I have a tremendous amount of personal respect, and I certainly think he

would be willing to counsel with the members of this committee in attempting to arrive at a compromise solution of this problem.

We have proposed a compromise. It was accepted. I say to you now it is as good a compromise today as it was a year ago, or 6 months ago or 9 months ago. It ought to be accepted, but if it is not, Mr. Chairman, if we cannot have a dignified discussion, if we cannot have an understanding rather on a sane and high level, on the same dignified: basis with the Interior Department that this memorandum of agreement was achieved at that time, then I say to you from the bottom of my heart, speaking for myself alone, because as I say our committee has not had an opportunity to act on the McMillan bill-we received the McMillan bill 2 weeks before this memorandum of agreement was written. We were then engaged in writing the agreement. We had hoped that there would be no need for the McMillan bill and so we said we would like to reserve our opinion on that. When I say we I refer to the committee of which I am chairman.

Gentlemen of the committee, we still hope that there will be no need for the McMillan bill or an amendment to the McMillan bill or Mr. Hoffman's joint resolution, but I say to you if we cannot or if you cannot achieve what I have suggested then there needs must be legislation to control the swimming pool situation in Washington for the good of all the people, in order to interpret the legislation that Congress has approved, and to carry out the purposes and policies you intended to carry out.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Wender, I don't want to cut you off, but there are some others who want to be heard and from whom we should get some expression of opinion.

I want to express my thanks and the thanks of the committee to you for the forthright statement you have made this morning. You have made a fine statement, an excellent statement. I appreciate your statement and I appreciate the forthright presentation.

Before you leave the stand I want to ask you one question and members of the committee may desire to ask you further questions.

If an agreement cannot be reached on the question of policy then legislation is necessary, is it not?

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir, some kind of legislation; I am not prepared to say whether the exact language of the McMillan bill is correct, but there should be some legislation; yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But you feel if an agreement is not reached that there ought to be new legislation?

Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir, and that is a feeling as I say, that we have. I do not know whether Mr. Schwab will have an opportunity to testify or not, but Mr. Schwab and Mr. Christiansen and I are in complete agreement as a subcommittee of our Board.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record for your information a copy of our annual report for 1949, pages 205 to 215. It is an analysis of some of the matters I have discussed with you.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That report is rather lengthy so just include the specific parts referring to your Board. In other words, the specific pages that you refer to will be incorporated in the record without objection, but the remainder will merely be filed as an exhibit. Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir.

(The data referred to are as follows:)

RECREATION BOARD

The officers of the District of Columbia Recreation Board, Harry S. Wender, chairman; James E. Schwab, vice chairman; and Mrs. Alice C. Hunter, secretary; have served in these offices since the creation of the Board in 1942. Other members were Walter L. Fowler, representing the District Commissioners, with G. M. Thornett as alternate; C. Melvin Sharpe, as representative of the Board of Education with Albert E. Steinem as alternate until May 6 when Mr. Steinem was appointed as representative of the Board of Education with George E. C. Hayes as alternate; Irving C. Root, Superintendent of National Capital Parks; and Mrs. Andrew Saul. On June 24, 1949, the Commissioners appointed Mrs. O. G. Hankins to fill the unexpired 4-year term of Mrs. Andrew Saul who had resigned.

The Board held 11 monthly and 2 special meetings, processed 34 Board polls and on June 21 at the annual meeting of the organized citizenry heard requests from nearly 100 persons for community needs to be included in the 1951 Budget Estimates.

A

A total of 15 meetings were held by 8 different committees of the Board. special committee is investigating the possibility of securing control of the public golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc., within the District. Most active was the committee on bylaws, rules, and regulations. The rules were suspended to allow an interracial experiment with the American Friends Service Committee on Rose Park and Garfield Playgrounds and amended to prohibit money-raising activities on public property operated by the Board.

At the request of the Board the District of Columbia Personnel Board and the United States Civil Service Commission are restudying the classifications of all positions in the Recreation Department.

MODIFICATION OF POLICY

The year has been made significant by modification in the interracial policy which has prevailed in public recreation in Washington.

The Board in 1942 inherited from the Department of Playgrounds and the Community Center Department of the Public Schools a segregated system which had been incorporated in the plan for the recreation system of Washington drafted by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

When organization of the new Department was formulated in 1942, two program divisions were set up, one for white recreation, the other for Negro recreation. This dual system was adopted by the Board and accepted by the Civil Service Commission.

In 1945 the Board heard arguments from citizens and organizations both for and against continuation of racial segregation and a provision was written into the bylaws, rules, and regulations for separate playgrounds and programs for white and for Negro residents.

In recent years in the conduct of general programs and in permits for park areas the Department has broadened its policy.

On October 20, 1948, the Board of Education adopted the following statement of policy:

"The Board of Education has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the policies of the Board of Recreation, and it has no right in view of the law creating the Board of Recreation, to set down any policy as to the management and use of the school buildings and grounds turned over to the Recreation Board.'

In November 1948 a report entitled "Segregation in Washington" was compiled by a self-constituted committee, The National Committee on Segregation in the Nation's Capital, which made certain statements in regard to the operation of the public recreation program in Washington which were misleading and in some cases without basis in fact.

On March 8, 1949, the Board acceded to the request of the Secretary of Interior that permits for tennis courts located in Federal parks be listed as "open." Then on April 29, 1949, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission removed all racial designations from its "proposed recreation system" plan.

As a result of these developments the chairman of the Recreation Board personally made an extensive study of public assembly in the Nation's Capital. On June 14, 1949, the Board adopted the following statement of policy:

"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 authorized the Superintendent of Recreation at his discretion to permit the use of public school buildings for public assembly.

The Board remains alert to changing attitudes in the community and there will from time to time undoubtedly be further modifications of the policy of nonsegregation.

PROPERTY JURISDICTION

In August 1948 the Solicitor of the Interior Department drafted an opinion to the effect that all lands purchased under the so-called Capper-Crampton Act are under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission disagreed with this opinion and the Recreation Board referred the matter through the Commissioners to the District Corporation Counsel who handed down the opinion that the transfers made by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to the control of the District Commissioners are valid and all such playground areas are under the control of the District Commissioners, and consequently subject to the rules and regulations of the Recreation Board. These differing opinions were presented to the Attorney General with a request for an opinion which has not as yet been rendered.

The following additional areas have been assigned to the District Commissioners for playground purposes: Deanwood Playground, various lots at Cardozo, Jamaica, Brentwood Village, and Seaton Playgrounds, Buchanan Recreation Center and Francis Recreation Center, and the land formerly owned by the German Government adjacent to Mitchell Park.

The decision of the District Commissioners that it is inadvisable to utilize the tops of reservoirs for recreation affects five units in the recreation system plan. In April 1949 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the District court's decision that the Stead estate income for establishing a playground in memory of Mary Force Stead shall be made available to the District of Columbia Recreation Board.

COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Special acknowledgment is due to the Government agencies which throughout the year have cooperated with the Recreation Board and aided the program; notably, the District Commissioners, the Board of Education, the Public Library, the Municipal Architect's Office, the Division of Printing and Publications, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and the National Capital Parks Office.

The Board of Education has extended use of 95 school buildings and grounds. Agreements were entered into with the National Capital Housing Authority for use of buildings and adjacent playgrounds at Langston, Syphax, Douglass Dwellings, and Barry Farms; with private owners for the use of Snow's Court during the summer season; and with the American Security & Trust Co. for use of the Walsh Center on a temporary basis.

The Evening Star and the Department through cooperative agreement presented the neighborhood symphony concerts featuring the Washington National Symphony Orchestra during the fall and winter months.

The Department cooperated with other agencies both local and national for recognition of Park and Recreation Week from May 21 through 30, 1949.

OPERATIONS DIVISION

Personnel. Under authority of Public Law 534 the Superintendent made 481 90-day appointments. There were 66 up-grade promotions, 2 retirements, and 67 resignations.

Permits and special services section. The issue of permits for picnic sites, sports areas, tennis courts, and public school buildings has increased. Approximately 519,726 persons were served with picnic permits, 31,000 for sports areas, and over 16,000 with tennis permits.

Government, civic, and private groups used 101 school buildings for public meetings and activities. The Department provides custodial service for 8 citizen and civic business meetings for each association held in a school building and for 4 evening public meetings of each parent-teacher association; 445 of such meetings were held by 56 associations during the year.