apply and both houses would be on population only. So they cannot wait. They have to obey the Federal court order. They must do it and if the legislature does not do it, a Federal judge will do it.

The Supreme Court rule will apply in any event, whether the amendment is passed by the Congress or not. I cannot quite see the point of your statement that they will wait until this amendment is adopted. I cannot see the point of it."

Mayor DALEY. They are waiting now and they have been waiting a long time. They have been waiting because they hope they can have the senate as it is now, districted on geographic lines, and as I understand this referendum, if it is passed, this is what they can do. So if they are looking for an excuse not to redistrict, this would give it to them.

Senator HRUSKA. It would not give it to them.

Mayor DALEY. They would say there has been an amendment passed by the Congress of the United States to permit exactly what we want to do.

I appreciate their position. I think you do. You do not get very many people who will vote themselves out of public office. I have not seen any in my experience. In Illinois you are not going to get the majority of the senate, who represent only 29 percent of the people, to change when they can hope for a referendum under this amendment. Senator HRUSKA. But the Congress cannot bail those people out of trouble. They are in trouble to stay. The Congress cannot do anything in and of itself to overrule the Supreme Court. If your State legislators are waiting for the Congress to bail them out of this trouble, they will be sadly disappointed. I do not believe they do.

They understand the situation better. There is nothing that will bail those members of the State senate in Illinois out of their trouble except a popular vote of the people in the State after this resolution becomes a part of the U.S. Constitution and then only after they have submitted to them by the legislature a plan that would give them the kind of representation they have now. So if they are waiting for the Congress to do that, they are not going to get any relief whatsoever. You know, Mr. Mayor, we had a witness here just last week who came from the State of Missouri. He was speaker of the house of Missouri. He testified that if it were not for the rural members of the State of Missouri, the city of St. Louis would have been in serious financial trouble because the members of the delegation of the legis lature from St. Louis county opposed the imposition of a tax withir the city of St. Louis. If it had not been for the votes of the country members, the city of St. Louis would not have had adequate funds. Those votes were furnished by the outside legislators. Very likely the people from within St. Louis said, "We are not going to raise their taxes; if we do, they are not going to return us to office." So they voted it down.

Have there been any such situations in Illinois, where the rural area has really been the savior of the metropolitan city?

Mayor DALEY. I do not want to be misunderstood, Senator, I de not wish to imply that in every instance there was a bitter antagonis: between the rural and metropolitan area.

Senator HRUSKA. That is the only kind of example you cited in your statement. Are there other examples to the contrary?

Mayor DALEY. Maybe I was wrong in my statement, it was not intentional, but I wish to point out to you that in many instances the rural representatives were totally unfamiliar with urban problems. I would not wish to tell you or anyone else that in every instance there is a clash between the urban areas and the rural areas. I just point out that throughout the country, unfortunately, we find, not intentionally, a lack of understanding of some of the problems of the urban areas. I am not talking about cities. It is metropolitan areas which are involved.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes; the suburbs as well as the city.

Mayor DALEY. That is right, and the inability of the representatives from the rural areas to appreciate the problems of urban areas. No more than I would have understood, as I mentioned about the rural problems. I surely did not want to say that there is a clash in every instance. But I think we are talking about representative government. Then we are talking about people, not areas, not locations.

Again, we feel very strongly that it is the people, regardless of where they come from, who should have equal representation in decisions made affecting our State.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, your statement was that the Senate, since it was the senate that came principally from the country, they fought all these things and made them impossible, and therefore, cities are now turning to the Federal Government.

Mayor DALEY. It is true, Senator, that the cities are forced to turn to the Federal Government.

Senator HRUSKA. I have here a copy of the article in the "Yale Review" for 1962 in the autumn, entitled "In Defense of Country Totes." It was written by Noel Perrin. It deals with this very problem. One of his statements is

Where cities fail to get what they want, it is generally the result of infighting between city Republicans and city Democrats.

Every once in a while, I pick up a Chicago newspaper and I find that problem has been reported there, I hope not accurately.

Mayor DALEY. We have very little infighting in Chicago.

Senaor HRUSKA. I am glad to hear it.

Mayor DALEY. I think if you will check the record, you will find that out.

Senator HRUSKA. The author of this article goes on to say

After studying the voting in the Missouri Legislature, where St. Louis and KanCity vie with the mainly rural rest of the State, George D. Young of Missouri concluded, "In the house, the difficulty in passing city legislation does tcome from rural members but from members of the cities' own delegation." It is almost invariably true that if the cities' delegation is united upon a measre, it will be accepted by the entire general assembly.

Is that true of Illinois?

Mayor DALEY. I do not know anything about Missouri, but I know that in Illinois our great barrier has been the narrowness of the Illinois Senate. Yes; we have many people in the house of representatives, any Republicans, who have joined in some of this legislation over he recent period of 6 years. But when legislation gets into the senate, often faces strictly a caucus decision, binding on the party mem13, although some of them would tell you privately that they like the legislation but they were bound by their caucus and they had to oppose it. This has happened in the last three sessions.

Senator HRUSKA. This article goes on to cite the conclusion reached by Prof. David Derge. Professor Derge did a statistical analysis of every rollcall vote in the Illinois Legislature between 1948 and 198 and the votes were called for 14,052 times. He noted among other things how Chicago faired at the hands of rural legislators and decided the city's bitterest enemies in the legislature are political enemies from within its own walls, and those camped in the adjoining suburban areas.

That is on the basis of over 14,000 votes over 10 years.

Mayor DALEY. But you will notice he stopped in 1958. Our prob lem became acute in 1960.

Senator HRUSKA. You think it reformed there since 1958?

Mayor DALEY. Well, in 1958, you had a Republican Governor. Senator HRUSKA. From 1948 to 1958, there was a Republican Governor?

Mayor DALEY. You had Stevenson from 1948 to 1952. From 1955 to 1960, you had Governor Stratton.

Senator HRUSKA. So it was about half and half, was it not? Mayor DALEY. That is right. But our problem became acute, Sel.ator, after 1960. I do not know why.

Senator HRUSKA. I would very much dislike thinking that we are going to consider the adoption or rejection of a constitutional amend ment, because, since 1960, a problem arose within one metropolitan

area.

Mayor DALEY. I am not suggesting that, Senator. I am not suggesting that you pass constitutional amendments on our problem. Senator HRUSKA. I know you do not.

Mayor DALEY. Furthermore, in deference to this committee, I would not consider myself qualified to comment on any other legislaturethan Illinois.

Senator BAYH. Would the Senator yield so I might make one brief comment?

Senator HRUSKA. Surely.

Senator BAYH. With all due respect to the testimony of the disin guished member of the Missouri Legislature, I thought that, ari I think I said so at that time, but I would just like to keep my positio consistent, that that is pretty poor proof of democracy in action, where a legislative system exists that requires rural legislators to impose a tax on city dwellers. As I think I said at that time, if the city legislators do not have enough intestinal fortitude to stand up an vote taxes on themselves, then the city ought to be in bad financis straits and then these very legislators will be voted out of office the next time they come along. I think that is the way things ought t operate. They do not always operate that way, but to use that as ev dence to support one contention against another, I think, is not a good idea.

Senator HRUSKA. The only reason I brought it up here is thu there were so many examples cited in the witness' testimony of where the wicked country-oriented Senate was blocking the progress of t State of Illinois, particularly the metropolitan area of Chicago aŭ Cook County. I am suggesting that that does not quite hold water because we know that is not always where the obstacle is. The f purport of this survey made by Mr. Perrin is that big trouble is with "

the city walls itself. That is the only reason-I do not seek to justify it. To hand on the country delegations the blame for something, when in most instances, they have been trying to effectuate the city's requests and demands for legislation is urban-I think that should be brought out. That is the reason I made reference to it.

Mayor DALEY. Senator, I would like to add this: The legislation we are talking about was permissive legislation. It was not an act of the legislature to create a tax for the city. We asked for permission so that if we needed it, the legislature of the city of Chicago could vote the tax.

Senator BAYH. This is the example that was cited by the speaker of the Missouri house, was it not?

Senator HRUSKA. No, that was an imposition of the tax.

Senator BAYH. The example to which the Senator from Nebraska referred was an imposition of tax, and according to his testimony, if it had not been for the votes of the rural legislators, the city of St. Louis would not have had sufficient finances to run its business, because the city legislators did have enough intestinal fortitude to vote the tax. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that if they did not have this intestinal fortitude, they should not be able to seek outside help to get this tax. The city itself should realize the kind of legislation it is getting and should vote in other legislators. This may be too idealistic but it is the way I feel.

Senator HRUSKA. It happens in the best-regulated legislatures, I

assure you.

Mr. Mayor, I am grateful for your testimony here. You often add much to any hearing you attend.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mayor Daley. We appreciate very much your statement.

At this point, I would like to include in the record a statement of our colleague, Senator John McClellan, a statement of our colleague, Senator Allen J. Ellender, a statement of our colleague, Senator Howard Cannon, a statement of our colleague, Senator Wallace F. Bennett, a statement of Representative Carleton J. King.

(The statements referred to by Senator Bayh follow :)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN L. MCCLELLAN ON S.J. RES. 2

I am delighted to have this opportunity to voice my wholehearted support of S.J. Res. 2, which would preserve to the people of each State the power to deterLaine the composition of its legislature and the apportionment of the membership thereof.

I am among those who have always thought that the States had that power and the record clearly shows that until the members of our so-called activist Supreme Court decided otherwise, the States likewise suffered from this delu*ion for 175 years.

I might add that I am especially pleased to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 2. This hearing clearly demonstrates that while we might mourn the damage Lflicted on the States in the series of Supreme Court decisions leading to the teed for the passage of this resolution, we are not yet ready to bury the States. Indeed, I view this proceeding as a start on the road to resurrecting and reinigorating their proper constitutional powers.

It was clear when the Supreme Court used Baker v. Carr as a ticket to stray to a political jurisdiction not its own, that one foray would not be enough. And, woefully, it was not enough. Repeated forages have followed and the itical jurisdiction that it improvidently invaded has now been thoroughly plored and, in the process, the rights of the States have been trampled beyond Tognition. Yes, Baker v. Carr was just the start. This excursion into former forbidden land led to a complete disruption of the legislatures of the 50 States.

We are all familiar with the problem. My own State of Arkansas is in the process of reapportionment as a result of the Supreme Court's new found power. It is hard to believe that the Court can now be proud of the handiwork its usurped power has produced in this instance.

There is no telling where this new found concept-that somehow evaded the Court for more than 175 years-might lead us. I hope, albeit rather faintly, that it might someday lead the Court away from the trespass it has committed and to a restoration to the States of those rights it has trampled.

The dissents in these cases (i.e., Reynolds v. Sims and related cases) are pertinent to this hearing and I would like to refer briefly to them.

Mr. Justice Stewart said:

"With all respect, I am convinced these decisions mark a long step backward into that unhappy era when a majority of the members of this Court were thought by many to have convinced themselves and each other that the demands of the Constitution were to be measured not by what it says by their own notions of wise political theory. The rule announced today is at odds with long-established principles of constitutional adjudication under the equal protection clause, and it stifles values of local individuality and initiative vital to the character of the Federal Union which it was the genius of our Constitution to create.

"What the Court has done is to convert a particular political philosophy into a constitutional rule, binding upon each of the 50 States, from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to Texas, without regard and without respect for the many ILdividualized and differentiated characteristics of each State, characteristics stemming from each State's distinct history, distinct geography, distinct distribution of population, and distinct political heritage.

"Representative government is a process of accommodating group interests through democratic institutional arrangements. Its function is to channel the numerous opinions, interests, and abilities of the people of a State into the making of the State's public policy. Appropriate legislative apportionment. therefore, should ideally be designed to insure effective representation in the State's legislature, in cooperation with other organs of political power, of the various groups and interests making up the electorate. In practice, of course, this ideal is approximated in the particular apportionment system of any State by a realistic accommodation of the diverse and often conflicting political forces operating within the State.

"The fact is, of course, that population factors must often to some degree be subordinated in devising a legislative apportionment plan which is to achieve the important goal of insuring a fair, effective, and balanced representation of the regional, social, and economic interest within a State. And the further fact is that throughout our history the apportionment of State legislatures have reflected the strongly felt American tradition that the public interest is composed of many diverse interests, and that in the long run it can better be expressed by a medley of component voices than by the majority's monolithic command. What constitutes a rational plan reasonably designed to achieve this objective will vary from State to State, since each State is unique in terms of topography, geography. demography, history, heterogeneity and concentration of population, variety of social and economic interests, and in the operation and interrelation of its political institutions. But so long as a State's apportionment plan reasonably achieves, in the light of the State's own characteristics, effective and balanced representation of all substantial interest, without sacrificing the principle of effective majority rule, that plan cannot be considered irrational." Mr. Justice Clark, who joined in Stewart's dissent, added:

***** I cannot agree to the arbitrary application of the one-man-one-vote principle for both houses of a State legislature. In my view, if one house is fairly apportioned by population then the people should have some latitude in providing, on a rational basis, for representation in the other house."

In his dissent, Mr. Justice Harlan declared:

“Had the Court paused to probe more deeply into the matter, it would have found that the equal protection clause was never intended to inhibit the Stats in choosing any democratic method they pleased for the apportionment of their legislatures. This is shown by the language of the 14th amendment taken as a whole, by the understanding of those who proposed and ratified it, and by the political practices of the States at the time the amendment was adopted. It is confirmed by numerous State and congressional actions since the adoption of the 14th amendment, and by the common understanding of the amendment as evidenced by subsequent constitutional amendments and decisions of this Court before Baker v. Carr made an abrupt break with the past in 1962.