County than in St. Louis proper, they would not hesitate a minute, would they?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think perhaps you are correct.

Senator HRUSKA. We can be idealistic if we want to. I have fallen heir to that situation once in a while. Others can speak for themselves Senator BAYH. Let me say I am certain all of us who serve in public life have made mistakes. But basically I would hate for us to get into a position where we admit that legislators from a given area, taking by and large the majority of the time, are not going to have the backbone to stand up and levy taxes that are needed for schools, roads mental health, and all this. No constitutional amendment is going to avoid this.

If this is true, then we have a weakness in our democratic system that just cannot be corrected by a constitutional amendment. It goes to human nature.

Senator HRUSKA. If the Senator would yield.

The constitutional amendment cannot do that, or the absence of one cannot do it. If those political pressures build up in one part of a State and make it necessary for the majority of the members of a house to vote the way the pressures build up in the press and otherwise there will be nothing that can stop it, nothing. They will be absolute oligarchs, in both houses. That is the danger of this. That is the problem-no checks and balances. It is a question of King Numbers that is what it is. That is exactly it. You can implore them and say I would hate to think but the fact is that is how it is.

In Cook County, Ill., for example, in the city of Chicago, witness the voting records there, witness the voting records in New York City. or witness it in St. Louis, any of the larger cities. If that is where the control of the legislature is going to be, they are going to run the show. Where those pressures build up, that is going to be it. They are ther going to have to face that decision, which is anathema in the life of politician: Will I vote patriotically, will I rise above principle, or will 1 vote to preserve my political life?

Senator BAYH. Apparently I didn't make myself clear.

I was trying to find specific examples, in the experience of the speaker, of cases where the large metropolitan area has indeed im posed sanctions on a rural area, or vice versa. Where the well-being of a State was involved, are the rural legislators willing to help thi well-being if it is in the city, and are the city legislators willing to assist this economic interest if it is in the rural area? And the speaker said this has been his experience that there had been no punitive legislation.

I do wish that you would give us some more information about this earnings tax, because it would be most helpful, as well as not necessarily a map, but the final result of the Supreme Court one-man. one-vote on area representation. How large an area would be encompassed?

Mr. GRAHAM. All right, sir.

Senator BAYH. I happen to be one of these peculiar animals tha thought States rights should go one step further and should involve more local rights. Indiana is one of the few States that doesn't have home-rule provisions. I led the charge and was defeated on a couple of occasions to try to give our local communities home rule. It seems

inconsistent to me for us to talk about State rights, and then not demand that each municipality accept a maximum amount of responsibility for governing itself. If the people of Indianapolis want or need a large community center, auditorium, or building, and are unwilling to provide means to finance this, then I don't think they should have it. They should be willing to stand up and take the bull by the horns and recognize that responsible government demands that you provide means to finance it, if it is to function.

Perhaps this is not the case in Missouri and other States. But I think our State legislators have to recognize they have a responsibility, just as we have in the Congress.

Senator HRUSKA. It might be. If all the control is in the metropolitan areas, what is to stop the brute majority from saying, "Let's have this community center and charge it all to State taxes?" There would be no one to say nay. That is the very vice where there is a loss of checks and balances.

Mr. GRAHAM. Another interesting aspect of home rule. St. Louis and Kansas City do not have home rule. We spend perhaps 60 percent of our time legislating for St. Louis and Kansas City. We set the police salaries, we set the officeholders in St. Louis and Kansas City, the Governor appoints the police board in St. Louis and Kansas City. We would love to get rid of it. We cannot do it.

Senator BAYH. I see the Speaker and I share some very common feelings.

I questioned you at too great length. Excuse me.

My colleague from Nebraska?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, would you be interested in knowing the 19-having the 19 States that have adopted the resolution calling upon Congress to call a constitutional convention, or in the alterna

tive

Senator BAYH. I would be glad to have that submitted into the record. I think as of yesterday we were discussing whether it is 21 or 22.

(The information referred to follows:)

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES RESOLUTION ON APPORTION MENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES

Resolution passed both Houses in the following States:

1. Alabama

2. Alaska

3. Arizona

4. Arkansas

á Georgia

& Idaho

i. Kansas

Senator HRUSKA. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, you conceive of this resolution No. 2 as being an opportunity for the people to express themselves on whether or not they want to modify in part the rule of Reynolds v. Sims.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Without this resolution or something similar, will the people of any of the States have a chance to do that?

48-124-65- -13

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; not under-my understanding of the Supreme Court's ruling, they have told us in Missouri, unless we reapportion under this one-man, one-vote formula that the Federal courts will do it for us.

Senator HRUSKA. They will do it for you?

You say you simply cannot understand why any man who believes in representative government would not be eager to vote for S.J. Res. 2 We have had witnesses who have not been very eager, and they have said, "No."

One, for example, said that "Referendums are not necessarily the perfect tools of democracy, as we have seen so recently in a Californi referendum on fair housing. They may more often be a means by which the controllers of communications and those who are able to pay the huge costs of the TV and newspaper propaganda can manipulate the voters." Do you agree with that view?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Would you like to comment on it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, in my statement I said I believe in representative government. I believe that the people, through the ballot box have the understanding, and with some prodding, perhaps, the motivation to be interested in their government. I have full confidence in their ability under such a proposal, if it is submitted to the people and it is adopted by three-fourths of the States-that the people will be reasonable in the exercise of their legislative apportionment. I think they have the right to make this determination. The majorit rules, after all. We have not a democracy-we have a republica form of government. We have majority rule, but we recognize minority rights.

And

Now, there are many who think we should have a democracy. am not one of those. I like a republican form of government tha we are guaranteed under our Constitution. I hope it continues. don't know whether that answers your question or not, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes, you have. You have indicated your belie on that subject. It certainly is not a cynical belief, nor is it a defeatist belief. The thing that has bothered me in those who er dence a lack of faith in the people is if that lack of faith will b implemented, to whom shall we turn for the purpose of making the decisions that are necessary in governing a country? Will it be t six men out of a nine-man Supreme Court, will it be a President, c will it be the Speaker of the House?

Where will it be if you take it out of the hands of the people Where is it going to be? The answer has not been forthcoming in satisfactory way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for coming.

This is a clear and direct voice from one of the laboratories of Stat government out of 50. We are grateful that you have taken the tim to be here.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, sir.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would appreciat once again if you can help supplement the record.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will see you get the information, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. Thank you. We would appreciate it very much.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record at this time the letter from our newly elected colleague, Senator Fannin, from Arizona, in which he encloses documents which have been sent to him by the Arizona Legislature. Without objection, that will be included. (The document referred to follows:)

Hon. BIRCH BAYH,

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
February 25, 1965.

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

DEAR BIRCH: Enclosed is a copy of house concurrent memorial 1 which was passed by the 27th Arizona Legislature and signed by the Governor on January 29, 1965.

This memorial reffects the opinion of the representatives and senators elected by the voters of Arizona to serve in the legislature. It is transmitted to you as chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Judiciary Committee.

I trust this memorial will be noted by the subcommittee in its consideration of proposals relating to the reapportionment of State legislatures. In that regard, my office will make no further requests of the subcommittee's time at the hearings you have scheduled next month.

Sincerely,

PAUL J. FANNIN,

U.S. Senator.

STATE OF ARIZONA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State of Arizona, 88:

I, Wesley Bolin, Secretary of State, do hereby certify that the attached document is a true, correct, and complete copy of House Concurrent Memorial 1, 1st regular session, 27th legislature; that I am the official of the State of Arizona having custody and control of the original of said copy and the legal keeper thereof.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State of Arizona. Done at Phoenix, the capital, this 2nd day of

February, A.D. 1965.

[SEAL]

HOUSE CONCURRENT MEMORIAL 1

WESLEY BOLIN,
Secretary of State.

A CONCURRENT MEMORIAL REQUESTING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO CONVENE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO APPORTIONMENT OF ONE HOUSE OF STATE BICAMERAL LEGISLATURES AND OF MEMBERSHIP OF GOVERNING BODIES OF SUBORDINATE UNITS OF THE STATES

To the Congress of the United States of America:

Your memorialist respectfully represents:

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that membership in both houses of a bicameral State legislature must be apportioned according to population and has thus asserted Federal judicial authority over the basic structure of government in the various States; and

Whereas this rule denies to the people of the respective States the right to stablish their legislatures upon the same pattern of representation deemed advantageous for the Congress of the United States and provided by the Federal Constitution; and

Whereas this action of the Supreme Court goes so far as to restrict the ability Mf the citizens of the respective States to designate the manner in which they shall be represented in their respective legislatures thereby depriving the people of their right to determine how they shall be governed; and

Whereas the implications of this action by the Supreme Court raise serious doubts as to the legality of the present form of the governing bodies of many bordinate units of government within the States.

Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, prays:

1. That the Congress of the United States convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as follows:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit any State which shall have a bicameral legislature from apportioning the membership of one house of such legislature on factors other than population, provided that the plan of such apportionment shall have been submitted to and approved by a vote of the electorate of that State.

"SEC. 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall restrict or limit a State in its determination of how membership of governing bodies of its subordinate units shall be apportioned.

"SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

be it further

Resolved, That if Congress shall have proposed an amendment to the Consti tution identical with that contained in this memorial prior to June 1, 1965, this application for a convention shall no longer be of any force or effect: and be it further

Resolved, That a duly attested copy of this memorial be immediately trans mitted to the Secretary of the Senate of the United States, the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States and to each member of the Cogress from this State.

Passed the House January 20, 1965, by the following vote: 58 ayes, 19 nays 3 not voting.

Passed the Senate January 21, 1965, by the following vote: 25 ayes, 1 nay 2 not voting.

Approved by the Governor, January 29, 1965.

Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, February 1, 1965.

Senator BAYH. I would also like to point out that the number of witnesses which desire to be heard and the length of time being spen on each witness has extended beyond what we had originally antici pated. I feel it will be necessary to have additional days of hearing I will ask the committee staff to prepare a schedule which wil be circulated to the members of the committee, and contact the wit nesses involved.

We are just having more people that want to testify than we origi nally anticipated.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, may I make this observation: do believe the chairman is doing a terrific job in presiding over the hearings. There hasn't been the slightest bit of evidence of impatienc on his part. I am gratified, because this is a weighty and a very important decision. I think in justice to the Senate, as well as th other body and the public generally, this thorough study of this su ject is a virtual necessity. I want to commend the chairman for co ducting these hearings with such great tenacity and sound judgment Senator BAYH. As the Senator knows, some of the questions I hav asked, to quote the normal communications media statement, do no necessarily represent the interest of the sponsor. But I feel we mus make a complete record. And, at the same time, you and I and othe members of this subcommittee who have the responsibility of ferretin: out the facts have other senatorial duties which preclude us from sittin here every hour of the day. And we will try to take this int

consideration.