desire of the Interior Department; that this land shall be used in the best interests of the people.

Now, Mr. Wender also mentioned the agreement that had such a wholehearted endorsement. However, the agreement that he mentioned does not cover swimming pools.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Were they specifically excepted from the agreement?

Mr. Roor. They are not mentioned in the agreement, which does not include them at all, and that is understood by the Recreation Board.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, what is mentioned? What land is used? Mr. ROOT. The playgrounds concessions and golf courses are the items that are particularly intended, and the matter of swimming pools is still waiting for agreement, and as long as there is a conflict between the President's program and the Recreation Board I don't hardly see how you can get complete agreement. It is a matter for Congress to decide.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, does the witness feel there should be a different policy with regard to a playground than with regard to a swimming pool? What is so holy about one and unholy about another?

Mr. Rooт. No; I think the Interior Department's policy is consistent. It follows the President's program of nonsegregation in all respects, and the Recreation Board is not willing to take over the swimming pools on an unsegregated basis.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, does that agreement apply to other recreational facilities in that respect, nonsegregated from beginning to end throughout all the recreational facilities of the District, with the exception of swimming pools?

Mr. ROOT. The Board's agreement that Mr. Wender read to you is progressively approaching the nonsegregated basis. That is, there is no segregation in that Negro children are not driven away from a playground in which a white program is being conducted, so that the Interior Department feels that it is consistent in the approval of the agreement on golf courses and playgrounds.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Does that represent your personal feeling?
Mr. ROOT. Yes; it does.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You practice it?

Mr. Root. We do.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you practice it at the swimming pools?
Mr. Root. I don't swim in the public swimming pools, I am sorry

to say.

I am

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, suppose you did swim. Now, you don't swim there, but let us suppose that you would want to swim. just trying to be practical about the matter, and I hope the witness will be that way.

Mr. ROOT. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that my personal feelings have anything to do with it. We have a definite policy set down by the Interior Department, and we do our very best to carry out that policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who sets the policy in the Department?

Mr. Root. Well, I imagine it is set by the President. It is his program, and the Interior Department carries out his program. Mr. ABERNETHY. Whose responsibility is it to carry out that policy in the Interior Department?

Mr. Roor. In the swimming pools and on the recreation areas of Washington, D. C., is it the responsibility of the National Capital Parks to carry out that policy.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do they practice it?

Mr. ROOT. They do.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, will you put the names of those in the record who practice it?

Mr. ROOT. Well, in the administration of our park areas and in their protection and policing, there is no discrimination.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is not my question. I want to know who practices it, those who have the responsbility of putting the policy into effect. Now I think we want to put all the cards out on the table and I am sure the witness wants to do that too. Let us have the record show if it is so, that those who make the policies are practicing what they preach.

Mr. Root. I think we have to consider it as an impersonal thing. Mr. ABERNETHY. All right, that answers my question.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Root, of course we are confronted, as you recognize, by a very practical question in that the pools will open up on the 1st of June, and I am sure that the Interior Department would deplore a repetition of what happened last summer. Now what do you propose to do about it, have a repetition of what happened then or will you look at it from a practical standpoint and do something about it?

Mr. ROOT. Under the President's program and the Interior policy there is no other course for us to pursue than do our very best to give protection to the people who want to go to the swimming pools so that they will be properly enjoyed by the people without conflict.

Mr. SMITH. That is a beautiful theory but I am talking about practical matters. You know what happened last summer and I think you realize that it is probably going to happen again. You say you are going to let people enjoy it. I do not know how much people enjoy riots. I don't enjoy reading about it in the newspapers. I want your idea as to what you think is going to happen and what you will do about it.

Mr. Root. I will not attempt to predict what will happen other than we will do our very best to carry out the policies which are now in force with such police as we have.

Mr. SMITH. Then it is your intention to go ahead and do what you have been doing?

Mr. ROOT. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is worth while to pursue this inquiry any further and I would recommend that we go into executive session to see whether we want to do anything about it.

We have reached the nub of the proposition. The Interior Department is apparently adamant in the stand they are going to take on this.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question? Have you had any conferences recently with the present Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Chapman?

Mr. Rooт. There have been no conferences with him. I understand the Recreation Board of the District has been attempting to have conferences with him and that would very likely have been brought about except that the Secretary had been out of the city.

Mr. MILLER. Have you any idea whether he will take a different attitude from the one presently in effect?

Mr. ROOT. That is something that I could not say.

Chairman McMILLAN. Do you feel there is any chance of us and the Secretary sitting down somewhere with Mr. Wender and the Recreation Board to see if we can get together and solve this problem? Mr. Root. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Wender has just suggested, couldn't we sit down with the Secretary of the Interior and work this out in a dignified manner?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, I think it would be a good idea to proceed along those lines and hold this conference with the Secretary and see what can be worked out.

Chairman McMILLAN. Everybody wants to work out something which we hope will be satisfactory to all of us.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are confronted here in the Federal body with two departments of the Government where there is a conflict as to which shall have jurisdiction and spend the people's money and it is rather ridiculous that we have this question arising between two departments of the Government as to who ought to be the one to handle the recreational facilities. Here we have the unusual spectacle of two departments of the Government fighting among themselves as to who should do this and who should have greater powers and spend the money. It is not only true here but it is true of several departments of the Government that we have dealt with.

Mr. Rooт. Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave this final thought with you that the area that is involved in this difference of opinion is perhaps one one-hundredth part of the park system of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would the Park Service like to get rid of it and have it taken off its shoulders?

Mr. Root. I certainly would like to see an answer that will result in safety and happiness to the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Root, here is the issue. I can see it, and I think you make a good point when you say that it involves only onehundredth of the responsibility resting upon the shoulders of the Park Service, and that is giving more trouble than all the rest put together, isn't it?

Mr. Roor. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, wouldn't you like to get rid of it?
Mr. Root. I certainly would.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then let me ask you, do you approve of this bill to that degree?

Mr. Roor. I don't approve of anything that will take land out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government because it is only use that is involved.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I realize that is typical of the Government. They own about three-fourths of the land in one county in my State now and you could not get an acre from them to save your life and the Government wants to get the rest of it.

Mr. Root. It is only the use involved.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who pays for the operation cost of these just one one-hundredth part of the parks, the Government or the District of Columbia?

Mr. RooT. Most of these pools were built with Federal funds and they are being operated by a concessioner who is losing money. Chairman MCMILLAN. How much does the Government lose?

Mr. Rooт. The Government is not losing anything.

Mr. ABERNETHY. We are not here to consider that. It is the concessioner's business and he took it over under a contract. He made a contract to handle that.

Mr. ROOT. That is right. The District Government and the Federal Government are not losing money on the pools.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, let me ask you this: Why should the Federal Government manage and operate pools and playgrounds in the city of Washington and not operate them in the city of New York?

Mr. Root. Well, that is because all of the park land in the city of Washington is Federal land.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Maybe you and I are about to get together on this subject of home rule.

Mr. ROOT. This whole matter was very thoroughly gone into on the hearings of the Auchincloss bill in 1949 and the Kefauver bill in 1949 and it was agreed that the Federal Government should hold title to the land; that the construction and maintenance of park areas should be by Federal funds and that the Recreation Board should conduct the programs on the land.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, why should the Government own it? Why should the Government own the tennis courts down here? There are tennis courts down on the Mall. There is no good reason why the Federal Government should own the land.

Mr. Root. I think I can give you very good reasons. During times of national emergency, in the Civil War and the two World Wars the park areas were pretty well taken over by the military. In the last World War particularly.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And they can take over any area they wish. I have two counties in my district where the Government has taken over the land. They did not have to own the land. They can take it over and pay the people what they think it is worth. They can take land anytime they desire for an emergency purpose under eminent domain. Now do you have any other reason why they should own these tennis courts?

Mr. ROOT. These tennis courts are part of the park system as a whole and the people of the United States have paid for the parks of Washington. The District of Columbia has only paid for one-seventh of the value of the parks of the District of Columbia. It is a Federal responsibility.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The tennis courts of Washington are Federal responsibility?

Mr. Roor. I would say they are. I would say that title of the land is in the Federal Government, but the District government would have full use of them. The people of the District of Columbia could do anything they wished with the land, but the ownership would remain in the Federal Government and their use would not give the District of Columbia any more authority over the tennis courts. In the matter of the swimming pools it looks like the matter could be decided on the basis of use and there is no need of ownership coming into it at all. If the parks have belonged to the Federal Government for 160 years without somebody upsetting that continuous ownership of the land it must have been a pretty good idea.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Did anything come out of the budget toward the operation of the recreational facilities?

Mr. ROOT. The whole recreational program as it is conducted by the Recreation Board comes out of the District budget and the Office of National Parks does the housekeeping, maintains the area and does everything except operate the playgrounds. We are fully in accord that the Recreation Board should conduct the program and have the contact with the public. We are glad to have our land used for that purpose. That is what it is there for.

Mr. WENDER. Mr. Root did not specify that there is a special agreement with the Recreation Board and it is paid for out of the Recreation Board funds. We have carried on operations in swimming pools for 8 years and the entire operation and expenses of the recreation program in Washington have always been paid for out of the recreation funds which are District funds. The Capper-Crampton money for the purchase of all parks since the adoption of that act, the land being paid for out of District funds and the only contribution on a national basis were the Federal contributions covering streets, lights, Police Department. That is in the Federal contribution. Mr. ABERNETHY. Are there any questions, gentlemen?

Do you have anything further you would like to add, Mr. Root? I beg your pardon for interrupting you.

Mr. Roor. The assessed value of our park areas is $287,000,000. Out of the Capper-Crampton Act involving $16,000,000 I can say that the District of Columbia had put out less than one-seventh of the cost of the present assessed value of the park system, but the people in the District of Columbia have the full use of the recreation

areas.

Chairman McMILLAN. Mr. Root, I would like to ask you if you think it will be possible to get together with the Recreation Board for the District of Columbia and work anything out? Do you think you would be willing to sit down and try to work out some reasonable agreement?

Mr. Root. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. I think though that we should include the author of the bill and the chairman of the committee. I would like to see that approach attempted. I think we can sit down and reach an understanding and agreement which might not make this bill necessary. I do not know, but I question very much whether the Interior Department would carry out the intent of Congress if you passed a bill like this. After all, the principal thing we are concerned about is swimming pools. We need not go into all areas that the Federal Government owns in the District of Columbia but our primary question is swimming pools. That is our primary problem and I woud like to see some arrangement worked out and I would like to see that done before any action is taken on this bill; if it can be done I think it should. Mr. SMITH. I suggest we go into executive session. (Letters and statements filed with the committee follow:) MICHIGAN PARK CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION, Washington, D. C., March 29, 1950.

Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, M. C.,

Chairman, House District Committee,
Room 445, Old House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: This letter will introduce Mrs. Karl Dickey, a member of the recreation committee of the Michigan Park Citizens' Association, who will represent this organization at your hearing on March 30.