MUTUAL SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS, 1960

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 27
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 12, 2014
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: September 14, 1959
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17914
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator from
Colorado has been very helpful in re-
gard to these matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there
be no amendment to be proposed, the
question is on the third reading and
passage of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 8437) was ordered to
a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the bill was passed.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT OF BANKRUPTCY ACT,
RELATING TO VERIFICATION OF
PLEADINGS .
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask
that the Chair lay before the Senate the
message from the House on the bill S.
1944 to amend the Bankruptcy Act in re-
gard to the verification of pleadings.
The PRESIDING OrrICER (Mr. CAN-
NON in the chair) laid before the Senate
the amendment of the House of Repre-
sentatives to the bill (S. 1944) to amend
the Bankruptcy Act in regard to the
verification of pleadings, which was, to
strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert:
That subdivision e of section 18 of the
Bankruptcy Act is amended to read as fol-
lows: "c. Petitions for both voluntary and
involuntary bankruptcy shall be verified
under oath."
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate concur in the
amendment of the House.
The motion was Itgxeed to.
X a...,
FTVIUTIIAL SEC PPROPRIA
TIONS, 1960
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the Senate resume
the consideration of House bill 8385, the
mutual security bill, which was displaced
a moment ago when I moved that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of
another bill.
? The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate resumed the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 8385) making appropriations
for mutual security and related agen-
cies for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1960, and for other purposes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
am convinced beyond any shadow of a
doubt that the Senate is making no con-
tribution to the welfare of the country
by even considering an extension of the
Civil Rights Commission. The consid-
eration of such an extension'would have
been even more unfortunate had it been
undertaken without having available to
us the report of the Civil Rights Com-
mission.
In reading the report of this Commis-
sion, Senators should keep in mind that
this is the report of a commission which
was promoted as a group which would
deal exclusively with voting rights. I
do not *believe that any of us were de-
ceived in 1957, and I know that I was
not so deceived. The Commission has, of
course, presumed to enter into a discus-
sion of race relations in the fields of edu-
cation and housing, as well as voting.
Obviously, the information on which the
Commissioners base their discussion
could not be dignified by calling it a
study.
I shall review briefly what I can only
describe as the illogical ramblings and
babblings of unsound thinking; and from
time to time, I shall also note with
pleasure that there are those among the
Commissioners who indicate by their in-
dividual opinions .and statements con-
tained in the report that they, unlike the
staff and the other Commissioners, have
not completely lost touch with reality.
In the field of voting the Commission
made a total of five so-called findings
and recommendations. I shall merely
note at this point that Commissioner
Battle's dissent on all five findings and
recommendations indicates that the
Commission was not without a rational
thinker among its group, had it chosen
to follow the leadership of good judg-
ment and clear thinking.
The first finding of the Commission in
the field of voting is believable to me.
Obviously, the Commissioners who join-
ed in the remaining findings and rec-
ommendations in the voting area did not
believe it themselves, however, for if they
had, they could have drawn no conclu-
sions whatsoever?much less any rec-
ommendations.
I quote the first two sentences of the
first finding of the Commission:
The Commiskon finds that there is a
general deficiency of information pertinent
to the phenomenon of nonvoting. There is
a general lack of reliable information on
voting according to race, color, or national
origin, and there is no single repository of
the fragmentary information available.
It is obvious that if one believes that
this finding of the Commission is cor-
rect, it would be senseless to attach any
credibility to any additional part of the
Commission's report on voting.
The Commission recommends that the
Bureau of Census undertake a nation-
wide compilation of registration and
voting statistics to include a count of
individuals by race, color, and national
origin who are registered and the fre-
quence of their voting in the past 10
years.
Mr. President, I heartily endorse this
recommendation. I do not believe that
anyone could conceive of a more prac-
tical and a more suitable replacement
for the Civil Rights Commission than
the census suggested by the Commission
itself. It should be quite apparent that
until the information which the Com-
mission finds to be practically nonexist-
ent can be compiled, no sensible study
nor logical conclusion can be accom-
plished.
Mr. President, had the Commission
stopped at this point in its report, it
would have accomplished more good
than I have ever conceived that it could
do. I say this with full awareness that
the Commission's conclusion, arrived at
after 2 years of existence, could have
been reached by any logical man after
a few casual inquiries: Unfortunately,
the Commission did not stop at this
point; and in the remainder of the re-
September 14
port, those of the Commission who ad-
vance specific proposals confirm beyond
a doubt that this Commission has con-
tributed and is contributing more to
racial unrest, tension, and bad relations
than any other force or factor which
has been conceived by Congress in
modern times.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished
Senator has said that the Commission
has caused unrest. The distinguished
Senator knows that when the Commis-
sioners' nominations were being con-
sidered, for confirmation, the Commis-
sioners testified that they had no au-
thority to make recommendations in the
field of education, yet they have pointed
the finger at the South. Does the Sen-
ator agree with that statement?
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is
eminently correct. Everyone knows that
the jurisdiction of the Commission, so
to speak, is to be confined to voting, but
the Commission has gone into sundry
other fields.
Mr. EASTLAND. In fact, the report is
a very highly prejudiced and a dishon-
est report against the Southern States.
Would the Senator agree with that
statement?
'Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
South Carolina concurs wholeheartedly
with the statement of the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. EASTLAND. I should like to read
to the Senator an Associated Press dis-
patch from New York City, which came
over the wire this afternoon:
SEPTEMBER 14, 1959.
NEW YoaK.?Picketing, and a stay-at-
home boycott by at least a fourth of the
white pupils in the Glendale-Ridgewood
area of Queens, greeted the arrival today of
Negro and Puerto Rican pupils teansferred
from Brooklyn.
In addition large signs saying "blacks go
home" appeared in front of one school dur-
ing the night. They were painted out be-
fore the students from Brooklyn's poverty-
stricken Bedford-Stuyvesant area arrived in
the school for opening day.
Most of the 363 pupils scheduled fm
transfer showed up, and they entered the
five schools involved without difficulty.
White parents picketed in front of three
Of the schools, however.
The schools are in an almost entirely
white area of Queens, and had a total regis-
tration Of about 2,300 excluding the trans-
fers from Brooklyn. More than 900 pupili
stayed at home, authorities estimated.
That shows that the question of schoo!
Integration is national in scope, and that
white people all over the country are
determined to maintain their racial
identity and oppose politicians who
would destroy the white race in this
country. Does the Senator agree with
that statement?
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is
eminently correct. However, if New
York or any other State wishes to have
integration, I think that is a prerogative
of the particular State.
Mr. EASTLAND. Does not this dis;
patch show that New York does nc4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
want integration? Is not that one of
the points brought out by the dispatch?
Mr. THURMOND. The dispatch
clearly shows that. However, the point
I make is that the people of South
Carolina should not attempt to dictate to
the people of any other State, whether
they want integration or segregation.
On the other hand, we do not want to
be dictated to, as to what Ve shall do in
South Carolina. We think it is our
prerogative under the Constitution to
have integration if we want it, or to
have segregation if we want it. If our
people choose segregation, as they have
done, we feel that as a sovereign State
we have the right do do it.
. Mr. EASTLAND. Is it not true that
in the North, in large measure there is
defacto segregation?
Mr. THURMOND. That is my under-
standing of the situation; and from the
news items I have been reading recently,
undoubtedly that is the case.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague
for his always unfailing courtesy. I
doubt very much whether I, or anyone
else who thinks as I do, could persuade
our distinguished colleague from Mis-
sissippi to change his views.
Also I doubt very much whether his
assertion that the people of the State
of New York want segregation in their
public schools will be accepted as a con-
clusive finding of fact. I am confident
that we shall have ample opportunity
to show the facts in detail as to New
York.
We have argued this question many,
times before. I do not see much ppint
in raising the argument again, but I
could not stand by when the statement
was made in my hearing, and allow it
to stand.
Mr. EASTLAND. The point is that
the distinguished Senator from New
York should attend to his own knitting
in New York State, and not attempt tO
export New York's deplorable social con-
ditions into areas where peace and har-
money prevail. He has plenty to do in
Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Har-
lem, instead of picking on people who
have harmonious racial relations.
Mr. THURMOND. In reply to the
Senator from Mississippi, I must say that
from all the news items I have been read-
ing in newspapers from New York, it
would appear that there is a great op-
- portunity up there for missionary work
, to be done in certain quarters. I pre-
sume that all States have their weak-
nesses, and that New York is not the
only State, but from the items in the
newspapers, I am sure that there is a
vast field there for a great deal of good
work to be done.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield to the dis-
tinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I assure the Senator
that my devout wish would be that the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi
would be working at cultivating the great
field in his State as assidiously as I?
and, I am confident, my colleague, Mr.
KEATING?are working at cultivating the
same field in our State.
It is a fact, as the Senator from Mis-
sissippi and the Senator from South
Carolina have pointed out, that this is a
national question, just as foreign policy,
highways, and a dozen other things are
national questions upon which we must
legislate. The Senator from Mississippi
and the Senator from South Carolina
feel a certain way about civil rights;
and any of us would die in defense of
their right to express their views, a
right which all-Senators enjoy.
Mr. THURMOND. I wonder if I can
make the Senator from New York a pro-
posal. Inasmuch as he feels that we
have so many shortcomings in the South,
and the newspapers show that there are
so many of them in- his own State, I
wonder if we could agree that he go
back to his State and take care of his
problems, and allow us in the South to
take care of our problems. We assure
him that we will not disturb or inter-
rupt him in any, way whatsoever, or
cast any reflections on the way he han-
dles his local problems, if he will give
us the same assurance.
Mr. JAVITS. I trust that question
was settled forever by the heroes in both
blue and gray, from 1861 to 1865. I
abide by their verdict.
Mr. THURMOND. In reply, let me say
that the question was settled when the
Constitution was written. The Con-
stitution of the United States provided
that all powers not delegated to the-Fed-
eral Government are reserved to the
States. The field of education has never
been delegated to the Federal Govern-
ment, and many other fields have not.
Therefore, they are reserved to the
States, and they are still within the ju-
risdiction of the States. We expect to
follow the Constitution.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am happy to
yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I think we will agree
that the 14th amendment is a part of
the Constitution. That amendment
gives every citizen equal protection under
the law?in education and in every other
phase of human activity that comes
within that fundamental charter That
amendment is just as much a part of the
Constitution as that part which was
adopted by the Founding Fathers in the
latter part of the 18th century.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased
to yield.
Mr. EASTLAND. Does it not seem to
the Senator that, inasmuch as South,
Carolina has peace and harmony, with
no gangs roaming the streets indulging
in knifings, cuttings, murder, rape,
crimes of violence, and filth, the Sena-
tor from New York should devote his
attention to correcting the deplorable
condition in his own State, among his
owh people, rather than taking this floor
day in day in and day out and telling
what the, South is doing. He tells us
that the South does this, or the South
does that. There has not been a word
about juvenile delinquency, murder, and
17915
rape in his own neighborhood, in his own
town.
Mr. THURMOND. In reply to the
Senator from Mississippi, I think it is
clear that down South we are having no
racial disorders. W6 are having no
racial tensions. We are not having crime
or juvenile delinquency. We have a
segregated life which both races enjoy.
Mr. EASTLAND. Is not the segregated
way of life a better life? Is not that the
law of nature?
Mr. THURMOND. Well, that is the
way God made the races. I presume it is..
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. At the same time
under the Constitution?Land I am fight-
ing for constitutional government?un-
der the Constitution I believe New York
has a right to have integration if it
wants it. The only thing I want New
York to do is to let South Carolina alone.
We will let New York have its integra-
tion. They can integrate just as much
as they want to if they will just let us
alone in South Carolina. Our people are
happy. Both races are happy. Our
schools are just as good- for the colored
race as for the white race.
We have just as good schoolbuses.
We pay the teachers the same, and the
opportunities are equal. We are doing
everything we can. The Negroes in my,,
State vote. All who are qualified there
vote, and there is a big vote among the
Negro people.
We treat the Negro people right. We
get along with them well; but if other
people from other sections are going to
send agitators down there to start
trouble, I can visualize that in the future
we could have trouble.
We are just hoping that the States
which are now having trouble will not go
jumping on the South and trying to
hide their own troubles at home. We
cannot help but feel that some people
from other States who are jumping on
the civil rights bill and who claim they
are fighting for civil rights are forget-
ting their own dastardly conditions right
in their own backyards.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I will be pleased
to yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the
other points which have been made by
the Senator from Mississippi and the
Senator from South Carolina have been
argued many times on the floor, and
they will be again. I do not have to re-
peat those arguments. But I am very
much interested in what I consider to
be quite a red herring drawn across this
trail?the rapes and the murders and
the terrible things that are going on in
New York. -
Mr. President, this would be a rather
interesting argument even though
slightly rhetorical, if it were true. How-
ever, very unfortunately for that posi-
tion, the facts are just the Other way.
"The Uniform Crime Reports for the
United States," published by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, show that the
ratio per hundred thousand of offenses
committted in many of the Southern
States far exceeds the ratio of those of-
fenses?and they include all of the of-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
fenses mentioned by my colleague from
Mississippi?in New York.
We are not proud of the ratio we have,
but we are not calling any other States
which have a worse problem names. We
are terribly sorry about it. We are
ashamed of it for ourselves. We are
ashamed of it for the whole Nation.
But it is certainly no valid argument
against the points we are making, espe-
cially when it is just not so upon the
facts.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at this point a
table entitled "Index of Crimes by Stand-
ard Metropolitan Areas," from "Uni-
form Crime Reports," issued by the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation, September
2, 1959.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Index of crimes by standard metropolitan
areas from "Uniform Crime Reports," is-
sued by the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion September 2,1959
[Rate per 100,000]
New York-northern New Jersey__ 1, 145. 3
(All cities listed for the States of
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Geor-
gia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Virginia.)
Asheville, N.0 1, 006. 5
Atlanta, Ga 812. 0
Birmingham, Ala ' 1, 212. 2
Charleston, S.0 1 1,382. 8
Charlotte, N.0 1 1, 462. 2
Columbia, S.0 1 1, 365. 2
Columbus, Ga 816. 5
Durham, N.0 669.2
Fort Smith, Ark 794. 1
Gadsden, Ala 762. 4
Greensboro-High Point, N.0 749. 7
Greenville, S.0 1 1, 419. 9
Hampton-Newport News-Warwick,
Va
Jackson, Miss
Jacksonville, Fla
Little Rock-North Little Rock,
Ark
Macon, Ga
Miami, Fla
Mobile, Ala
Montgomery, Ala
New Orleans, La
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va
Orlando, Fla
Pensacola, Fla
Raleigh, N.0
Richmond, Va
Savannah, Ga
Shreveport, La
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla
West Palm Beach, Fla
Winston-Salem, N.0
1 Exceded by.
Mr. JAVITS. ? Mr. President, the facts
are?and I offer them for the RECORD?
that in a long list of cities, comparing
the ration in other cities with the New
York and northern New Jersey area, the
rate per hundred thousand of offenses
in New York and northern New Jersey
was 1,145. The ratio in a whole list of
cities in South Carolina,J--and I will not
embarrass my colleague by reading the
names of the cities?because I do not be-
lieve this is to the point?
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator can-
not emharrass me, because our cities are
the finest cities in the world. People in
our cities can walk the streets in safety.
Women can go out, at night without
being raped.
1 1, 540. 3
593.4
12. 004. 4
1 1, 570. 3
1, 049. 5
12, 303. 3
1 1, 162.9
1, 078. 6
1 1,720. 7
1 1,609. 1
1 1, 544. 6
1 1, 784, 7
1, 400. 8
1 1. 325.9
1 1, 675. 4
760. 0
1 1,320. 3
1, 080. 0
802. 6
Mr. JAVITS. I believe that is true in
New York, too, and the facts bear it out.
If the Senator .wishes me to say it, in
Charleston, S.C., the rate is 1,382, as
against 1,145 in New York. In Colum-
bia, S.C., the rate is 1,365. In Green-
ville it is 1,419; and so on.
Mr. President, as I said, I am not
making this point. I do not believe it
has any bearing upon our situation. I
am- only pointing out that it is not an
argument the other way, either. What-
ever may be the reasons for the crime
statistics, I am just as much ashamed
of them for my own city as I am for
any- city in the country. All of us have
full responsibility for it. It is neverthe-
less a fact that it should not be dragged
across this discussion on civil rights, on
States rights, or on the constitutional
points we have been arguing, when it is
not borne out by the facts.
Mr. THURMOND. We have some
crime, I am sure, in our State, as any.
State has. Of course we have some mili-
tary installations there, and people do
come there from other States, from the
North and other places, and otir people
are so friendly with them that probably
they are not as tight with these people
in punishing them for crime as they
should be. But we are glad to have these
folks down there from other sections.
We welcome them, and we hope in the
future that they will learn to conduct
themselves as well as our own people.
[Laughter.]
Mr. EASTLAND. Of course the dis-
tinguished Senator knows that the
crime rate is due to the large proportion
we have of one race to the other race in
the South. That is true, is it not?
Mr. THURMOND. If the Senator will
look at the record, I think he will find
that is probably so.
Mr. EASTLAND. The point I am get-
ting at is that the Senator from New
York has made a statement on the floor
of the Senate and he has arraigned the
Southern States and the Southern peo-
ple time and time again, but he has
never attempted to clean up his own
back. yard.
Mr. THURMOND. I think the record
will show among which race crimes are
committed, but I say that the crime rate
in the Southern States is certainly a low
rate of crime. However, I still say that
no one is in jeopardy in riding on the
highways in our State as compared to
some States. No one is in jeopardy in
walking on the streets compared with
some States, or when going to church or
going to school; and even among the
children in the schools we do not have the
trouble that some other States have.
Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator
yield for a question? How many gangs
are there in South Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. I do not know of
any gangs in my State.
Mr. EASTLAND. How many juvenile
gangs areS there in South Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. I have not read
aboutany in the newspapers.
Mr. EASTLAND. As a matter of fact,
the Senator knows that there are no
juvenile gangs.
_
September 14
Mr. THURMOND. There are none
that I know of in my State, and if there
were any, I am sure there would have
been articles in the newspapers about
It.
Mr. EASTLAND. How many times in
the State of South Carolina today in the
schools do the police patrol the corri-
dors of the schools to prevent violence
and rape? Is there a single instance of
that in the State of South Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. There is not a
school in South Carolina that has a
policeman in it to maintain order, or
that has had to place a policeman in it
to maintain order.
Mr. EASTLAND. How many rapes
have there been in the schools of South
Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. None.
Mr. EASTLAND. How does that com-
pare with New York State?
Mr. THURMOND. Oh, I would be
afraid to state. That would cause em-
barrassment to some people I know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield
for a question?
Mr. THURMOND. I will be pleased
to yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. One thing might be very
interesting, based upon what the Senator
from Mississippi has just said about the
density of the races in these States. Ac-
cording to my recollection, in his own
State of Mississippi there is the largest
proportion of Negroes to whites in any
Southern State, and yet from the analy-
sis which I have, there is one Mississip-
pi city here?and I believe it is quite
indicative of the State?in which the
crime rate is very low. Indeed, the crime
rate there is much lower than it is in
the New York-New Jersey area.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?, That is exactly what
I have been saying. The crime rate
there is lower because it is a segregated
society.
Mr. JAVITS. Well, the crime rate in
other segregated societies is so much
higher that it more than makes up for it.
Mr. President, I have never used the
crime rate as a reason for arguing
against a segregated society. I have used
the Constitution, the Moral right, the
economic and moral strength of the
country and elementary justice, and the
only time the crime rate has been used is
to argue against those who would argue
against segregation, and I say that is
wrong. It is not a fact, and it is not
borne out by the figures. That is all I
say.
Mr. THURMOND. I would like to ask
the Senator from New York a question.
May I ask him a question?
Mr. JAVITS. Oh, of course.
Mr. THURMOND.. Would he favor
integration, or segregation?
Mr. JAVITS. There is no question
about my favoring integration in all
things in which a person has a civil
right to have equal facilities and equal
opportunity with every other.
I am not going to get into a philo-
sophical discussion as to whom one
should invite to dinner or whom one's
daughter should marry. That is each
person's business. I am only talking
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
about going to school and getting a job
and housing and the right to vote and
the fundamental rights to which the
Constitution of the United States relates.
That is all I am talking about. That is
all I ever talk about in this connection.
That is what I am talking about; that is
all I have ever talked about.
Mr. THURMOND. If schools were
maintained on a segregated basis, with as
good opportunities for one race as for
the other, why would the Senator object?
Mr. JAVITS. I would object for the
very reason that the Supreme Court?
incidentally, by a unanimous opinion?
has stated that inherent in segregated
schools is a feeling on the part of the
individual who is segregated that he is
less desirable as a citizen, and as such
a person has less opportunity than all
citizens. 'This is wrong. This is not the
way- our country was organized to oper-
ate. This is contrary to the fundamental
concept and principle' of the Founding
Fathers and of the United States. There
is a national responsibility, and we must,
with reason, intelligence, .and justice, do
what we can to uphold that responsi-
bility.
' Mr. THURMOND. Then I shall' ask
the Senator this question: Down South,
in some of our schools, it has been found
advisable to have separate high schools
for girls of the same race and separate
high schools for boys of the same race.
Does the Senator object to that?
Mr. JAVITS. There we get into a
question of opinion as ,to the relative edu-
cational merits or standards. I would
not wish to express an opinion on that,
because I am not an educator. But I do
not believe it ,is similar at all because
there the distinction is not based strictly
upon color. It is not the same distinc-
tion at all. There a distinction is made
upon the basis of physical activity in
which young people can engage; in par-
ticular studies in which they may be
interested; and other traditional peda-
gogical standards, whether right or
wrong. It does not involve the same.
question as when people are separated
solely by reason of color.
There are many laws upon the books
of the States and of the United States
n which special care is taken with re-
spect to the hours of employment and
conditions of work of women and chil-
dren. Those considerations are built
into our law. Certainly that does not
represent any derogation of the civil
rights of those persons. As I have just
nointed out, it is not a distinction which
ts based upon what I consider to be, and
what the Supreme Court has considered
to be, and what I think the overwhelm-
ing opinion of the majority of Americans
is, a distinction based upon color, which
is contrary to the Constitution.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator would
not insinuate, would he, that because
thildren are segregated because of sex,
one sex is inferior to the other?
Mr. JAVITS. No. I think I made
myself very clear on that score.
Mr. THURMOND. The Supreme
Court held, I believe, that if a child is
denied the right to associate with other
,thildren, that would not be equal oppor-
tunity and would not be due process. In
some schools, for instance, the fifth grade
might be so large that it would not be
possible to put all the fifth-grade chil-
dren in one class, and it would be neces-
sary to have two fifth grades in the
school. That would be segregation,
would it not?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think
I have made clear my views upon this
subject very precisely. The point is that
there are many distinctions which are
made in our law, and many distinctions
are made in our practice about people,
with respect to physical frailty, sex, or
their particular location at a 'particular
time, and many other things.
Mr. THURMOND. I believe the Su-
preme Court held that it would be dis-
-crimination to segregate. I ask the Sen-
ator, if there are equal opportunities,
such as good teachers, good buildings,
and everything else is equal, how can
such equality be termed "discrimina-
tion"?
Mr. JAVITS. I believe it is not equal-
ity, and therefore it is discrimination.
Mr. THURMOND. It is not equality
simply because both races are not al-
lowed to participate?
Mr. JAVITS. It is not equality.
Mr. THURMOND. Suppose every-
thing else is equal, except that one race
goes to school here and one goes to school
there. Is that discrimination? .
Mr. JAVITS. I am not God, and nei-
ther is the Senator from South Carolina.
The way this country was ordered, this
great experiment in Government for all
of us, we thought collectively, a long,
long time ago?and I believe .it has been
demonstrated conclusively by our elperi-
ence since?that the best way to raise a
society of justice, intelligence, and pro-
ductiveness is not to make a distinction
between citizens on the ground of color.
It is that concept which I believe is sa-
cred to our Constitution and our institu-
tions. Some of us, I think the majority
of the country, are trying to carry that
out, again, I repeat, with reason and dis-
cretion, and with deliberate speed, not,
as we are often charged, overnight.
Mr. THURMOND. Does not the Sen-
ator feel that it would be better to raise
little children in the pattern of life they
are going to follow- later?
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from New
York hopes that the pattern of life which
little children will follow later will be a
pattern in which opportunity in educa-
tion, in housing, in voting, and similar
civil rights will be enjoyed in compliance
with the U.S. Constitution by everybody
as citizens of the same class.
Mr. THURMOND. I ask the Senator
from New York why there should be
forced integration if it is not to be fol-
lowed up soon by mixed-race marriages?
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from New
York does not have anything to say about
that whatever. I have already made
clear that whom a person marries or
whom he invites to dinner is his business.
It is in no way related to civil rights un-
der the Constitution of the United States.
I believe there is a reasonable right to
expect that if we get started along the
lines of giving citizens equal opportunity
in respect to what are their civil rights,
we will get to the point within a reason-
17917
able period of time when people will, to-
gether, enjoy those rights without dis-
tinction as to color.
If I were prepared to freeze into per-
manence the practices which are now
pursued, what would this argument be
all about? I am not, because the Con-
stitution expresses exactly the contrary.
Mr. THURMOND. In reply, I may
say that the Senator from New York
must admit that in much of his own
State there is segregation. There is
segregation in housing. Tremendous
sections of the Senator's State are seg-
regated by race. There is segregation in
some of the schools.
The artiqle which the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] read a few
minutes ago states clearly that white
people in New York were objecting to
Negro children attending the same
schools.
Since there is a tremendous amount
of segregation in his own State now,
does not the Senator from New York be-
lieve he has his hands full? Does he not
feel that he has a big responsibility to
go back home and work on integration
in his own home State, and let the poor.
South alone?
Mr. JAVITS. In the first place, I do
not believe the "poor South" is a proper
characterization. I think the South is
a productive, important, vital part of our
country. I am not a bit patronizing, as
far as the South is concerned. I have
the most friendly, warm feelings for its
people, whatever may be said about this
matter on the floor.
As to segregation in my own State,
certainly there is some segregation in my
own State in housing. I do not believe
there is any segregation in a willful Evay
in terms of education. But I -point out
to the Senator from South Carolina
what I have pointed out many times in
my own State: All the machinery of
law, all the public conscience, and a
great part of the public activity, is de-
voted to eradicating it. Much of it has
already been eradicated. We are con-
stantly eradicating more. The whole
force of public policy is against it. It
seems to me that that represents the
difference between my State and some
of the other States of the Union, where
exactly the contrary is true.
As to the Senator from New York
going back to New York to attend to his
own knitting, I am very much pleased
to observe that 31/2 million people of the
State of New York voted to send me to
the U.S. Senate. It would have
taken many fewer to send me to the
State Senate in Albany. They did not
choose to do so. Therefore, so long as I
am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I shall
try to legislate nationally upon every
subject which is the proper care of the
Nation, which imperils my Nation, and
which imperils, in my opinion, the free
world. I shall not be- deterred from'
doing so by being told to go back where
I came from, as many other people are
told to go back where they came from.
That is not American, and nobody knows
it better than I.
Mr. THURMOND. If the Senator
from New York follows the course he
has set out upon, he is going to attempt
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE September 14
to reform the whole United States. We
think he has enough work back home,
in his own State, among his own people.
When he attempts, to try to reform the
rest of the States, when they have the
right under the Constitution to do what
they are doing, then we think he had
better go back and renew his study of
the Constitution, which he learned in
law school years and years ago. I, be-
lieve it would help him very much now
to refresh his memory on constitutional
law.
Mr. JAVITS. I may say to the Sen-
ator from South Carolina that I am a
constant student of constitutional law,
and I think I am fully well up on the
cases. I think, if a vote were taken in
the Senate, probably a majority would
vote as I do, too. 'I do not believe I
have been derelict in my homework since
law school.
So what I have said today is, in my
judgment, and I believe in the judgment
of the great majority of the people of
,the country, entirely abreast of consti-
tutional law as it stands today. I re-
spect the right of the distingiushect Sen-
ator from South Carolina and his col-
leagues to differ, of course. That is why
we are here?to expose our points of
view. But I cannot accept the state-
ment that my point of view is rooted in
inadequate knowledge of constitutional
law.
Mr. THURMOND. I should like to
ask the Senator from New York a ques-
tion which I think is very important. He
said he was sent to the Senate to legis-
late nationally, and that he was not sent
to the Senate to legislate for any one
St4te. I wish to ask him a question, as
a matter of frankness and candor: Is it
not a matter of fact that the reason why
he and some of the other Members of
Congress who are taking the positions
he and they are taking is, not so much
because they love the Negro people?be-
cause we in the South have done far
more for the Negroes than those Sen-
ators and their States have?but be-
cause, so I understand, in New York the
Negroes constitute about 7 percent of the
population, but they vote as a bloc, and
that the Senator from New York is
afraid of that bloc, and, therefore, he is
catering to that bloc of votes in order
to saye his own political hide?
Mr. JAVITS. Well, I suppose the
Senator from South Carolina has made
his speech, but he has not asked me a
question.
Mr. THURMOND. I said, "Is it not a
fact?" [Laughter.]
Mr. JAVITS. Of course, I could be
very cruel, by asking the Senator from
South Carolina what proportion of the
population of his State he is serving by
- his position because of its decided politi-
cal views. But I will not; I 'would not
insult the Senator.
Mr. THURMOND. In my State the
Negroes are voting, and they can vote.
But they have sense enough to know that
segregation is the only practical way of
life in South Carolina.
Mr. JAVITS. I shall not discuss the
psychology of the Negroes in South Car-
olina. But I will say that, in my opin-
ion, in New York the Negroes vote for
either party. It is said that a very large
proportion of them vote for the party
which is not my party?in other words,
vote for the Democratic Party. Bearing
in mind the voting pattern of the popula-
tion of New York City, obviously that is
true.
Although of course I would tell the
Senator from South Carolina that what
he has said is not true and is not borne
out by the facts, that is not very impor-
tant. What is important is this: What
is there to the argument the Senator
from South Carolina is making that in
any way answers the fundamental point
that the constitutional rights of people
are the care of the Congress, and must
be preserved? Why is the Senator's
argument that I am "demagoging," a
substantial argument directed to the
merits? - Is it directed to the merits?
Does it prove anything as to the .correct-
ness or the incorrectness of this cause?
Mr. THURMOND. We believe in the
Constitutibn of the United States; and
the Constitution reserves those powers
to the States. We expect to exercise
those powers.
We believe that if some people in other
sections of the country believed truly in
the Constitution, and did not attempt to
get the Congress to pass legislation in
violation of the Constitution, and if we
could prevent the executive branch and
the legislative branch and the judicial
branch from usurping the Constitution,
this country would be far better off.
So long as I remain a Member of the
U.S. Senate, I expect to fight for the
Constitution.
If some wish to amend the Constitu-
tion, that is another matter. If the Sen-
ator from New York wishes to change
the way of life of the American people
in the field-of education, in the field of
marriage, and in various other fields not
now permissible for the Congress to leg-
islate on, he has the prerogative to in-
stitute and initiate action toward that
end. But at the present time the Fed-
eral Government does not have that au-
thority; and we are standing foursquare
on the Constitution, because we are con-
fident that it is best for this Nation.
Mr. JAVITS. I should like to say that
what the Senator from South Carolina
has just now said is an answer. I do not
accept it as a good answer; but it is an
answer.
But again I point out that the motives
with which the Senator from South Car-
olina has charged me?and I am his
friend, anyhow?are not an answer; that
is all.
Mr. THURMOND. In reply, I wish to
say that what I said was not directed
personally at the Senator from New
York. But is not that true of most of
the Members of Congress who come from
States in which the minority blocs con-
trol the elections; and, therefore, the
candidates, or most of them, feel that
they are obligated or that they have to
do that, in order to get elected?
Mr. JAVITS. I think we have fully
explored that question. I do not believe
we could cast any more light on it. I
only say to the Senator from South
Carolina that I believe in my heart in
the sincerity of others who espouse the
same views; I believe they are fully as
sincere as I am.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield
to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CANNON in the chair). Does the Sen-
ator from South Carolina yield to the
Senator, from Louisiana?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to ask a
question. A moment ago the Senator
from New York discussed crime, and
tried to compare the crimes committed
in New York and other States with the
crimes committed in the South.
I remember that recently the crime
wave in New York was based on racia
differences; the Puerto Ricans and thk
Negroes banded together?and they are
still doing it?an cl fought the gringos.
on the one hand, and the white Amen-
cans, on the other. Is not that a cor.
rect statement?
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
Louisiana is eminently correct. An5
crime that has occurred in the South ha..
not occurred because of racial disorder:,
or racial differences. But the crime:
which have occurred in the North?ac?
cording to the newspaper and magazin,
reports?are directly the result of rads.,
troubles.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is point
wanted to clear up.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, let us look at othe,
so-called findings and recommenda-
tions of the Commission, concerning
which the Commission has admitte(
there is practically no informatior
available on which to base any findint
or recommendation. Some of the Com-
missioners made a finding that there i.
a lack of uniformity of law S with re.
spect to the preservation of voting rec
ords. Mr. President, this is indeed r
profound revelation. It is profound ir
spite of the fact that it is what our fore-
fathers and the drafters of the Consti-
tution intended in the first place, ant
what is basically inherent in our wholt
system of government, in the seconc
place. The very fact that we do nc
yet have a totalitarian Governmen
should have been enough in itself t(
indicate that the States still had tilt
right to have differences in their law:
on a subject which is exclusively withir
the sovereign power and authority o
each of the several States.
It is in the recommendation, M.
President, that either the utter irrespon
sibility or the abysmal ignorance of th
Commissioners who joined in this recom
mendation stands out. These Commis
sioners recommended that the Federa
Government enact legislation whicl
would require the maintenance of, al
voting records for a period of 5 year ant
that such voting records be open to pub
lic inspection. Such a statute would ob
viously be unconstitutional, but the re-
mainder of this report proves unques
tionably that such a consideration playec
no part in the judgment of the avid in-
tegrationist members of the Commissior
The third item listed as a recommen
dation under the discussion of voting
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8 ?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
t959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
,o say the least, a confusing compilation
)f words lacking not only a complete
thought, but any thought at all. The
:iscussion called "background," when
ombined with the so-called findings,
onvey a rather hazy impression that
he Commission is lamenting the fact
hat some private citizens do not choose
,o serve on registration boards.
This discussion mentions the fact that,
n some instances, Some members of the
:oards have resigned their post, and
hat the State officials responsible for
illing the vacancies have delayed in do-
ng so. The Commission concludes that
,uch conduct, presumably by the resign-
Ts and the State officials, is abitrary,
.,apricious, and without legal cause or
ustification. To remedy the situation,
I indeed the Commission has any par-
dcular situation in mind, the Commission
scommends that-an additional section
,e added to part IV of the so-called Civil
tights Act of 1957 to prohibit any person
'rom being a nonfeasor under color of
3tate law, arbitrarily, without legal justi-
ication or cause, if any such nonfea-
snce results in somebody being unable
register. Consideration of the lack of
.onstitutional authority for the Federal
lovernment to interfere in State mat-
ers is again belied by this so-called
ecommendation.
The next discusilon of the Commission
ncluded under the topic or voting has
tothing whatsoever to do wtih voting?
nd this, incidentally, is in line with the
rganization of the rest of this report
nd the thinking which spawned it. At
iliS point the report goes into the matter
if witnesses who decline to testify before
his insidious body. As in so many in-
tances, the so-called recommendations
.ave, not surprisingly, attemped to jus-
dy expanded authority for the Commis-
ion. In this particular instance, those
f the Commission who joined in this
commendation, would have the Corn-
aission authorized to apply directly to
he appropriate U.S. district court for
rders enforcing subpenas where the
abpenaed person declined to testify.
After this diversion into matters more
xtraneous even than the other parts
the report, the Commission returned
? a discussion of persons declining to
erve on registration boards. At this
?oint, there is an additional so-called
'commendation which surpasses by a
onsidera,ble extent in complete disre-
ard of the Constitution and our feder-
ted republican form of government
nything that has come previously in
.e report. This proposal is for the ap-
aintment of a Federal registrar who
-ould determine what persons under the
..rms of State law were eligible to vote
ad would dictate the registration lists
3 -the State boards of registration.
.ich a proposal would not- only be un-
onstitutional, but would, in fact, es-
4blish a Federal dictatorship?if indeed
could be enforced. One would think
hat the authors of such a proposal were
xisting mentally in reconstruction days-,
nd writing regulations for the conduct
I civil affairs by the occupying Union
roopS. It might come as a surprise to
he authors of this proposal and others
a similar mind, but the fact is that
No. 163-11
the South is no longer a conquered prov-
ince. Further, the South has never been,
nor will it ever be, conquered by the
enactment of such proposals.
Next, the report, apparently for the
first time, acknowledges the existence of
the U.S. Constitution and, even more
surprisingly, the acknowledgment is by
the three most avid integrationist com-
missioners. Their acknowledgment,
however, is only in passing and for the
sole purpose of "zeroing in" on the tar-
get they forewith propose to destroy.
Their proposal for destruction embodies
a constitutional amendment which
would transfer all substantial control
and authority over, the eligibility of
voters from the States, where it now
resides, to the Federal Government,
where it can only,reside in tyranny.
I would note at this point that three
of the Commissioners opposed the pro-
posal of such a constitutional amend-
xi-lent, and it is to their everlasting credit
that they recognize the inherent danger
of such a proposal.
Before passing from this particular
proposal, it is worthy to note, in connec-
tion with the rationale which prompted
the proposal, how the three avid integra-
tionists justified the elimination of any
literacy tests from voting eligibility re-
quirements.
First, the Commission noted that the
march of education has almost elimi-
nated illiteracy. This they followed with
the following unbelievably unrealistic
rationale:
In a nation dedicated to the full develop-
ment of every citizen's human potential,
there is no excuse for whatever illiteracy that
may remain. Ratification of the proposed -
amendment would, we believe, provide an
additional incentive for its total elimination.
Meanwhile, abundant information about po-
litical candidates and issues is available to
all by way of television and radio.
Such shallowness of mental process
could only stem from the deepest of bias.
Mr. President,' before turning to the
next portion of what someone, in a ft
of delusion has mistitled a "report," I
would remind the Senate that the frit
so-called finding under the yoting sec-
tion recognizes that there is an almost
complete absence of information on this
particular subject. Nothing could better
prove the truth of this first so-called
finding than the remainder of the sec-
tion on voting.
In the portion of the report which
purPorts to deal with the field of so-
called civil rights and education, the
Commission does not find, but certainly
indicates by its language, that there is
also a dearth of knowledge?in the
minds of those who wrote this report, at
least?on this particular feature. The
initial so-called finding on education by
some Commissioners?again, there is no
way of telling how many?is to the ef-
fect that there is no "guidance" for those
communities or school officials who
might desire to integrate their schools.
This is followed by what is titled a "rec-
ommendation" that the-Civil Rights
Commission be authorized to collect and
make available various schemes for in-
tegrating the races in the public schools,
in addition 'to authorizing the Civil
Rights Commission to.establish an "ad-
17919
visory and conciliation service" for
school integration.
Mr. President, in my State at least, I
can assure the Senate that there is no
desire?much less demand?for the ad-
vice or conciliation efforts, nor for the
integration schemes, of this or any other
Federal commission. I doubt seriously
whether any such desire exists anywhere.
This is just another of those self-serv-
ing, self-perpetuating, empire-building
justifications.
The only other proposal which is titled
a "recommendation" in the field of edu-
cation is to the effect that the Office of
Education and the Bureau of Census
conduct a school census to show the
number and race of students in public
schools. This proposal is included as an
answer to the surprising finding that in
agencies of the Federal Government and
in most State agencies, the records are
not kept separate on the basis of race
so that there is no way in which to tell
how many of the students are of what
color. The agitators in the race rela-
tions field have long demanded, and ap-
parently finally achieved, the abolition
of a most practical and realistic device?
the indication of a person's race on his
record. Rather than acknowledge that
the abolition of this practice was a mis-
take in the first place, the race agitators
would -now have the records duplicated
with the accent on race by a Federal
agency. Quite frankly, Mr. President,
such mental gymnastics repulse me.
Once again, Mr. President, the three
avid integrationists on the Commission
take off on their own proposals on edu-_,.
cation at this point in the report. In
effect they would have all financial as-
sistance of the Federal Government tied
to integration practices in "both publicly
and privately supported" institutions of
higher education. Even if the 14th
amendment did apply in such a way that
public segregated schools could not be
maintained and this is emphatically not
the case?even the errant and constitu-
tionally unconscious occupants of the
Supreme Court admit that the 14th
amendment applies only to State action;
and indeed in the discussion of their own
proposal, these three Commissioners par-
rot the words "only State action," but
apparently without the slightest under-
standing of the meaning of this phrase.
The remaining three members of the
Commission wrote their best dissent on
this point, stating that they could not
"endorse a program of economic coer-
cion" and that this proposal, which dealt
with institutions of higher education,
was completely without the jurisdiction
? of the Commission under the terms of
the act by which it was created. The
dissent also reveals that the staff studies.
of the Commission were limited exclu-
sively in the field of education to ele-
mentary and secondary public schools,
not private at any level, nor institutions
, of higher education, whether public or
private. This is but another indication,
if indeed any additional indication is
necessary, that the entirety of the report
is a matter of conjecture rather than any
intelligent studious approach.
On the subject of housing; I gather
that although there are a number of pro-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
posals which are entitled "recommenda-
tions" contained in this section of the
report, none of them has the support of
a majority of the Commission, and there-
fore, could hardly be considered recom-
mendations. The proposals themselves
are confusingly worded, ineptly ex-
pressed, and hazy in content:
One of the so-called findings, which
should be of particular interest to the
Congress is the fact that the Federal
Government plays a major role in hous-
ing. I am happy to note that by virtue
of this body's action recently, the Federal
Government will play a slightly less
major role in housing this year than was
earlier supposed.
The proposals themselves are easily
summarized. They would have the Pres-
ident issue Executive orders to enforce
integration of the races in housing in
which the Federal Government had any
part or participation. In addition, the
proposals would have the Federal Gov-
ernment go much further into the fields
of public housing and urban renewal.
These proposals are no surprise to me.
I have long realized that the race agita-
tors propose to use housing as a tool to
mix the races. ' The three members of
the Commission who dissented summed
up the proposals quite aptly as suggest-
ing "fixed programs of mixing the races
anywhere and everywhere regardless of
the wishes of either race." In their pro-
posals the avid integrationists on the
Commission spell- out the methods by
which housing can be used to integrate
? the races. These are interesting to note
because their use is more often by sur-
reptitious means, and here we have them
spelled out in the open. For instance,
they would adopt a policy of "scattera-
tion" in public housing by sprinkling pub-
lic housing units throughout- residential
areas and installing in them personsof
a race different from those living in the
community. In this connection it is in-
teresting to note that these Commission-
ers are as much concerned with the
problem of getting white people to live in
all-Negro units as they are with getting
some Negroes to live in all-white units.
They recognize, it seems, that the mem-
bers of neither race ordinarily desire to
force themselves on the other.
Mr. President, the policy of "scattera-
tion" is nothing new to the Congress -of
the United States. I distinctly recall
that such a policy was incorporated in
the omnibus housing bill reported by the
Banking and Currency Committee of the
Senate in 1958 but was deleted by an
amendment I offered on the floor.
Mr. President, this report should be
read by every Member of this body before.
he votes on the question of continuing
the existence of this Commission. A
knowledge ? of what recommendations
were made generally or, indeed, whether
there were recommendations at all, is not
sufficient. There is much revealing lan-
guage in this report for all its confusion
and obscurity. I would like to give two
illustrations.
As I mentioned when I was. reviewing
the section of the report which purported
to deal with voting, the report took a
diversion to lament the fact that some
citizens were disinclined to serve on State
registration boards. In this discussion
the report attributes to such persons as
one reason for their refusal to serve the
"fear of being 'hounded' by the U.S.
Civil Rights Commission." What fur-
ther proof could ;be needed that the Com-
mission itself is a principal instrument
of racial strife and voting-difficulties?
Even more revealing with regard to
'the attitude of some of the more avid
integrationists on the Commission itself
is a statement by Commissioner Hes-
burgh. I do not believe I have ever
heard the Marxist philosophy more suc-
cinctly stated than in the words of Com-
missioner Hesburgh in his comments
near the end of the report, where he
said:
'Again, the use of public money for the
benefit of all, equal opportunity, is a cardi-
nal principle.
The question before this body is
whether to continue an ill-conceived in-
strument of racial strife, wielded under
the influence of philosophies alien to all
that true and patriotic Americans hold
dear.
- When the so-called civil rights bill of
1957 was considered by_this body, I op-
posed the bill, including the creation of
the Civil Rights Commission. Although
I spoke at some length concerning the
defects of the proposal to create such
a body, my objections fell largely on
emotion-closed ears. I would like to
recall to the Senate some of my-com-
ments on what was at that time a pro-
posed Civil Rights Commission. On that
occasion, I said:
Mr. President, I am opposed to the crea-
tion of a Commission on Civil Rights as
proposed in part I of H.R. 6127.
To begin with, there,is absolutely no need
or reason for the establishment of such a
CSmmission. If there were any necessity
for an investigation in the field of civil
rights, such an investigation should be con-
ducted by the States or by an approprate
Committee of , the Congress, acting within
the jurisdiction of congressional authority.
It should not be done by a Commission.
I also object to part I of H.R. 6127 because
of the fact that it places duties upon the
Commission and endows it with, powers
which no governmental commission should
have.
In fact, Mr. President, the language of
the bill proposing to establish this Commis-
sion is so broad and so general that it may
encompass more evils than have yet been
detected in it.
Under its duties and powers the Commis-
sion would be able to subpena citizens to
appear before it to answer questions on
many subjects outside the scope of elections
and voting rights.
Section 104(a) provides the Commission
shall?
"(1) investigate allegations in writing un-
der oath or affirmation that certain citizens
of the United States are being deprived of
their right to vote and have that vote
counted by reason of their colo, race, re-
ligion, or national origin; which writing, un-
der oath or affirmation, shall set forth the
facts upon which such belief or beliefs are
based;"
Mr. President, the bill, in part IV, con-
tains an additional protection of the voting
right of citizens above and beyond present
State and Federal laws.: Provision is made
for enforcement of part IV, and there were
already sufficient enforcement provisions to
carry out the intent of the existing State and
'Federal laws. I do not see how a Commis-
sion could enhance the investigative powers
SePteviber '14
of law-enforcement officers nor the enforce-
ment and punitive authority of the courts.
I can see no valid reason why a Commis-
sion should be created, in addition to 'Oak.
legal enforcement procedures, unless the put.
pose is for the Commission to stir up litiga-
tion among our people.
This bill has been advertised, promoted
and ballyhooed as a right to vote bill. How-
ever, I want/to cite two paragraphs whicl
give broad authority for investigations other
than alleged violations of a person's righ
,to vote.
Section 104(a) provides the' Commissior
shall?
"(2) study and collect information con.
cerning legal developments constitutint
denial of equal protection of the laws uncle,
the Constitution; and
"(3) appraise the laws and policies of th
Federal Government with respect to equa
protection of the laws under the Constitt.
tion."
Instead of limiting the power of the Corn
mission, these two paragraphs provide it wit
carte blanche authority to probe into an
meddle into every phase of the relations ex
isting between individuals which the Com
mission and members of its staff could cor,
jure up.
I want to call particular attention to a
vergence in language between paragraphs
and 3. Paragraph 2 refers to a study e
"legal developments constituting a denir
of equal protection':" Paragraph 3 says "ap
praise the laws and policies of the Feder,
Government with respect to equal protec
tion."
The significant thing here is the omissio
of -the specific intent of paragraph 2. A'
though the language of paragraph 2 is ok
scum and omits a governmental reference,
obviously must refer to State and local gar
ernments, else it would be redundant at
nave no meaning at all.
Also, as I pointed out, investigations .con
ducted under paragraphs 2 and 3 could go fr
afield from the question of voting right
The Commission could exert its efforts tc
ward bringing about integration of the rac,
in the schools, and elsewhere, under the at
thorization of these two paragraphs: Corr
bining its authority to investigate on an up
limited scale and its authority to force wr
nesses to answer questions, the Commissic
would have a powerful weapon.
Mr. President, I do not believe the peop'
of this country realize the virtually unlin
ited powers of inquiry Which would be place
in the hands of this political Commissio
While the Commission would have no powt
to implement its desires, I do not believe
people of this country want such a tota
tarian type of "persuasion" imposed up,.
them.
Part I of HR. 6127 purports to create
Civil Rights Commission. Actuhlly, it wou:
create a traveling investigation commissid
Section 103(b) of part I also would pia(
tremendous power within the grasp of tl.
Attorney General with reference to membe,
of the Commission "otherwise in the servl
of the Government.'.:, The clear implicati,
is that whoever drafted this scheme to sec
traveling agents over the country intended
make use of certain members of the exec,
tive branch of the Federal Government.
don't believe it would be necessary to loc
farther than the Justice Department to d
termine-where Commission members alreac
in Government service would be secured. F
placing his employees on the - Commissic
the Attorney General would transform tt_
traveling agents into an additional invest
gative arm of the Justice Department.
Mr: President, I next call attention to ti.
potential abuse found in section 102(g) ur,
der the innocuous title, "Rules of Procedm
of the Commission." That section provid
that:
"No evidence or testimony taken in execi
tive session may be released or used in publ
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sessions without the consent of the Commis-
sion. Whoever releases or uses in public
without the consent of the Commission evi-
dence or testimony taken in executive session
shall be fined not more than $1,000, or im-
prisoned for not more than 1 year."
In an editorial of July 26, 1957, the Wash-
ington Post very correctly pointed out how
this section could be used to imprison re-
porters and other citizens for disclosure of
what a witness might voluntarily tell them.
This editorial provides a penetrating and en-
lightening criticism of this section. Because
af its pertinency and fine analysis, I shall
:mad the last three paragraphs of the edi-
torial which is entitled "Open Rights Hear-
ings," which states:
"The bill contains an invitation, to the
Zlommission to operate behind closed doors.
A provides that if the Commission deter-
mines that evidence or testimony at any
:earing may tend to defame, degrade, or
?ncriminate any person, it shall * * ? re-
:eive such evidence testimony in executive
ession. Some closed sessions may be neces-
.ary to avoid unfair reflections upon indi-
,?icluals, but these should certainly be an
xception to the general rule. In ? our
'pinion, this section ought to be rewritten
n a more positive vein to provide that ses-
ions of the Commission should be open to
he public, unless it should find that closed
iearings were essential to avoid unfairness.
"The House also wrote into the bill a
Iangerous section providing for the fining
r imprisonment for not more than one year
.f anyone who might 'release or use in pub-
c,' without the consent of the Commis-
:on, any testimony taken behind closed
"oors. If the Commission should choose to
perate under cover, without any valid
eason to do so, newspaper reporters and
ther citizens could be jailed for disclosure
1 what a witness might voluntarily tell
hem. This is a penalty that has been
hunned even in matters affecting national
acurity. Such a provision is an invitation
o abuse and a serious menace to the right
f the people to know about the activities
f governmental agencies.
"It is well to remember that this would
lot be merely a study Commission. In addi-
ion it would be under obligation to investi-
ate allegations that persons were being
eprived of their rights under the 14th and
5th amendments. It could subpena wit-
.esses and documents and appeal to the
,aurts for enforcement of such edicts. Its
owers would be such that it should be held
a scrupulous rules of fairness. To encour-
ge the Commission to operate in secret, and
len to penalize news media and citizens
'disclosing'what should have been public
the first place, would be the sort of mis-
ake that Congress ought to avoid at the
utset."
Mr. President, / think the points made in
he editorial are clear and valid.1 Secrecy in
he activities of such a Commission could
lily lead to a denial of the rights of an
ldividual rather than to protection of his
ghts.
Another subject which must not be passed
ver is the subpena power of the Commis-
on. Section 105(f) provides that "subpenas
a? the attendance and testimony of wit-
asses or the production of written or other
latter may be issued in accordance with
,e rules of the Commission."
Mr. President, many of the committees and
pecial committees of the Congress do not
aye this power. The Truman Commission
n Civil Rights did not have it. The subpena
S a punitive measure, generally reserved for
enal process whereby powers are granted to
srce testimony which would not otherwise
,e available. If the proposed commission
gere simply a factfincling commission and
ionpolitical, the extreme power to force tes-
,mony by the use of a subpena would not
le needed.
Neither would the power contained in sec-
tion. 105(g) which provides that Federal
courts shall have the power, upon applica-
tion by the Attorney General, to issue "an
order requiring" a witness to answer a sub-
pens of the Commission and "any failure
to obey such order of the court may be pun-
ished by said court as a contempt therof."
The power of subpena in the hands of a
political commission and the additional
power to enforce its subpenas by court order
diverge from the authority of the traditional
American factfinding commission.
I look with suspicion upon such a com-
mission so endowed with authority, and I
object to its establishment.
Mr. President, I want to discuss another
reason, briefly, why I would be opposed tothe
establishment of the commission proposed in
part I of H.R. 6127. Every appropriation bill -
which has come before the Senate this year
has been reduced by the Senate below the
budget request. The people of this country
have called upon the Members of Congress
to reduce the costs of Government, not to
increase them by creating, new agencies or
commissions.
The advocates of the commission might
argue that the cost of its operation would
not be great, but nowhere ,in the records of
the hearings have I found an estimate of
what the total cost would be. If the commis- -
sion were to exist only for the 2 years provided
in the bill, the compensation and per diem
allowance of commission members would
amount to more than a quarter of a million
dollars, not counting their travel allowances.
Since there is no limitation on the number
of personnel,which might be appointed by
the commission, there is no way to estimate
the ultimate cost of personnel salaries and
expenses. Since the commission is designed
to travel over the country at will, very heavy
travel expenses undoubtedly would be in-
curred.
The taxpayers would never know how many
of their tax dollars were wasted by virtue of
the seemingly innocuous langauge in section
105(e). Unknown, concealed costs are not,
however, the only dangers lurking in that
subsection. A serious departure from sound
legislative procedure is also involved.
In the past, when creating an agency or
commission, Congress retained control of its
creation by the appropriation power. This
is a wonderful check, Mr. President, against
the abuse or misuse of commission authority.
Scrupulous care -should be taken to pre-
serve it. ?
However, section 105(e) provides that:
"All Federal agencies shall cooperate fully
with the Commission to the end that it may
effectively carry out its functions and
duties."
Thus the Civil Rights Commission could
call on the other governmental agencies to
perform many of its tasks. Congressional
control over the Commission would be much
less than if the Commission had to depend
on its own appropriations and would not be
permitted to use the resources of other agen-
cies. Once the Commission is created, only
another law can check its activity during the
period of its existence.
Another thing that concerns me about this
Commission is the fact that once a Govern-
ment agency or commission is established,
nothing else on earth so nearly approaches
eternal existence as that Government agency
or Commission. Mr. President, I fear that
the 2-year limitation placed upon the Com-
mission in this bill would simply be a start-
ing point, and the people of this country
should realize that at this time.
With further reference to section 104(a), I
want to point out the use of the mandatory
word "shall." This word requires the Com-
mission to investigate all sworn- allegations
submitted to the Commission of any citizen
allegedly being deprived of his right to vote.
17921
But the provision neglects to require that
such allegations be submitted by parties in
interest?not simply by some meddler who
seeks to create trouble between other per-
sons. This is another provision of this bill
similar to section 131(c) which would per-
mit the Attorney. General to make the
United States a party to a case without the
consent of the party actually involved.
Another objection to 104(a) is that under
this provision a person could make an alle-
gation to the Commission, against a person
who was not even a citizen of the same
State. Even .so, under the mandatory lan-
guage of section 104(a), the Commission
would be required to make an investigation
of the charges.
SinceNthe Commission is limited by sec-
tion 102(k) to subpenaing witnesses to
hearings only within the State of residence
of the witness, there would be no opportu-
nity in-such a situation for the accused to
confront his accuser. Charges against a per-
son should not be accepted by the Commis-
sion unless the accuser is a citizen of the
same State as the person he is charging with
a violation of the law.
Also, Mr. President, once the Commission
has received the sworn allegation, there is no
requirement that other testimony received
.relating to the allegation be taken under
oath. Failure to make all persons giving
testimony subject to perjury prosecutions in
the event they testify to falsehoods would
surely destroy the value of any such testi-
mony received.
The Commission could and might adopt
a rule to require sworn testimony; but I
should not like to see the Senate leave that
point to the discretion of the Commission be-
cause, in my judgment, the Congress should
require that practice to be followed.
Mr. President, as I stated earlier, it is my
view that an inquirY into the field of civil
rights, or so-called civil rights, is entirely un-
necessary at this time. The laws of the
States and the Federal laws are being en-
forced effectively.
Should there come a time when informs-
tion? might be needed on this subject, the
Congress should not delegate its authority
to a commission. In such a delicate and
sensitive area, the Congress should proceed
with deliberation and care. The appropriate
committees of the Congress itself should
hold hearings limited to the jurisdiction of
the Congress, and the Congress should make
its own determination as to the need for
legislation.
There is no present indication that any
such study will be needed.
Following these remarks, Mr. -Presi-
dent, I discussed the constitutional ob-
jections to such a Commission. Prior to
the creation of the Commission, I was
bothered by grave questions as to the
constitutionality of such an investiga-
tory group. Passage of time since its
creation has strengthened and rein-
forced rny position against the consti-
tutionality of the commission.
I did not and do not perceive from the
debate on the so-called Civil Rights Act
of 1957 that there was any intention by
Senators to subject the Commission to
provisions of the Administrative Proce-
dure Act. Had they dared, I strongly
suspect that the proponents of that Act
would have specifically negated the ap-
plicability of the Administrative Proce-
dure Act. The proponents of the 1957
Act wanted all they could get in the way
of authority for their vicious unit of dis-
harmony. They dreamed of a true "star
chamber," cloaked with arbitrary perse-
cution powers. In their- obsession with
agitating the race issue, they evidenced
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8 -
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17922
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE , September -14.
no concern -whatsoever with true civil
rights, or as I prefer to. call them, indi-
vidual liberties. Their extreme fanata-
cism on the issue of race was paramount
and exclusive?without objectivity, with-
out balance, and without respect for the
"supreme law of the land."
My conclusions are not products of
speculation or conjecture, Mr. President.
Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of
1957 deals rather exhaustively, for an
act of this type, with the rules and rule-
making authority/ of the Civil Rights
Commission. A perusal of this section
reveals that it is designed almost exclu-
sively as a grant of power to the Com-
mission, rather than a limitation for the
protection of the rights of individuals.
The text of this section is as follows:
? SEC. 102. (a) The Chairman or one desig-
nated by him to -act as Chairman at a hear-
ing of the Commission shall announce in an
opening statement the subject of the hear-
ing.
(b) A copy of the Commission's rules shall
be made available to the witness before the
Commission. -
(c) .Witnesses at the hearings may be ac-
companied by their own counsel for the pur-
pose of advising them concerning their con-
stitutional rights.
(d) The Chairman or Acting Chairman
may punish breaches of order and decorum
and unprofessional ethics on the part of
counsel, by censure and exclusion from the
hearings.
(e) If the Commission determines that
evidence or testimony at any hearing may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
person, it shall (1) receive such evidence or
testimony in executive .session; (2) afford
such person an opportunity voluntarily to
appear as a witness; and (3) receive and
dispose of requests from such person to
subpena additional witnesses.
(f) Except as provided in sections 102 and
105(f) of this Act, the Chairman shall re-
ceive and the Commission shall dispose of
requests to subpena additional witnesses.
(g) No evidence or testimony taken in
executive session may be released or used
in public iessions-without the consent of the
Commission. Whoever releases or uses in
public without the consent of the Commis-
sion evidence or testimony taken in execu-
tive session shall be fined not more than
$1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one
year.
(h) in the discretion of the Commission,
witnesses may submit brief and pertinent
sworn statements in writing for inclusion in
the record. The Commission is the sole
judge of the pertinency of testimony and
evidence adduced at its hearings.
(i) Upon payment of the cost thereof, a
witness may obtain a transcript copy of his
testimony given at a public session, Or, if
given at an executive session, when author-
ized by the Commission.
(j) A witness attending any session of the
Commission shall receive $4 fiar each day's at-
tendance and for the time necessarily oc-
cupied in going to and returning from the
same, and 8 cents per mile for going from
and returning to his place of residence.
Witnesses who attend at points so far re-
moved from their respective residences as to
prohibit return thereto from day to day
shall be entitled to an additional allowance
of $12 per day for expenses of subsistence,
including the time necessarily occupied in
going to and returning from the place of at-
tendance. Mileage payments shall be ten-
dered to the witness upon service of a sub-
pena issued on behalf of the Commission
or any subcommittee thereof.
(k) The Commission shall not issue any
subpena for the attendance and testimony
of witnesses or for the production of written
or other matter which would require the
presence of the party subpenaed at a hear-
ing to be held outside of the State, wherein
the witness is found or resides or transacts
business. _
Mr. President, I invite the particular
attention of the Senate to subparagraph
(c) of section 102:
Witnesses at the hearings may be accom-
panied by their own counsel for the purpose
of advising them concerning their constitu-
tional rights.
Mr. President, seldom has a subsection
been drafted by any Congress which has
been so pregnant with basic deprivations
and exclusions of the historical stand-
ards of fair play which permeates our
jurisprudence, and which we loosely re-
fer to as due-process. Let us examine
some of those procedural safeguairds
which are denied by this section. First,
the right of a person appearing before
the Commission to be represented by
counsel is negated. Substituted for rep-
resentation by counsel is the right?if
it can be so broadly denominated?to be
accompanied by counsel. Moral support
is no substitute for an active defense.
Such a provision can best be compared
to allowing an accused person to have a
few sympathizers in the audience when
he is sentenced.
But there is more. The ridiculous is
made fantastic. The right to be accom-
panied by counsel is itself?weak as it
is?limited to one exclusive purpose?
that of advising the witness on his con-
stitutional rights. Not on his legal
rights, Mr. President, but only on his
constitutional rights. I wonder, Mr.
President, if the drafters of this language
contemplated a monitoring of the advice
of the accompanying counsel to assure
that counsel would not go astray and
speak to the witness concerning some
statutory right which might accrue to
the benefit of the witness.
Does this subsection indicate a con-
cern with individual liberty, or does it
rather have the appearance of a de-
ceitful gloss that gives an impression of
preserving due process while actually
emasculating it?
The proponents of this legislation also
wanted to insure that the accompanying
counsel could be prevented from con-
ducting themselves as conscientious at-
torneys, Mr. President?thus, was in-
cluded subsection (d) which reads:
The chairman or acting chairman mhy
punish breaches of order and decorum and
unprofessional ethics on the part of
counsel, by censure and exclusion from the
hearings.
Judging from the overall import of
section 102, the "un" which prefixes
"professional" in subsection (d) must
have been included by oversight. Con-
sistency belies its inclusion.
Subsection (g) established the "star
chamber" session of the Commission.
This subsection so completely ignores
constitutional safeguards contained in
the Constitution and imposed by the
people for the protection of individual
liberties, that one would logically con-
clude that its proponents had formerly
existed in a vacuum, rather than in a de-
mocratic society. It is completely in-
compatible with freedom of speech and
the press. It precludes the right of con-
frontation of accuser by the accused, as
well as the right of cross-examination.
Its purport is reinforced by subsection
(i), which specifies that a witness may
purchase a copy of his own testimony,
but omits any authorization for a witness
to even see the testimony of an accuser.
Mr. President, I would be the first to
admit?nay, assert?that the require-
ments of "due process" vary considerably,
depending on the proceedings to which
they are applied. The requirements are
most strict when applied to a criminal
prosecution. In some . proceedings,
where no basic right of the individual is
involved, little, if any, application of due
process safeguards are demanded by the
Constitution nor required by good con-
science.
It should be clear, however, that a
criminal prosecution includes more than
the formal, trial itself. Indeed, his-
torically, much of the concern which
the courts have evidenced over the ap-
plication of due process in criminal
prosecutions has been in the pretrial
area of apprehension, and preparation
of the prosecution case against the ac-
cused. This is the precise arsa into
which the investigations of the Civi:
Rights Commission were intended to:
and in fact, did, fall.
By the terms of the act itself, investi-
gations" by the Commission must be
predicated on a complaint that either s
statute or the Constitution has been vio-
lated. The Commission was given, and
has exercised, the power to subpena
those accused. Part II and part III
strengthened the machinery for prosecu-
tion of violations established by the
Commission.
There can be but one logical conclu-
sion. The Civil Rights Commission ik
unconstitutional.
If there'be any doubts?and I can con
ceive no basis for doubt?of the uncon-
stitutionality of this Commission, stem-
ming specifically from the rulemaking
pOwer granted in section 102, consider
the rules of the Commission. They arr
as follows:
1. Under Public Law 85-315, section 105(f)
the Commission on Civil Rights may holo
hearings and issue subpertas or authorize
a subcommittee to hold hearings and issue
subpenas under the following conditions:
The Commission or on the authorization
of the Commission any subconimittee of two
or more members, at least one of whom shal'
be of each major political party, may, fc
the purpose of carrying out the provision
of this act, hold such hearings and act w
such times and places as the Commission o,
such authorized subcommittee may ? deer
advisable. Subpenas for the attendance ant,
testimony of witnesses or the production ce
written or other matters may be issued i:
accordance with the rules of the Commissior
as contained in section 102 (j) and(k) cr:
this act, over the signature of the Chairma.
of the Commission or of such subcommittee
and may be served by any person designated
by such Chairman.
2. All such hearings of the Commissidt
will be governed by the following statutory
rules of procedure provided in section 102
of Public Law 85-315:
(a) The Chairman or one designated by
him to act as Chairman at a hearing of the
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959.-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Commission shall announce in an opening
statement the subject of the hearing.
(b) A copy of the Commissions rules shall
be made available to the witness before the
Commission.
(c) Witnesses at the hearings may be ac-
companied by their own counsel for the
purpose of advising them concerning their
Jonstitutional rights.
(d) The Chairman or Acting Chairman
may punish breaches of order and decorum
and unprofessional ethics on the part of
.3ounsel, by- censure and exclusion from the
learings.
(e) If the Commission determines that
widence or testimony at any hearing may
end to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
,erson, it shall (1) receive such evidence or
estimony in executive session; (2) afford
uch person an opportunity voluntarily to
ppear as a witness; and (3) receive and
:ispose of requests from such person to
tibpena aditional witnesses.
(f) Except as provided in sections 102 and
05(f) of this act, the Chairman shall re-
:Ave and the Commission shal dispose of
:quests to subpena additional witnesses.
(g) No evidence or testimony taken in
xecutive session may be released or used in
ublic sessions without the consent of the
,ommission. Whoever releases or uses in
labile without the consent of the Commis-
ion evidence or testimony taken in execu-
we_ session shall be fined not more than
1,000, or imprisoned for not more than
(h) In the discretion of the Commission,
ltnesses may submit brief and pertinent
?
dorn statements in writing for inclusion
a the record. The Commission is the sole
adge of the pertinency of testimony and
.vidence adduced at its hearings.
(1) Upon payment of the cost thereof, a
itness may obtain a transcript copy of his
stimony given at a 'public session or, if
.iven at an exeCutive session, when author--
!,ed by the Commission.
(j) A witness attending any session of the
'ommission shall receive $4 for each day's
ttendance and for the time necessarily oc-
upied in going to and returning from the
ame, and 8 cents per mile for going from
nd returning to his place of residence. Wit-
-esses who attend at points so far removed
:om their respective residences as to pro-
ibit return thereto from day to day shall be
ntitled to an additional allowance of $12
ter day for expenses of subsistence, includ-
ag the time necessarily occupied in going to
ad returning from the place of attendance.
lileage payments shall be tendered to the
,itness upon service of a subpena issued on
half of the Commission or any subcom-
ittee thereof.
(k) The Commission shall not issue any
tbpena for the attendance and testimony
f witnesses or for the production of writ-
la or other matter which would require the
Tesence of the party subpenaed at a hear-
ig to be held outside of the State, wherein
he witness is found or resides or transacts
-1siness.
3. In addition to these statntory provi-
.ons, the Commission has- adopted the fol.
Jwing supplementary Rules tf Procedure:
(a) All the provisions of section 102 of
'ublic Law 85-315, incorporated in rule 2
hove, shall be applicable to and govern the
woceedings of all subcommittees appointed
g the Commission pursuant to section 105
') of Public Law 85-315, incorporated in
ule 1 above.
(b) At least two members of the Com-
aission must be present at any hearing of
he Commission . or of any subcommittee
.hereof.
(c) The holding of hearings by the Com-
fission or the appointment of a subcommit-
-ee to hold hearings pursuant to the provi-
.,ons in rule 1 above must be approved by a
najority of the members of the Commission
or by a majority of the members present at
a meeting at which at least a quorum of
four members is present.
(d) Subpenas for the attendance and tes-
timony of witnesses or the production of
written or other matter may be issued over
the signature of the Chairman of the Com-
mission by the chairman or by the Chairman
upon the request of a member of the Com-
mission.
(e) Subpenas for the attendance and tes-
timony of witnesses or the production of
written or other matter may be issued over
the signature of the chairman of a subcom-
mittee appointed pursuant to the provisions
of rule 1 above by the Chairman or by the
Chairman upon the request of a member of
the subcommittee.
(f) An accurate transcript shall be made
of the testimony of all. witnesses in all hear-
ings, either public or executive sessions, of
the Commission or of any subcommittee
thereof. Each witness will have the right to
inspect the record of his own testimony. A
transcript copy of his testimony may be pur-
chased by a witness pursuant to Rule 2(i)
above. Transcript copies of public sessions
may be obtained by the public upon pay-
ment of the cosC thereof.
(g) Any witness desiring to read a pre-
pared statement in a hearing shall file a
copy with the Commission or subcommittee
24 hours in advance. The Commission or
subcommittee shall decide whether to per-
mit the reading of such statement.
(h) The Commission or subcommittee
shall decide whether written statements or
documents submitted to it shall be placed
in the record of the hearing.
(i) Interrogation of witnesses at hearings
shall be conducted only by members of the
Commission or by authorized staff personnel.
(j) If the Commission pursuant to rule
2(e), or any subcommittee thereof, deter-
mines that evidence w testimony at 'any
hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or in-
criminate any person, it shall advise such
person that such evidence has been given
and it shall afford such person an oppor-
tunity to read th-e pertinent testimony and
to appear as a voluntary witness or to file a
sworn statement in his behalf.
(k) Subject to the physical limitations of
the hearing room and consideration of the
physical comfort of Commission members,
staff, and witnesses, equal and reasonable
access for coverage of the hearings shall be
provided to the various means of communi-
cations, including newspapers, magazines,
radio, news reels, and television. However,
no witness shall be televised, filmed or
photographed during the hearing if he ob-
jects on the ground of distraction, harass-
ment, or physical handicap.
4. Public Law 85-315, section 105(g) pro-
vides that in case of contumacy or refusal
to obey a subpena of either the Commis-
sion or a subcommittee thereof, any district
court of the United States or the United
States court of any territory or possession,
or the District Court of the United States
for the District of Columbia, within the
jurisdiction of which said person guilty of
contumacy or refusal to obey is found or
resides or transacts business, upon applica-
tion by the Attorney General of the United
States shall have jurisdiction to issue to
such person an 'order requiring such per-
son to appear before the Commission or a
subcommittee thereof, there to produce evi-
dence if so ordered, or there to give testi-
mony touching the matter under investiga-
tion; and any failure to obey such order of
the court may be punished by said court as
a contempt thereof.'
Mr. President, these are the rules as
approved and adopted by the Commis-
Sion July 1, 1958. They are beyond ques-
tion responsive to the terms of the act
which created the Commission. They
17923
emphasize by implementation and ex-
pansion the unconstitutionality of the
act creating the Commission.
I am not alone in my assertions as to
the constitutional implications of this -
statute, Mr. President. For instance,
the State of Arkansas, through its at-
torney general,_ filed a brief with the
Federal district court in Louisiana,
which said in part:
The Civil Rights Commission is extra-
ordinary, if not unique, in that it intends
to function much the same as a congres-
sional investigating committee and if its ap-
parent intepretation of the law creating it
(Civil Rights Act, Public Law, 85-315, title
42, U.S.C.A. sec. 1957 et seq.) is sustained it
possesses all the power and authority of a
"star-chamber" undertaking. It is the as-
sumption by the Commission or the delega-
tion by the Congress of this power and
authority which gives rise to the serious
question of the Committee's legal existence.
If the Civil Rights Commission is not sub-
ject to the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.A. secs. 1001 et seq.) ,
then that portion of the Civil Rights Act
creating the Commission is invalid as a vi-
olation of article I and amendments 5, 6 and
9 of the Constitution of the United States.
I. THAT PORTION, OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
CREATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION IS
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF AU-
THORITY BY. THE CONGRESS AND IT DEPRIVES
WITNESSES BEFORE rr OF, THEIR RIGHTS AS
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES
The right of Congress to investigate
through its own agency is. unquestioned:
This right is derived from its determination
or duty to legislate upon particular subject
matter. It may be well to point out here
that in the field assigned to the Civil Rights
Commission there was companion remedial
legislation (42 U.S.C.A. sec. 1971) thoroughly ?
covering the subject matter the Commission
was supposed to investigate. One may
obliquely inquire at this point as to what
further legislation could be contemplated
based on any investigation and finding made
by the Civil Rights Commission. It is true
that in U.S. v. Rains (172 P. Supp. 557,
sec. 1971, par. (c) ) was held unconstitu-
tional but the remedy, if any, for that
deficiency will be found in constitutional
legislation, not further Commission investi-
gation.
It is well to keep in mind that this Corn-
mission is greatly dissimilar to the great
body, of regulatory agencies which possess
investigative powers. Those regulatory agen-
cies investigate with a view to determining
facts in relation to violations, compliance,
etc., With the law they administer. The
Civil Rights Commission investigates for the
sake of investigation. There is no frame-
work of law in which the Commission oper-
ates; in fact, there is no law to administer
and no authority to regulate. As pointed out
in complainants' trial brief, the Commission
is not limited to the investigation of voting
'deprivations committed or caused by State
officers or even where an individual acting
under the guise of State authority deprives
some person of his voting privilege, but ex-
tends to every possible situation irrespective
of the authority of Congress to legislate with .
reference to that situation. This fact in it-
self is sufficient to render the act uncon-
stitutional. See McGrain v. Daugherty (273
'U.S. 135); Kilbourn V. Thompson (103 'U.S.
168); U.S. v. DiCarlo (102 F. Supp. 597).
If this Commission has been clothed with
all the power and authority of Congress, and
the law creating the Commission is very.
reminiscent of a House or Senate resolution
creating a special investigating committee
of its members, it must, of course, be bound
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
by at least the same ground rules and con-
stitutional limitations. If it can be suc-
cessfully argued that the Civil Rights Com-
Mission is not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act, then an inquiry must be
made into what rules, regulations and laws
do apply to the Commission's proceedings.
The only place one can find the answer is
in the act itself, and even a casual reading
of the act indicates that there is no answer.
To examine these provisions in the light of
what the Commission considers the limita-
tions are, is to be startled if not shocked by
the ignoring of the constitutional rights of
individuals who may be called before it. The
rules of the committee reflect the validity
of this statement. The authority to make
these rules must be inferred from the pro-
vision of section 1975a (there is no express
grant of such authority).
Section 1975a(c) does allow witnesses to
be accompanied by counsel "for the purpose
of advising them concerning their constitu-
tional rights." It does not provide that a
witness may assert his constitutional rights
before the Commission. If this last appears
to be an unworthy observation it is no less
unworthy han the Commission's conclusion
regarding a witness' right to be informed
of the nature of the investigation or his
right to cross-examine other witnesses. The
Commission's power to investigate must be
exercised with due respect for the rights of
witnesses appearing before it. See Sinclair
v. U.S., 279 U.S. 263. The Commission by
its rules and attitude has indicated that it
considers itself and its activities above the
requirements of the Constitution and the re-
striction of fairplay; The real difficulty
here is that Congress has not provided any
standard or means of accomplishing the
Commission's somewhat hazy mission. Such
a standard or means must necessarily be
present in order to validate, the Commis-
sion's existance. See U.S. V. C. Thomas
Stores, 49 F. Supp. 111; U.S. V. Wright, 48 F.
Supp. 687. The Civil Rights Commission,
Under the guise,of declaring procedural 'rules
and investigative policy, has legislated sub-
stantive laws out of existance. If the Com-
mission is correct in this assumption of such
broad rulemaking power, then Congress
has delegated legislative authority which
even Congress itself may not posses. It is
no answer to the problem posed here to say
that the complainants or other witnesses
may assert their rights when denied by the
Commission through resort to the Court.
To single out every invalid rule which has
or might be promulgated by the Commission
would place an insurmountable burden on
those subject to appearance before it.
IL THE CIVIL COMMISSION IS SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT
The Civil Rights Commission is operating
and acting with the expressed sanction of
the Congress behind it and as such, is an
agency of the Government. Laster v. Guy F.
Atkinson Co., 176 Fed. 2d 984; Donahue V.
George A. Fuller Co., 104 F. Supp. 145. As
an agency of the Government, the Commis-
sion's function is subject to the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, unless excepted. The
exceptions to the Administrative Procedure
Act are few and simple and a consideration
of the exceptions set forth in the act show
that the only possible way in which the
Civil Rights Commission could be excepted
is through a proper and express delegation
of authority by law. There is nothing in the
Civil Rights Act creating the Commission
that even hints of an exception.
"Exemptions from the terms of the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act are not lightly
to be presumed in view of the statement
in section 12 of the act that modifications
must be expressed" (Marcello v. Bonds, 349
U.S. 302).
The protection afforded by the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act should be equally
available to protect personal rights as well
as property rights. L. A. Tucker Truck
Lines v. U.S., 100 F. Supp. 432. The intended
course of the Commission under its rules
and pronouncements as reflected in the.
complaint virtually strips the complainants
of all the protection sought to be afforded
by the Procedure Act. This is exactly the
sort of conduct the Administrative -Proce-
dure Act was intended to prevent:
"The Administrative Procedure Aet was
framed as a check upon administrators whose
zeal might otherwise carry them to excess
not contemplated in the legislation creating
their offices. It creates safeguards even
narrower than the constitutional ones,
against arbitrary official encroachment on
private rights" (U.S. v. Morton Salt Co., 338
U.S. 632).
It is not necessary to engage in extensive
analysis of the terms of 42 U.S.C.A., section
1975. The Civil Rights Commission is so
obviously an agency of the Government that
argument to the contrary is facetious. It
is equally obvious that there is no state-
ment exempting the Commission from the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and any rules making authority the Com-
mission may possess must be exercised only
within the limitations placed upon it by
the Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. President, the Attorney General
of the sovereign State of Arkansas is re-
f erring in this brief to the body which
the Congress created in- 1957, and into
which it is proposed that we now breathe
life for another 2 years.
Mr. President, we have more than as-
sertions of unconstitutionality to face in
assessing this proposal to extend the life
of the Civil Rights Commission. We
have a finding of the Court:-not a State
court?but a Federal court, mind you.
The finding of the court to which I re-
fer is in the decision of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisi-
ana in the case of Margaret M. Larche
against John A. Hannah, rendered July
12, 1959. The 'order of the court is as
follows:
RULING ON APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDERS
We are called upon here to pass tenta-
tively upon one of the burning issues of our
time?the propriety and validity of the rules
and proceedings of the Civil Rights Com-
mission, as established by Congress in Sep-
tember 1957.
That Commission now proposed to hold a
hearing, in the Federal courtroom at Shreve-
port, La., on July 13, 1959, to investigate pur-
ported violations of the civil voting rights
of some 67 persons, who are said to have
filed sworn complaints with the Commission.
Pursuant to, and in implementation of, its
plans, the Commission has caused subpenas,
and subpenas duces tecum, to be served upon
the plaintiffs in these suits, commanding
them to be present and give testimony at the
hearing, and requiring the 16 registrars of
voters, who are plaintiffs in civil action No.
7479, to bring with them, for inspection and
copying by the Commission, a large number
of records from their offices.
These suits, brought against the members
of the Commission, and the Commission it-
self, were filed on July 10, 1959, and are
addressed to the equitable powers of this
court. They seek to stay the effectiveness
of the Commission's subpenas and subpenas
duces tecum, and to restrain and enjoin the
conduct of the proposed ,hearing itself,
which, plaintiffs aver, under the rules of
" procedure adopted by the Commission,
would Fiolgcte their fundamental constitu-..
Septembe'r 14
tional rights and cause them immediate and
irreparable damage. Moreover, praying that
a three-judge court be convened for that
purpose, the registrar-plaintiffs ask that the
act creating the Commission be declared vio-
lative of the Federal Constitution, and thus
unenforcible.
Detailing their complaints, supported by
sworn affidavits, and exhibits attached (and
here briefly paraphrased), the registrar-
plaintiffs, in civil 'action No. 7479, allege
that between June 29, 1959, and July 6,
1959, each of them was served with . sub-
penas and subpenas duces tecum, issued by
the Chairman of the Commission, command-
ing them to appear and testify before the
Commission on July 13; 1959, and to bring
their records with them; that they have not
been informed of the nature of the com-
plaint or complaints against them?nor have
they been assured that they will be con-
fronted with the complaining witnesses:-
that the Commission repeatedly has in-
formed the attorney general of Louisiana,
verbally, and in writing, that it would not
under any circumstances, furnish plaintiffs
with, or permit them to examine the written
complaints filed against them, nor would i:
divulge the name or names of the secret
complainants, all of which is arbitrary and
unreasonable, and in violation of plaintiffs'
fundamental rights.
They further aver that they, at all times,
have complied with the laws of the State
of Louisiana, but that the subpenas serve('
upon them would require them to violat:
such laws, in that the registrars' record:
legally may not be removed from their offices'
except upon an order of a competent court
criminal penalties being provided for viola-
tions of these statutes; and that the Conk-
mission is not a competent court. Hence,
-they say, to comply with the subpenas, they
would be violating the State laws, and sub-
jecting themselves to the penalties thus pro-
vided.
These plaintiffs further allege that, at.
tached to the subpenas served upon them.
was a mimeographed document entitled
"Rules of Procedure for Hearings of th:
Commission on Civil Rights" in which ap-
pears the following: "(i) Interrogation or:
witnesses shall be conducted only by mem-
bers of the Commission or by authorizeC
staff personnel:" and that thereby plaintiff:
are deprived of their constitutional right is
cross-examine witnesses who may testip
against them? They contend that the Com-
mission and its members thus are actinr-
in an ultra vires manner in ( l) attemptiii?
to force the plaintiffs to testify- at the pro
posed hearing without first advising them C'
the nature of the complaint or complain "
existing; (2) without allowing plaintiffs
be confronted by the complaining witnesses'
(3) not allowing plaintiffs to have counse
empowered to fully represent their interest
In such hearing; (4) not allowing cross-ex
amination of the complaining witnesses; anr*
(5) causing irreparable damage to plaintiff:
by requiring them to violate the laws c.
Louisiana, which would subject them
serious criminal penalties. In their brie
the?y also urge,, as a direct incident of th:
hearing itself, with unnamed and unknow
witnesses testifying against them, not sub,
ject to cross-examination by plaintiff's com.
sel, that they will be wrongfully accused C.
violations of both Federal and State law:
without adequate opportunity to disprov
such accusations, and tilts be held up,
the Commission's actions, to public opprc
brium and scorn, all to their irreparabl
injury and damage.
They further contend that the Commis
sion, being an agency of the executiv
branch of the Federal,Government, is sub
ject to the provisions of the Administrativt
Procedure Act and, as such, is required t
state explicitly the charges against Tlaintifft.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
196
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 17925
to permit them to be confronted. with the
witnesses against them, and to allow their
counsel fully to cross-examine such wit-
nesses. Accordingly, these plaintiffs seek the
relief hereinabove outlined.
In general, the plaintiffs in civil action No.
7480, who are individual citizens of Louisi-
ana, make the same allegations and conten-
tions as those in No. 7479, except that they
have not been called upon to produce any
official records. They do not challenge the
constitutionality of the act creating the
Commission, but otherwise their prayer for
relief is substantially similar to that in No.
7479.
Several days prior to July 10, 1959, we were
advised by plaintiffs' counsel that they would
file these suits on the date indicated. While,
as a general rule, applications for temporary
restraining orders are considered ex parte,
solely on the face of the verified complaint
and any attached documents, because of the
national importance of the matters involved,
we immediately notified co_unsel for the
'Commission, and its vice chairman, Hon.
Robert G. Storey (a personal. friend of the
court of long standing), of our informa-
tion, and invited them to be present for a
hearing,on the applications. The suits were
filed at 1:30 p.m. on July 10, and .at 2 p.m.,
in open court, these gentlemen, and counsel
for plaintiffs, being present, we convened
court, but immediately recessed in order to
give the Commission's representatives op-
portuxiity to study the complaints and briefs
filed by plaintiffs. At 3:30 p.m. we recon-
vened and heard oral arguments, from both
'sides, until 5:20 p.m., at which time the
matter of the restraining orders was sub-
mitted for decision on the oral arguments .
and briefs filed by the proponents and oppo-
nents of the applications. We have consid-
ered the able arguments, studied the respec-
tive briefs and authorities cited, and now
proceed to our ruling: Necessarily, because
of the time element, we have 'been com-
pelled, under great pressure, to consider the
-questions rather hastily, and we reserve the-
right to alter our views, if necessary, after
snore mature deliberation.
The Court has jurisdiction (28 U.S.C.A.
secs. 1331, 1332, 2201, 2282, 2284. Jones v.
'Securities' Commission, 298 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct.
.654,80 L. Ed. 1015) .
We are not strongly impressed with the
? registrar-plaintiffs' contention that the sub-
penes duces tecum, if complied with, would
subject them to criminal , penalties under
Louisiana law. Literally, of coUrse, if they
directly complied without more, they are cor-
rect in their understanding of the State law.
Practically, however, another and different
aspect is presented, for under the Civil
Rights Commission Act they can refuse to
produce the records, without penalties of any
kind, and the only recourse the Commission
would have would be to request the Attorney
General of the United States to apply to this
court, under 42 -U.S.C.A. 1975d(g) for an
order requiring their production. Plaintiffs
then would be protected against State prose-
cution by the very terms of LSA-R.S. 18:236,
as well as by LSA-R.S. 18:169, for this court
clearly is a "competent court," within the
meaning of those statutes.
Likewise, plaintiffs would suffer no imme-
diate Federal penalties under the act for
refusal either to appear or to testify, but
would be subject to an enforcement order
from this court, which would see to it that
their constitutional rights against self-in-
crimination are adequately protected. More-
over, under the act, since their counsel are
entitled to be present, they could be advised,
at each step of the proceedings, whether to
claim the protetion of the fifth amendment,
even though, in this day, the general public
has come to consider such a claim as tanta-
mount to a plea of guilty, particularly in
response to "loaded" questions.
We are strongly of the opinion, however,
that plaintiffs' remaining grounds for imme-
di-ate relief are well taken:
First, it appears rather clear, at this junc-
ture, that the Civil Rights Commission is an
"agency" of the executive branch of the
United States, within the meaning of that
term as defined at 5 U.S.C.A. section 1001(a).
See also 42 U.S.C.A. section 1975(a). It per-
forms quasi-judicial functions in its- hear-
ings, its fact findings, its studies of "legal
developments constituting a denial of equal
protection of the laws under the Constitu-
tion," and its appraisal of "the laws and poli-
cies akthe Federal Government" in the same
respect. It "adjudicates" by its rulings.upon
the admissibility of evidence at its hearings
and by its determinations of what is or is not
the truth in matters before it. Thus, we
think that the Commission is subject to the
provisions of section 4 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, which requires, among other
things that persons affected by agency action,
"shall be timely- informed of the matters of
.fact and law asserted." Here that would
encompass the nature of the charges filed?
against plaintiffs, as well as metiers of fact
and law wherein the complainants' voting
rights allegedly have been violated. The
Commission also is subject to section 6'
'which would require it to grant plaintiffs the
,right "to conduct such cross-examination as
may be required for a full and true disclosure
of the facts." This, by its rules, the Commis-
sion refuses to do, and in so doing, regard-
less of its well-intentioned motives, it vio-
lates the terms of that act. ,Plaintiffs are
entitled, therefore, to protection against hese
rules, which would deprive them of their
plain rights under the act.
Second, while the statute creating the
Commission inferentially permits it to adopt
reasonable rules, 42 U.S.C.A. section 1975 (b) ,
there is no provision whatsoever in-the law
to the effect that -such rules may include
those here complained of, which plainly vio-
late plaintiffs' basic rights to know in ad-
vance with what they are charged, to be
confronted by the witnesses against them;
and to cross-examine their accusers. We
cannot believe that Congress intended to
deny these fundamental rights to anyone,
and because of such belief it is our opinion
that these rules of the Commission are ultra
vires and unenforcible. Therefore, plain-
tiffs are entitled to immediate relief against
them.
Third, entirely aside from. the statutory
questions just discussed, the courts of the
United States, and their Anglo-Saxon prede-
cessors, always have seen to it that, in hear-
ings or trials of all kinds, persons accused
of violating laws must be adequately advised
of the charges against them, confronted by
their accusers, and permitted to 'search for
the truth through thorough cross-examina-
tion. In Jones v. Securities Commission,
(298, sec. 1, 27, 57 S. Ct. 654, 80 L. Ed. 1015),
the Supreme Court said: .
"A general, roving, offensive, inquisitorial,
compulsory investigation, conducted by a
commission without any allegations, upon
no fixed principles, and governed by no rules
of law, or of evidence, and no restrictions
except its own will, or caprice, is unknown
to our. Constitution and laws; and such an
_inquisition would be destructive of the rights
of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny.
Let the power once be established and there
is no knowing where the practice under it
would end.
"The fear that some malefactor may go
unwhipped of justice weighs as nothing
against -this just and strong condemnation
of a practice so odious.
"The philosophy that constitutional limi-
tations and legal restraints upon official
action may be brushed aside upon the plea
that good, perchance, may follow, finds no
countenance in the American system of gov-
ernment. AU investigation not based upon
specified grounds is quite as objectionable as
a search warrant not based upon specific
statements of fact. Such an investigation,
or such a search, is unlawful in its inception
and cannot be made lawful by what it may
bring, or by what it actually succeeds in
bringing to light."
In Morgan, et al. v. United States, et al.
(304 -U.S. 1, 14, 20, 25, 58 S. Ct. 773, 82 D. Ed.
-1129), involving an administrative hearing
-the Court said:
"The first question goes to the very founda-
tion of the action of administrative agencies
entrusted by the Congress with broad con-
trol over activities which in their detail
cannot be dealt with directly by the legisla-
ture. The vast expansion of this field of
administrative regulation in response to the
pressure of social needs is made possible
under our system by adherence to the basic
principles that the legislature shall appro-
priately determine the standards of adminis-
trative action and .that in administrative
proceedings of a quasi-judicial character the
liberty and property of the citizen shall be
protected by the rudimentary requirements
of fair play. These demand 'a fair and open
hearing,' essential alike to the legal validity
of the administrative regulation and to the
maintenance of public confidence in the
value and soundness of this important gov-
ernmental process. Such a hearing has been
described as an 'inexorable safeguard.'
"The answer that the proceeding before
the Secretary was not of an adversary char-
acter, as it was not upon complaint but was
initiated as a general inquiry, is futile. It
has regard to the mere form of the proceed-
ing and ignores realities.
"Those who are brought into contest with
the Government in a quasi-judicial proceed-
ing aimed at the control of their activities
are entitled to be fairly advised of what the
Government proposes and to be heard upon
its proposals before it issues its final com-
mand."
? In the most recent decision on this sub-
ject, handed down by the 6upregle court on
.June 29, 1959, Greene v. McElroy, No. 180
October 1958 Term - U.S. -, - S. Ct. -,
- L. Ed. -, 29 L.- W. 4528, 4534, 4538, and
speaking through Chief Justice Warren, the
following language is found:
"Certain principles have remained rela-
tively immutable in our jurisprudence. One
of these is that where governmental action
seriously injures an individual, and the rea-
sonableness of the action depends on fact
findings, the evidence used to prove the
Government's case must be disclosed to the
individual so that he has an opportunity to
Show that it is untrue. While this is im-
portant in the case of documentary evidence,
it is even more important where the evi-
dence consists of the testimony of individ-
uals whose memory might be faulty or who,
in fact, might be perjurers or persons mo-
tivated by malice, vindictiveness, intoler-
ance, prejudice, or jealously. We have for-
malized these protections in the require-
ments of confrontation and cross-examina-
tion. They have ancient roots. They find
expression irs the sixth amendment which
provides that in all criminal cases the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right 'to be confronted
with the witnesses against him.' This Court
has been zealous to ppotect these rights
from erosion. It has spoken out not only
in criminal cases, e.g., Mattox v. United
States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-244; Kirby v. United
States, 174 U.S. 47; Motes v. United States,
178 U.S. 458, 474; In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257,
273, but also in all types of cases where ad-
ministrative and regulatory action were
under scrutiny. E.g., Southern R. Co. v.
Virginia, 290 U.S. 190; Ohio Bell Telephone
Co. v. Commission, 301 U.S. 292; Morgan v.
'United States, 304 U.S. 1, 19; Carter v. Kub-
ler, 320 U.S. 243; Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 'U.S.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120066-8
17926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Seember /4
?
269. Nor, as it has been pointed Out, has
Congress ignored these fundamental require-
ments in enacting regulatory legislation.
Joint Antifascist Committee v. McGrath, 341
U.S. 168-169 (concurring opinion)."
Professor Wigmore, commenting on the
importance of cross-examination, states in
his treatise, 5 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.
1949) section 1367:
"For 2 centuries past, the policy of the
Anglo-American system of evidence has been
to regard the necessity of testing by cross-
examination as a vital feature of the law.
The belief that no safeguard for testing the
value of human statements is comparable?
to that furnished by cross-examination, and
the conviction that no statement (unless by
special exception) should be used as testi-
mony until it has been probed and sub-
limated by that test, has found increasing
strength in lengthening experience.
"Where administrative action has raised
serious constitutional problems, the Court
has assumed that Congress or the Presi,
dent intended to afford those affected by
the action the traditional safeguards of due
process. See, e.g., The Japanese Immigrant
case, 189 U.S. 86, 101; Dismuke v. United
States, 297 U.S. 167, 172; Ex parte Endo, 323
U.S. .283, 229-300; American Power Co. V.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 329
U.S. 90, 107-108; Hannegan v. Esquire, 327
U.S. 1.46, 156; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath,
339 U.S. 33, 49. Cf. Anniston Mfg, Co. v.
Davis, 301 U.S. 337; United States v. Rumely,
? 345 U.S. 41. These cases reflect the Court's
concern that traditional forms of fair pro-
cedure not be restricted by implication and
without the most?explicit action by the Na-
tion's lawmakers, even in areas where it is
possible that the Constitution presents no
inhibition."
These authorities, therefore, clearly estab-
lish additional reasons why plaintiffs should
be granted immediate relief.
Fourth, there is every reason to believe,
considering that the Commission has an-
nounced its receipt of complaints from
some 67 persons, that those persons will
testify that plaintiffs have violated either
the State or Federal laws, or both. Plain-
tiffs thus will be condemned out Of the
mouths of these witnesses, and plaintiffs'
testimony alone, without having the right
to cross-examine and thereby to test the
truth ,of such assertions, may not be ade-
quate to meet or overcome the charges, thus
permitting plaintiffs to be stigmatized and
held up, before the eyes of the Nation to
opprobrium and scorn. Moreover, not know-
ing in advance the exact nature of the
? charges to be made against them, some of
the plaintiffs, whose official domiciles are
at varying distances up to 250 miles from
Shreveport, may not be able physically to
obtain the presence of witnesses of their
own, who might negative or disprove the
claims of the complaining witnesses, espe--
cially since the Commission has announced
that its hearing will last only 1 day.
These are further solid reasons, showing'
possible or probably irreparable injury to
plaintiffs, which justify their being granted
immediate relief.
Fifth, and finally, plaintiffs rage very seri-
ous questions regarding the validity?the
constitutionality?of the very Act which cre-
ated the Commission. We do not inti-
mate here any opinion as to the constitu-
tionality of the statute, for that is a mat-
ter to be decided by the three-judge court to
be convened by the chief judge of this cir-
cuit. However, the seriousness of the at-
tack must be noted in considering whether
a temporary restraining order should be
issued, to stay the effectiveness of the stat-
ute until its validity vel non can be de-
termined by the three-judge court after
hearing on plaintiffs' application for an in-
terlocutory injunction. See Ohio Oil CO'. V.
Conway, 279 U.S. 813, 49 S. Ct. 256, 73 L. Ed.
972, where the Supreme-Court stated, in a
per curiam opinion:
"The application for an interlocutory in-
junction was submitted on ex parte affi-
davits which are harmonious in some par-
ticulars and contradictory in other. The
affidavits, especially those for the defend-
ant, are open to the criticism that on some
points mere conclusions are given instead
of primary facts. But enough appears to
Make it plain that there is a real dispute
over material questions of fact which cannot
be satisfactorily resolved upon the present
affidavits and yet must be resolved before
the constitutional validity of the amends.-
tory statute can be determined.
"Where the questions presented by an ap-
plication for an interlocutory injunction are
grave, and the injury to the moving party
will be certain and irreparable if the appli-
cation be denied and the final decree be in
his favor, while if the injunction be granted
the injury to opposing party, even if the
final decree be in his favor, will be incon-
siderable, or may be adequately indemnified
by a bond, the injunction usually will be
granted. Love v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante
, Fe R. Co., 185 Fed. 321, 331-332."
In Crockett v. Hortman, 101 F. Supp. 111,
115, at page 115, Judge Wright, of the East-
ern District of Louisiana, dealing with the
constitutionality of a State statute, said:
"Whereas here the questions presented
by an application for a temporary injunc-
tion are grave, and the injury to the moving
parties will be certain and irreparable if the
application be denied and the final decree
be in their favor, while if the injunction
be granted the injury to oPposing parties,
even if the final decree be in their favor,
Will be inconsiderable, the injunction should
be granted. Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U.S.
813, 49 S. Ct. 256, 73 L. Ed. 972.
"The determination of the grave consti-
tutional issues presented in this case should
not be decided without a trial on the merits,
Polk Co. v. Clover, 305 U.S. 5, 59 S. Ct. 15,
83 L. Ed. 6, and a temporary injunction
should be issued in order that the status quo
may be preserved until that time."
To the same effect, see also Burton, at al.,
V. Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc., 244 F. 2d
647.
This, 'then, is another ground upon which -
plaintiffs are entitled to the immediate re-
lief they seek.
For these reasons, the application for tem-
porary restraining Orders wilf.be granted.
Thus done and signed, in chambers, at
Shreveport, La., on this the 12th day of
July 1959.1
Mr. President, how can we, in the face
of this court order, extend the life of
the Civil Rights Commission without
violating the oath of each of us to 'up-
hold the Constitution? Would not such
an 'extension necessarily imply congres-
sional endorsement of the rules of the
Commission, and of the Commission's
disinclination to act pursuant to the Ad-
miriistrative Procedure Act? We need
to remind ourselves that we are here
to uphold the Constitution and repre-
sent the people of the. several States?
not to vent our emotions in legislation
or advance our personal political for-
tunes.
The fact that an appeal from the Dis-
trict Court decision is now pending be-
fore a three-judge court does not
mitigate against my point, Mr. President.
In fact, it emphasizes its validity. The
court on appeal could not ignore the ac-
tion of Congress in extending the life of
the commission. Necessarily and prop-
erly, the court would have to assume that
Congress acted with full knowledge of
the order of injunction.
Mr. President, for what purpose do the
proponents of this measure propose that
Congress so flagrantly violate the Con-
stitution? What is the nature of the
goal which is so imperative that individ-
ual liberty must be trampled in the dust?
We can only judge the proposed future
of the Civil Rights Commission on its
past actions and 'record. It has func-
tioned for a, long enough period to ap-
praise its worth. In 1957, the propon-
ents of the so-called civil rights bill
predicted that the commission would
uncover the most dire and tragic situ-
ations existing in the field of voting
rights. The record shows how wrong
they were. As of June 30, 1959, the com-
mission had received a total of only 1,036
complaints, sworn and unsworn. Out of
these complaints, on any subject within
the jurisdiction of the commission, only
254 were by sworn affidavits.
The number of complaints in the vot-
ing field is even more indicative of the
lack of need for the Commission.' Out of
the millions of voters in this country,
the Commission has received but 315
complaints, sworn and unsworn. In my.
own State of South Carolina there were
three complaints, not a one of which
was sworn. Even were.there no consti-
tutional question involved in the pro-
posed extension of the commission's ex-
istence, we could not justify, from a
simple policy standpoint, the expendi-
ture of the funds necessary to sustain
this useless agency.
No one knows thei uselessness of the
Commission, nor the folly of continuing
it, better than those who served as mem-
bers of the Commission. Their state-
ments, although guarded, indicate an
extreme lack of enthusiasm which belies
any sense of accomplishment. As Dr.
Hannah, the Chairman of the Commis-
sion, expressed it, that in the period he
had tried it, he had found "there is no
right answer to all sides." His attitude
Is evidently shared by his fellow Com-
missioners- who have been reported as
expressing reluctance to serve, beyond
the legal life of the Commission as estab-
lished in 1957.
It is obvious, Mr. President, that the
attempt to extend the Commission is a
propaganda effort, done in defiance of
the Constitution.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, We
Americans pride ourselves upon being
a nation of charitable: understanding
and tolerant people motivated by sin-
cere concern for the welfare of human-
ity.
Yet for the second time in 2 years
we in Congress find ourselves giving
serious consideration to a propbsal that
it give its sanction to an agency of gov-
ernment which, by its own report, denies
each of those noble impulses.
The Commission on Civil Rights is the
antithesis of everything for which we
Americans claim to stand.
It knows no charity.
It makes no pretense at understanding.
It is steeped in intolerance. Its report
Is a calculated insult to the people of the
entire southern region of our Nation and
to those of us who have the privilege
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8 ?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
to serve their interests in the Senate of
the United States.
As I contemplate this Commission, the
doubtful motives of its sponsors and its
alarming portent for evil and tragic re-
sults, I find it almost more than I can
do to sustain the Christian charity to
suppress the resentment which swells
within me.
As one who has the honor to represent
in part a conscientious and God-fearing
people I would be derelict in my duty if I
did not express to this Senate in the
most emphatic terms at my command
the virtually universal sense of outrage
and indignation of the citizens of Geor-
gia at being tied to the national whip-
ping post year after year to be ridiculed,
castigated, and punished for the politi-
cal pleasure and gain of those who-se
stock in trade is racial demagoguery
agitation and exploitation.
We in Georgia yield to no one in the
sincerity or intensity of Our adherence
to the principles of justice, decency, and
fair play for all.
We have no apologies to make to any-
one for what we profess or practice.
To be sure we have our problems and
our shortcomings, but we are trying to
do something about them.
We make no pretense at being perfect.
Neither do we presume to sit in judg-
ment on the imperfections of others.
In Georgia all children are receiving
equal educational opportunities in a
modernized public school system for
which Georgians are paying 53 cents out
of every tax dollar.
In Georgia all qualified citizens, in-
cluding more than 160,000 colored citi-
zens, are freely exercising the right to
vote.
In Georgia economic opportunities for
all citizens are being 'dramatically im-
proved as the result of an industrial
revolution which is reshaping our entire
economy.
We are proud of the progress which
all of our citizens are making working
together and we are looking forward to
achieving a future of better lives and
greater prosperity for all Georgians.
Members of both races are living and
working together in harmony and un-
derstanding and I am confident that,
barring outside interference, that atti-
tude of mutual trust and respect will
continue and be enhanced to the bene-
fit of all.
Georgians ask nothing more of the
remainder of the Nation than to be left
alone to work out our own destiny among
nurselVes in accordance with the wishes
of all the people of Georgia and follow-
ing the normal course of human rela-
tions.
We do not feel that we should be held
up to public scorn and ridicule and
made the targets of vicious and punitive
attacks simply because some people in
some States may take issue with our
ideas about human relations?ideas
which are enthusiastically shared by at
least 95 percent of all our citizens.
That Georgia is succeeding in accord-
ance with those ideas in giving the real
and meaningful civil rights to all our
No. '163-12
citizens is attested to by no less a per-
sonage than Dr. John A. Hannah,
Chairman of the Commission on Civil
Rights. ?
In that connection / should like to read
to the Senate the following colloquy be-
tween Dr. Hannah and the Honorable
PRINCE PRESTON, Representative in Con-
gress from the First District of Georgia
which took place in hearings before the
House Subcommittee on Departments of
State and Justice, the Judiciary and re-
lated agencies appropriations on last
April 30:
Mr, PRESTON. Dr. Hannah, what conclu-
sions did you reach in Atlanta about hous-
ing?
Mr. HANNAH. Well, sir, we concluded that
there was a story in Atlanta that could well
be told to the country. Of course, there is
some pretty poor Negro housing in Atlanta,
as there is poor housing for Negroes and
white folks in other sections of the country,
but the Atlanta story is a very interesting
story and the progress that has been made
in providing an opportunity for Negroes to
acquire middle-class, and high-class, hous-
ing?while it is true they are segregated in
areas?they have some very fine communi-
ties. This has been a cooperative effort
worked out voluntarily by the Negroes and
the white people and the city leaders-and
the mayor and so on.
Frankly, I was surprised and pleased at
what we found in the housing area in At-
lanta, not because you happen to be a na-
tive of Georgia, but there is a better oppor-
tunity provided for middle-class and high-
class housing for at least some of these Ne-
groes in Atlanta than in many cities in my
part of the country.
* * -
Mr. PRESTON. Have you found generally in
the State of Georgia that the Negro popula-
tion has no problem about registering and
voting?
Mr. HANNAH. Well, from personal investi-
gation, certainly in Atlanta and in many
other areas that were brought into our dis-
Missions there, that is true.
I think .there were some indications that
perhaps there were some of the isolated
rural areas where that might not be true,
but I have no firsthand knowledge of that.
It is my general impression the voting situa-
tion in Georgia is pretty good and getting
much better.
Mr. PRESTON. In my own district there are
one or two counties who have more Negro
registered voters than white.
Mr. HANNAH. The Congressman recognizes
that there are many counties in the South
with large populations of Negroes where there
is not even one registered.
Mr. PRESTON. You would not find that to
be true in Georgia.
Mr. HANNAH. That is correct.
Mr. PRESTON. Georgia is one of the most
progressive States in the Union and one of
the most liberal States in the Union.
Mr. HANNAH. I believe that is right.
There, Mr. President, is the impression
gained by one of our Nation's most able
and respected educators about the status
of human relations in my State of
Georgia. I am sure there is no Member
of this Senate who would presume to dis-
pute the conclusion of so capable and
disinterested an observer of the Georgia
scene. ?
It is also most revealing, Mr. President,
to study an analysis of the sources of
17927
the complaints received by the Commis-
sion on Civil Rights.
Statistical tables supplied me by the
Commission show that, as of last June 30,
of the 315 voting complaints received by
the Commission from its inception
through that date only one came from
the State of Georgia and that one was
unsworn. A comparison with some of
the States from which much criticism of
Georgia's ideas on human relations have
come shows that twice as many com-
plaints were received from the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin and an equal number
from the States of New York and New
Jersey. -
On the basis of those figures, Mr. Presi-
dent, it is only fair to conclude that if
any problem with relation to voting
exists in the State of Georgia, the situa-
tion is twice as bad in the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin and equally as bad in the
States of New York and New Jersey.
In the area of rights other than voting,
the Commission reported to me that of
the 664 complaints received only 19
came from Georgia. That figure, the
agency disclosed, compares with 66 com-
plaints from New York, 45 from Cali-
fornia, 32 from Ohio, 25 from Pennsyl-
vania, 24 from Illinois, and 22 from
Missouri.
On the basis of those figures, Mr.
President, it is only fair to conclude that
if any problem with relation to civil
rights other than voting exists in the
State of Georgia, the situation is more
than three times as bad in the State
of New York, more than twice as bad in
the State of California, more than one-
and-a-half times as bad in the State of
Ohio, and to lesser-degrees worse in the
States of Pennsylvania, Illinois, and
Missouri:
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi-
dent, to have printed herewith in the
RECORD as a portion of my remarks the
statistical tables furnished me by the
Commission on Civil Rights 'analyzing
the complaints received by the Commis-
sion from-the time of its establishment
through the end of the 1959 fiscal year
last June 30.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows: -
COMIVIISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C.
Grand total all complaints received
1957-59 979
. Voting 315
Regular 664
Total voting complaints received since
Apr. 30, 1959 6
Total regular complaints received since
Apr. 30, 1959 52
Total all complaints received since
Apr. 30, 1959 57
Grand total voting complaints received
1957-59 315
Sworn affidavits in 13 States 254
JUNE 30, 1959.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
. Voting complaints, by States, June 30, 1959
State
Total
Sworn
Unsworn
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia__
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
119
6
15
1
2
2
2
95
1
41
2
3
2
2
3
7
1
3
1
2
104
12
1
1
88
1
40
1
1
2
, 1
1
1
15
6
3
1
1
1
1
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 2
3
6
1
3
2
315
254
61
? COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS,
Washington, D.C.
Total complaints, other than voting, by
States, June 30, 1959 (not required to be
sworn)
Alaska 1
Alabama_ 23
Arizona 1
Arkansas 4
California 45
Colorado 3
Connecticut '7
Delaware 3
Florida 28
Georgia 19
Idaho 0
Illinois 24
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 4
Kentucky 11
Louisiana 13
Maine 1
Maryland 5
Massachusetts 7
Michigan 16
Minnesota 2
Mississippi 6
Missouri 22
Montana 3
Nebraska 2
Nevada 1
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 13
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.0
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Foreign countries_
Puerto Rico
Mr. TALMADGE. Georgians are
proud of the fact that this official rec-
ord proves that the oVerwhelming ma-
jority of the citizens of our State are
satisfied with our present? concept of
human relations and the manner in
which it is being translated into practi-
cal benefit for all.
Georgians are proud of the fact that
our State, which is pursuing without
ostentation, programs of uplift for all
our citizens, has been found far less
wanting in the provision and protec-
tion of real civil rights than many of the
States outside the South which make a
fetish of promising bigger and better
synthetic rights while failing to produce
fulfillrnent of the meaningful ones.
Georgians are proud of the fact that
there have been no news stories about
rapes, riots, and suicides in our public
schools and no lengthy magazine ar-
tidies about "powder keg" 'racial ten-
sions in malodorous slum jungles.
In Georgia we do not have any Con-
ditions comparable in any respect to
those described in an article featured
in the August 3, 1959, issue of U.S. News
& World Report under the heading "Is
New York Sitting on a Powder Keg??
Racial Unrest Forces Its Way to the
Surface."
Mr. President, because the conditions
described in this article stand in such
sharp contrast to those which prevail
in my State of Georgia, I ask unani-
mous consent that the full text of it be
printed herewith in the RECORD as a por-
tion of my remarks. ?
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
IS NEW YORK SITTING ON A POWDER KEG??
RACIAL UNREST FORCES ITS WAY TO THE SUR-.
FACE
(Tension is boiling to the surface in New
York. Tempers, building up, can lead to
real trouble between the races. -Negro boy-
cotts have developed. There are clashes be-
tween police and demonstrators. Harlem is
in an angry mood. A member of the board
of editors of U.S. News & World Report, at
the scene, brings the explosive situation into
focus.)
NEW Yonx Cirsr.?Concern is growing here
over a wave of racial unrest that threatens to
engulf America's biggest and richest city.
New Yorkers are being warned by Police
,
66 Commissioner Stephen P. Kennedy that "a
13 race riot could cause more destruction of
0
community relations than an atom bomb."
32 Harlem, the unofficial "Negro capital of
5 Amerida," is being described by one city Orli-
3 cial as "in an angry mood." Each night,
25 crowds of Negroes gather on street corners to
1 listen to soapbox orators who preach black
13 supremacy and the downfall of the white
2 man.
16
24 These and similar developments are com-
2 ing into focus as a result of a single incident
that took place on the sultry afternoon of
0
18 July 13.
10 That trouble developed when two white
15 policemen arrested a Puerto Rican woman
4 accused of creating disorder in a Harlem
8 restaurant, While she was being taken to
1 the police station, the police car crashed into
? 4 a safety island.
3 Within a matter of minutes, a crowd of
angry Negroes, estimated at more than 200,
Subtotal 550 gathered menacingly around the police. In
Illegible, anonymous, abusive, etc 114 the ensuing melee, the two policemen were
hit by a bullet accidentally find from one
Total 664 of their own revolvers.
September' 14
In the hours that followed, 88 additional
policemen were sent to Harlem, and police
were reinforced in other Negro areas of the
city.
A NEGRO OUTBREAK?
This incident, however, is only one of
many in recent weeks in what New York's
leading Negro newspaper hails as the out-
break of the "revolt of the Negro"?.-a revolt
that some say will far surpass in scope and
tension the bus strike of 1956 in Mont-
gomery, Ala.
Here are some of the events taking place:
Ralph J. Bunche, a prominent Negro diplo-
mat and educator, recently inquired about
a membership for his son in the West Side
Tennis Club, at Forest Hills, site of the
U.S. championships and Davis Cup matches.
Mr. Bunche stated that he was informed
by the clubi president, Wilfred Burglund,
that Negroes and Jews were not admitted to
membership.
In the wake of strong criticism from city
officials and newspapers, Mr. Burglund re-
signed his post. The club has explained
that its membership rolls are open to mem-
bers of racial and religious minorities.
In Harlem, 40 tenement dwellers are stag-
ing a "rent strike" against white landlords
who, they say, have refused to make sanitary
repairs to rat-infested buildings.
Negroes are boycotting white-owned liquor
stores in Harlem which refuse to buy whole-
sale supplies from Negro salesmen. Under
pressure of Negro picketing, seven store-
owners have signed agreements stating: "I
will refuse to continue doing business with
any wholesaler who will not send as a repre-
sentative a Negro salesman."
Thirteen other liquor stores have capitu-
latkl without waiting for pickets to show
up. Now the New York chapter of the Na-
tional Association for the Advancement of
Colored People is promising to extend this
drive to liquor stores in Negro areas across
the city?and, eventually, to retail stores of
every type that are located in Negro areas.
BOYCOTT OF BUSES
Another boycott is being threatened
against the Fifth Avenue bus line after com-
plaints from Negro passengers that they were
getting discourteous and discriminatory
treatment from white busdrivers.
The Negro revolt also is moving into New
York City's public schools.
Last year, nine Negro parents refused to
send their children to predominantly Negro
schools on the ground that such schools were
inferior in quality of teaching , and curricu-
lum. A court ruling last December upheld
the parents' contentions that the schools
were inferior and that the parents were
within their legal rights in keeping their
children out.
Now a drive is underway in Harlem to
stage a mass sitdown of Negro parents next
September unless Negro youngsters are per-
mitted to enroll in predominantly white ele-
mentary and junior high schools of their
choice. As a result, New York City is facing
the possibility that some Negro children will
be sitting out next year's school term.
Politically, a campaign is underway, led by
Representative ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Dem-
ocrat, of New York, to force the Democratic
machine?Tammany Hall?to give one in
every three patronage jobs in New York City
to a Negro or Puerto Rican.
NEGRO POWER GROWING
These separate developments, Negro lead-
ers say, are not part of an organized push.
But they are seen as proof of a growing
population and of growing power of Negroes
in this city.
An unofficial census in 1957 showed that
948,000 Negroes were living within the city.
Today, their number is estimated at more
than 1 million?more than in any other city
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
in the world. Negroes now account for
about 15 percent of the city's population, as
against only 5 percent in 1940.
A Negro, Hulan E. Jack, is president of the
Borough of Manhattan. This job is gener-
ally rated second in importance only to that_
of mayor of New York City. Top-ranking
jobs in many city departments are held by
Negroes. There are a dozen or so Negro
judges in city and State courts here. Al-
together, Negroes hold an estimated one-
third of the jobs in public transit and about
20 percent of the jobs in the city welfare
department.
TROUBLES OF AN OPEN CITY
Until recently, this growth in power went
relatively' unnoticed in a city that takes
pride in its reputation for racial tolerance.
New York City's officials openly promOte
the concept of an open city?a place where
opportunity is provided equally for all races.
Integration is the official policy, backed by
a dozen State and city laws that forbid
racial discrimination in jobs, public facil-
ities, and housing. These laws are sternly
enforced.
Last year, the city put into effect a revolu-
tionary law?one that prohibits discrimina-
tion again apartment and homeseekers on
grounds of race or religion. In the first 14
months of operation, 325 complaints of vio-
lation of this law have been made, and the
claim is made that the law is helping many
Negroes find apartments and homes once
barred to them.
Yet many Negro leaders are saying now
that these steps are only the beginning of
measures to bring full equality to Negroes,
and some say that New York City is entering on a phase of racial tension that is the
most difficult yet encountered in this city.
EAST SIDE, WEST SIDE
Negroes are flowing out into every 'bor-
ough of the city?east side, west side, all
around the town. More than 300,000 live in
Brooklyn, about 125,000 live in Queens, and
-almost as many in the Bronx.
It is in Manhattan, however, and especi-
ally in Harlem, that most of the Negroes
are to be found and that most of the trouble
is developing. One reason for this, accord-
ing to city officials, is that middle and up-
per-income Negroes more and more are mov-
ing out of- Harlem tenements into better
part of the city. What they have left be-
hind is an exceptionally high proportion of
low-income Negroes?many of them chronic
troublemakers and criminals.
Along with that, Harlem tenements are
described as among the worst in the city.
Wide publicity is given day by clay to the
overcrowding-of 122,000 people within an area
only two-thirds of a square mile?an area
where people often live 8 and 10 to a room
and where police get daily reports of children
bitten, sometimes seriously, by rats.
It is against this background that trouble
is developing between Negroes and the police
force in Harlem.
CHARGES, COUNTERCHARGES
Charges are heard that Negroes taken into
custody are beaten-up at police stations, that
Negro women are slapped and kicked, that
white policemen break into the homes of
law-abiding Negroes without search warrants.
Officials tit police headquarters acknowl-
edge that some such instances have taken
place and do take place. They also say that
offending policemen are punished by demo-
tion, fines, or both, upon proof of such of-
fenses. But most such charges, they say,
show up as groundless upon investigation.
Last year, 126 complaints of police brutal-
ity were filed in New York City?by whites
as well as Negroes. A special hearing panel
in the police department, after hearing these
complaints, preferred charges against the
policemen involved in nine cases. Seven of
the nine were found guilty of brutality.
The July 13 outbreak of trouble between
Harlem Negroes and police was not the first
of this kind?nor, informed Negro leaders
say, is it likely to be the last. One Negro
says: "There is no doubt about it. People
here don't like the police, they-are suspicious
of the police."
On at least two other occasions in the last
4 years threatening crowds of Negroes have
gathered to protest police brutality. On a
smaller scale, policemen who arrest a drunk
or disorderly person in Harlem often find
themselves the target of jeers from gather-
ings of anywhere from a handful to several
dozen bystanders.
SEEKING COOPERATION
Police officials at this time are engaged in
an intensive community relations cam-
paign in Harlem. Efforts are being made to
secure the support of law-abiding Negroes
in reducing Harlem's crime rate. Meetings
are held periodically with Harlem leaders.
Recently Police Commissioner Kennedy
warned:
"It (Harlem) is an extremely difficult area
to police and the policemen themselves must
have the support of the community. If they
have to work in a community that is non-
cooperative, where prisoners are taken from
them, it makes the policing problem that
much more difficult."
Individual policemen are discouraged from
?making any comments that might stir up
racial controversy. Privately, however, many
of them express bitterness at what they de-
scribe as a lack of cooperation by Negroes,
often in situations where their own lives are
in jeopardy.
NEGRO "MUSLIMS"
What adds to this difficulty is a growth
of a black nationalist movement that stirs up
hatred of the white man.
This movement is spearheaded by a so-
called Muslim sect, which claims a quarter
of a million members among U.S. Negroes.
Its leader calls himself Elijah., Muhammad.
He maintains headquarters in Chicago, but
here in Harlem his chief lieutenant is a Negro
who is known as Malcom Little but who also
calls himself Malcom X.
? On his periodic visits to Harlem, Muham-
mad draws crowds of 2,000 to 3,000 Negroes
eager to hear the message of the spiritual
leader of America's Muslims.
These listeners are being told that the
white man is the greatest drunkard, greatest
seducer, greatest murderer, greatest adult-
erer, greatest deceiver on earth. Negroes are
promised that they will soon gain control of
New York City?and that white rule in the
United States will be overthrown by 1970.
The sect's official magazine is headlined, "The
Earth Belongs to the Black Nation?the First
and the Last."
Nobody knows just how many New York
Negroes belong to this sect. Conservative
estimates run to somewhere between 7,000
and 10,000. The Muslims maintain a restau-
rant, along with a- temple, where every per-
son entering is searched.
Beyond these numbers, however, tens of
thousands of Negroes are geting the racigt
message of Muhammad. Each night, crowds
of Negroes gather at street corners in Harlem
to listen to zealous young Muslims preach-
ing from soap boxes. During the incident of
July 13, one such orator picked up his box
and, along with several dozen of his listeners
moved down the street to incite further Ne-
groes who were demonstrating against the
two white policemen.
DANGEROUS FOR WHITES
Officially, this sect claims to deplore vio-
- lence. But one Negro newsman reports that
whites found on the outskirts of such gath-
erings are told by Negroes to move along if
you don't want trouble?you're in our terri-
tory now. This newsman reports that, at
such times, it is very definitely dangerous
for whites to be in the area.
17929
Many responsible Negroes in Harlem and
other parts of New York City discount the
influence of this sect, which, they say, enlists
support mainly from unimportant Negroes
here. But Negro newspapers give promi-
nent coverage to the statements of "Muslim"
leaders, and many leading Negro business
and professional men are known to make
substantial contributions to the sect.
What many fear is developing out of the
revolt of the Negro here is growing tension
between the races on both sides of the racial
fence, white as, well as black.
The move to hasten integration of New
York pity's schools by transporting ele-
mentary and junior -high school students
from Negro neighborhoods into less crowded
schools in predominantly white neighbor-
hoods is meeting opposition from white
parents.
DON'T TREAD ON US
A few weeks ago, a group of white moth-
ers from the Glendale section of Queens
marched around City Hall carrying placards
protesting the plan to transport about 1,000
children, most of them Negro or Puerto
Rican, from overcrowded schools in Brook-
lyn to schools in Glendale.
Among the signs the white mothers car-
ried was this: "Don't tread on us."
At the same time, in the same vicinity,
Negro mothers also were picketing city hall
with signs such as this one: "This is New
York City?not Little Rock."
White homeowners and apartment dwel-
lers in many parts of the city are moving
out as Negroes spread out from Harlem. In
Queens, one estimate is that it takes about
3 years for a neighborhood to change from
white to black after the first Negro moves in.
In residential areas, New Yorkers are be-
coming more aware of their race problem
than ever before. A white householder in
Queens says:
"We're beginning to feel a coldness be-
tween the races. The ()flier day, a Negro told
me that his white neighbor doesn't talk to
him now. My wife and I, in the past, have
had Negroes to dinner in our home?and we
still do. But now we look around to see if
the neighbors notice it."
DIFFICULT SCHOOLS?
Top-rated teachers are bitterly protesting
proposals that school officials assign them,
regardless of their desires, to teaching posts
at difficult schools which are composed
mainly of Negro and Puerto Rican children.
At present, such posts are filled on a volun-
tary basis, and many teachers have said they
will seek employment elsewhere rather than
be assigned to such schools.
Also stirring resentment among whites is
the dispersal of Negroes across the city by
means of public housing.
It is now the official policy of the city to
discourage location of any public-housing
projects in areas occupied mainly by Negroes
and Puerto Ricans. Such projects, it is felt,
will only build up ghettos, since 40 percent
of all public housing for? low-income fam-
ilies is occupied by Negroes and another 15
percent by Puerto Ricans. -
As a result, about three-fourthSN of these
families in public housing now live in racially
integrated projects in- predominantly white
neighborhoods.
In such projects, white tenants and nearby
residents are complaining of a rise in crime,
juvenile delinquency, and dilapidation.
White families are tending to move out of
integrated projects. A Brooklyn project that
was equally divided between whites and other
groups only a few years ago, now is two-
thirds Negro,
, COST OF CRIME
New Yorkers are becoMing aroused by the
mounting costs of crime and welfare that
have come to the city with the growth of this,
Negro population.
Unofficial estimates are that Negroes, with
about 15 percent of the city's population, ac-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE September 14
count for a third of its serious crimes. Many
of these crimes are committed far beyond
the borders of Harlem and other Negro areas.
In some categories, such as rape and nar-
cotics violations, the percentage of Negroes
involved is believed to be considerably higher
than for other offenses.
Negroes, together with Puerto Ricans, are
estimated to account for about half of the
city's welfare costs?and for a far bigger per-
centage of the aid to dependent children.
The answer of Negroes; and many white
officials in this city, is that these problems
can be solved only by providing Negroes and
Puerto Ricans with better housing, better
schools, and more job opportunities.
Negroes now are embarked on a revolt to
gain those objectives. The result at this time
Is to bring New York City's racial troubles
into the foreground, and fears are being
expressed that these troubles are going to
mount in the months ahead.
Mr. TALMADGE. -I hope for the il-
lumination of the Senate and the Na-
tion, Mr. President, that the two elo-
quent and distinguished Senators from
New York [Mr. JAvrrs and Mr. KEAY-
ING l?both of whom are advocates of leg-
islation to put the citizens of my State
of Georgia in jail without jury trials
merely for trying to shield white and
colored citizens alike from conditions
and situations such as prevail in New
York?will address themselves to this
subject and tell us just how such condi-
tions and situations serve to advance the
civil rights of the constituents they rep-
resent.
Mr. President, I believe it would be a
fair and accurate summation of the at-
titude of the vast majority of Georgians
to state that they feel it is an unconscion-
able act of hypocrisy for representatives
of States and metropolitan areas which
are unable to cope with their own wors-
ening problems of human relations to
attempt to force their discredited con-
cepts of sociology upon other States and
areas where those problems are virtually
nonexistent and people of all races live
together in harmony and mutual respect.
In that regard, I think all of' us in
this Senate could be best guided by the
words of the Son of God when He said:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall
be judged: and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou tile mote that is
? in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the
beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let
me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and,
behold, a beam -is in thine Own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam
out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou
see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye (Matthew 1: 1-5).
Mr. President, it is incomprehensible
to 'the people of Georgia why the Con-
gress of the United States must waste
its time and the money of the Ameri-
can taxpayers seeking to enact contrived
and unworkable solutions to problems
which are not significant factors in our
State when our country is confronted
with so many real and pressing problems
which demand thoughtful and effective
solutions from Congress.
Georgians feel that Congress could do
far more to justify its existence and to
earn the confidence and respect of the
Nation by doing something concrete to
eliminate, or at least contain, the threat
to present and future generations posed
by the presence of increasing quantities
of strontium 90 in the atmosphere and
food supplies of the country; provide a
realistic and meaningful national farm
program which will guarantee the farm-
ers of America their proportionate
share of the national income; protect
the jobs of American industrial work-
,ers from destruction as the result of in-
discriminate imports of foreign-made
goods manufactured at slave-wage lev-
els; curb ever-increasing inflation, re-
verse the ever-mounting cost of living
and restore the value and, purchasing
power of the American dollar; balance
the Federal budget, hold Federal spend-
ing within the bounds of.Federal income
and begin a systematic program of re-
&lotion of the national debt; stimulate
scientific and medical research to find
and perfect as soon as humanly possi-
ble cures for and preventives of the dread
killers and cripplers of mankind like
cancer and heart disease; put an end
to Government' programs and policies
which attempt to do for people in other
countries what the United States either
is unable or unwilling to do for our own
citizens here at home; conlne the Fed-
eral Government to programs and activ-
ities in those areas delegated to it by
the Constitution and leave the manage-
ment of all other affairs to local people
on the local level; make the United States
so secure militarily and economically
that any nation daring to attack us in-
vites not retaliation but annihilation;
?prevent any further encroachment upon
the inalienable right of each citizen to
be left alone to run his own affairs and
to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.
Mr. President, in so acting, Congress
could do more to promote the real civil
rights of the American people than it
ever could hope to achieve by passing a,
million force bills.
Mr. President, the American people
have a right to ask of this Congress why
it is concerning itself with legislation
of the nature of the pending measure
when so much of legitimate concern to
all citizens has been left undone.
There is no more convincing argument
against extending the life of the Com-
mission on Civil Rights than the exper-
ience of the Commission itself.
Since its inception the Commission
has been hard pressed to find enough
evidence of deprivation of anyone's civil
rights anywhere to keep its 69 full-time
employees, 7 consultants, and 6 Commis-
sioners busy. As noted in the tables
which I have had inserted in the RECORD,
despite all the publicity attendant to its
establishment and authorized function,
the Commission had received as of the
end of the 1959 fiscal year only 979 com-
plaints from throughout the Nation and
its territories.
This fact prompted close questioning
on the part of Congressman Jomq J.
ROONEY, of New York, chairman of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee, to
which I have previously referred, at the
hearing held by his subcommittee last
April 30 on the Commission's requested
appropriation for the current fiscal year.
The transcript of Representative
ROONEY'S questions and the replies by
Commission Chairman Hannah and
Commission Staff Director Gordon Tif-
_f any is most illuminating. I read as fol-
lows from page 1196 of the printed record
of the subcommittee's hearings for this
year:
Mr. ROONEY. On the face of it, it does not
look as though the Commission has had very
'much to do; is that a fair statement?
Mr. TLFFANY. When you consider that all
these complaints call for field research in
most instances and we have men out check-
ing?
Mr. ROONEY. I am not talking about what
you do when you get complaints. I am
talking about the number you have received.
Mr. TIFFANY. I can only say that the mail
file system calls for the numbering of each
piece of mail that comes in. My best rec-
ollection is that in a recent week that num-
ber has been over 9,000.
Mr. HANNAH. I should point out, Mr.
Chairman, the Commission has other re-
sponsibilities than to answer complaints.
Mr. ROONEY. We understand that, Doctor.
I think you mentioned four responsibilities
a while ago, did you?
Mr. HANNAH. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. I cannot help but be ml-
pressed by the small number of complaints
that you have here. If my impression is
wrong, I wish you would dispel it.
Mr. TIFFANY. We attach great significance,
Mr. Chairman, to the denial of the right to
vote in any single instance. We believe the
numbers are shocking and that is all that
I can say.
It is further most interesting to note,
Mr. President, on page 1191 of the same
hearings the statement by Chairman
Hannah that "the work of the Commis-
sion is centered around its report which
will be given to the Congress on or be-
fore September 9', 1959."
Thus, Mr. President, it is obvious that
the Commission report,which -we of this
86th Congress have received embracing
recommendations affecting the lives,
liberty, and property of 177 million
Americans is based solely upon, first,
what Mr. Tiffany believes; and, second,
a mere 979 complaints?of which at
least 114 admittedly are the work of
cranks and motivated busybodies and
only 254 were made in the form of sworn
affidavits.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a short question?
Mr. TALMADGE. I am delighted to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
.North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator has men-
tioned statements which were made by
officials of the Civil Rights Commission
when they applied to the House commit-
tee for an appropriation for the Com-
mission. I should like to ask the Sen-
ator whether the testimony then pre-
sented by the officials of the Civil Rights
Commission showed these things: First,
that they had a staff at that time of 75
employees, who were receiving an aver-
age annual salary of between $7;000 and
$7,500; and that the Commission was
receiving verified voting rights com-
plaints at the rate of one-half complaint
per month for each of those employees.
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator is ap-
proximately correct. ?I recall that there
69 employees with the Commission at
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17931
the present time. I thank the Senator
for his contribution.
Mr. President, it is inconceivable that
this Congress and the responsible men
and women who comprise it will rely on
so flimsy and contrived an excuse to
enact legislation which would strike at
the vitals of American liberty under the
guise of protecting American citizens
from bogeymen conjured up in- the
imaginations of appointed bureaucrats.
Why, Mr. President, I receive more
mail in 2 months than the Commission
on Civil Rights has received in 2 years,
and I would point out to this Senate in
all modesty that with the help of a staff
only one-seventh the size of that of the
Commission I am able, with very few
exceptions, to reply to each letter I re-
ceive on the same day I receive it.
Therefore, Mr. President, I submit to
the Senate that the only course of action
indicated by the experience of the Com-
mission on Civil Rights is to permit it to
die the natural death contemplated for
it by the law creating it. It has proved
itself to be surplus property unneeded by
either the Federal Government or the
American people.
The cost of this Commission to the
American taxpayers, as of June 30, was
$977,000, which, according to the Library
of Congress, included a transfer of
$200,000 from the President's emergency
fund in fiscal 1958, a fiscal 1959 appro-
priation of $750,000, and a supplemental
appropriation of $27,000.
A little simple arithmetic shows this
an101111.ts to a cost of $997.96 for each
complaint which the Commission has re-
ceived and, I believe, even the most parti-
san observer will have to admit in hon-
esty that that is a pretty steep price tag
for investigating any complaint of any
nature. I am sure that any of our law
enforcement agencies would be over-
joyed to receive an appropriation of one-
tenth of that amount for each case they
are called upon to investigate and
process.
And, as if that were not enough, Mr.
President, this Congress already has ap-
propriated another $288,000 to carry the
Commission through its November 8,
1959, expiration date and it is now pro-
posed that Congress, in voting to extend
its life, also approve an additional ap-
propriation of $500,000 for the re-
mainder of the 1960 fiscal year.
To those in the Senate who are inter-
ested in economy in, Government, I
would suggest that here is an excellent
place to start practicing what is being
preached.
Fortunately for the Nation the Com-
mission to date has been composed of
honorable and sincere men and I shud-
der to think of the witch hunts to which
the American people could have been
subjected during the past 2 years had
such not been the case.
And I also shudder to think what
likely will happen should the life of the
Commission be extended and the at least
four members of it who have stated that
they plan to resign in such an eventu-
ality are -replaced by a second string of
motivated zealots.
The fact that at least fours of the
present honorable members of the Corn-
mission do plan to quit cail be construed
as nothing less than their repudiation
of the sham which the Commission is
and of their desire to cease lending it
the respectability of their names and
prestige.
More eloquent than the report which
Mr. Tiffany wrote for the Commission
is the statement of Dr. Hannah, as re-
ported in the Washington Star of March
16, 1959, that he is going to quit because
he has found?and I quote him?"there
is no right answer to all sides."
The article in the Star, published un-
der the heading "Four on Rights Board
To Quit After November," and written by
Star staff writer, Howard L. Dutkin,
gives a significant insight into the
thinking of a majority of the members
of the Commission in this regard.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Pres-
ident, to have the article printed in the
RECORD at this juncture in my remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FOUR ON RIGHTS BOARD To QUIT
AFTER NOVEMBER
(By Howard L. Dutkin)
At least four out of five members of the
Civil Rights Commission as originally ap-
pointed plan to quit their posts as soon as
possible after the life of the Commission
expires in November, even though Congress
may extend it another 2 years.
Chairman John A. Hannah said, "There is
no question we would like to be freed of our
responsibility if Congress extends the Com-
mission."
The members recognized when they ac-
cepted the Presidential appointments in 1957
that "it was a tough assignment and that
chances were pretty gockl for a lainbasting
from both sides," Dr. Hannah said.
However, he said, he decided to "try it
for 2 years." In that time, he said, he has
found "there is no right answer to all sides."
Dr. Hannah is president of Michigan State
University. He was interviewed by tele-
phone from his office in East Lansing.
SOME MIGHT STAY BRIEFLY
While stating that "my guess is that the
Commissioners won't be around" after next
November, Dr. Hannah indicated some of
them might help out for a while longer if
a brandnew Commission "finds the going
tough."
Commissioner Robert G. Storey also said
he would not wish to continue with the
Commission after November. He said he ac-
cepted the post with the understanding that
it would be a 2-year job. He said his other
responsibilities preclude his staying longer.
Commissioner Storey is dean of the South-
ern Methodist University Law School, Dallas.
Another Commission member, the Rever-
end Theodore M. Hesburgh, definitely said
he would not continue to serve even though
the Commission is extended and the Presi-
dent asks him to. Father Hesburgh is pres-
ident of Notre Mame University.
"TIME CONSUMING"
"We are all extremely busy men with com-
mitments apart from Commission work."
Father Hesburgh said.
The work of the Commission, he said, is
"time consuming" and an added "pack on
our backs." He said the Commissioners all
have been "working like mad" to finish the
report on the civil rights picture involving
racial discrimination in several fields, in-
cluding education, voting, and housing.
Doyle E. Carlton, a former Governor of
Florida and a member of the Commission,
said he feels as the others do about desir-
ing to wind up the task and devote them-
selves to other affairs this fall.
Senate delay in confirming the Commis-
sioners and Staff Director Gordon E. Tiffany
hampered the group's activities at the out-
set.
The Commissioners were sworn in by the
President in January 1958. Two months
elapsed before confirmation. Mr.Tiff any was
nominated for the post in February 1958,
but was not confirmed until Mat.
The other original member, former Gov.
John S. Battle of Virginia, was not availabl6
for comment. It was reported, however, that
he also would not serve longer than the origi-
nal term.
It was understood that Dr. George M.
Johnson, former dean of Howard University,
/ appointed to the Commission last week will
continue to serve if he is confirmed by the
Senate and the life of the Commission is ex-
tended 2 years as requested by the adminis-
tration.
'Dr. Johnson succeeded J. Ernest Wilkins,
who died several months ago.
Mr. TALMADGE. It is ironic to note,
Mr. President, that the Commission on
Civil Rights?even though composed of
honorable and respected men?has
found it necessary to spend more time
attempting to justify its own right to'
exist than in investigating complaints
of denial of the civil rights of individual
citizens.
It is most interesting, Mr. President,
to compare the warnings uttered an this
floor about the dangers inherent in the
creation of such a Commission and the
actual results of the Commission's activ-
ities since its creation in the face Of
those warnings.
That the fears which were expressed
in 1957 were not without foundation
have been given official judicial recogni-
tion in the order issued exactly 2 years
to the day later?on July 12, 1959?by
U.S. District Judge Ben C. Dawkins, Jr.,
in the U.S. District Court for the West-
ern District of Louisiana enjoining the
Commission on Civil Rights from hold-
ing contemplated hearings in that State.
In order that a comparison might be
made between what was predicted and
what has happened, I ask unanimous
consent, Mr. President, that the conclu-
sions of Judge Dawkins' order be printed
at this point in the RECORD as a portion
of my remarke.
There being no objection, the conclu-
sions were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
CONCLUSIONS or U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE BEN C.
DAWKINS, JR., OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT ? FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, IN
RULING ON APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDERS JULY 12, 1959, IN
CASE OF MRS. MARGARET M. LARCHE ET AL. V.
JOHN A. HANNAH ET AL.
We are strongly of the ?opinion, however,
that plaintiffs' remaining grounds for im-
mediate relief are well taken:
First, it appears rather clear, at this
juncture, that the Civil Rights Commission
is an "agency" of the Executive branch of
-the United States, within - the meaning of
that term as defined at 5 U.S.C.A. section
1001(a). See also 42 U.S.C.A. section 1975(a)
It performs quasi-judicial functions in
its hearings, its fact findings, its studies of
"legal developments constituting a denial of
equal protection of the laws under the Con-
stitution," and its appraisal of "the laws and.
policies of the Federal Government" in the
same respect. It "adjudicates" by its rul-
ings upon the admissibility of evidence at
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Seiiember 14
its hearings and by its determinations of
what is or is not the truth in matters before
it. Thus we think that the Commission is
subject to the provisions of section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, which re-
quires, among other things that persons af-
fected by agency action "shall be timely in-
formed of the matters of fact and law as-
serted." Here that would encompass the na-
ture of the charges filed against ,plaintiffs,
as well as the matters of fact and law where-
in the complaints' voting rights allegedly
have been violated. The Commission also
is subject to section 6 which would require
it to grant plaintiffs the right "to conduct
such cross-examination as may be required
for a full and true disclosure of the facts."
This, by its rules, the Commission refuses
to do, and in so doing, regardless of its well
intentioned motives, it violates the terms of
that act. Plaintiffs are entitled, therefore,
to protection against these rules, which
would deprive them of their plain -rights
under the act.
Second, while the statute creating the
Commission inferentially permits it to adopt
reasonable rules, 42 U.S.C.A. section 1975(b),
there is no provision whatsoever in the law
to the effect that such rules may include
those here complained of, which plainly vio-
late plaintiffs' basic rights to know in ad-
vance with what they are charged, to be con-
fronted by the witnesses againsts them, and
to cross-examine their accusers. We cannot
believe that Congress intended to deny these
fundamental rights to anyone, and because
of such belief it is our opinion that these
rules of the Commission are ultra vires and
unenforceable. Therefore, plaintiffs are en-
titled to immediate relief against them.
Third, entirely aside from the statutory
questions just discussed, the courts of the
United States, and their Anglo-Saxon prede-
cessors, always have seen to it that, in hear-
ings or trials of all kinds, persons accused
of violating laws must be adequately advised
of the charges against them, confronted by
their accusers, and permitted to search for
the truth through thorough cross-examina-
tion. In Jones v. Securities Commission, 298
U.S. 1, 27, 57 S. Ct. 654, 80 L. Ed. 1015, the
Supreme Court said:
"A general, roving, offensive, inquisitorial,
compulsory investigation, conducted by a
commission without any allegations, upon no
fixed principles, and governed by no rules of
law, or of evidence, and no restrictions ex-
cept its own will, or caprice, is unknown to
our Constitution and laws; and such an in-
quisition would be destructive of the rights of
the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny. Let
the power once be establishd, and there is no
knowing where the practice under it would
end.
"The fear that some malefactor may be so
unwhipped of justice weighs as nothing
against this just and strong condemnation'
of a practice so odious * * *
"The philosophy that constitutional limi-
tations and legal restraints upon official ac-
tion may be brushed aside upon the plea
that good, perchance, may follow, finds no
countenance in the American system of gov-
ernment. An investigation not based upon
specified grounds is quite as objectionable as
a search warrant not based upon specific
statements of fact. Such an investigation,
or such a search, is unlawful in-its Inception-
and cannot be made lawful by what it may
bring, or by what it actually succeeds in
bringing to light."
In Morgan et al. V. United States, at al.
304 U.S. 1, 14, 20, 25, 58 S. Ct. 773, 82 L. Ed.
1129, involving an administrative hearing,
the Court said:
"The first question goes to the very foun-
dation of the action of administrative agen-
cies entrusted by the Congress with broad
control over activities which in their detail
cannot be dealt with directly by the legisla-
ture. The vast expansion of this field of ad-
ministrative regulation in response to the
pressure of social needs is made possible un-
der our system by adherence to the basic
principles that the legislature shall appro-
priately determine the standards of adminis-
trative action and that in administrative
proceedings of a quasi-judicial character the
liberty and property of the citizen shall be
protected by the rudimentary requirements
of fair play. These demand `a fair and open
hearing'?essential alike to the legal validity
of the administrative regulation and to the
maintenance of public confidence in the
value and soundness of this important gov-
ernmental process. Such a hearing has been
described as an 'inexorable safeguard.'" * * *
"The answer that the proceeding before
the Secretary was not of an adversary charac-
ter, as it was not upon complaint but was
initiated as a general inquiry, is futile. It
has regard to the mere form of the proceed-
ing and ignores realities.
"Those who are brought into contest with
the Government in a quasi-judicial proceed-
ing aimed at the control of their activities
are entitled to be fairly advised of what the
Government proposes and to be heard upon
Its proposals before it issues its final com-
mand."
In the most recent decision on this sub-
ject, handed down by the Supreme Court on
June 29, 1959, Greene v. McElroy (No. 180,
October Term ? U.S. ?, ? S. Ct.?, ? L.
Ed. ?, 29 L. ,W. 4528, 4534, 4538) , and speak-
ing through Chief Justice Warren, the follow-
ing language is found:
"Certain principles have remained rela-
tively immutable in our jurisprudence. One
of these is that where governmental action
seriously injures an individual, and the
reasonableness of the action depends on fact-
findings, the evidence used to prove the Gov-
ernment's case must be disclosed to the indi-
vidual so that he has an opportunity to show
that it is untrue. While this is important
in the case of doiumentary evidence, it is
even more important where the evidence con-
sists of the testimony of individuals whose
memory might be faulty or who, in fact,
might be perjures or persoijs motivated by
malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice,
or jealousy. We have formalized these pro-
tections in the requirements of confronta-
tion and cross-examination. They have
ancient roots. They find expression in the
sixth amendment which provides that in all
criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the
right `to be confronted with the witnesses
against him.' This court has been zealous
to protect these rights from erosion. It
has spoken out not only in criminal cases,
e.g., Mattox v. United States, (156 U.S. 237,
242-244); Kirby v. United States (174 U.S.
47); Motes v. United States (178 U.S. 458,
474); In re Oliver (333 U.S. 257, 273), but
also in all types of cases where administra-
tive and regulatory action were under
scrutiny, e.g., Southern R. Co., v. Virginia
(290 U.S. 190); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v.
Commission (301 U.S. 292) ; Morgan v. United
. States (304 U.S. 1, 19); Carter v. Kubler (320
U.S. 243); Reilly v. Pinkus (338 U.S. 269).
Nor, as it has been pointed out, has Congress
ignored these fundamental requirements in
enacting regulatory legislation. Joint Anti-
fascits Committee v. McGrath (341 U.S. 168-
169) (concurring opinion).
"Professor Wigmore, commenting on the
Importance of cross-examination, states in
his treatise, 5 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.
1940) section 1367:'
"For two centuries past, the policy of the
Anglo-American system of evidence has been
to regard the necessity of testing by cross-
examination as a vital feature of the law.
The belief that no safeguard for testing the
Value of human statements is comparable to
that furnished by cross-examination, and
the conviction that no statement (unless by
special exception) should be used as testi-
mony until it has been probed and sub-
limated by that test, has found increasing
strength in lengthening experience.
"Where administrative action has raised
serious constitutional problems, the Court
has assumed that Congress or. the President
intended to afford those affected by the ac-
tion the traditional safeguards of due
prdcess. See, e.g., The Japanese Immigrant
case, 189 U.S. 86, 101;' Dismuke v. United
U.S. 283, 299-300; American Power Co. v.
Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 329 U.S.
90, 107-108; Hannegan v. Esquire, 327 'U.S.
146, 156; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339
U.S. 33, 49. Cf. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis,
301 U.S. 337; United States v. Rumely, 345
US. 41. These cases reflect the Court's con-
cern that traditional forms of fair procedure
not be restricted by implication and without
the. niost explicit action by the Nation's-law-
makers, even in areas where it is possible
that the Constitution presents no inhibi-
tion."
These authorities, therefore, clearly es-
tablish additional reasons why plaintiffs
should be granted immediate relief.
Fourth, there is every reason to believe,
considering that the Commission has an-
nounced its receipt of complaints from some
67 persons, that 'those persons will testify
that plaintiffs have violated either the State
or Federal laws, or both. Plaintiffs thus -will
be condemned out of the mouths of these
witnesses, and plaintiffs' testimony alone,
without having the rights to cross-examine
and thereby to test the truth of such asser-
tions, may not be adequate to meet or over-
come the charges, thus permitting plain-
tiffs to be stigmatized and held up, before
the eyes of the Nation to opprobrium and
scorn. Moreover, not knowing in advance
the exact nature of the charges to be made
against them, some of the plaintiffs, whose
official domiciles are at varying distances up
to 250 miles from Shreveport, may not be
able physically to obtain the presence of
witnesses of their own, who might negative
or disprove the claims of the complaining
'witnesses, especially since the Commission
has announced that its hearings will last
only 1 day.
These are further solid reasons, showing
possible or probable irreparable injury to
plaintiffs, which justify their being granted
immediate relief.
Fifth, and finally, plaintiffs raise very
serious questions regarding the validity?the
constitutionality?of the very act which cre-
ated the Commission. We do not intimate
here- any opinion as to the constitutionality
of the statute, for that is a matter to be
decided by the three-judge court to be con-
vened by the chief judge of this circuit.
However, the seriousness of the attack must
be noted in considering whether a temporary
restraining order should be issued, to stay
the effectiveness of the statute until its
validity vel non can be determined by the
three-judge court after hearing on plaintiffs'
application for an interlocutory injunction.
See Ohio Oil Co. V. Conway, 279 U.S:813, 49
S. Ct. 256, '73 L. Ed. 972 where the Supreme
Court stated, in a per curiam opinion.
"The application for an interlocutory in-
junction was submitted on ex parte affidavits
which are harmonious in some particulars
and contradictory in other. The affidavits,
especially those for the defendant, are open
to the criticism that on some points mere
conclusions are given instead of primary
facts. But enough appears to make it plain
that there is. a real dispute over material
questions of fact which cannot be satisfac-
torily resolved upon the present affidavits and
yet must be resolved before the constitutional
validity of the amendatory statute can be
determined.
* * ? *
"Where the questions presented by an ap-
plication for an interlocutory injunction are
grave, and the injury to the moving party
will be certain and irreparable if the appli-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
cation be denied and the final decree be in
his favor, while if the injunction be granted
the injury to opposing party, even if the final
decree be in his favor, will be inconsiderable,
or may be adequately indemnified by a bond,
the injunction usually will be granted.
Love v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co.,
185 Fed. 321, 331-332."
In Crockett v. Hortman, 101 F. Supp. 111,
115, at page 115, Judge Wrighst, of the east-
ern district of Louisiana, dealing with the
constitutionality of a State statute, said:
"Where as Ihere the questions presented by
an application for a temporary injunction are
grave, and the injury to the moving parties
will be certain and irreparable of the appli-
cation be denied and the final decree be in
their favor, while if the injunction be granted
the injury to opposing parties, even if the
final decree be in their favor, will be incon-
siderable, the injunction should be granted.
Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U.S. 813, 49 S.
Ct. 256, 73 L. Ed. 972.
"The determination of the grave constitu-
tional issues presented in this case should not
be decided without a trial on the merits,
Polk Co. v. Glover, 305 U.S.5, 59 S. Ct. 15, 83
L. Ed. 6, and a -temporary injunction should
be issued in order that the status quo may
be preserved until that time."
To the same effect, see also Burton et a/ v.
Patanuska Valley Lines, Inc., 244 F. 2d 647.
This, then, is another ground upon which
plaintiffs are entitled to the immediate relief
they seek. -
For these masons, the applications for
temporary restraining orders will be granted.
Thus done and signed, in chambers, at
Shreveport, La., on this the-12th day of July
1959.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, the
order of Judge Dawkins, portions of
which I have, inserted in the RECORD,
should leave no doubt but that there
exist substantial constitutional questions
not only as to the procedures followed
by the Comission on Civil Rights but
also as to its very existence.
' It is obvious, therefore, that even
should the life of the Commission be ex-
tended by this 1st session of the 86th
Congress, the major portion of its efforts
for the next year or more will of neces-
sity have to be directed toward defend-
ing both its rules and its existence be-
fore Federal courts of both original and
appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, it
goes without saying that any useful pur-
pose which the Commission might by any
stretch of the imagination have served
has been hopelessly impaired by the legal
attacks being made upon it.
Mr. President, it would be an affront
to the American taxpayers to extend the
life of this Commission when it has been
shown conclusively by its own experience
that its existence is not justified by the
small number of actual cases of depriva-
tion of civil rights in any section of our
country and when substantial legal and
constitutional questions regarding the
validity of its existence are being pressed
In the Federal courts.
_ An even more compelling reason for
allowing this Commission to expire as
scheduled is the arrogant and cynical
bid for power over the lives and liberties
of all Americans which its staff has writ-
ten into the Commission's report.
That report is confirmation of the
worst fears of those of us who opopsed
the creation of the Commission 2 years
ago.
The effect of carrying out its pro-
po,sals would be to perpetuate that
agency as an unconstitutional instru-
ment of meddling and intimidation from
which no facet of the lives, fortunes and
sacred honor of the American people
would be immune.
The variance between the drastic tenor
of the report and the soft words of the
public utterances of the Commission
members prior to its issuance affords no
conclusion but that the report is not the
work of the Commissioners but rather of
a radical Commission staff?a staff head-
ed by a man about whom I expressed
grave misgivings when confirmation of
his nomination was before this Senate
on May 14, 1958.
I stated at that time that "if the nomi-
nee for Commission staff director is any
indication of what is to come then we
had best prepare for the wOrst."
I declared on that occasion:
The position of staff director is a crucial
one, and how its duties are carried out will
determine whether the Commission becomes
an instrument of tyranny and oppression
or whether it is conducted as its more
thoughtful adherents desire it to be.
It is a fundamental truth that the shape
and direction of part-time commissions are
often determined in large part by their
full-time staff personnel, who prepare the
agendas, establish the procedures, ask the
questions, and ultimately prepare the re-
ports which, generally, are accepted by the
change of only a word or two or the striking
or addition of a few sentences or words.
I would point out to this Senate, Mr.
President, that the eventuality of which
I warned more than a year ago has now
come to pass.
How else can one reconcile the concila-
tory words of Chairman Hannah before
the Commission report was released with
the arrogant and radicial recommenda-
tions for force legislation, executive dic-
tatorship and unlimited Commission
power sdt forth in the Commission re-
port?
I submit to you, Mr. President, that
the names signed to the Commission re-
port may be Hannah, Hesburgh, John-
son, Storey, Carlton and Battle, but the
work is that of Gordon MacLean Tif-
fany?a man who, when hearings were
being held on his nomination, stated he
felt it is proper for the Federal Govern-
ment to send armed troops into a sover-
eign State to force a new social order on
its people.
What is it that Mr. 'Tiffany now wants
to do?
He wants to turn the Commission on
Civil Rights into a national board of
election registrars which could move into
any State or political subdivision, regis-
ter whomever it might please and force
State and local officials to permit, those.
persons to cast ballots regardless of
whether they could meet the qualifica-
tions set forth by State law?qualifica-
tions which, incidentally, clearly are
adopted by the Federal Government by
the language of paragraph 1, section 2,
article 1 of the Constitution of the
United States.
He wants to turn the Commission on
Civil Rights into a national school board
Which could go into any area and at-
tempt to force classroom integration, re-
gardless of whether the races in that
area wanted to be integrated or whether\
17933
the Federal courts had acted in the mat-
ter.
He wants to turn the constituent agen-
cies of the Federal HOfising and Home
Finance Agency into instruments for
forcing integration of residential neigh-
borhoods throughout the Nation. He
would accomplish that by withholding
FHA and VA loans from builders and in-
dividuals who do not comply with his
notions of sociology, by turning the pub-
lic housing and urban renewal programs
into a grandiose scheme for blockbust-
ing with no concern few the _wishes of
property owners or the effect upon prop-
erty values, and by setting up satellite
commissions in all the Major cities of
the country to force and police integra-
tion in housing.
Mr. President, since at least four?
and possibly five?members of the Com-
mission already have indicated that they
intend to resign, the only man who
stands to benefit from the power which
is proposed to be bestowed upon the
Commission is Mr. Tiffany himself.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that
the power which he has requested for
the Commission is of such magnitude
that I would not trust it in the hands of
any one man or group of men?and most
certainly not in the hands of Gordon
MacLean Tiffany.
Mr. President, I am confident that if
the American people knew of the dicta-
torship and tyranny proposed in the re-
port of the Commission on Civil Rights
they would rise up in righteous indigna-
tion and demand as one that this Con-
gress not only not extend the life of the
Commission, but, rather, abolish it im-
mediately.
It is a report which is best summarized
in the words of the dissenting report of
Commissioner John S. Battle, as follows:
In my judgment it is not an impartial fac-
tual statement, such as I believe to have been
the'intent of Congress, but, rather, in large
part, an argument in advocacy of precon-
ceived ideas iuthe field of race relations.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will my
colleague yield to me?
Mr. TALMADGE. I am delighted to
yield to my distinguished senior col-
league.
Mr. RUSSELL. I have read various
reports by committees and commissions
of one kind or another, in the years dur-
ing which I have served in legislative
bodies; but the report of this Commis-
sion is the most cunningly drafted re-
port I have ever seen. In the cases on
which the Commission was divided
equally?as it did on most of the impor-
tant findings presented in the report?
whoever wrote the report sought to make
it appear that the three Commissioners
who were in favor of the most vindictive
and punitive measures against the white
people of the South were the Commis-
sion, and that the other three, who also
were members of the Commission, were
just some outsiders who interposed a lit-
tle objection.
Mr. TALMADGE. My colleague is en-
tirely correct.
Mr. RUSSELL. The report is the most
amazing demonstration of the use of
words to obscure what really took place
that I have ever seen.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17934
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. TALMADGE. I agree whole-
heartedly with my distinguished senior
colleague.
Mr. RUSSErx. Anyone who reads the
report would think, as he reads the parts
? of the report in which some very vio-
lent recommendations are made, recom-
mendations on which the committee
members were divided 3 to 3, that the
three members who stood in favor of
the most drastic measures to destroy the
rights of the States and the social order
of the South were?and that only they
were?the legitimate, recognized mem-
bers of the Commission, and that the
three members who stood, in the old-
? fashioned way, for maintenance of the
Constitution of the United States were,
in some way, interlopers.
? Mr. TALMADGE. I _agree entirely
with the conclusions of my senior col-
league from Georgia.
As he-knows, if any legislative group
Is divided equally?no matter whether
it is divided 3 to 3, 6 to 6, or 50 to 50?
no action is taken. So I seriously doubt
that the Commission had any right to
take the action it took in issuing the re-'
port, when a majority of the Commis-
sion could not be obtained to support the
? ideas or the proposals of some.
? Mr. RUSSELL. That is entirely true
of this Commission; and that goes to
show how cunningly devised are the rec-
ommendations contained in the report.
? Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. Tiffany did
that very skillfully, as my colleague has
said.
Mr. RUSSELL. Is it not also inter-
esting to note that although the Com-
mission's staff obviously went to very
great lengths in their attempts to ob-
tain complaints on which the Commis-
sion could act?traveling here and there
and "beating the bushes" in-their efforts
to obtain large numbers of eomplaints--
? only 974 complaints have been filed with
the Commission thus far?
Mr. TALMADGE. Yes; 974 com-
? plaints were the most they 'could ob-
tain, despite the most valiant efforts
they could contrive.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Georgia yield to me for
a question?
Mr. TALMADGE. I am glad to yield
to my distinguished friend, the Senator
from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN, Is not the report tanta-
? mount to an attempt to make it appear
that the jury reached a unanimous ver-
dict, whereas, in truth and in fact, the
jury was deadlocked, three to three?
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator from
North Carolina, distinguished jurist that
he is, is entirely correct; and he knows,
too, that when a jury is equally divided,
the jury should be discharged?which is
exactly what should be done with the
Civil Rights Commission.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Georgia yield to me?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield to my friend,
the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend
the Senator from Georgia for -the out-
standingly able address he is delivering.
Mr. TALMADGE. I thank the Sen-
ator from South Carolina. Let me say
that it was a pleasure to me to listen, a
few minutes ago, to the admirable ad-
dress he delivered. I ,believe he devas-
tatingly pointed out the fallacies in the
arguments made by some of our friends
who come from other States, and who,
although they do not,have the answers
to the serious problems which exist in
their own States, pretend that they know
the answers to the problems of the en-
tire Nation.
Mr. THURMOND. Certainly that is
the case.
I ask the Senator from Georgia
whether it is true sthat the Civil Rights
Act of 1957 dealt only with voting, and
not with other fields?
Mr. TALMADGE. That is entirely my
recollection.
Mr. THURMOND. But has not the
Commission- done now what the distin-
guished Senator from Georgia and I and
others predicted it would do?namely,
gone into the field of racial tensions, and
come out with a report which is very
warped, very integrationist, very anti-
South, and certainly very un-American?
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator from
South Carolina is correct. The Com-
mission has tried to set itself up as the
final arbiter of voting, education, and
housing, and is making recommenda-
tions that the executive branch of the
Government do by Executive order that
which Congress has no authority to do.
Mr. THURMOND. And was not one
of the arguments that was made in fa-
vor of the establishment of the Com-
mission that it would be in operation
for a period of only 2 years, and then
would end? But in this case has not the
same thing happened that happens
whenever a Federal agency is created for
a brief time, namely, it finally becomes,
or endeavors to become, a permanent
agency?
If we extend the life of this agency,
is it not likely that there will be a desire
on the part of some to extend it further,
and eventually to make it a permanent
agency?
Mr. TALMADGE. That is entirely
correct. I do not recall any Federal
agency that ever was created that did
not seek to be extended again and again,
and forever, and did not want more
funds, more authority, and more person-
nel. That is exactly what this agency
is requesting.
Mr. THURMOND. This agency is re-
questing half a million dollars a year, is
it not? "
Mr. TALMADGE. Yes, in,fact, in ex-
cess of half a million dollars a year.
Mr. THURMOND. Did not the Sen-
ator from Georgia say that in today's
newspapers there appears an article by
one member of, the Commission's staff
who advocates that the Commission be
allotted double that amount, so it can
go further into these questions and these
issues, with the result of creating racial
tensions and racial hatreds?
Mr. TALMADGE. That is correct.
In fact, if the proposed extension is
permitted, it will not be very long before
the Commission will even try to delve
? into family units, in an attempt to det
termine whether the mother and the
father of the children discriminate
against the children. That is the ulti-
September 14
mate goal of every arbiter of human rela-
tions?to regulate the family.
Mr. THURMOND. I wish to congrat-
ulate the Senator.
? Mr. TALMADGE. I thank my distin-
guished friend from South Carolina.
. In order that all might be familiar
with these alarming recommendations,
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that they?as contained in the publi-
cation "Excerpts From Report of the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights"?be
printed herewith in the RECORD as a por-
tion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed' in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
Therefore, the Commission recommends
that the Bureau of the Census be authorized
and directed to undertake, in connection
with the census of 1960 or at the earliest
possible time thereafter, a nationwide and
territorial compilation of registration and
voting statistics which- shallinclude a count
of individuals by race, color, and national
origin who are registered, and a determina-
tion of the extent to which such individuals
.have voted since the prior decennial census.
Therefore, the Commission recommends
that the Congress require that all State and
territorial registration and voting records
shall be public records and must be preserved
for a period Of 5 years, during which time
they shall be subject to public inspection,
provided that all care be taken to preserve
the secrecy of the ballot.
Therefore, the Commission recommends
that part IV of the Civil? Rights Act of 1957
(12 U.S.C. 1971) shall be amended by inser-
tion of the following paragraph ?after the
first paragraph in section 1971(b) :
"Nor shall any person or group of persons,
under color of State law, arbitrarily and with-
out legal justificatoin or cause, act, or being
under duty to act, fail to act, in such man-
ner as to deprive or threaten to deprive any
individual or group of individuals of the opl
portunity to register, vote and have that vote
counted for any candidate fol? the office of
President, Vice President, presidential elector,
Member of the Senate, or Member of the
House of Representatives, Delegate or Com-
missioner for the territories or possessions,
at any general, special, or primary election
held solely or in part for the purpose of
,selecting or electing any such candidate."
Therefore, the Commission recommends
that in case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a subpena issued by the Commission on Civil
Right g (under sec. 105(f) of the Civil Rights
Act of 1957) for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesess or the production of writ-
ten or other matter, the Commission should
be empowered to apply directly to the appro-
priate UB. district court for an order enforc-
ing such subpena,.
Therefore, it is recommended that, upon
receipt by the President of the United States
of sworn affidavits by nine or more indi-
viduals from any district, county, parish, or
other recognized political subdivision of a
State, alleging that the affiants have unsuc-
cessfully attempted to register with the duly
constituted State registration office, and that
the affiants believe themselves qualified un-
der State law to be electors, but have been,
denied the right to register because of race,
color, religion, or national origin, the Presi-
? dent shall refer such affidavits to the Com-
mission on Civil Rights, if extended.
The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State or by any '
person for any cause except inability to meet
State age or length-of-residence require-
ments uniformly applied to all persons
within the State, Or legal confinement at the
time of registration or election. This right
0
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
to vote shall include the right to register or
otherwise qualify to vote, and to have one's
vote counted.
Therefore, the Commission recommends:
1(a) That the President propose and the
Congress enact legislation to authorize the
Commission on Civil Rights, if extended, to
serve as a clearing house to collect and make
available to States and to local communities
information concerning programs and pro-
cedures used by school districts to comply
with the Supreme Court mandate either
voluntarily or by court order, including data
as to the known effects of the programs on
the quality of education and the cost thereof.
1(b) That the Commission on Civil Rights
be authorized to establish an advisory and
conciliation service to assist local school of-
ficials in developing plans designed to meet
constitutional requirements and local con-
ditions; and to mediate and conciliate, upon
request, disputes as to proposed plans and
their implementation.
Therefore, the Commission recommends:
That the Office of Education of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, in
cooperation with the Bureau of the Census
of the Department of Commerce, conduct an
annual school cerluus that will show the num-
ber and race of all students enrolled in all
public educational institutions in the United
States, and compile such data by States, by
school districts,. and by individual institu-
tions of higher education within each State.
Further, that initially this data be collected
at the time of the taking of the next decen-
nial census, and thereafter from official State
sources insofar as possible.
More than $2 billion a year of Federal funds
go for educational purposes and to educa-
tional institutions. The principal recipients
of these funds are the Nation's colleges, uni-
versities, and other institutions of higher
education. Whether taxsupported or pri-
vately financed, they receive Federal grants
and loans both for their general support and
capital improvements as well as for research
?projects, special programs, and institutes.
The Commission recommends that an ap-
propriate biracial committee or 'commission
on housing be established in all 'cities and
States with substantial nonwhite popula-
tions. Such agencies should be empowered to
study racial problems in housing, receive
and investigate complaints alleging discrimi-
nation, attempt to solve problems through
mediation and conciliation, and consider
whether these agencies should be strength-
ened by the enactment of legislation for
equal opportunity in areas of housing deemed
advisable.
That the President issue an Executive order
-stating the constitutional objective of equal
opportunity in housing, directing all Federal
agencies to shape their policies and practices
to make the maximum contribution to the
achievement of this goal, and requesting the
Commission on Civil Rights, if extended, to
continue to study and appraise the policies
of Federal housing agencies, to prepare and
propose plans to bring about the end? of dis-
crimination in all federally assisted housing,
and to make appropriate recommendations.
That the Administrator of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency give high priority to
the problem of gearing the policies and the
operations of his constituent housing agen-
cies to the attainment of equal opportunity
in housing.
Therefore, the Commission recommends
that, in support of State and city laws the
Federal Housing Administration and the
Veterans' Administration should strengthen
their . present agreements with States and
cities having laws against discrimination in
housing by requiring that builders subject
to these laws who desire the benefits of Fed-
eral mortgage insurance and loan guarantr
programs agree in writing that they will
abide by such laws. FHA and VA should es-
No. 163-13
-tablish their own factilnding machinery to
determine whether such builders are violat-
ing State and city laws, and, if it is found
that they are, immediate steps should be
taken to withdraw Federal benefits from
them, pending final action by the appropri-
ate State agency or court.
Therefore, the Commission recommends
-that the Public Housing Administration take
affirmative action to encourage the selection
of sites on open land in good areas outside
the present centers of racial concentration.
PHA should put the local housing authorities
on notice that their proposals will be evalu-
ated in this light. PHA should further en-
'courage the construction of smaller projects
that fit better into residential neighborhoods
rather than large developments of tall high
rise apartments that set a special group apart
in a community of its own.
Therefore, the/ Commission recommends
that the Urban Renewal Administration take
positive steps to assure that in the prepara-
tion of overall community workable pro-
grams for urban renewal, spokesmen for mi-
nority groups are in fact included among the
required citizens participation.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I
reiterate my previously stated conviction
that the kindest thing Congress could
do with this Commission would be to al-
low it to be interred in history at the
time contemplated by the act which
created it. To allow it to expire as
scheduled not only would relieve both
the Federal Treasury and the Federal
Judiciary of not-inconsiderable burdens,
but also would rid our country of a
divisive influence at a time when our
greatest national need is for unity
among all Americans of all races, all
faiths, and all places of residence.
Mr. President, another Georgian in
another day also was confronted with a
so-called civil rights -bill while serving
in Congress. He was Alexander H. Ste-
phens?the Vice President of the Con-
federacy and one of the most brilliant
'men of our history.
Although he .was known affectionately
to his fellow Georgians as Little Alex,
he was an intellectual giant. The ac-
count of his opposition to the measure
which radicals attempted to force
through Congress following the War Be-
tween the States is one of great interest
in the light of its parallel to present-
day events.
The book, "Life of Alexander H.
Stephens," gives this direct quotation
from Mr. Stephen' address before the
House of Representatives:
Interference by the Federal .Government,
even if the power were clear and indisput-
able, would be against the very genius con-
cept of our whole system. If there is one
truth which stands out prominent above all
others in the history of these States, it is
that the germinal and seminal principle of
American constitutional liberty is the abso-
lute, unrestricted right of State self-govern-
ment in all purely internal municipal af-
'fairs. The first Union of the Colonies, from
which sprung the Union of the States, was
by joint action to secure this right of local
self-government for each. It was when the
chartered rights of Massachusetts were vio-
lated by a British Parliament, the cry first
went up from Virginia, "The cause of Boston
Is the cause?of us all." This led to the dec-
laration and establishment of the independ-
ence not of the whole people of the united
.Colonies as one mass, but of the independ-
ence of each of the Original Thirteen Colo-
nies, then declared by themselves to be, and
17935
afterward acknowledged by all foreign powers
to be, 13 separate and distinct States.
It is not my purpose at this time even
to touch upon any of the issues involved
in the late war, or the chief proximate cause
which led to it, or upon whom devolves the
responsibility of its direful consequences.
But, taking it for granted that the chief
proximate cause was the status of the African
race in the Southern States, as set forth in
the decision of the Supreme Court to which
I have first referred, suffice it to say on this
occasion that that cause is now forever re-
moved. This thorn in the flesh, so long the
cause of irritation between the States, is
now out for all time to come. And since
the passions and prejudices which attended
the conflict are fast subsiding and passing
away, the period has now come for the de-
scendants to return to the original princi-
ples of their fathers, with the hopeful pros-
pect of a higher and brighter career in the
future than any heretofore achieved in the
past. On such return depends, in my judg-
ment, not only the liberties of the white
and colored races of this continent, but the
best hopes of mankind. And if any breach
has been made in any of the walls of the
Constitution, in the terrible shock it re-
ceived in the late and most lamentable con-
flict of arms, let it be repaired by appeals to
the forums of reason and justice, wherein,
after all, rest the surest hopes of all true
progress in human civilization. If, "in mo-
ments of error or alarm" we have "wan-
dered" in any degree from the true prin-
ciples on which all our institutions were
founded, in the language of Mr. Jefferson,
"let us hasten to retrace our steps and to
regain the road which alone leads to peace.
? liberty and safety."
* ? ?
In the workings of our complex system un-
der our Federal Republic, each State is a
distinct political organism, retaining in itself
all the vital powers of individual State gov-
ernment and development; while to all the
States, in joint Congress assembled, are dele-
gated the exercise of such powers,- and such
only, as relate to extra-State and foreign
affairs. The States are each perfect political
organisms, with all the functions of perfect
government in themselves, respectively, on
all matters over which they have not as-
signed jurisdiction to the Federal head, or
on which they have not restrained them-
selves by joint covenant in mutual prohibi-
tions upon themselves. Under this system,
adhered to, no danger need be apprehended
from any extent to which the limits of our
boundary may go, or to any extent to which
the number of States may swell. For the
maintenance of this model and most won-
derful sysem of government, in its original
purity and integrity, every well-wisher of his
country should put forth his utmost effort.
No better time for an effort on this line than
now, right here in this House.
, Let us not do, by passage of this bill,
what our highest judicial tribunal has said
we have no rightful power to do. If you
who call yourselves Republicans shall, in
obedience to what you consider a party
behest, pass it in the vain expectation that
the Republican principles of the old and
true Jeffersonian school are dead, be as-
sured you are indulging a fateful delusion.
The old Jeffersonian, Democratic, Republi-
can principles are not dead, and will never
die so long as a true devotee of liberty lives.
They may be buried for a period, as Magna
Carta was trodden underfoot in England
for more than half a century; but these
principles will come up with renewed
energy, as did those of Magna Carta, and
that, too, at no distant day. Old Jeffer-
sonian, Democratic, Republican principles
dead, indeed. When the tides of ocean
cease to ebb and flow, when the winds of
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 1.4
Heaven are hushed into perpetual silence,
when the clouds no longer thunder, when
earth's electric bolts are no longer felt or'
heard, when her internal fires go out, then,
and not before, will these principles cease
? to live?then, and not before, will these
principles cease to animate and move the
liberty-loving masses of this country.
Mr. President, there is nothing which
I might say which can add to the elo-
quence or eternal truth of those words
of a great Georgian and a great Amer-
ican?a man who was above rancor and
who could rise from the depth of defeat
to plead on the floor of the lower House
of this Congress for the preservation of
the principles of constitutional Govern-
ment and human freedom upon which
our Nation was founded and survived
even the divisive bitterness of fracticidal
conflict.
Although almost a century has elapsed
since "Little Alex" Stephens uttered
those immortal words, they are even
truer and more urgent today than then.
He spoke the language of Georgians in
1874 and his words speak the language
of Georgians today.
I can think of no better way in which
to summarize the point I have been en-
deavoring to make to this Senate than
by reiterating and endorsing his plea
that?
The period has now come for the descend-
ants to return to the original prihciples of
their fathers, with the hopeful prospect of
a higher and brighter career in the future
than any heretofore achieved in the past.
On such return depends, in my judgment,
not only the liberties of the white and
colored races on this continent, but the best
hopes of mankind. And if any breach has
been made in any of the walls of the Con-
stitution let it be repaired by apepals to
the forums of reason and justice, wherein,'
after all, rest the surest hopes of all true
progress in human civilization. U, "in
moments of error or alarm," we have "wan-
dered" in any degree from the true prin-
ciples on which all our institutions were
founded, in the language of Mr. Jefferson,
"let us hasten to retrace our steps and to
regain the road which alone leads to peace,
liberty, and safety."
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wish
to commend very heartily. the splendid
address made by the Senator from Geor-
gia, a man who gives great thought and
consideration to the subject and who
speaks with great earnestness and prac-
ticality in regard to this very important
subject.
Mr. President, with reference to the
Motion to sustain the rules on the ques-
tion of the extension of the so-called
Civil Rights Commission, I think for
several reasons it. is very unfortunate
that this matter is presented to the
Senate in this way and at this time.
Mr. President, the report of the Com-
mission has been published only since
last Monday, 1 short week ago. During
that time Senators have been in sessions
of the Senate day and night, 6 days a
week.
This is a very voluminous report, of
more than 653 pages. The condensation
thereof itself is almost 200 pages long.
There has not been a chance, in this
? very brief time, for anyone to really
have any opportunity to make any. rea-
sonable study of the major points in-
volved. This is particularly true when
one eonsiders that the Commissioners
themselves are divided three ways on
every single major recommendation
which is Made.
Mr. President, it is certainly not in
keeping with the sound legislative prac-
tices to bring before the Senate in the
last days of the session, when there is
an appropriation bill pending, a motion
to suspend the rules in an effort to tack,
onto an appropriation bill the creation
of or the extension of a legislative com-
mission. That is contrary to all known
Sound rules of legislative integrity. So
far as I know, it is simply not done un-
less it be a matter of very, very minor
importance, almost insignificant, or
something which is an extraordinary
emergency.
The third point is the relatively large
amount of money which has been ex-
pended by the Commission in such a
short time. Certainly this has not been
pursued or analyzed nor studied with the
customary efficiency and completeness
usual in regard to matters which come
before this body.
I was amazed, Mr. President, to find
that the Commission now has 67 em-
ployees, and* large monthly expenses.
For instance, in July the expenditures
were some $70,000. In addition to the
regular staff of 67 employees, there are
listed on page 789 of the Senate hearings
some 20 consultants who are paid at the
rate of $50 a day.
? I make no reference except one of
commendation for these consultants.- I
do not know who they are. I assume
they are people of character, inteirity
and ability. The very idea of having 20-
odd consultants, who are paid at the rate
of $50 a day, with reference to the rela-
tively slight and not involved investi-
gation made by this group, certainly is a
flag, on its face. It 'should cause the
Senate, the legislative body, to move with
caution and restraint and certainly to
make a complete analysis.
Mr. President, with reference to the
report itself, one of the most accurate
descriptions made was made by Commis-
sioner John S. Battle, a distinguished
citizen and former Governor of the sov-
ereign State of Virginia.
In the report itself Governor Battle
had this to say:
In my judgment it is not an impartial
factual statement, such as I believe to have
been the intent of the Congress, but rather,
in large part, an argument in advocacy of
preconceived ideas in the field of racial
relations.
I do not believe that in all my public
life I have read words like that from a
fine, intelligent public servant such as
Governor Battle, a member of the Com-
mission which had been considering the
subject matter and was filing a report.
I am sure L have never heard such an
accusation and charge, when he said
that in his judgment, the statements in
the report were not impartial factual
statements, but an argumnt in advocacy
of preconceived ideas.
When we run through the pages of
the report, we find that that is certainly
a sound and accurate analysis of the
trend with reference to the entire sub-
ject matter. That is emphasized by the
fact, too, that the Commissioners were
unable to agree upon the major points
reflected in the report, even though there
is some clever writing which tends to
show almost a unanimity on certain
points.
The length of the report and the many
immaterial and misleading arguments
on race relations advanced therein make
it apparent that no Member of the Con-
gress has had any real opportunity to
study the full report and obtain anything
worthwhile from it.
I have had an opportunity to carefully
review the references to my home State
of Mississippi made in the report and
have found them to be highly inaccu-
rate and misleading and a prejudiced
attempt to wrongly indict the people of
my State. Only one side of the story
has been told and that side is com-
pletely unverified. I shall not under-
take to mention the many instances
in which the report is completely inac-
curate, both in direct fact and implica-
tions. I will mention, however, the
statements made on page 59 where it is
stated that Negro residents applying for
registration to vote were given applica-
tion blanks by the registrar and were
? directed to write a section of the consti-
tution of Mississippi, giving a reasonable
interpretation of the section which they
had written.
The implication, of course, is made
that this standard is applied only. -to
Negro residents. In truth and in fact,
any applicant for registration to vote,
whether he be a member of the white
race or the Negro race, is required to pre-
pare an application, in his own hand-
writing. This is uniformly applied in
Mississippi. The application is required
by _section 244 of the Mississippi consti-
tution and is a very 'simple one. Gener-
ally, the applicant gives only the date of
the application, his full name, age, and
date of birth, occupation, place of busi-
ness, name of employer, information con-
cerning length and place of residence,
and convictions of crime. Then the ap-
plicant is requested to write and copy a
section of the Mississippi constitution,
designated by the registrar and is in-
structed to write a reasonable interpre-
tation of that section.
There is nothing unusual in any of
these requirements and the Supreme
Court of the United States has upheld
that similar requirements in other States
are reasonable and proper.
Written applications for registration
are also required in Maine, Virginia,
Louisiana, Alabama, and South Caro-
lina. The ability to read and write must
be demonstrated in New York, Oregon,
Georgia, and North Carolina. In Alaska,
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Dela-
ware, Massachusetts, New. Hampshire,
Washington, and Wyoming, an appli-
cant must be able to read any section of
his State constitution.
Mississippi is not unusual in this re-
spect since it is apparent that any appli-
cant must satisfy similar requirements
in other States.
Mr. President, this information is not
new. It was available to the Congress
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
* CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
several years ago. In fact, several wit- -
nesses testified to this effect before the
House and Senate subcommittees consid-
ering civil rights legislation in 1957.
What useful purpose, then, has the
Commission served in this regard? The
answer is obvious. None.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? ,
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. I congratulate my
friend on the able speech he is making.
I ask the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi if he has read the so-called
constitutional amendment which the
Commission recommended be adopted
for the registration of voters in all the
States of the Union? ?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I carefully read
the proposed constitutional amendment.
Mr. TALMADGE. The distinguished
Senator is a former judge, and a good
one. I hope one of these days his out-
standing talents will be recognized and
that he will grace the U.S. Supreme
Court bench.
Is it not true that under the consti-
tutional amendment which has been rec-
ommended, if the Congress were to sub-
mit it and the States were to ratify it,
lunatics, imbeciles, and insane pedple
would be permitted to vote?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is cor-
rect. That is an illustration of the
looseness with which it is drawn, and,
with all resnect, the lack of knowledge
on the part of those who proposed it.
Mr. TALMADGE. Is it not also true
that if someone were in the penitentiary
for murder or treason, awaiting execu-
tion at a particular date and hour, and
if he were able to break out of the pen-
itentiary on election day and find his
way to the polls, he would be entitled
to vote under the proposed constitu-
tional amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. That would be the
solemn law of the land, enacted by two-
thirds of the Members of the Congress
and ratified by three-fourths of the
States.
Mr. TALMADGE. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his contribution.
Continuing with reference to the writ-
ten application?
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. LANGER. A moment ago the
Senator mentioned a number of consul-
tants who receive $50 a day. I did not
catch the number.
Mr. STENNIS. It is either 19 or 20.
They are listed on page 786 of the hear-
ings before the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. LANGER. Does that include ex-
penses as well?
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Mississippi will yield, I am
glad the Senator from North Dakota
asked that question. I was about to ask
. the Senater from Mississippi to point
out the $50 a day was only a part of the
expense.
One of the consultants consulted for
140 days, at $50 a day. He received
$7,100, and $1,141.44 for transportation,
to come in and out to do his consulting.
He received $358.48 for other expenses.
His per diem remuneration, on top of the
$50 a day, was $1,542. So he received
about half as much again, in addition
to the $50 a day, as expenses.
Mr. LANGER. What other employees
are there besides the 20 consultants?
Mr. STENNIS. Sixty-seven. As of
July the number of employees was 67,
and the monthly expenses were about
$70,000.
Mr. LANGER. As I recall, when this
matter came before the Subcommittee
of the Judiciary Committee the report
was not even ready.
Mr. STENNIS. I believe the Senator
is correct. All the facts and figures are
set out beginning at page 786 of the Sen-
ate Appropriations Committee hearings,
and extending to page 791.
Mr. LANGER. The Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. HENNINGS] was chairman of
the subcommittee which reported the bill
to extend the life of the Commission.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. LANGER. At that time ,:we could
not get the report.
Mr. STENNIS. That is true. I thank
the Senator for his questions and for his
interest.
Mr. LANGER. Is there a limit on the
number of consultants that can be
employed?
Mr. STENNIS. It seems that the
Commission has authority to employ the
consultants it has employed. That is
what was claimed in the hearings. I
have not had time to check back to see
whether that is correct or not.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. RUSSELL. So far as I know,
there is no limit, except in the appro-
priation.
Mr. LANGER. I understand that, in
addition, in every State in the Union
there is a civil rights commission. In
my State there are six or eight members.
Mr. STENNIS. That is true.
Mr. LANGER. Are they paid their ex-
penses? What is the provision with re-
spect to them?
Mr. RUSSELL. I cannot answer the
question.
Mr. STENNIS. I am sorry that I can-
not answer the Senator's question. They
are termed advisory commissions, but I
am not certain whether there is com-
pensation.
Mr. RUSSELL. I do not believe they
receive compensation, but I assume that
their expenses are paid when they meet.
Mr. STENNIS. Probably so.
If carried out, the proposals in the re-
port of the Commission would effectively
destroy the relationship between the
States and the Federal Government in
the field of suffrage, even providing for
registration of voters by Federal officials
in some instances. The Federal Gov-
ernment would assume virtually com-
plete control in the field of education.
And further, there would be complete
Federal control over all housing for
which any Federal funds have been used
in any way in years past, as well as in
the future. -
17937
The only step remaining to assure
complete federalization of the Nation
would be enactment of a FEPC bill to
bring all employment under Federal
control.
In education, the role of the Federal
Government has been one of leadership
and assistance, with some financial aid
in limited fields. As outstanding ex-
amples, we can point with pride to our
land-grant colleges, our extension service
and vocational education, as well as
grants for research.
Yet the Commission recommends that
we reverse completely this role of leader-
ship and assistance to one of bribery,
coercion and punishment, resulting in
the absolute destruction of these worthy
programs. Coercion in the field of
education has never been?and I trust it
never shall be?the policy of the
Congress.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will
the senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. RUSSELL As an eminent law-
yer, I know that the distinguished Sen-
ator from Mississippi has been greatly
impressed by the paradox which is pre-
sented by the report. What the authors
of the report say is that under the 14th
amendment everyone is entitled to
equality. The 14th amendment does
not mention color, race or creed; it
mentions only citizens of the United
States. It is said that States might
discriminate against a citizen?and of
course the question "What is discrimi-
nation?" is really the crux of the whole
platter?by not permitting Nero chil-
dren to go to school with the whites,
and that if that happens in a State,
there should be denied to all children,
both white and black, any assistance
from the Federal Government, and all
schools should be closed down. It is a
form of educational genocide they would
wage against particular States. In my
opinion, the equality they would pro-
vide is the greatest inequality that has
ever been seen in the several States of
the Union. It is the most vicious and
vindictive proposal that has ever been
made.
So far as I know, neither Thad Stev-
ens nor Sumner, or any of the others
who waved the red shirt in the days of
reconstruction, ever advocated taking
away from dependent children allow-
ances they might get in one State be-
cause the State government would not'
adopt the policies of Myrdal; neither
did they advocate the taking away from
old people their old age assistance pay-
ments which they receive from the Fed-
eral Government because the State
would not accede to the demands of the
social reforms these people say should
be instituted. That is what some of
the consultants have been advocating
for a long time.
In my opinion, if the life of the Com-
mission is extended, we will find that
these people will then advocate, as these
consultants have advocated in other re-
ports, that the Southern 'States be
placed outside the pale of the law. As
a matter of fact, some of these people,
if they had their way, would declare an
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEikATE
open season on every person in the
South who does not accept their ideas
in any manner that they might desire.
That is what they would advocate un- -
less the people accepted the notions of
these advocates as to the social order
that should be adopted.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from Georgia. He has pointed out
clearly and vividly more than one of
the major faults in the recommenda-
, tion, and has applied his practical com-
monsense to show how far it would go.
Another point the Senator has made
is that the report in a great measure re-
flects the preconceived ideas of some of
these consultants?ideas which have
been rejected by the American people
over a period of years. I now yield to
the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I call the
Senator's attention to a report which
some people say is a factual report.
Certain statements in it show that the
members of the Commission, or at least
the staff members, have not read the re-
port.
On page 302 of the unabridged edition
of the report it mentions the fact that
the North Carolina Legislature adopted
a statute allowing the school boards the
discretion to assign pupils to schools,
and it says in the fourth paragraph on
that page:
So far as the Commission has been able
to ascertain, the school boards of North
Carolina unanimously exercised this discre-
tion by assigning all white students to white
schools and all Negro students to Negro
schools.
On pages 224, 225, 226, and 227 of the
report, it is pointed out that in certain
cities of North Carolina, including
Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greens-
boro, the school boards had assigned
some Negro children to previously white
schools. So the report contains abso-
lutely contradictory statements concern-
ing the same matters insofar as North
Carolina is concerned. As to what ex-
tent there may be contradictory state-
ments of facts in other parts of the report
I have not been able to determine.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator,
and it is a striking illustration of the
many instances where, when put under
the microscope of analysis, this report
will not stand up and is erroneous and
misleading. I have not had a chance to
look into that part pertaining to the
Senator's State.
Mr. ERVIN. So the report says at one
place there is absolutely no integration
in North Carolina schools, and in
another place that there has been some
integration in North Carolina. This
being true, the report permits anyone
who has certain ideas on this subject to
find in it what he wants to find.
It reminds one of the schoolteacher
who applied for a job teaching geogra-
phy back in the days when people
argued whether the earth was round or
fiat. The school board asked the ap-
plicant what he taught on that subject
whether he taught that the earth was
flat or round. He replied: "I will leave
that to the school board. I teach either
system." [Laughter.]
So we can find in the report two
diametrically opposite statements con-
cerning my State of North Carolina.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the most shocking rec-
ommendation of all of those made by
the Commission is the proposal to au'
thorize Federal officers to act as tempo-
rary registrars in a State and to permit
them to administer the oath of regis-
tration to applicants. This proposal is
so ridiculous that certainly it will not
be seriously considered- now or at any
other time by Congress. The qualifica-
tions of persons to vote are matters
clearly reserved to each State under the
Constitution. If this proposal is car-
ried out, it would effectively destroy the
relationship between the States and the
Federal Government relating to suf-
frage. It would displace local officials
elected by the voters of their respective
counties and in effect replace these
locally elected officers with persons ap-
pointed by Federal officials with no re-
sponsibility at all so far as the local
level is concerned. -
Mr. President, I wish to pass on and
mention a subject matter of great con-
cern to me, and that is our schools.
We read reports that schools are de-
teriorating in other areas of the Na-
tion. I can continue to point with pride
to the real progress that we are making,
in Mississippi, both in the enrichment
of our school program and in the con-
struction of necessary classrooms. Al-
though Mississippi is a relatively poor
State financially, we believe in the real
merit of investment in educational op-
portunity. Since 1957 alone we have
completed or now have under contract
a total of 276 school buildings. Of this
number 177 are for the use by members
of the Negro race.
Of course these are the most modern
and advanced facilities and include not
only adequate classrooms but also neces-
sary auditoriums, gymnasiums, cafe-
terias, science, libraries, clinics, home-
making rooms, shops, and other facili-
ties.
Mr. President, I wish to point out two
striking illustrations here that were re-
ported in the daily press by the United
Press International, and I am reading
a news item from Jackson, Miss., dated
September 7, 1959. It concerns a colored
man in my State who once applied to
enter -the University of Mississippi. His
qualifications were found to be adequate
to meet the test of entrance there, but
he later moved to California. Not long
ago he wrote a letter from Los Angeles
and gave it to the press.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an article entitled "Clennon
King Tells Regrets?Negro Who Tried
Entry at Ole Miss Is Bitter at Cali-
fornia," published in the Memphis Com-
mercial Appeal of September 8, 1959.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CLENNON KING TELLS REGRETS?NEGRO WHO
TRIED ENTRY AT OLE MISS IS BITTER AT
CALIFORNIA
JACKSON, Miss., September '7.?Negro
Clennon King said in a letter received here
Septelliber 14
Monday that racial conditions he found in
Califo'rnia made him regret that "I delib-
erately antagonized Mississippians" by try-
ing to integrate the University of Mississippi.
King moved to Los Angeles from Gulfport,
Miss., last year after failing in a try to en-
roll at the all-white university.
The former professor and minister sent a
letter from Los Angeles,. to Editor Hodding
Carter of Greenville, Miss., and mailed a copy
of it to United Press International here. In
it, King said his family moved to California
because many Negroes considered it a new
and better place fo live.
FAR MORE OMINOUS
"But what I have found makes me sorry,
in a way, that I deliberately antagonized
Mississippians as I did, for Negro Mississip-
pians' racial concerns are more basic than
school integration," King said.
"The California type containment of the
Negro is far more ominous than that of
Mississippi because it is so much more ef-
ficient and professional and consequently
that much more to be hated," said King.
"My brief experience in Mississippi soundly
taught me one thing, that despite all the
hullabaloo there is far more genuine biz
lateral concurrence there (in Mississippi)
than the current racial propaganda admits."
King said Los Angeles has the highest per
capita rate of major crime in the Nation and
he said most of it fs committed by Negroes.
But he said "unfavorable racial matters and
disliked racial thinking are made hush,-
hush" in California while "soiled reports
from the South get predominant top billing."
HYPOCRISY SCORED
"My resented observation is the hypo-
crisy," said King. "How, for instance, the
excessive crime figures of 'liberal and pro-
gressive' California compare with those of
'reactionary and backward' Mississippi.
"Even among my own people the Mis-
sissippi figures don't come anywhere near
those here in California). Yet there is no
national nor international alarmed con-
cern. One's calling attention to such things,
when the North is again forcibly converting
the South to its way of handling Negro af-
fairs, is considered out of place by gullible
Negroes and white liberals."
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the
substance of the letter is that, even
though Mr. King found the laws of Cali-
fornia to read more favorably to him
than he thought the situation was in
Mississippi, in reality they did not oper-
ate in that way. I say that with no dis-
credit to California, but simply to offset-
many of the news items which appear in
the American press, which are always
holding up the thought, and are stating
it as a fact, of the arbitrary discrimina-
tion against and mistreatment of those
who are of the colored race.
Mr. President, I have another item in
the field of education. This item was
published as a United Press dispatch
from Des Moines, Iowa. It is dated 2
years ago. The article is entitled "Negro
Professor Says Pressure Is Worse in
North." It reads:
DES MOINES, IOWA.?A Negro educator pre-
dicted Negroes will be happier "anywhere in
the South" than in cities of the North within
15 years.
Dr. Alvin D. Loving, 49, Flint, Mich., said
"the southern white know the Negro's poten-
tial. In the North this is not always so."
Loving is an associate professor at Flint-
College of the University of Michigan. He
spoke here at a number of observances of
Brotherhood Week.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
1959- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
? Loving said racial pressures of the North
are centered in the suburbs, where minority
groups are excluded under gentlemen's agree-
ments.
"I would advise yOu -not to be concerned
so much about what is happening in the
South as what is not happening in the
North," Loving said.
113 also said the racial situation in the
South "would get worse before it gets better."
Mr. President, I call attention to state-
ments like that, and emphasize them, not
to discredit any State or any city or even
the efforts of the fine people in the com-
munities, but to offset the constant
stream of stories and misinfamation
which are highly misleading with refer-
ence to conditions in our Southland,
against which the Commission's report
is primarily directed.
By contrast, I call attention to an edu-
cational institution in my State. A re-
port was made to a meeting of Metho-
dists in Dallas, Tex., last week, by the
Honorable 0. B. Tripplett, an attorney
of Forest, Miss. I know Mr. Tripplett.
He is a lawyer, a fine, upright gentle-
man, a graduate of Yale University Law
School, and one of the foremost citi-
zens in the entire country in laymen's
work in the Methodist Church. , He
tells the true story of his home town.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the entire article, which in-
cludes Mr. Triplett's statement, be print-
ed at this point in the RECORD.
? There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Jackson (Miss.) State Times,
Sept. 9, 19591
THE HAWKINS SCHOOL STORY SHOULD BE TOLD
(By Oliver Emmerich)
People of America who are searching for
an example of racial harmony can turn to
Forest, Miss. There to be observed is the
case of E. T. Hawkins High School.
The E. T. Hawkins High School,. built for
Negro children, is the best school, white or
black, in Scott County. This is what peo-
ple in Scott County say about it.
0. B. Triplett, attorney of Forest, told the
? story of his Mississippi school to a meeting
of Methodists in Dallas last week. Below
we quote directly from Mr. Triplett's re-
marks.
"We have had as our Negro school super-
intendent for 26 years, Prof. E. T. Hawkins,
who holds a master -of arts degree from the
University of Minnesota.
"His school plant was built before 1954
and his people nained it in his honor?
E. T. Hawkins High School. The vocational
? department of his school, in contests spon-
sored by the New Farmers of America, rep-
resented the State in the national contests
10 out of the 15 years vocational training
has been taught in the school, and won first
place in numerous events.
"Three times their school competed in
public speaking on the national level, receiv-
ing one third-place award. They have also
won first honors in choral music in State
contests.
"For 15 years their football team, three
times State Champion, never finished lower
than third place in competition with other
schools in the State. Their basketball
teams won 10 State championships.
, "The record of this school has been so
outstanding that on an occasion when their
high school chorus presented a chapel pro-
gram at our white school, the white students
without prompting, rose to applaud in ap-
preciation of a finelperformance.
"It is little wonder that in celebration of
this 25th year as superintendent of our Ne-
gro school, an entire issue of our weekly
newspaper was devoted to Professor E. T.
Hawkins and his school, an honor never re-
ceived by any white person. Among
thoughtful people in both races, he is re-
garded as Forest's most indispensable citizen.
"Could anyone for a moment think that
the students at E. T. Hawkins High School
are put to a psychological disadvantage by
having their own separate school? I asked
Professor Hawkins, who is a leading Negro
educator in our State, what percentage of
the Negroes in his school district was opposed
to integration. His reply was, 'At least 99
percent'?and, he added, 'This is true all over
the State.'
"Our population is almost equally divided
between the tWo races and we have found
that the policy of separate but equal op-
portunities fits the conditions under which
we live and commends itself to the reason
and conscience of good men of both races.
"Men of good will, of course, recognize and
deplore the injustices of discrimination; and
we freely acknowledge that forced segrega-
tion has often worked hardships due to our
failure many times in the past to furnish
equal educational opportunities.
"But forced integration will work a hard-
ship on many more people of both races."
The E. T. Hawkins school was built in
1953. It burned to the ground in 1957.The
following day an architect was given orders
to immediately make plans for a new school.,
A spokesman for the Mississippi State De-,
partment of Education says that the Haw-
kins school was rebuilt faster than any
other Mississippi school on record.
A significant fact about Mr. Tripplett's in-
terest in this field is that he is scheduled to
be in New York City on September 22 to-
appear before the executive committee of
the general board of educAtion of the Meth-
odist Church. His purpose is to plead with
the committee to adopt the policy of pre-
senting in an atmosphere of freedom and
Christian thinking both sides of the segre-
gation controversy in Methodist literature.
Several prominent Methodists of the higher
echelon have agreed to join him in this plea.
Dr.. Henry Bullock, editor in chief of Meth-
odist publications, has advised Mr. Triplett
that he will be in New York and that he
will make this recommendation.
The Methodist Church is a farfiung, world-
wide Christian organization. It is right and
proper that it should be willing to present
both sides of this controversial subject. It
Is significant that a number of Methodist
leaders have joined in this effort.
The public in general and Methodists in
particular, will be interested in the outcome
of the September 22 meeting of the execu-
tive committee of the general board of edu-
cation of Methodists. This problem is too
far reaching and too significant to limit the
publication of only one side of this globe-
shaking controversy,
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, there
is the testimony of two outstanding citi-
zens of this little city, who have lived side
by side for 25 years. They have worked
in harness, morning, noon, and night,
for the betterment and benefit of all the
people of that community, and have re-
received national recognition for the
school to which Mr. Triplett refers as the
Hawkins High School. That is not an
institution which is supported by outside
aid. It is not supported by the church.
It is not supported by a philanthropic
association of any kind. It is simply one
of the many public schools in my State
which can boast of such records as that.
I shall refer to a few More items per-
taining to my State which bring out facts
17939
altogether different from those which
are represented by the report of the Civil
Rights Commission. In my opinion,
speaking as one in public life, the certain
way to stir up and destroy the relations
which Mr. Triplett mentions; the certain
way to stop this progress and coopera-
tion, is to try to force those schools to
coalesce or go together. That is just as
true as that night follows day. It is true
now and will be true in the decades to
come.
I point out with pride, and I hope with
modesty, that I believe my State, num-
bers considered, is not exceeded by any
State in the Union in what it is doing
for its Negro citizens. Mississippi has
the highest percentage of colored peo-
ple of any State in the Nation. At the
same time, Mississippi has the lowest
crime rate in the Nation. I am referring
to the uniform crime rate report for the
United States for the calendar year 1958,
a report issued annually by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice. I quote from the figures
of the FBI the total offenses on the basis
of 100,000 inhabitants.
In Mississippi, the total offenses were
335. That is the second lowest number
in the United States. The lowest is for
North Dakota, where, for each 100,000
inhabitants, there were 327 total of-
fenses. The report, on page 56, reflects
the figures I am giving.
For the Nation, the average number
of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants is 897.
That means that the average for the Na-
tion is more than 225 percent higher
than the average in my State.
I .am not boasting about my State
having some crime. I am sorry it has
any. But on the average, the amount is
a little less than 40 percent of the na-
tional average. Still, Mississippi is the
State having the highest percentage of
colored people of any Sate in the Union.
The' certain way to destroy all the
harmony, peaceful relations, coopera-
tion, and continued existence on the
part of the outstanding members of both
races, who are willing to try to help the
body politic in the community?the cer-
tain way to undermine and totally de-
stroy those relations in that effort is to
enforce the provisions of the report of
the Civil Rights Commission.
Mr. President, I regret very much that
it is necessary to call the attention of
the Senate to the many vicious slayings
and incidents of violence in these large
cities. I know that the authorities there
are anxious to cope with the situation
and find a solution. At the same time,
the civil rights of these cities are being
violated and ignored every day. If any
one of these incidents had occurred in
my State, no doubt there would have
been an immediate call from some of the
race agitators living in these very cities
for the paratroopers to be dispatched
immediately.-
The dispatch of Federal troops, of
course, is not the answer to these prob-
lems. The Civil Rights Commission has
not provided an answer, after 2 years of
study and 668 pages of a printed report.
If given another 2 years and another
668 pages, the Commission will not make
any useful recommendations, if past ex-
perience is any guide. -The answer lies
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8
17940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
in the individual States, with the local
people working together in their own
way to find a solution.
Mr. President, I want to make It abso-
lutely clear that I am wholly opposed to
the extension of the Civil Rights Com-
mission. It is no secret that for many
months now members of the Commission
have been entirely dissatisfied with the
work which was being accomplished by
. this group and were anxious to resign.
They apparently know that no useful
purpose is being served by the Commis-
sion. It is unreasonable to continue to
stir up people of the various States by
having the Commission go into these
States and hold hearings which will
never solve anything. These problems
can only be solved by the people directly
affected.
I can assure my colleagues that the
people of both races in Mississippi are
anxious to live together in peace and
harmony and want to do so, without out-
side agitation. Mr. President, some
make it appear that the two races are
squared off, eternally in opposition to
each other.
During the past few years, we have
inade outstanding progress in the train-
ing of our teachers and the construction
of school facilities for the children of all
races. Everyone is satisfied. As an ex-
ample, I would like to call the attention
of the Senate to an editorial which ap-
peared in the Jackson Daily News on
April 26, 1958, which refers to an edito-
rial by Percy Greene, editor of the lead-
ing Negro newspaper in Mississippi, the
Jackson Advocate. I ask unanimous
consent that this editorial be printed in
full at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEGRO EDITOR BLASTS NAACP
Percy Greene, editor of the Jackson Ad-
vocate, said 'in an editorial this week that
the National Association for the Advance-
ment of Colored People is badly in need" of
replacement as the leader in promoting the
progress of Negro citizens in this country.
Greene, a Negro editor whO recognizes the
communistic influences which have domi-
nated the NAACP, cites the national Negro
crime wave as a challenge to racial leaders
to quit demanding and start doing some-
thing to uplift the morals of the race.
"The Negro masses are in a psychological
turmoil resulting from repeated emphasis on
Negro civil rights, with Negroes themselves
coming to have less and less respect for the
civil rights of others while pressing for
their own civil rights" is a sound piece of
wording by Greene.
Citing the recent turnabout ' article by
Time magazine on how the Negro crime
rate has proven a failure in integration,
- Greene says that conspiracy of concealment
(hiding the facts on crime and other fac-
tors) "is one of the evidences of the. prac-
tice of Negro leaders telling the masses of
Negroes what they want to hear rather than
tell them the truth." Greene says despite
the challenge to perform good for the race,
Negro leaders are taking a "more profitable
course."
Percy Greene writes as If he knows
whereof he speaks.
Mr. STENNIS. Still, Mr. President,
we are asked to act on this measure
in the dying days of a long session, not
to act on the merits of the Measure,
but to act on it as a rider and an amend-
ment to an appropriation bill.
Mr. Pr?dent, I can think of nothing
in my public life that would do more
harm to the great areas of the Nation
and not to do good to any, than to try
to carry out the recommendations of
this Commission. It ought not have the
encouragement of having the breath of
life blown back into it, after such a rec-
ord and after such a report, which is
contrary to the facts of life and expe-
riences of mankind.
Mr. President, I do not wish to detain
the Senate; other Members wish to
speak. But I speak with great defer-
ence, now, to everyone, both in,the Sen-
ate and elsewhere. However, all the
efforts to reform and do good and bring
about idealistic conditions elsewhere in
the Nation, by some of our friends from
other areas of the Nation, brought very
vividly to my mind a speech which I
read many years ago. It was delivered
by an Indian chief. The short speech ,
he made is contained in a Collection of
the world's most famous orations, and
is to be found in volume 8 of that work,
a few pages of which are devoted to
orations by North American Indians.
It seems that a missionary by the
name of Cram in 1805 made an appeal,
in a sermon, to the Council of Chiefs
of the Six Nations. The chief who
spoke for them later was Red Jacket.
He is said to have been born about 1752,
and died in 1830. His nation were the
Senecas; and his home was near Geneva,
N.Y. The name "Red Jacket" came
from an embroidered scarlet jacket
which had been presented to him by a
British officer during the War of the
Revolution. Red Jacket saw service on
the American side in the War of 1812.
After this sermon, which must have
been a powerful one, an appeal to the
Indians to desert their concept of the
Great Spirit, and worship our God?and
that appeal was presented by that very
fine missionary?the Indians held coun-
cil and decided what they should do, and
reached their conclusion, and authorized
Red Jacket to speak for them.
I shall not read all of his reply, which
is 3 pages in length; I shall read only
the last, summarizing, as follows:
Brother, we are told that you have been
preaching to the white people in this place.
These people are our neighbors. We are
acquainted with them. We will wait a little
while and see what effect your preaching
has upon them. If we find that it does them
good, makes them honest, and makes them
less disposed to cheat Indians, then we will
consider again what you have said.
These words came from an Indian
who we say was uncivilized, unlettered,
untutored, unlearned. He never sat in
the Council Halls of this Nation, as we
do. But he spoke a great truth, not on
racial matters, but on the great, im-
portant matters of life, even up into the
spiritual realm.
So, Mr. President, with the greatest
deference to our friends, let us observe
them a while longer?in the East, in the
North, in the West, in the South?any-
where. Let us see what the doctrine
they preach does in their own areas. Let
us have a chance to work along the lines
we think are practical and valid?at
441,
September 14
least for a time; and we will observe
their conditions again, and then we will
take counsel with them again, to see
whether we shall desert our plan and
adopt theirs.
Mr. President, I appeal to the second
reasoning, the second thought, of the
membership of this body. Let us not
carry on a thing that in race relations
is usually a farce. Instead, let us get
back to the fundamentals of life, as
mentioned by Red Jacket, and move for-
ward. Let us all move forward together
on these racial matters, as they affect
education, as they affect suffrage, as
they affect other rights. That is the
only way progress can be made.
Mr. President, I had told the Senator
from Pennsylvania I would be glad to
yield to him. However, I believe he has
left the Chamber.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, on
Saturday, during the consideration of
the amendment offered by the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], the sen-
ior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRszl
discussed with his usual thoroughness the
constitutional basis of and limitations on
executive privilege.
In reviewing his comments, and the
background material which he inserted
in the RECORD, I felt that it would be
helpful to Senators to have additional
background ,material on the specific
question involved in the Robertson
amendment, that is, the assertion of ex-
ecutive privilege to contravene a specific
statutory direction that the information
be furnished.
I believe that the most complete analy-
sis of this problem which has been un-
dertaken in the Congress is that made by
the Moss Subcommittee on Government
Information?at the direction of Chair-
man WILL/AM L. pawsoN, of the House
Committee on Government Operations?
in connection with its investigation of
the refusal of the Air Force to furnish
information to the Comptroller General.
I therefore ask unanimous consent to
have printed at this point in the RECORD
a number of memoranda from the hear-
ings and report of the Moss subcom-
mittee.
There being no objection, the memo-
randa Were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
EXHIBIT IV?A
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNT/NG OFF/CE,
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNCIL,
Washington, D.C., November 4,1958. -
MEMORANDUM ON RIGHT OF THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL TO ACCESS TO A REPORT OF THE IN-
SPECTOR GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE EN-
TITLED "SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT OF THE
BALLISTIC MISSILES PROGRAM"
The basic statutory authority of the
Comptroller General for access to records
of departments and agencies is set forth in
section 313 of the Budget and Accounting
Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 54). Section 313 pro-
vides:
"All departments and establishments shall
furnish to the Comptroller General such in-
formation regarding the powers, duties, ac-
tivities, organization, financial transactions,
and methods of business of their respective
offices as he may from time to time require
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/12 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500120006-8