Evening star., 1949-07-07

Education whether this would
tend toward non-segragatlon."
Mr.. Graham said that while
newspapermen were supposed to
know everything, my crystal ball
is not that good
In his turn on the witness stand,
Mr.. Waldrop expressed the hope
that Congress would start the
necessary procedure for a Consti-
tutional amendment giving the
District national representation.
There is no sense in refusing
the people here the political rights
granted Others" he said. I'VE
ought to have representation in
the House and Senate"
Mr.. Waldrop agreed to a suG-
gestion that part of the National
Capital might be receded to Mary
land. Let the Federal govern
ment have its own grounds and
buildings. and the rest of the
Capital could go back tc Mary
land" he said.
The Times Herald editor also
said that the pending nea ,ilres 90
not necessarily mean anything so
far as home rule is concerned.
That's misnomer."
Agrees It's Misnomer.
Chairman Harris interiected:
Il agree with that thoroughly. I
congratulate you on that state
ment. The only way to get real
home rule for Washington would
be to cede back to Maryland, and
give the people the same rights
to vote as they have in 3altirlCre.
or to give Constitutional amend
ment to give people here the right
to vote for President and Vice
President"
In his statement opposing home
rule, Mr.. Lusk discounted the in
formal votes in the 1916 home rule
plebiscite, and sought to show that
substantial elements in the District
opposed the plan.
He listed the Board of Trade,
the Junior Chamber of Commerce.
the Federation of Business Mems
Association, the District Depart
ment of the American Legion. the
Committee of 100 on the Federal
City, along with the Washington
Real Estate Board, the Building
Owners and Managers Associa-
ton, the Metropolitan Homebuild-
ers' Association and the Wash
ington Building Congress.
Raises Colored Question.
After listing these groups which
he said opposed plans for an
elected city government. Mr.. Lusk
said it was time to stop, look and
listen
Mr.. Lusk, in an analysis Of the
1916 informal suffrage plebiscite.
also sought to show that only a
minority of those entitled to
vote" went to the polls" and
that the strongest sentiment for
home rule came from 'ihe colored
precincts.
+ He also drew a contrast in the
efficiency of Washington City
T government to that of tax
ridden or graft-ridden" cities of
Baltimore. Philadelphia, Jersey
City, New York, Boston. Chicago
and Kansas City.
In his attack on the results OF
the 1916 prebiscite, Mr.. Lusk pro-
tested there had been a lot of
what he called propaganda to get
people to go to the polls. This
uganda. he said. exceeded ANY
I have ever seen" even for War
Bond drives of the Community
Chest.
But what happened?" he
asked.
20 Per Cent Voted.
Answering his own question, he
said:
Barely 20 per cent of all the
people who were entitled to vote
actually did and the result was
that only 10 per cent of them
voted for an elected city council.
When this is broken down fur
ther. we find that 97.5 per cent
of those voting in the colored pre-
cincts voted for a city council"
Mr.. Lusk continued.
In IA of the white precincts,
the vote was adverse, that is "a
per cent of the precincts in the
white areas of our town voted
against the election of a city
council.
If this right to elect city
council is such a sacred thing
how does it happen that anybody
voted aoainst ito" he asked