quite unique in appearing as a representative of the Capital of the United States with no local autonomy whatsoever.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. McLaughlin, how many mayors or similar local officials attend this International Congress?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN, We had 1,250 mayors or representatives of mayors at West Berlin, this year. Two years ago

Senator KEFAUVER. Representing how many cities?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I can't say just offhand, but representing about 20 countries.

Senator KEFAUVER. And you are the only one there that was there from a city where the people had no vote?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir, I am the only one that I know of, and I circulated very widely in the Congress and spoke to many of them. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. McLaughlin.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. At this point in the record I shall place a very thoughtful editorial of the Washington Post of September 8 entitled, "The Franchise Amendments."

(The editorial referred to is as follows:)

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 8, 1959]

THE FRANCHISE AMENDMENTS

Two of the proposed constitutional amendments that are moving toward a vote in the Senate are almost above controversy. Senator Holland's resolution, which has the approval of a judiciary subcommittee and of enough cosponsors to pass it by the required two-thirds majority, would outlaw poll taxes in the States. Senator Keating's resolution to allow residents of the District of Columbia to vote in presidential elections is less favored in the number of its sponsors, but it is so solidly based on democratic principles that any objection to it is difficult to imagine.

Originally Senator Keating had intended to attach his proposed amendment to the anti-poll-tax measure. We think he was well advised to keep the issues separate to avoid any possible consolidation of opposition. It is highly desirable, moreover, that each proposed change in the Constitution stand on its own merits. Nevertheless, it would be good strategy to advance the two measures at the same time.

Some opposition to the abolition of the poll tax may be heard from the five States which still require such levies. But to the country as a whole taxing the ballot is as obsolete as property qualifications for voting. The country has waited long enough for the five States to bring their own laws into conformity with 20th century democracy.

As for the Keating resolution, the only conceivable argument against it is that it does not give the District full representation in Congress as well as in the presidential electoral system, although it does provide for three delegates in the House and they could be made voting representatives if Congress should so decide. Even a limited vote for presidential electors, however, would be a long step forward from this community's total disfranchisement, and it should have no adverse effect on home rule. To both of these propositions we respond in the language that Justice Holmes once used to indicate his concurrence in a Supreme Court opinion: "Wee-Mussoo-I float in a fairy bark to the bight and serenely anchor there with you."

Senator KEFAUVER. Our next witnesses are Mr. E. K. Morris, president of the Washington Board of Trade, and Mr. Elwood Davis, chairman, National Representation Committee, Washington Board

of Trade.

You can testify together or separately, as you wish. (It was agreed that they would testify separately.)

STATEMENT OF E. K. MORRIS, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF TRADE, ACCOMPANIED BY ELWOOD DAVIS, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. MORRIS. I am E. K. Morris, president of the Washington Board of Trade. This organization, serving as the chamber of commerce for the Capital of the Nation, has a voluntary membership of approximately 7,000 business, professional, and civic leaders of the community and has been, since its inception in 1889, the largest and most effective nongovernmental agency in the area dealing with the problems and development of the District of Columbia.

The resolution before the subcommittee today, Senate Joint Resolution 138, deals with a principle which the board of trade first endorsed 45 years ago, on April 24, 1916, to be exact, when it initiated a movement to secure for residents of the District the right to vote for President and Vice President and voting representation in the Congress.

Since that early date, the efforts of the board of trade to secure the enactment of this type of legislation have been extensive. Let me mention just a few brief highlights.

In March 1943, the board of trade reiterated a position, which it had also taken in 1921, giving support to the Sumners-Capper resolution which provided an amendment to the Constitution empowering the Congress to grant representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President to the people of the District of Columbia.

Again on November 6, 1944, the board of trade went on record as favoring the submission of a national representation amendment by the Congress to the people of the United States, and on October 21, 1946, renewed their support of the former Sumners-Capper proposal. On February 6, 1950, the board of trade went on record as actively supporting Senate Joint Resolution 132 and House Joint Resolution 390, proposed by Senator Neely and Representative Teague to provide representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.

On May 17, 1954, the board of trade reaffirmed its past position of supporting the provisions of the Sumners-Capper resolution.

On March 21, 1955, the board of trade again endorsed the right to vote for President and Vice President, and representation in Congress by supporting House Joint Resolution 215 and House Joint Resolution 216, introduced by Representative Broyhill of Virginia. As recently as 1957, the position of the board of trade was reaffirmed when it endorsed House Joint Resolution 18, introduced on January 3, 1957, by Representative Broyhill, and which provided for the vote for President and Vice President.

On July 1 of this year, when I accepted the presidency of the board of trade, I commented on this subject as follows:

It is a matter of simple justice that by free elections we be granted proper representation in the Congress, which has, and quite properly should have, final legislative authority in the government of the Federal City. Also we should have a voice in the selection of the President and Vice President of the United States. It is inconceivable that the individual States of our country would fail to ratify an amendment to the Constitution giving us these ordinary privileges of citizenship.

It is inconceivable that this amendment to the Constitution should fail, gentlemen, because the population of the District of Columbiawith no representation in Congress-outnumbers the Americans in 12 States: New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and New Mexico, as well as the new States of Alaska and Hawaii.

The District of Columbia exceeds the combined population of Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming by 27,000; yet these three States are represented by nine men in the Congress. The citizens of the Nation's Capital have none.

It is inconceivable that this amendment to the Constitution should fail, gentlemen, because in relation to national taxes, the sole function of District citizens is to contribute. We have no vote in determining, like other taxpayers, the amount and kind of taxes we shall pay, and how the money shall be spent.

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, the District of Columbia paid in national taxes $363,210,489. Since that date, 11 years ago, District of Columbia taxes have been reported as Maryland collections. It is obvious that the figures today would be much greater. (This amount omits "payroll taxes"-collections under the Social Security and Carrier Acts inasmuch as they represent payment toward trust funds for the purposes of these acts, and are not paid for by the support of the Federal Government.)

The District of Columbia contributed in national taxes in 1948 to be expended by Congress in war and peace more than the national taxes contributed in 25 States having a total of 148 votes in Congress. The District of Columbia has none.

It is inconceivable that this amendment to the Constitution should fail, gentlemen, because figures covering the services of citizens of the District of Columbia in the Armed Forces in World War II show that the District's contribution was greater than those of 14 States. Those States were: Maine, Rhode Island, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming, and Nevada. There were 68,361 citizens of the District of Columbia serving in the Army; 29,729 in the Navy; 3,966 in the Marine Corps, and 1,320 in the Coast Guard.

This makes a grand total of 103,376 men and women from the District of Columbia defending the United States and yet having no voice in the selection of the President and Vice President or any representation in the Congress which sent them to war.

Regarding casualties, the District of Columbia, where 3,029 failed to return, had the highest rate of dead and missing in the Nation, 5.05 percent. For the Nation as a whole, the dead and missing rate was 2.98 percent.

A striking contrast was shown between the fighting men and women from the States and those from the District of Columbia in the absentee voting program adopted for military personnel. Although the military served their country side by side, when the application cards for absentee ballots were passed out, they were denied District service personnel. Members of Congress were insistent in their pleas that every fighter on land, in the air, or on the sea should be insured the right to vote, but nothing was done for those from the National Capital for whom no constitutional provision to vote existed.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the measure before you today, Senate Joint Resolution 138, will provide the citizens of the District of Columbia the fundamental rights of citizenship which they have long been denied.

The position of the Washington Board of Trade on this subject through the years is best summed up in the statements of May 20, 1954, by E. F. Colladay, then general counsel of the board of trade, and F. Elwood Davis, then chairman of its National Representation and District of Columbia Form of Government Committee when appearing before this same subcommittee with reference to Senate Joint Resolution 136. That resolution also was to provide an amendment to the Constitution to empower Congress to grant representation in the Congress and in the electoral college to the citizens of the District of Columbia. Mr. Colladay and Mr. Davis expressed it in these few lines:

"The Congress shall have power to provide that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine, but such representation and powers shall be no greater than those of a State."

With this statement of fundamental policy in mind, we should prefer that the specific representation in Congress be left to the discretion of the Congress itself, thereby enabling proper future adjustments based on fluctuating population.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we endorse this resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 138.

I thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the Washington Board of Trade.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Davis, you have a statement also, do you not?

STATEMENT OF F. ELWOOD DAVIS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL REPRESENTATION AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FORM OF GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. Your statement looks fairly long.

Mr. DAVIS. I can cover it in summary form.

Senator KEFAUVER. We can print it all; you summarize it, if you will, because we have quite a number of other witnesses.

Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate that.

In summary, my statement covers the history of the development of the District of Columbia and its form of government. It covers the fact that the last time the citizens for the District had an opportunity to vote was in 1800, when by a special act of Congress they received the right to vote for President and Vice President.

I further cover in this presentation a review of what Madison meant in The Federalist when he said that the Federal City will have their voice in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them. It means that they will have a voice in the Congress, which has the exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

I then discuss the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution concerning suffrage which would preclude the citizens of the District from a right to vote, and quote the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments, and state that the only thing missing is the machinery which the Constitution failed to provide and which Congress does not have the authority to provide.

Senator KEFAUVER. Then you agree that an amendment is necessary? Mr. DAVIS. I agree that an amendment is necessary.

Then I quote an argument presented by the late Henry Glassie in which he said that one of the dangers we faced in fighting for national representation is that we have been talking about it for so long that some have lost interest.

But then I reiterate our present interest by saying that those who are here today show you that we do have an interest, and in 1921 there was formed a joint committee with the late Mr. Noyes as the first chairman, and that committee worked vigorously in favor of national representation, the right to vote for President and Vice President and representation in the Congress with such numbers and powers as the Congress should determine to be proper.

Among the members of that committee were 38 organizations, and in my prepared statement I set forth such distinguished organizations as the Federation of Citizens Associations, the Central Labor Union, Merchants and Manufacturers Association, Association of Oldest Inhabitants, Washington Real Estate Board, Women's Bar Association, District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, Society of Natives, the Associated Retail Credit Men of Washington, Department of District of Columbia Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the same Department of the American Legion, the local Union of Federal Employees, District of Columbia Bankers Association, District of Building and Loan Associations, Washington section, National Council of Jewish Women, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others, not only of a local nature but of a National and State and regional nature.

In my conclusion I say:

The aforesaid organizations and those of us who appear here today are uncontroversial evidence of the overwhelming desire of the citizens of the District of Columbia to have the right to vote for President, Vice President, and representation in the Congress.

The board of trade has vigorously supported, and will continue to support, an amendment to the Constitution to provide that District residents will have a vote for President, Vice President, and representation in the Congress that legislates for it, and does go on record in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 138.

It does, however, firmly believe that a more equitable constitutional amendment would be one substituting, in lieu of 3 delegates to the House of Representatives, a clause providing for representation in the Congress in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine, but such representation and powers shall be no greater than those of a State.

The board of trade sincerely thanks this subcommittee for calling this hearing and for considering the proposed constitutional amendment. We urge that your subcommittee adopt a favorable report and spearhead the enactment by both Houses of Congress of an amendment