SWIMMING POOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PARKS THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1950 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND RECREATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee on Health, Education, and Recreation of the Committee on the District of Columbia met in the committee room, 445 Old House Office Building, at 10 a. m. the Honorable Thomas G. Abernethy (subcommittee chairman), presiding: Also present: Hon. John L. McMillan; Hon. Howard W. Smith; Hon. James C. Davis; Hon. Walter K. Granger; Hon. A. L. Miller; and Hon. Benjamin F. James. Mr. ABERNETHY. The committee will come to order. We have met this morning for the purpose of considering H. R. 5968, a bill, which has for its purpose, to vest in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia control over all public swimming pools, playgrounds, and parks situated in the District of Columbia. A copy of the bill will be inserted in the record at this point. (H. R. 5968 is as follows:) [H. R. 5968, 81st Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To vest in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia control over all public swimming pools, playgrounds, and parks situated in the District of Columbia Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the operation, control, administration, and supervision of all public swimming pools, public playgrounds, and public parks situated in the District of Columbia are hereby vested in the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate for the performance of the functions vested in it by this Act and may delegate the performance of any such function to any officer or agency of the District government. Mr. ABERNETHY. There has been some question for quite a time in regard to the jurisdiction of the various recreational facilities as well as the manner and means of administration. Personally some of us feel that it is high time that those issues be settled, and that the law be clarified so that no differences of opinion will hereafter exist on this subject. First I would like to call on the city Commissioners who are represented this morning by Mr. John Russell Young, and we would be glad to hear from him or any representative that he would care to designate to speak for the Commissioners. Mr. Young. 1 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN RUSSELL YOUNG, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I might say first of all that we have not yet reported on this bill. From looking it over very briefly, before I call on anyone, I believe the bill would need some limiting language, but in the meantime I think your committee wants to get at the fundamentals of this subject as it is a big subject and it means a lot to Washington. First of all, dealing with the history of the legislation regarding ownership, titles to property, and so forth, I think I would call on Mr. West, the Corporation Counsel. Then afterward, if your committee wants some information regarding maintenance and cost of maintenance, we will call the Budget Officer, Mr. Fowler. The members of the Recreation Board are here, and Mr. Root of the Park Service of the Interior Department is here, and if it pleases your committee I think Mr. West can take over from now. Mr. ABERNETHY. We will try to hear them, of course. you like to have Mr. West appear now? Mr. YOUNG. I would, yes. Would Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. West, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia. STATEMENT OF VERNON E: WEST, CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. West, you have filed a letter with the committee relative to this bill in which you have outlined various statutes which affect these facilities. As I understand it, you have touched on the statutes in chronological order, and I would like to have you. review those for the benefit of the committee, and I suggest that you give particular emphasis to title, the manner and means of operation, and jurisdiction over the facilities. Mr. WEST. Well, by the act of July 1, 1898, the park system of the District of Columbia was placed under the exclusive charge and control of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the President of the United States, through the Secretary of War. By subsequent acts of Congress and Executive orders, the control of the park system of the District of Columbia was changed from time to time to other agencies and is now vested in the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. These acts and the Executive orders are set forth in the letter. Section 2 of article II of the act of April 29, 1942, creating the District of Columbia Recreation Board, provides, in part, as followsMr. ABERNETHY. What year was that? Mr. WEST. 1942. Mr. ABERNETHY. All right. Mr. WEST (reading): The respective facilities of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Board of Education shall, by the agreement of the respective agencies of the Government having control of such facilities, be made available to the Board under the terms of this Act. Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me ask you this question there, Mr. West: Does that mean that those respective agencies should agree upon such terms as the facilities are made available to the Recreation Board? Mr. WEST. That is correct. Mr. ABERNETHY. And in the event of their failure to agree what effect would the act have? Mr. WEST. There would be no transfer of jurisdiction. Mr. ABERNETHY. Was there an agreement? Mr. WEST. There was as to some; the principal question arises with respect to certain lands. Mr. ABERNETHY. Wait just a minute. Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. Mr. ABERNETHY. You say there was an agreement as to some. Now, once that agreement is made, does it have the effect of law? Mr. WEST. Well, it would have the effect of transferring lands subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would that be permanent? Mr. WEST. I should think it would be until there was some mutual agreement to change the terms and conditions. Mr. ABERNETHY. All right. Mr. WEST. Because section 2 of article III of said act provides as follows: 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. A question has arisen as to whether the National Park Service has jurisdiction and control over certain areas purchased by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and assigned to the control of the Commissioners of the District for playground purposes. The act of Congress of June 6, 1924, created the National Capital Park Commission and authorized it to acquire lands in the District of Columbia and in adjacent areas in Maryland and Virginia for the proper development of the park, parkway, and playground system. With respect to the land acquired in the District of Columbia, section 3 of the act provides as follows: The land so acquired within the District of Columbia shall be a part of the park system of the District of Columbia and be under the control of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army now the National Park Service that areas suitable for playground purposes may, in the discretion of said Commission, be assigned to the control of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia for playground purposes. Now, the question has arisen as to whether the Recreation Act has had any effect upon this provision of the act of 1924. Mr. ABERNETHY. You say the Recreation Act; that is the act which was passed in 1942? Mr. WEST. Yes; creating the Board of Recreation. In 1930 there was passed what is known as the Capper-Crampton Act, which provided in section 4 that: There is hereby further authorized to be appropriated the sum of $16,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, for the acquiring of such lands in the District of Columbia as are necessary and desirable for the suitable development of the National Capital park, parkway, and playground system, in accordance with the provisions of the said act of June 6, 1924, as amended, except as in this section otherwise provided. Then it provides for the repayment of this loan. Now, a number of playgrounds were acquired under the provisions of section 4 of the Capper-Crampton Act, and assigned by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission under the provisions of the act of 1924 to the Commissioners for playground purposes. Up until August 2, 1948, it had always been assumed by both the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and the National Park Service that the lands acquired under the act of 1924 through money provided in the Capper-Crampton Act and assigned to the Commissioners were exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. Mr. ABERNETHY. Were they so treated up until that time? Mr. WEST. Yes; they were so treated until that time. However, on August 2, 1948, the Solicitor of the Interior Department rendered an opinion reversing an opinion of a former Solicitor and holding that the provision of the act of 1924 providing for the assignment to the Commissioners of the control of playgrounds here under consideration was repealed by the Recreation Act of 1942; that the continued use for playground purposes of these areas for playgrounds is contingent upon the making of an agreement or agreements between the National Park Service and the District of Columbia Recretation Board respecting such use; that officials of the National Park Service have complete discretion in the matter of determining whether park areas in the District of Columbia shall be made available to the District of Columbia Recreation Board for recreational use and that any provisions that are mutually satisfactory to the two agencies can be included in an agreement. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Can you tell us just what particular language in the act of 1942 is supposed to have repealed the previous act? Mr. WEST. Judge, I have never been able to find language which justified that opinion. I have taken the opposite view. Mr. SMITH. All right, does the opinion of the Solicitor of the other Department say what language in the 1942 act repealed the previous act? Mr. WEST. He contends that there is an implied repeal. Mr. SMITH. Is what you are reading the report of the Commissioners on this bill? Mr. WEST. No. Mr. SMITH. That is your statement? Mr. WEST. I am reading in substance from a letter which I sent to Mr. McLeod. I have never been able to follow the ruling of the Solicitor of the Interior Department because I have not been able to find any language in the Recreation Act which changes the provisions of the act of 1924. Mr. SMITH. He probably refers to that language, to such parts as by agreement might be agreed upon Mr. WEST. That there is an implied repeal. Mr. SMITH. An implied repeal of that act? Mr. WEST. Yes. The Secretary of the Interior then requested the Attorney General to render an opinion upon the subject, but the Attorney General has never rendered an opinion. Mr. ABERNETHY. When was that request made? Mr. WEST. That request must have been made in the fall of 1948. I think it was shortly after the Solicitor rendered his opinion in August. Mr. ABERNETHY. Who made the request of the Attorney General; did you say? Mr. WEST. I think the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. ABERNETHY. And the Attorney General has not yet rendered that opinion? Mr. WEST. He has not. Mr. ABERNETHY. That has been about 18 months ago; is that about right? Mr. WEST. Yes, about 18 months ago. Mr. ABERNETHY. Of course, they have been awfully busy down there, I guess. Mr. WEST. I saw a statement in the paper that the Department of Justice would not render an opinion on this subject. Whether that is correct or not, of course, I do not know. In deference to the gentlemen of the press here, why, I would say it is probably correct. Mr. ABERNETHY. To summarize your statement, then, Mr. West, it is your opinion that the act of 1942 did not repeal the provisions of the previous act by which jurisdiction of these facilities was transferred to the Commissioners? Mr. WEST. That is my opinion, and I wrote a formal opinion to the Commissioners saying that, which opinion they transmitted to the Attorney General. The opinion has never been made public for the reason that the Commissioners did not think it was proper to make it public as long as the matter was under consideration by the Department of Justice. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you still hold to that opinion? Mr. ABERNETHY. Are there any questions, gentlemen? Mr. SMITH. What has been the effect of this opinion of the Solicitor of the Interior Department; have some of these areas been physically taken from under the jurisdiction of the District Commissioners? Mr. WEST. I do not think that they have been, but it has been the contention of the National Park Service that all of these recreational areas which were purchased with Capper-Crampton money and assigned by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to the Commissioners are still under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and cannot be used by the Recreation Board except upon the terms and conditions agreed to between the Secretary of the Interior and the Recreation Board. Mr. SMITH. And have they undertaken, in that connection, to impose any conditions upon the operation of them? Mr. WEST. I think they have, but someone from the Recreation Board can answer that question better than I can because I do not know what the actual result of their opinion has been, how far they have gone, or whether they have been holding the matter in abeyance. 65315-50-2 |