But time has changed that, and there are many thousands here who were born in the District. And besides that, there are many people who live in the District where their States do not allow for absentee voters, and we realize that all these people have no franchise.

And, believing that this should be remedied without removing the responsibility of Federal management from the Congress, and believing, of course, that it is as true now as it was when the Government was set up, that the General Federation of Women's Clubs does support national representation for the District.

I am going to take time, if you do not mind, just to read that little short resolution.

Senator KEFAUVER. It will be placed in the record as part of your prepared statement.

Miss BUTLER. But, you see, we do place the responsibility on the Congress.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.

Miss BUTLER. And we do so because we feel, as the Federal city, it is their responsibility. But you also note in our statement we ask for the right of the people of the District to vote for the President, for the Vice President, and for representation in Congress.

We have supported such bills since 1935, and of course we will continue to unless you can get this one passed, and we hope you do.

We have urged and we urge now that under this resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 138, Congress give the people of the District the right to vote for the President, for the Vice President, and to elect Representatives in our national Congress. Such legislation, we believe, would give the people of the District their national heritage.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Miss Butler. It is encouraging to know that the General Federation of Women's Clubs takes an interest in this matter.

Miss BUTLER. We have been for a long time, and you can count on us for support.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes. That is very important support.
Miss BUTLER. Yes.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much for coming and being a witness.

Miss BUTLER. Thanks for letting us come.

(Miss Butler's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS ON NATIONAL
REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Sally Butler, Director of Legislation for the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

The Federation was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1901. The purpose as defined in the charter is "To unite women's clubs and like organizations throughout the world for the purpose of mutual benefit, and the promotion of their common interest in education, philanthropy, public welfare, moral values, civic and fine arts."

The membership of the General Federation is a cross section of women in every community in every State, including Alaska and Hawaii, and they are interested in and working for the welfare of our Nation.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs has long been interested in the status of people living in our National Capital, Washington, DC., is the concern of everyone in the United States, It belongs to all people as our National Capital. The people take pride in this fact.

It was designated by the Founding Fathers that responsibility of managing the District was the responsibility of the Congress of the United States. We think it is right that Congress have and retain this responsibility, for all the people have the right to tell the Congressmen what they want in their Capital City. We do not wish our Capital to be managed as is every other city in our Nation, because the situation is vitally different.

The District of Columbia is unique in that it is unlike any other city in the country. It is not the citizens living here who have this responsibility to the people of our country. In some ways it may seem unfair that those living in Washington cannot run the city government. However, when we face the fact we know that it is right that Washington, D.C., remain a Federal city, and that its government remains the responsibility of the Members of the United States Congress.

The members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs realize that certain conditions have changed since our Federal Government was placed in Washington, D.C. Namely, that at the time the District of Columbia was laid out as a national capital everyone here had come from some State. There were no native born persons in the District. But time has changed that situationthere are many native born citizens in our National Capital. There are also many who came here from States that do not provide for absentee voters. All these people have no franchise.

Believing this should be remedied without removing the responsibility of Federal management from the Congress, and believing it is as true in 1959 that our National Capital belongs to all the people of the United States as it was in 1878 (or when the present form of government was set up) the General Federation of Women's Clubs does support national representation for the District. In 1935, by national convention action, this organization passed a resolution urging national representation for the District of Columbia. In 1952 this resolution was reaffirmed and is still on our list of resolutions calling for affirmative action.

The resolution reads as follows:

"NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(Convention, 1935; reaffirmed, 1952)

"Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs endorses the principle that 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; and further

"Resolved, That the Congress give prompt and favorable consideration to this proposal of simple justice and submit it to the States for ratification as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

The members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs realize that Washington, D.C., is a unique city in the United States. They know it is a Federal city, so designated by the Founding Fathers, and do not question the wisdom of their decision.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs does not support home rule. We think it might take away the responsibility of Congress for a Federal city. We do believe the right of franchise, to vote for the President and Vice President, and for Representatives in the National Congress, would not relieve the Congress of its responsibility to all people of the United States in maintaining a Federal city as the seat of our Federal Government.

We are not sure that the people of the District could maintain our Capital City as it should be maintained if they were given home rule.

It would mean higher taxes and the situation would increase as our Government grows and has more and more tax-free land and buildings. This could be a heavier burden than the taxpayers could stand. Besides what assurance can the people not living in Washington have that our National Capital would be administered and maintained in a manner in which we would wish? After all Washington is the National Capital, and not just another city, and should not be the responsibility of those who by chance live in the District, but must remain the responsibility of our National Congress.

The General Federation of Women's Clubs urge this Congress to take immediate action and to vote favorably on legislation which under the Constitution of the United States provides for suffrage for citizens of the District of Columbia. We have supported such bills that have been presented to Congress since 1935, and we will continue to do so. We urge that this Congress give to the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President, and to elect Representatives in our National Congress. Such legislation would give to the people of the District their national heritage.

NOTE.--Dates used above were taken from Washington City and Capital, American Guide Series, 1937.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mrs. Milton Dunn, former President of the District of Columbia Chapter of the League of Women Voters.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MILTON DUNN, FORMER PRESIDENT, DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAPTER OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS

Senator KEFAUVER. Mrs. Dunn, it is good to see you again.
Mrs. DUNN. It is good to be here, Senator.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is the first one-page statement I have seen in a long time.

Mrs. DUNN. We have talked on this subject so many times that we just wanted to make it brief.

Ever since its organization, one of the aims of the League of Women Voters has been national representation for the District of Columbia. The files of the District of Columbia chapter contain pictures of the draped ballot boxes manned by our members on the street corners of our city on election days, and records of the efforts of our members to convince the Congress that such an amendment is necessary and just.

It was just 14 years ago this month that I represented the league before the Senate committee asking that the resolution introduced by Senator Capper be adopted. At that time, along with the junior chamber of commerce, we initiated a major effort to get the resolution passed by the Judiciary Committee. But in spite of the enthusiastic support of the community evidenced in a citywide plebiscite, sponsored by the board of trade, in which the citizens voted 11 to 2 in favor of national representation, the resolution never was reported out of committee. The greater part of our efforts in recent years has been on behalf of local suffrage as a means of giving us directly responsive machinery for solving our local problems. This shifting of emphasis has not detracted, however, from our desire for national representation and a vote for President and Vice President. We believe both are equally necessary if the citizens of Washington are to have their elementary democratic rights.

The League of Women Voters sincerely urges this committee to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 138, so that the process can be started by which the basic rights of American citizens will be granted to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Dunn. I know of the work of the League of Women Voters for home rule, and of your own work on its behalf.

Mrs. DUNN. And we appreciate your work.

Senator KEFAUVER. I feel as you do that this is not an "either/or" matter. I think the people are entitled to have both home rule and national representation.

Mrs. DUNN. We appreciate the work you have done on this, Senator. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Dunn. Unless there are questions of Mrs. Dunn, we thank you. (Subsequently there was received a letter from Mrs. Robert J. Phillips, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States, which was ordered to be made part of the record at this point.)

Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER,

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D. C., September 11, 1959.

Chairman, Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee,

Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear SENATOR KEFAUVER: Since 1922 the League of Women Voters of the United States has been on record in favor of voting privileges for the disfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia. To an organization dedicated to the principle of self-government, it makes no sense for this large group of American citizens to have no way of registering their choices at the ballot box. The situation in the District of Columbia is a blight on our governmental structure.

We therefore wholeheartedly support Senate Joint Resolution 138, which would grant representation in the electoral college and in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia.

We hope that your subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee will promptly report this measure, so that the Senate may have an opportunity to begin the process of righting the injustice under which District citizens have lived far too long.

We hope that you will include this statement of support for Senate Joint Resolution 138 in the record of the hearings.

Sincerely,

Mrs. ROBERT J. PHILLIPS, President.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. HODGKINS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. HODGKINS. My name is George W. Hodgkins. I am a native of the District of Columbia, and have been concerned about the voteless condition of the District of Columbia since the time when I would have been barred from voting by age as well as by residence.

I am a member of a number of organizations in Washington, all of which, if they concern themselves with this type of matter at all, are in favor of national representation for the District. Some of the details may be points on which I would disagree with some of my fellow members of those organizations. Three of those organizations have already been represented here today, and so there is not very much more for me to say.

I have felt for many years that the best approach to national representation for the District of Columbia is along the lines sponsored for some years by Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas and Representative Hatton Sumners of Texas. That has already been referred to, and is sometimes known as the enabling act type of resolution.

That was the type of resolution which was before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1945, as the previous witness has just said, and earlier in the same year before the corresponding committee of the House of Representatives. I find in the report of the Senate hearings of September 25, 1945, that a resolution of this type was approved, with some changes in wording, by the subcommittee, but I do not know of any action, for or against, by the full com

mittee at that time or in any later year. This inaction should be ended, but not necessarily by shifting to a different type of amend

ment.

If the long process of adopting a constitutional amendment is to be carried through, it should be adequate in covering what might be needed in the future for national representation without having to go back to the Nation for a further constitutional amendment to meet changed conditions or changed opinions. I think what we ought to have before us as something to be obtained eventually, if not immediately, is representation in both Houses of Congress and in the Electoral College up to, but of course not beyond, the representation which is accorded a State. If that is put in the enabling act type of amendment, anybody in Congress who might object to doing that right now ought to repose enough faith in future Congresses to give to Congress the constitutional power to act (also to modify or repeal) whenever a majority is convinced of the wisdom of it.

I also feel that Congress is a suitable repository for deciding some of the details which do not need to be put into the constitutional amendment itself. The Congress has, of course, a special constitutional relation to the District of Columbia. It also has a certain power over the extent of representation of other parts of the country through the admission of new States to the Union and through the apportionment of representation in the House among the States. It seems to me, therefore, that Congress would be a suitable repository for determining how much representation the District of Columbia, as a special Federal area, should have.

There has been, however, just one point which has appeared in that type of resolution, and also appears in the kind which is now before your subcommittee, that I would disagree with. As I have said, I think it is proper for Congress to have within its power some decision on the matter of admitting to representation and also on the number of representatives, but it does not seem to me a suitable constitutional provision for Congress to determine the powers of any Members of Congress or of the electoral college.

Senator KEFAUVER. You think that ought to be written out in the resolution itself?

Mr. HODGKINS. Rather it should be left as the Constitution now prescribes. So far as representation in the electoral college is concerned, I do not see how a presidential elector could have any powers different from another presidential elector. Similarly, in the Congress, it seems to me each House should have only Members who have the powers, privileges, and so forth, which are specified in the Constitution of the United States. There should not be any second-class Members of either House.

Of course, there are Delegates now, or have been up until fairly recently, Delegates from Territories, and there is now, I believe, a Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in the House of Representatives, which are not really constitutional Members of the House of Representatives.

Senator KEFAUVER. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Hodgkins.

We will have to go to the Senate and vote very soon. Is there any other point you wish to make?