land, namely the existing District of Columbia, was removed from the State of Maryland without the enactment of any proper Redistricting Law to authorize such a change and that the removal caused District of Columbia citizens' Congressional voting rights to be watered down to the point of nonexistence, one can only wonder how it all happened.

The answer is that our democratic system has so many built-in delays and procedures that an average citizen is powerless to communicate with the government officials who are sworn to correct any gross Constitutional violations that may come to their attention. My testimony before this Subcommittee is a case in point. When the time finally came in the hearing for me to say one word orally before the Subcommittee the Chairman announced that he had another appointment and that my only opportunity to deliver oral testimony would be to address myself solely to the Subcommittee's Council. Although I have the greatest respect for the learned Subcommittee's Council I do feel that Congress should have the time and Congressmen available to assign at least one Congressman to hear the oral testimony of the spokesman for each of the major points of view concerning the question of restoring Congressional voting rights to District of Columbia citizens. It is possible that a fair and impartial judge would say my point of view is trivial and doesn't warrant major consideration. However, I submit that precedence is all on my side of this issue.

It is a historical fact that the only time that District of Columbia citizens were authorized to vote in Congressional Elections following the 1790 cession, they voted for a period of ten years in Maryland Congressional Elections. During this ten year period the part of the District of Columbia which was ceded by Virginia presumedly also voted in the Virginia Congressional Elections. In about 1846 the Virginia part of the District of Columbia was returned to the State of Virginia and today this receded section continues to exercise its Congressional voting privileges through the Virginia Congressional Elections. I lived in or nearly in this receded section of Virginia for two years and during that time I heard no complaints from the local citizens about any problems that may have arisen in regard to the local citizens of the receded section being able to exercise their Congressional voting rights through Virginia Elections.

It is a fact that no Constitutional Amendment was necessary to restore full Congressional voting rights to the citizens residing in the section of the original District of Columbia that had been ceded to Congress by the State of Virginia. Although Congress has given back its power to veto local legislation in the said receded section of Virginia, with the exception of the Pentagon and certain other Federal territories located therein, I would say the same general procedure is the logical and simple way to restore full Congressional voting rights to that part of the original District of Columbia which was ceded by the State of Maryland.

Although it may well be that I am not a very competent advocate for my point of view, that my twenty-four hour notice to the Subcommittee's Council that I wished to present oral testimony at this public hearing was a show of insufficient diligence, and that my wordiness would do credit to a filibustering Senator, I submit that Congress managed the District of Columbia local government properly in the ten year period that immediately followed cession in 1790. Congress proved then that delegating the District of Columbia's local government to the Maryland State Legislature subject to a Congressional veto in any matter that might conflict with the Federal interest was, beyond all doubt of the eye-witnesses, an admirable way to run this Federal territory and at the same time protect and guarantee the right of all District of Columbia citizens to have an equal voice in exercising their Maryland Congressional Election voting rights. The trouble is that there is not enough inertia in the Federal Government. When Congress hits on a fine workable scheme for running things it should stick to it.

Congress really doesn't have to make any excuses about its early performance in the District of Columbia. The United States Supreme Court deserves all the credit for pushing Congress off the track with respect to running the District of Columbia. Congress never passed any law removing the present District of Columbia territory from the force of the Maryland Congressional Election Laws. The Supreme Court should never have declared that the District of Columbia had been removed from the State of Maryland until the Court could produce the Act of Congress which authorized this removal.

I believe the District of Columbia should be treated as the early controlling Acts of Congress provided that it should be treated. The Congressional Act of

Cession of 1790 provided that the land ceded from Maryland remain under the laws of Maryland until Congress provides otherwise. I believe the laws of Maryland regulating Maryland Congressional Elections should be corrected to conform to the general principle laid down by Congress in the 1790 Act of Cession that the District of Columbia should be treated as an integral part of the State of Maryland purposes of Congressional Elections until Congress provides otherwise.

If Congress does not wish the District of Columbia to be a part of Maryland, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to create one or more new states out of the District of Columbia. I recognize that certain District of Columbia citizens would like to see the District of Columbia converted into about ten new states with about twenty seats in the United States Senate for the exclusive use of District of Columbia citizens. I would like to see about twenty Black faces in the United States Senate for a change but there are other constructive ways of accomplishing this goal. The Negroes that I have had the pleasure of knowing do not wish any preferential treatment. The Negro wants to be treated like a man and he takes pride in being able to compete successfully with other men when racial prejudice and bigotry are absent.

Frankly, I am convinced that the District of Columbia is composed by and large of people who would be a credit to any state and even if Congress had not already decreed by law that the District of Columbia continue to be treated as a legal part of the State of Maryland, I would be an ardent advocate in favor of political union of the District of Columbia and the rest of Maryland. Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM A. ALBAUGH,

Mount Rainier, Md.
NOVEMBER 11, 1967.

Hon. BIRCH BAYH,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to request that this letter be made part of my November 9 letter to you on the continuing dialogue about how best to return full Congressional voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. I would like to address myself here to correcting a terrible mistake I made in my oral testimony, to expanding the discussion on the 1960 census of the District of Columbia population, and to saying something about keeping the Metropolitan Police Force under the direct control of Congress whether the local government of the District of Columbia is delegated to an elected and autonomous city government or to the Maryland State Legislature.

In the oral testimony I gave the Subcommittee's Counsel an incorrect answer to his question about how much popular support there might be to the idea that there should be a political reunion of the present District of Columbia and the State of Maryland. I said that about 99.99% of the citizens of the two jurisdictions would be unalterably opposed to such a reunion. This was simply an emotional answer which reflected my warped political point of view and is a mistake that should be corrected.

The fact that the Chairman of this Subcommittee turned his back upon me the minute I announced my name at the witness stand at the November 9 public hearing, announced he had another pressing appointment that required his immediate departure, and left the hearing room before he could hear one word of my testimony is no reason for the average citizen to conclude that the Chairman is unalterably opposed to my point of view. However, after ten years of trying to present oral testimony in favor of this reunion point of view to various members of Congress, elected members of the Maryland State Legislature, elected members of the Democratic and Republican Central Committees for the District of Columbia, and all the Maryland Democratic voters who voted in the 1962 Primary Election together with all the Maryland Republican voters who voted in the 1964 Primary Election whose attention was drawn to candidates trying to represent the whole state in the United Sates Congress, not to mention half the Federal Judges and the Press who operate in this overall jurisdiction, I have discovered that the average person will tune out as soon as he sees my face or hears my name. The fact that nobody loves me should not necessarily be interpreted as a 100% vote against the reunion proposition that I advocate. I think most people are just like the Chairman of this Subcommittee. They are very busy people with a thousand and one things that somebody expects them

to be doing all at one instant. Also there are a number of people like those who write the newspaper and schedule the TV shows who must use some discretion in deciding who is to have free access to the public media and who is to enjoy all the fringe benefits and hazards that go along with massive public exposure. I am sure some people turn their backs upon me instantly because they can tell at a glance that I am not the type of person who deserves the prestige of being able to communicate directly with a very important person. Finally, most people avoid opposition like the plague and when they run into a person like me who is ready 24 hours a day to argue with anybody about any subject, they can't get out of the room fast enough. Because only a few legal and historical experts on the District of Columbia are willing to discuss the issue with me is no reason to say most of the people are against the idea of reunion.

About three hundred thousand residents of the District of Columbia have moved to the Maryland Suburbs in the last twenty years. The fact that they continue to hold their jobs in the District of Columbia, continue to associate with their lifelong friends in the District of Columbia, spend a good part of their money and time there, and do more to jam the streets of the District of Columbia than do the local residents is all the evidence necessary to support the correct statement that the local residents of the District of Columbia have absolutely no prejudice against Maryland citizens or becoming Maryland citizens themselves. Many of my friends are like Senator Morse, in that they maintain a place in the District of Columbia and one outside in Maryland. They would be hard put to say which place is their home because they have strong interests in both places. Many vote in Maryland although they usually spend most of their time in the District of Columbia. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that District of Columbia citizens who also have a home in Baltimore City and vote in Maryland would be opposed to reuniting the District of Columbia with the State of Maryland. They already claim to be Maryland citizens so the change would be meaningless for them except it would raise the property value of property in the District of Columbia. When one adds to this the huge ex-District of Columbia citizen population living in the Maryland Suburbs today who have very strong ties with their relatives and close friends still living in the District of Columbia one must conclude that if one judges this matter on action rather than words, District of Columbia citizens are going to become Maryland citizens whether the reunion is made legal or not. If District of Columbia citizens really would rather be dead than a Maryland citizen, how does one explain the recent mass movement of District of Columbia citizens moving their beds to the Maryland Suburbs while continuing to operate their businesses as usual in the District of Columbia?

The answer is obvious. People don't do what they don't want to do. The present District of Columbia citizens have nothing against becoming Maryland citizens and the present citizens of the State of Maryland have nothing against permitting all the District of Columbia citizens becoming Maryland citizens. The only real argument on this subject is between pseudopoliticians and other publicity hounds who are using this issue to get their names on the front page of the local newspaper and perhaps increase their chances of getting elected to Congress next year.

The second point I would like to address myself to is the question of the real population of the District of Columbia at the time of the 1960 census. I was a resident of the District of Columbia on April 1, 1960 and knew personally some of the census takers operating in the Dupont Circle section of the District of Columbia. At the time I had only a single room in a boarding house and the only contact I had with the Census Department was an empty census form left at my door. I think I filled out the form and mailed it in. The form may have well been lost in the mail if it was ever mailed.

Judging by my conversation with census takers working other neighborhoods of the District of Columbia there was every evidence of a sizable undercount in the ghetto area where I lived. When nobody answers the door of a building the census taker is at a complete loss to know how many people are living in the building. If these doors failed to answer on the third or fourth return trip of the census taker, the census taker forgot about returning another time. The pay was on a piece work basis I believe and nobody could expect these census takers to subsidize the Census Department.

Ghetto analysts estimate that a good ten percent of the Negro population missed the 1960 Census. This would suggest that there were fifty thousand Negro citizens in the District of Columbia in 1960 whom the Census Department missed.

I don't doubt it. Very few criminals, drop-out school age children, or men trying to avoid alimony were anxious that anybody know where they usually slept. Because of the persecution of Senator Robert Byrd that keeps women on welfare in the District of Columbia in line, these women certainly couldn't be expected to volunteer to the public census taker the names of all the people who normally sleep in their respective homes. When you add to this the normal incompetence associated with anything the Federal government does, you shouldn't be surprised to find that the real population of the District of Columbia in 1960 was closer to 850,000 than to the reported 764,000. It is possible that as many as twenty thousand people counted in the District of Columbia are really voting residents of the State of Maryland or some other state.

I don't suppose I was a typical District of Columbia resident in 1960. I was counted in the District of Columbia 1960 population or I was not counted at all. However, all the time I lived in the District of Columbia I maintained a residence in the Maryland Suburbs. Right after the census was taken I moved back full time to my Maryland Suburban residence and have been there ever since. No doubt there were many others living in one of the states outside the District of Columbia at the time the census was taken who immediately moved their permanent residence to the District of Columbia right after the census was taken. If one were honest and wanted to take an accurate census of the population one would be prepared to pay a sizable bonus to every person who was registered and counted and, of most importance, everybody submitting their names to the census count should be guaranteed absolute immunity against the use of the census registration for any purpose other than that of preparing an accurate census count. I think Congress should and could easily take an accurate annual census of the population if they will give absolute immunity and privacy to the people involved. One other way to keep an accurate record of the non-criminal population is to credit each United States citizen's Government Bank Account with a five hundred dollar guaranteed annual payment on the first day of every year. With the use of high speed computers I will personally guarantee that this banking mechanism will keep a very accurate and very up to date record of the non-criminal population. It is possible that some small time criminals might even submit to being finger printed, to being given a free public health examination, and being registered as usually sleeping in one particular place if they automatically get the free five hundred dollar annual payment for their trouble. My last point in discussing the important matter of returning full Congressional voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia deals with the matter of running the Metropolitan Police Force. When one recalls the recent incident where a Diplomat from Texas, better known as the Honorable Congressman Joe Pool from Dallas, was picked up by the unconscionable Arlington Police Force on a drunk driving charge in the middle of the night and thrown into the Police tank for a couple of hours to cool off like an ordinary criminal, one wonders if it was such a good idea for Congress to give the bottom of the District of Columbia back to the State of Virginia in 1846 so that the Arlington Police could have jurisdiction over this ex-District of Columbia territory?

I think these incidents can be avoided in the future by giving the Washington Metropolitan Police a larger role to play and assigning the Under Secretary of the Department of Interior of the United States to assume full command of this Police Force. The Metropolitan Police Force should be given overriding control and jurisdiction of all police matters occurring within a radius of ten miles of the White House. This Federal Police Force can easily be subdivided into appropriate departments and assigned to the various political subdivisions of the Washington Metropolitan Area and given orders to carry out all the police work orders of the elected government of the subdivisions insofar as such local government police work does not conflict with Federal government interests. This should put an end to the practice of throwing Congressmen into the tank on drunk driving charges whether they are guilty or not.

There are many Diplomats who come to Washington on Federal business and these honored guests should be given the complete run of the house. If it happens that the Diplomats or their relatives inadvertently murder, rob, or rape other Diplomats or even ordinary people who just happen to be in the area, this can all be easily taken care of by a nationalized Metropolitan Police Force which will use the proper discretion and not create a public scandal.

Therefore, in the discussion about returning Congressional voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia, it should be stressed that nobody is advocating an end to Diplomatic immunity in the District of Columbia for those members of the royal set who may be visiting Washington. It is legally possible

and desirable that the Washington Metropolitan Police Force remain under the direct control of Congress whether the citizens of the District of Columbia exercise their equal Congressional voting rights as citizens of the State of Maryland or as citizens of some other political entity. Likewise, it is proper that Congress retain direct control of the Metropolitan Police Force whether the local government is delegated back to the Maryland State Legislature subject to a Congressional veto or delegated back to an elected District of Columbia Local Government subject to a Congressional veto.

Many people of royal origin are constantly visting Washington and their safety and comfort is most important. I believe a nationalized Washington Metropolitan Police Force can and will guarantee the safety, comfort, and prestige of our royal guests. By the same token, I believe a nationalized Police Force assigned to the various local political subdivisions on temporary duty can and will strengthen our local governments, aid in guaranteeing all the citizens of the District of Columbia an opportunity to exercise all their national and local voting rights, and at all times insure that their national interests will take precedence and be firmly protected.

Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM A. ALBAUGH,
Mount Rainier, Md.

(The subcommittee received the following statements for inclusion in the record:)

Hon. BIRCH E. BAYH,

WASHINGTON, D.C. November 8, 1967.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments,

Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I am attaching herewith my statement for the record of your hearings being conducted on Congressional representation for the District of Columbia.

I am in support of FULL Congressional representation for the people of the District of Columbia :

Very truly yours, Attachment.

LEONARD S. BROWN, JR.

District of Columbia congressional representation

STATEMENT OF LEONARD S. BROWN, JR., MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUBS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Once it be postulated that the District is entitled to voting representation here, no less than full membership in both Houses can be justified. The people of each of the 50 States are represented in this House according to their numbers, and in the other body by two Senators. To accord the people of the District only a single Representative when their population may entitle them to more transgress the one-man, one-vote doctrine currently so widely accepted. To deny them their equal suffrage in the Senate would leave them uniquely among the people who have direct voting representation in Congress, only half represented, with a political voice in one house of a bicameral legislature but not in the other . . . [I]f the District is to be granted representation at all, it should be granted that representation to which it would be entitled if it were a State.-Honorable Edward Hutchinson, Report No. 819, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary I am submitting this statement on Congressional representation for the District of Columbia as a private citizen and as a registered political scientist, and not as a representative of the organizations in which I happen to hold membership.

I support the adoption by the Congress of a Constitutional amendment granting full Congressional representation (two Senators and Representatives) for our nation's capital city. I would go much further than the proposal of the President and those others that differ from House Joint Resolution 396, as approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary. My position is simlar to that