STATEMENT OF J. BERNARD WYCKOFF, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WYCKOFF. I am J. Bernard Wyckoff, of 3252 S Street NW. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. What is your business?

Mr. WYCKOFF. I am with the Government, Mr. Chairman.

I have been a resident of the District for 30 years, and I am speaking today as an individual and not for any organization. To my mind the present city government, unrepresentative, except of a mínority group, over its period of life has been demonstrated to be unresponsive to the wishes and needs of the majority of the citizens of Washington.

My knowledge of this is based on my experience as leader of a group of citizens who had a major and impersonal interest in the improvement of the housing conditions of all who live in Washington, covering a period of 15 years.

I will give three examples: First, houses in the city wear out, just as does furniture in homes. To see that such worn-out houses do not become a safety or health menace, our city government has had legal authority to condemn them. For many years this condemnation law was applied properly and condemnation and demolition proceeded until about 20 years ago, when the District lost a suit to a landlord and condemnation ended. I might say that during the period of 20 years, from 1926 to 1946, over 3,000 buildings were condemned and were demolished.

In 1942 this group of citizens undertook to have the law amended and to catch up on the years lost. We had a little help from the District government and a long pull with Congress. With proper support there would now be thousands of houses repaired or replaced which, due to wartime overcrowding, have had to be winked at. If during the many years of lower building costs the city government had been properly responsive to community needs in this one particular, we would have had far fewer fire and health traps in our overcrowded slum areas.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Wyckoff, do you think that inattention or lack of interest which you complain about would be corrected if the citizens had a vote?

Mr. WYCKOFF. I feel that we would have a more responsive city government, and certainly one where the lack of response would not cover a period of 20 long years.

My second example: In 1940 the District Commissioners asked this group to prepare a housing code which would consolidate the numerous codes now in effect and strengthen their effectiveness. With great effort and some expense, a housing code was prepared and checked by experts in all the fields affected. For 7 years it has lain dormant, with the exception of a segment relating to rooming houses that was finally made operative during the war, making life bearable for half of our wartime working population. Meanwhile this code has been copied by many other cities. A responsive city government should have done more than to table this housing code, which was primarily intended to halt the spread of slums.

My third example is this: As has every other city of importance, we have a local housing authority which is recognized throughout the country for leadership in its field. Such authorities thrive only

with the support of their city governments. The fact that ours has been starved for 7 years is, to my mind, a reflection on the lack of local, official support. Although our city faces the loss of 4,000 low-rent dwellings in the next 2 years as required by the Lanham Act, our city officials have taken no aggressive action to assure their replacement. And although Congress gave us an Urban Redevelopment Act, the first in the country, no strong support for necessary appropriations has been given by the city government to make this act effective. The experience of this group has shown that much of our effort when applied to an unresponsive and nonrepresentative District government has been wasted, creating discouragement and some apathy. We believe that the same effort applied to a representative city government, elected by ourselves and those for whom our efforts are made, should create a response which would at least lend encouragement and results beneficial to the city as a whole. Such a government as is contemplated in this bill, therefore, has my full support.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Are there any questions?

Mr. ALLEN. What department of the Government are you with? Mr. WYCKOFF. The Department of Agriculture.

Mr. ALLEN. What type of work do you do?

Mr. WYCKOFF. Marketing research.

Mr. ALLEN. I see.

Mr. DEANE. Have you given any thought, Mr. Wyckoff, to dual voting as provided in the bill? Do you think it is reasonable? Mr. WYCKOFF. I do.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming here this morning.

We will next hear from Mrs. C. D. Lowe.

STATEMENT OF MRS. C. D. LOWE

Mrs. Lowe. I am Mrs. C. D. Lowe, 3429 Oakwood Terrace, NW. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. What is your occupation besides being a housewife?

Mrs. Lowe. I am just a housewife and resident of the District and very much interested in conditions here.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. That is fine.

Mrs. Lowe. In appearing before committees on the question of suffrage I have always represented some organization, but today I am appearing as a resident of the District of Columbia, and all the opinions that I shall give are my own.

I have lived in the District of Columbia for 25 years, and during that time I think I can truthfully say that I have served in some capacity in almost every welfare and civic organization in the District of Columbia. At the present time I am president of the District of Columbia Tuberculosis Association. I am corresponding secretary for the District Crippled Children's Society, I am a member of the advisory board of the District branch of the American Automobile Association, I am a member of the board of directors of the Washington Housing Association, and a member of the Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City. I am a member of the Women's City Club and

League of Women Voters, and am president of the Citizens Association and past president of the District Congress of Parents and Teachers. I might say that is where I first became interested in the welfare of the District of Columbia.

I mention these affiliations merely to show that I have had a wide experience in the educational, civic, and welfare work here in the District, and it is on this experience that I base my opinion.

I am convinced that the majority of the citizens here want a voice in their government, and I have consistently supported home rule for the District of Columbia; even when speaking for national representation I have stated that I thought local suffrage was more important and that we should strive for that.

There is no reason for me to dwell upon the reasons why we should have a vote. The reasons are self-evident and have been stated very ably by many of the previous witnesses. However, I would like to comment on a few of the statements that have been made by those who felt that here in the District we were not qualified to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship.

I believe it was Commissioner Young the first day of the hearing who expressed a doubt that the right kind of people would be able to serve on the council. I would like to remind the Commissioner that hundreds of loyal, hard-working citizens give most of their time to the community without any pay at all. I feel sure that these same people would be even more willing to work when they had some hope of results.

Mr. Fowler dwelt at some length on the fact that citizens could always come before the Commissioners and make their wants known. The results of hearings before our city officials have been so discouraging that many of them no longer attend such meetings. The present system is inefficient and we should have had a complete change long

ago.

I do not agree with those who say we could attain the same results without the vote. Our officials must be responsible to the people who have worked so long and hard to become real citizens in a democracy, and this gives us hope. We believe with this bill that we might get what we have so long worked for.

In respect to those who refuse anything less than the whole loaf, we are glad to accept the half. When a person is starving, he does not refuse a crust.

We regret very much that the opponents of local suffrage are throwing out those smoke screens and trying tactics to impress you, and we hope that the committee does not take them too seriously. Thank you, very much.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you for your fine statement.

I understand you are a member of the Committee on One Hundred on the Federal City.

Mrs. Lowe. Yes, I am, Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. The Committee of One Hundred is not of the same opinion as you are on this bill?

Mrs. Lowe. No, sir; I was one of the three who voted against the report that was brought in by the Committee of One Hundred. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Were you present at that meeting?

Mrs. Lowe. Yes, sir; I was.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. How many people were there?

Mrs. Lowe. I do not know, but at least 50.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. It wasn't a unanimous report?

Mrs. Lowe. Oh, no; when the final vote was taken, it was 13 to 3.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thirteen to three?

Mrs. Lowe. Thirteen to three; yes. That was the vote. Some wanted to be recorded as not voting, in protest against the report, which was quite a long report that was brought in and we were not given an opportunity to read it. We were asked to act on it without having studied it. It was a very long report and there were many things that just by hearing it read we could not grasp. That was the reason that I expressed my views on the elected school board, because that was one thing I could pick out of it that I knew something about; I had always been for an elected school board, and that was the point that I stressed-but there were other things in there that I could just as well have opposed, and I did oppose the whole report as brought in. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Is it your opinion that a vote where only 16 out of 100 people of the committee vote is hardly representative of that committee's views?

Mrs. Lowe. Oh, I am sure it isn't. I have talked to members and I am sure that it did not express their views. As a matter of fact, the question of a quorum did arise early in the meeting, and the chairman ruled that a quorum was present because the members had all been notified and if they did not appear, and did not show enough interest to appear, he would say the Chair would rule that there was a quorum present because everyone had been notified.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. That is a rather convenient way to have a quorum. Are there any questions?

Senator JOHNSTON. Have you read the entire bill?
Mrs. Lowe. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSTON. Every section of it?

Mrs. Lowe. I have read it all. Of course, I am no expert on bills, and for that reason I have not suggested any changes on anything in it because I haven't had very much experience in actually drafting one. What I would like to say here, though, is that I have always been in favor of the city manager. I do know something about improvements in one certain city after they had a city manager. I came to Washington 25 years ago from Knoxville, Tenn., and when I left there the conditions, if possible, were even worse than they are here in the District of Columbia. We lived in the suburbs and just every so often we would be completely without water because the city. waterworks would break down. Also on Sunday we could not use our gas oven because the gas was cut down to such an extent.

A few years afterward when I went back to visit, they had this city manager and conditions had improved so that you could hardly believe it, and now I have relatives there who say it is a wonderful city. Senator JOHNSTON. Have you studied any other cities comparable to Washington except Knoxville?

Mrs. Lowe. I do know about Cincinnati. My husband's people live in Cincinnati.

Senator JOHNSTON. Have you made a study of their city government?

Mrs. Lowe. No; I just know from the reports of those who live there under that particular manager form of government.

Mr. AUCHINOLOSS. Are there any further questions?

Mr. ALLEN. Mrs. Lowe, why are you in favor of elected school boards?

Mrs. Lowe. Well for many, many years I have been active in the Parent-Teacher Association and they have always thought that the elected school board was the only democratic way. I have been especially interested in it here. For many years the Parent-Teacher Association carried an elected school board as an active part of our legislative program, for the simple reason that we felt that in having our school board appointed by the judges, who were appointed by the President, that we were too far away from our schools; while we know that the judges are fine people, we don't think they are close enough to the schools or the people that they appoint. Another thing; we find that people are appointed to the school board in the District and the reappointments go on forever. That is not a personal reflection against anyone on the school board. All of those I know, and I know most of them, are all fine people; but the president of the school board has been on that board for 20 years, and I think that is too long; they just go on and on in office when they are appointed. I think there is a bill before Congress, I understand, now to limt the tenure of office for an appointed school board, and I would be for that. Mr. ALLEN. Is the Parent-Teacher Association still in favor of an elected school board?

Mrs. Lowe. Well, I am sorry to say it was taken off the program here. That is one of the stories of our undercover politics that is going on here in the District. It is a very unfortunate thing. It is not a very pretty story, but it is just like many of our other things that happen here in this so-called nonpolitical city. I for one would rather have our politics out in the open where we can fight and know what is going on rather than behind the doors and the undercover kind we have here, and I am sure that we have that kind.

Senator JOHNSTON. Is it or is it not true that most of the national education boards advocate the appointment of their heads?

Mrs. Lowe. Well, I do not know whether most of them do. I know some of them do. I would not say most.

Senator JOHNSTON. Why do they do that?

Mrs. Lowe. Well in most places, every place but the District of Columbia, as I tried to point out, they do have a voice in the electing of the people who appoint. Here we don't. We have no voice whatever, and the Parent-Teacher Association, the National ParentTeacher Association, carried that on their program-an elected School Board for the District of Columbia-for many years. A good many years ago we held a referendum in the schools and it was overwhelmingly in favor of an elected School Board, and for that reason we asked the national congress to put it on their program; after 32 of the States endorsed an elected School Board for the District, it was put on the national program and carried for many years until the District of Columbia, after this behind-the-doors, closed session that I spoke of, done very secretly, asked them to remove it from their program. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any further questions?

Mr. DEANE. I have one. I do not want to cause any strained relations between you and the members of the Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City.