AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: September 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
?44111111:138
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
WALTER as he attended the University of
Oregon, as he rose in politics in the legis-
lature of Oregon, and finally in the Con-
gress of the United States.
I join my colleague, the distinguished
Senator from Oregon, in expressing our
deep sympathy to his wife, Elizabeth, to
his son, and to the members of his family
and the many friends he had throughout
the State. Mrs. Jordan joins me in ex-
pressing our deepest sympathy and con-
dolences in this tragic hour.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MANSIettLD. Mr. President, I
wish to join the senior Senator from Ore-
gon and the Senator from Idaho in send-
ing condolences to Mrs. Norblad and her
family upon the passing of her late be-
loved husband, WALTER NORBLAD, a Rep-
resentative from Oregon: I had the
pleasure of serving with WALTER NORBLAD
in the House for a number of years. He
was a highly thought of and well-re-
spected Representative of the people. It
was with deep sorrow that I heard on
the radio yesterday morning that this
outstanding legislator had died of a heart
attack at the Bethesda Naval Hospital.
On behalf of Mrs. Mansfield and my-
self, I extend our condolences to his
family.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, let
me add my sympathy to the family of
Representative NORBLAD. I have known
him for many years. He is one of the fine
Representatives of our area, one who
was responsible among others for the
signing of the treaty which we com-
memorated in that area. ?
His passing leaves us sad. The coun-
try has suffered a great loss. The north-
west area of the country in particular has
suffered a great loss.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the resolution is unani-
mously agreed to. The Chair appoints
the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr.
MORSE] and the junior Senator from
Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER] as a commit-
tee of the Senate to attend t e f
of Representative NORBLAD.
AMENDMENT OF FOREI N ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Chair lays before the
Seriate the unfinished business.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend further
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment (No. 1215) offered by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] for himself
and the Senator from Montana [Mr.
MANSFIELD].
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on
Wednesday I spoke on this issue for
some time. At the termination of the
day, I had not finished my speech. The
distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS] obtained unanimous consent
for me to be recognized on Thursday.
On Thursday, I wanted to continue my
speech after the morning hour. How-
ever, after the morning hour, it was im-
possible tO obtain a quorum. Again on
Friday, I wanted to continue my speech.
It was again impossible to develop a
quorum. The same thing was true on
Saturday.-
I should like very much to continue my
speech at this time. However, the dis-
tinguished Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RANDOLPH] has a very excellent
speech to deliver.
I ask unanimous consent that I may
yield to the Senator from West Virginia
without losing my right to the floor. ?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am
grateful that the able senior Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] affords
me the opportunity at this time to join
in the discussion of the reapportionment
proposal which is pending and which
has been under much pertinent discus-
sion in the Senate. I do not believe it
has been pending too long in view of the
many interruptions and the transaction
of other business.
I have listened with interest and have
been enlightened by the speeches which
have been presented in this forum by
several Senators. I make special men-
tion of the remarks of the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], who sits at my
right, and the Senator, from Wisconsin
[Mr. PROXMIRE] who yields to me at this
time.
I voted for the Javits-McCarthy-
Humphrey compromise resolution, for
more -than one reason. At least one im-
pelling reason is that I believe it is time
to complete the business of the current
session of the 88th Congress. I reiterate,
however, that I do not want Congress
to conclude its work without having
taken affirmative action on the passage
of the Appalachian Regional Develop-
ment Act.
I know that there is certain other busi-
ness that needs to be completed by Con-
gress: I am still hopeful that the con-
ferees may find an area of agreement
so that aid to the aged through a health
"care program within the social security
system may become law.
Mr. President, I believe that the lan-
guage of the Javits-Humphrey-
McCarthy substitute, which was defeated
42 to 40, was adequate to explain the
sense of Congress without encroaching
on the integrity of the judicial branch
of the U.S. Government.
The reapportionment issue has gone to
the very bedrock of our assumptions re-
garding the nature of the American sys-
tem of government under which I hope
we shall move forward.- I want to have
the RECORD reveal my reasons for voting
as I did.
I realize that not all Senators rise in
this Chamber to give their reasons.
That is understandable. But this is an
issue which is fundamental. For that
reason, I have given study, and a very
sincere measure of preparation, to the
remarks that I am making. I had sev-
eral reasons for voting for the ,Javits-
McCarthy-Humphrey substitute to the
Dirksen amendment. I believe it is im-
portant for me to indicate why I shall
vote for an amendment which may come
before this body, which amendment has
September 21
a similar purpose. I am adamant in my
opposition to the Dirksen-Mansfield so-
called compromise amendment which is
pending in this body.
Seldom ? with'n the history of the Sen-
ate, and certainly not in recent years,
have Senators been called on to delib-
erate the fundamental issue of civil
rights, as Senators have done-during this
session?first with regard to the Civil
Rights Act of 1361, and now with regard
to the Dirksen-Mansfield amendment on
reapportionment. Let us make no mis-
take about it. A fundamental civil right
is very much the issue in this amend-
ment, as, is, the Constitution itself. As
two eminent pi' pfessors of law, referring
to the Dirksen-Mansfield proposal,
stated in an art:cle in the Washington
Post of August ?1, 1964:
If successful hcre, it would mean the end
of the American constitutional system of
judicial review rd therefore of the Ameri-
can Constiiut:on.
Not within y tenure in the Senate
have we been exposed to such a wide
array of views osi the Constitution and
such learned references to the opinions
of the founders of the Constitution of the
United States. Yet, there is one highly
relevant comr ent by one of the principal
authors of that instrument which has not
received sufficient emphasis during the
debate on this issue. Perhaps it entered
the debate and I missed it. But at the
risk of repeating the observation of an-
other Senator, I draw attention to the
opinion of James Madison, as expressed
in the Federalist, No. X, when he stated
that?
No man is allowed to be a judge in his
own cause; because his interest would cer-
tainly bias his judgment and, not improb-
ably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay,
with greater reason, a body of men are unfit
to be both judges and parties at the same
time.
Yet, this is precisely the situation in -
which the pending Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment would place the legislatures
of many Of the 50 States, and indirectly
the Senate of the United States as well.
With the proposed constitutional amend-
ment which it anticipated, the Dirksen
proposal would place the State legisla-
tures in the morally and politically in-
defensible position of voting on, and thus
perpetuating, the very condition of mal-
apportionment which the Supreme Court
has declared unconstitutional. As the
able junior Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. RIBICOFF] noted, it is hardly just or
equitable "to have the rotten boroughs
decide whether, they should continue to
be rotten." And there are few if any
Members of this body who, by political
associations and personal friendships,
are not to some degree also involved with
the apportionment problems of their
respective States.
This is, in my opinion, 'one Of the ele-
ments of greatest mischief in the pro-
posed Dirksen-Mansfield amendment.
If enacted, it would in the most lit-
eral sense corrupt the democratic proc-
ess in the States. It would, in addition,
be one of the most retrograde steps that
the Congress of the United States could
take.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
.t 9 6 .4 ?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The proponents of the Dirksen-Mans-
field compromise to the original Dirk-
sen amendment?which was thrust on
the Senate without even the benefit of
committee hearings?are Senators for
whom I have the highest regard. They
are Senators who have, on other issues,
maintained the utmost concern for or-
derly legislative procedure, a careful re-
gard for the rights of the States, and a
sincere commitment to harmonious and
effective Federal-State relationships. It
is for this reason that I am at a loss to
understand their support for a measure
which would violate each of these prin-
ciples in such fundamental ways.
I need not belabor the fact that the
originally proposed amendment was of-
fered with a rather cavalier disregard
for legislative procedure. In the clos-
ing days of the session, without benefit of
hearings or committee action, it was pre-
sented for attachment as a totally inap-
propriate rider to the foreign aid bill.
Such actions, although rare, are not
without precedent.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the very
capable Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I compliment the
Senator from West Virginia 9n his ex-
cellent speech. I particularly think the
last point he has made should be
stressed and underlined. As he says,
this is an important proposal. As I un-
derstand, he considers this a civil right,
an individual right. He has pointed out
how the. Dirksen amendment brings the
Supreme Court into serious jeopardy.
The point he makes is that, in the clos-
ing days of the session, without benefit
of hearings or committee action, the
proposal is presented on a bill which is
not germane in any way.
In the judgment of the Senator from
West Virginia, who has had many years
of experience in the House of Represent-
atives and has had substantial experi-
ence in the Senate, is it not extraordi-
nary to propose in this manner a matter
of this particular importance, which
goes to the very root and heart of the
relationship between the Congress and
the courts? Does not the Senator con-
sider that the procedure followed with
regard to this proposal prevents the Sen-
ate and the House from exercising the
full deliberation which this kind of very
serious proposal merits and requires?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I concur completely
with the judgment of the Senator from
Wisconsin. I have so stated. I appre-
ciate the emphasis which he has placed
on this aspect of the issue. The Senate
of the United States is often referred
to as the greatest deliberative body in the
world. Yet the Dirksen-Mansfield pro-
posal would short circuit the processes
of deliberation?on a most fundamental
issue?which this body has established
to guard against popular panic and hasty.
legislation.
But what disturbs me even more is that
the proponents of the Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment, most of whom are among
the most stanch defenders of the
rights of the individual States, would
advocate a bill which would allow "any
party or intervenor?or any member of
the legislature" to block a reapportion-
ment plan which may have a wide con-
sensus of support throughout a particu-
lar State and which may have been de-
veloped at great expense and effort by the
State. Thus, if that amendment to H.R.
11380 were enacted, the Congress of the
United States would, in effect, be giving
the green light to any malcontent or lame
duck legislator to obstruct any reappor-
tionment plan emanating from a court
decision?regardless of the expense to
the State or the popular support for
such a plan.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a most sig-
nificant point. It is not true that wher-
ever there is legislative reapportion-
ment?it is unfortunate but true?at
least one and usually several members
of the legislature are apportioned out
of their seats and their careers ended?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is true.
-Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not true that in
State after State, which has been pro-
ceeding very well, in terms of public
interest, in providing equitable appor-
tionment, all the painful, tough, gradual
adjustment to the situation would be
stopped, and stopped cold, and would be
stopped cold for a long time, if the Dirk-
sen amendment were adopted?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. I think it
would be proper to say that the States
would be stultified. I think that situa-
tion would result not only in one but in
several cases.
There is another and perhaps even
more fundamental manner in which the
Dirksen amendment would be prejudicial
to sovereignty and to a healthy Federal-
State relationship. It has become a vir-
tual truism among students and/ prac-
titioners of government to declare that
the States have abdicated many of their
powers, rather than having had them
seized by the Federal Government. The
Federal Government has, in fact, filled
the vacuum created, in many instances,
by the States inability to meet the needs
of a modern industrial society. This
failure on the part of many of our States
has been due to malapportionment of the
State legislatures more than to any other
single factor.
Consider but a few of the major prob-
lems of so-called Federal intervention
today?in the fields of public assistance,
slum clearance, urban renewal, urban
transit, air and water pollution, and aid
to education, for example. These are
problems largely associated with our
metropolitan areas. And the Federal
Government, in fulfilling its responsibili-
ties to the American citizen, has been
forced to move into these fields because
the rurally dominated State legislatures
have too frequently been -unresponsive
to urban and suburban needs.
It is my firm conviction, therefore,
that the reapportionment decisions of
the Supreme Court in the Alabama cases
and those which preceded during the re-
cent term of the Court will prove to be
among the most significant contributions
in recent decades to the strengthening
of State governments.
In this respect, in particular, I would
21689
disagree with the closing argument in
the dissent of Justice Harlan, wherein
he declared that?
No thinking person can fail to recognize
that the aftermath of these cases, however
desirable it may be thought in itself, will
have been achieved at the cost of a radical
alteration in the relationship between ,the
States and the Federal Government, more
particularly the Federal Judiciary.
Justice Harlan then concludes that-1-
Only one who has an overbearing impa-
tience with the Federal system and its polit-
ical processes will believe that that cost was
not too high or was inevitable. (Reynolds,
et al. v. M. 0. Sims, et al.)
What are the major problems of so-
called Federal intervention today?
We find them in the field of public
assistance, in slum clearance, in urban
renewal, in urban/transit, in air and
water pollution, and in aid for education,
to give some examples which are clearly-
set forth. These are problems largely
associated with the metropolitan .areas
of the country. The Federal Govern-
ment, in fulfilling its responsibilities to
the American citizen, has been forced to
move into these fields because the rurally
dominated State legislatures have too
frequently been unresponsive to the
needs of the urban and suburban sections
of our country.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield again to the
diligent senior Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a very im-
portant and very much overlooked argu-
ment. I do not see how it can be an-
swered at all. The "States righters"
should be in the front ranks in opposi-
tion to the amendment. The argument
being made by the Senator from West
Virginia makes good sense. If we want
the States to assume responsibilities, we
should give the people the right to equal
representation in both houses of their
legislature so that there can be agree-
ment between the two houses and the
legislature can act, without one body
blocking the other. The Senator from
Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA] pointed to a
series of instances in a recent year when
the Governor of the State of Michigan,
the lower house of the State of Michi-
gan, and the people of the State of
Michigan were in favor of measures
which a majority of State Senators,
representing a minority of the people
of the State, had persistently blocked.
There were not only one or two such
measures, but a series of concrete, spe-
cific actions.
If we hear anything at all from the
proponents of the Dirksen-Amendment,
it is that the Federal Government has
become too big and too domineering.
This may be true. But if the -States are
to solve their own problems should we
hamstring them by providing that one
house should be apportioned on a basis
other than population. -
I am glad the Senator from West Vir-
ginia has so ably stressed this point and
has done so not in generalities, but by
pointing to specific areas, such as slum
clearance, urban renewal, air and water
pollution, and education, in which States
should assume those responsibilities, but
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
21690 CONGRESSIONAL
where they have not done so because they
have been paralyzed.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am grateful for
the cogent comment of the senior Sen-
ator from Wisconsin [Mr. PRoxmIxE]
It is my firm conviction, I repeat, that
the reapportionment decisions of the Su-
preme Court in the Alabama cases and
the cases which were presented during
the recent term of court, will prove to be
among the most significant contributions
in recent decades to the strengthening
Of State governments.
I agree thoroughly with the proposi-
tion which' has been set forth, that those
who should be in the forefront of vocal
opposition to the pending Dirksen-Mans-
field amendment should be Senators who
have spoken, and I believe Fill speak
again, about States rights on other sub-
jects.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a happy
thought and a very true and accurate
reflection. The Supreme Court has been
attacked again and again as an instru-
ment of the Federal Government moving
against the States. As the Senator has
said, the Supreme Court's decisions
would strengthen State governments and
would strengthen the Federal system.
This is a very important observation. I
believe it is the first time in this debate
that it has been made; and it has been
made in a very constructive and positive
way.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor. In this connection, I believe I would
have to disagree with the closing argu-
ment of Justice Harlan in this case.
I say this particularly to the Senator
from Wisconsin and the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS]. The declaration
was maile that "no thinking person can
fail to recognize that the aftermath of
these cases, however desirable it may be
thought in itself, will have been achieved
at the cost of a radical alteration in the
relationship between the States and the
Federal Government, more particularly
the Federal judiciary."
Senators will recall that Justice Har-
lan concluded:
Only one who has an overbearing im-
patience at the Federal system- and its po-
litical processes will believe that that cost
Was not too high or was inevitable.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Justice Harlan, in
effect, is saying, is it not that the over-
whelming majority of the Supreme Court
had an overbearing impatience with the
way in which the legislatures were op-
erating? Is it not correct to say that for
60 years virtually no State legislature
would reapportion itself? This was not
a hasty decision by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court withheld its hand
for decade after decade, and finally,
when the evidence was clear that the
leglislatures would not reform them-
selves, they moved in under the 14th
amendment and the requirement for
equal protection of the laws. Did not
the majority of the Supreme Court show
RECORD -- SENATE
great restraint and patience with the
operations of the State legislatures
rather than overbearing impatience?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from
rilinois is very convincing on this point.
.He made it before during this debate.
The time not only has arrived, but it has
been long overdue.
Rather than having rushed in with
excessive haste, the Court showed justi-
fiable restraint. In my view, Justice
Harlan, in his dissenting opinion, stepped
from the field of law into the field of
political prophecy. His prophecy is mis-
conceived, I believe, because his own
attention seems directed more to the
form than to the substance of Federal-
State relations.
The implementation of the recent ap-
portionment decisions will, at first, be a
somewhat painful remedy for many of
the States. But in the long-term view,
reapportionment will infuse a new vital-
ity in State governments, enabling the
States, once again, to assume the role of
full partnership.
This becomes readily apparent when
one reflects on the current tendency of
municipal officials to bypass State gov-
ernments and to appeal directly to the
Federal Government for solutions to
many of their urban and suburban
problems. This tendency is the result
of the inability of State governments to
cope with these problems under their
present systems of apportionment.
When I was a Member of the House of
Representatives, I joined in the original
sponsoring of the Federal Aid to Air-
ports Act. In the drafting of that legis-
lation, in which I had a part, we were
careful that there should be a relation-
ship directly between the Federal Gov-
ernment and the municipalities. We
recognized that the need for approval of
the local project for an airport could not
rest upon the State government, because
year after year the States could do little,
to help support an airport within a par-
ticular city, within a metropolitan area,
or within a center of population. So the
Federal funds went to the cities on a
matching basis. Many States fought
vigorously in Congress against that pro-
vision in the Federal Aid to Airports Act.
We in Congress knew that the time had
arrived for the development of transpor-
tation by air in the United States, with
no reflection on the States themselves.
Frankly, the States were not realistic
and could not grapple with the problems
of this new form of transport, which was
the operation of scheduled airlines serv-
ing thousands of persons daily between
specific metropolitan areas. I had not
anticipated bringing this example to the
attention of the Senate, but it is cer-
tainly a valid point. In supporting the
authority of cities to issue airport bonds,
Justice Cardozo reminded us in 1928
that "Chalcedon was called the city of
the blind because its founders rejected
the nobler site of Byzantium lying at
their feet." - To paraphrase Justice Car-
dozo in this issue, one might say that the
State legislatures have- been blind to
ways of increasing the authority and
effectiveness of State government, and
the Supreme Court has been called upon
to open their eyes and give them sight.
September .21
. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I have flown into
Charleston, W. Va., many times. The
airport there was built, as I remember,
by leveling off the top of a hill. Does
the Senator from West Virginia believe
that that would have been done at great
expense if the Legislature of West Vir-
ginia had had the power to determine
whether it should be done and had been
compelled to appropriate money for it?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe the State
of West Virginia would not have moved
forward with the construction of the'
Kanawha County Airport. It lacked the
financial capacity to assist materially.
The cost of constructing an airport in
our capital area is high. It has been
said that more earth was moved in the
construction of that airport, where
Mountains were leveled, than was moved
in the construction of the Panama Canal.
It is expensive to build an airport in
mountainous terrain. So, as I have done
on prior occasions, I compliment the cit-
izenry of Kanawha County for having
voted several million dollars of bonded
indebtednes and for having accepted the
responsibility to participate with the
Federal Government in such a meritori-
ous project. The State itself would
never have been able to move forward.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Yet that airport has
opened up the State of West Virginia to
air travel and has been of great assist-
ance in enabling the chemical and other
Industries to locate in the Kanawha Val-
ley. Is not that true?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from
Illinois is correct. The chemical indus-
try in the Kanawha Valley is likened
to that of the world famous Ruhr Valley.
A huge complex of the chemical indus-
try has been located in the Kanawha
Valley for some 25 or 30 years. I esti-
mate that it directly employs some 25,000
men and women and creates many, many
indirect jobs. It is an important indus-
try.
More than 100,000 passengers a year
have been boarding planes at the Kana-
wha County Airport to travel to other
sections of the country, and a compar-
able number of passengers have been
arriving. I refer to the scheduled air-
line service, the carriers- serving the city
of Charleston, W. Va.
In my opinion, reapportionment would
give the metropolitan regions a stronger
voice in the councils of their States, and
thus would strengthen the States in their
relationship with the Federal Govern-
ment. To illustrate this in a more spe-
cific way, I refer to the kind of problem
which arises in framing much of the
legislation which is reported by the Com-
mittee on' Public Works, of which am
a member. With respect to air and water
pollution measures especially, we have
had to exercise great care in writing pro-
visions which would prevent local and
municipal officials from bypassing State
agencies when seeking Federal allot-
ments or assistance. In such instances,
we find the seeming paradox of the Fed-
eral Government protecting the interests
of the State government in its relation-
ship with its own political subdivisions.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP661300403R000300070013-9
/964 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I feel certain that other Senators would
recount similar instances with regard to
the work within the jurisdictions of their
own committees.
I believe such a precaution on the part
of the Federal Legislature would not be
necessary if State legislatures and the
? other agencies of State governments
more accurately reflected the needs and
interests of their metropolitan popula-
tions. I believe also that Justice Harlan
would have less anxiety about the future
impact of the Court's apportionment de-
cisions if he had contended with the
problems of Federal, State, and local
relationships that come before Congress
for continuing attention and, we hope,
for affirmative solutions.
At the outset of my remarks, I stated
that a fundamental civil right was at is-
sue in the proposed Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment. I would not do justice to my
own convictions on this issue if I failed to
recognize the question of the right of
"one-person, one-vote," and the author-
ity of the Supreme Court to adjudicate
this issue. Although I would enter the
field of constitutional law with much
trepidation, it does not seem necessary to
me that a person be a constitutional law-
yer to recognize the authority of the
Supreme Court in this issue.
It is specifically set forth in article
III, section 2 of the Constitution which
provides:
In all cases * * * in which a State shall
be party, the Supreme Court shall have orig-
inal jurisdiction.
We understand the English language.
This section clearly accords to the Su-
preme Court and not to the Congress
original jurisdiction over apportionment
cases in which a citizen files suit against
the State in which he is a resident.
Furthermore, we have listened to and
have read the comments of Professors
Rostow and Emerson. I read from the
article in the Washington Post in which
they said:
The exception clause, and the power to
establish lower Federal courts, cannot be
used to abrogate all judicial power to pro-
tect any one basic constitutional right.
Mr. President, the Supreme Court has
construed that apportionment cases orig-
inate from the equal protection clause
of the 14th amendment. The logic of
thb decision in Reynolds versus Sims, et
al, is clear and unassailable when the
court declared:
Diluting the weight of votes because of
place of residence impairs basic constitu-
tional rights under the 14th amendment just
as much as invidious discriminations based
upon factors such as race, Brown v. Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483, or economic status.
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, Douglas v. Cali-
fornia, 372 U.S. 353. Our constitutional sys-
tem amply provides for the protection of
minorities by means other than giving them
majority control of State legislatures. And
the democratic ideals of equality and ma-
jority rule, which have served this Nation
so well in the past, are hardly of any less
significance for the present and the future.
I am not dissuaded from my support
of the decision of the Court in this in-
stance by the references which have
been made to the views of the founders
of the Constitution and especially to
Madison's doctrine that the "public
views" should be "refined and enlarged
by passing them through the medium of
a chosen body of citizens."
This is, of course, the essence of a
republican form of government; but it
offers no justification, I say?nor did
Madison intend it as such?for malap-
portionment of our State legislatures in
the America of today.
It should be no revelation to any stu-
dent of American history that our
founders?including even such optimis-
tic founders as Jefferson and Madison?
harbored a certain skepticism regard-
ing popular government. Nor is it sur-
prising?in view of the many qualifica-
tions of' property, sex, and condition
of servitude?that only 12 or 15 per-
cent of the adult citizens of the United
States voted in the" early elections in
this Republic: But the history of this
Nation has been, in large part, the his-
tory of the extension of the right?and
I call it also the responsibility of suf-
frage?the ballot, a franchise of free-
dom. I believe, in this instance, that the
Supreme Court has done something
which should have been done long ago.
But it has done it now. To attempt to
divert, to sidetrack, or to stultify it, re-
flects no credit on the Senate, especially
considering the manner in which this
quest-irin is brought before us.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOR-
DAN of Idaho in the chair) . Does the
Senator from West Virginia yield to the
Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is a great
statement being made by the Senator
from West Virginia, especially when he
states that the history of the Republic
has been to some extent the extension of
the franchise, the history of progress,
the history of justice and equity. This
is true. This has been a tough, long,
and hard struggle. Is it not true that
the amendment to the Constitution that
gave women the right to vote was a
highly significant milestone along that
path?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is cor-
rect, it certainly was a milestone. That
battle was not an easy one to win.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Certainly the Civil
War amendments which extended the
franchise to those who had been slaves,
and the benefits which came through the
1957 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts were the
implementation of the right to vote.
Many of us who were for the 1964 civil
rights bill made the argument that one
of the most important provisions in the
bill was that it gave the minorities?
which had been deprived of the right to
vote?the right to vote, which is essen-
tial to their economic and social prog-
ress, as well as to their political progress.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe that the
Senator from West Virginia is making his
point so well that this great Supreme
Court decision is in the mainstream of
that same struggle, the struggle for po-
21691
litical justice, and the struggle for po-
litical equality. I am glad that the Sen-
ator from West Virginia has hit this
point so hard and so eloquently.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin.
I should like to go further and say that
with the establishment of property qual-
ifications, the extension of suffrage dur-
ing what we know as the Jacksonian pe-
riod, the adoption of the 14th, 15th, and
19th amendments, and the progressive
elimination of the poll tax and the abol-
ishment of the so-called white primaries,
we have witnessed the steady extension
of the right to vote and the progressive
enlightenment of the American people.
The Supreme Court decision i on reap-
portionment are but the rngst recent
wave of this tide in the advancement of
this Republic.
Finally, Mr. President; we come to the
question of the cheeks and balances
within our system and the division of
authority between the legislative and the
judicial branches. Supporters of the
Dirksen-Mansfield amendment have pro- .
claimed that the Court has usurped the
authority of the legislative branch and
that the Justices are legislating and not
interpreting the law. }
This argument is hardly a new one. It
was exploded more than 40 years ago by
the scholarly Justice Benjamin N. Car-
dozo in the lectures which he gave in 1921
at Yale University.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Were not those lec-
tures called "The Nature of the Judicial
Process"?
Mr. RANDOLPH. These were the
the Storrs Lectures published under the
title of "The Nature of the Judicial
Process."
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator from
Illinois is, as usual, correct in his cita-
tion.
Speaking of the "open spaces in the
law" and the function of the courts in
these areas, Justice Cardozo stated that:
Within the confines of these open spaces
and- those of precedent and tradition, choice
moves with a freedom which stamps its ac-
tion as creative. The law which is the re-
sulting product is not found, but made. The
process, being legislative, demands the legis-
lator's wisdom.
There is in truth nothing revolutionary or
even novel in this view of the judicial func-
tion. It is the way that courts have gone
about their business for centuries in the
development of the common law. The dif-,
ference from age to age is not so much in
the recognition of the need that law shall
conform itself to an end. It is rather in
the nature of the end to which there has
been need to conform.
Mr. President, the recent Supreme
Court decision, the development of Amer-
ican democracy, and the popular will of
American citizens today declare that the
end to which Justice Cardozo referred
shall be equal representation. The issue
is solely and ultimately whether or not
we accept equal representation as one of
the fundamental goals of American de-
mocracy.
This Senator subscribes to the view
expressed by Thomas Jefferson when he
stated that?
Equal representation is so fundamental a
principle in a true republic that no prejudice
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
1.692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
can justify its violation because the preju-
dices themselves cannot be justified.
I shall not break faith with that
principle, which has been so eloquently
and accurately set forth.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
--- Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I congratulate the
Senator from West Virginia for his very
scholarly and thoughtful address which
has discussed this issue in the large. It
shows how the Supreme Court dealt with
a long-standing abuse which the State
legislatures themselves stubbornly re-
fused to correct. His address demon-
strates how the Court finally came back
to the fundamental principle that the
people were entitled to the equal protec-
tion of the laws and could not be assured
of the equal protection of the laws if the
legislatures which made the laws were
ones in which the people were grossly
unrepresented.
The whole argument of the Senator
has been on an extremely high level. I
know it will have a great deal of influ-
ence not only in West Virginia, but also
all over the country.
Would the Senator permit me to give
some testimony with reference to my own
State?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. I want to
hear the testimony.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Illinois contained
10,100,000 people according to the cen-
sus of population in 1960. Illinois has a
State senate consisting of 58 senators.
The average allotment of inhabitants
per senator would therefore be approxi-
mately 17,000.
A number of districts have a much
greater population than this. A num-
ber of districts have a much smaller pop-
ulation than this.
Let me take the smaller ones first.
There is one district with 54,000 people,
another with 57,000, another with 59,000,
another with 67,000. On the other hand,
there is one district with 570,000 people,
another with 505,000, and another with
over 400,000.
Let us compare the smallest district
and the largest district. Fifty-four
thousand people elect one State senator.
Five hundred and seventy thousand peo-
ple also elect only one Senator. One per-
son in the smallest district therefore has
over 10 times the effective voice of a
person in the largest district. The peo-
ple in the smallest district are very nice
people. But should they be given 10
times the weight of those in another
district?
Mr. RANDOLPH. They should not, if
I may interrupt.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Another district has
a population of 505,000. That district
consists of Du Page and Will Counties.
That is a congressional district. There
are 24 congressmen and 55 State senators.
But, the State senatorial district is iden-
tical with the Federal congressional dis-
trict. Therefore, one man in the smallest
-district would have approximately 9 times
the voice of an inhabitant in the-sena-
torial district with 505,000.
Another congressional district con-
sists of Lake, McHenry, and Boone Coun-
ties. It contained 398,000 people in 1960.
It has a congressional representative
and only one State senatorial representa-
tive. It now has well over 400,000 pop-
ulation. It has the same representation
as other districts which contain popula-
tions of 54,000, 57,000, and 59,000.
So, while we do not have in Illinois
the ludicrous example that exists in
Vermont where a hamlet with 36 people
elects a member of the State legislature,
and the largest city with a population
of 38,000 also elects only one member of
the State legislature it is bad enough.
Illinois does not have the absurd condi-
tion which exists in California, where
14,500 people elect a State senator, and
the over 6 million people in Los Angeles
County also only elect one State senator.
Still there are improvements that can
be made. But 29 percent of the people
are in districts which elect a majority of
the State senate.
. There is one other conclusion which I
should like to introduce in the RECORD
before I stop. That is that the three
worst underrepresented districts are not
inside the city of Chicago. They are in
suburban districts.
For example, a district with 570,000
people, the first Illinois senatorial dis-
trict, consisting of the cities of Cicero,
Berwin, and Oak Park and Leyden, and
Proviso Townships, is the most under-
represented group. Du Page and Will
Counties have a population of 505,000,
or approximately 3 times the size of what
should be the average district. Those
are suburban counties directly to the
west and south of Cook County. -Lake,
McHenry, and Boone Counties, which
constitute the precise area included An
the 12th Congressional District, now have
over 400,000 people. This is 21/2 times
the size of the average district. That is
a suburban district. All of these are
within the metropolitan area. All of
these districts are at ,the moment
strongly Republican. -We hope that can
be changed. But, at the moment, they
are strongly Republican. What strikes
me is the fact that so many of our Re-
publican friends?I do not say all of
them?are saying this is a struggle be-
tween the cities and rural areas. It is
not so much that, as a struggle between
the suburban areas and the underpopu-
lated rural areas. And we, who are con-
tending for more equal representation,
are fighting the battles of the suburban
areas even more than we are fighting the
battle of the urban areas. I hope very
much that these' issues can become
known and properly emphasized.
I regret that I have intruded upon the
philosophic tenor of the speech of the
Senator from West Virginia, which was
couched in admirable general terms.
But, sometimes the meaty specific re-
inforces the general philosophy and
logic.
I again congratulate the Senator from:
West Virginia. He has made an excel-
lent contribution to the discussion.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
thank the scholarly senior Senator from
Illinois. If this were a problem for West
Virginia alone, it would not be my pur-
pose to sand here in the Chamber and
object. The imbalance in the legislative
bodies of the Senate and House of Dele-
gates in West Virginia is not appreciable.
September? -24
Our legislature has acted resolutely to
meet its responsibilities in this vital area
of representation.
Apportionment is not the most press-
ing problem in West Virginia. But a
very real principle is involved. That
principle is whether we actually believe
in equal representation as not only a
sought for goal but now?at least in the
Supreme Court's action?a realizable
goal. I do not wish to see it thwarted.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course, the Su-
preme Court has never said that there
must be precise arithmetical equality.
The Court specified substantial equality,
which would allow a certain percentage
of tolerance on either side of the aver-
age.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, flexibility is
built into the Court's decisions.'
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is expressly
stated in the decisions of the Court.
Mr. RANDOLPH. My colleague is
correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE? Mr. President, will
the ? Senator yield briefly before he
leaves?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I know that 'the
Senator has an urgent appointment
which he must keep. I, too, wish to
commend the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia on a brilliant speech?a
speech that was not only long and hard
on the philosophy and principle involved,
but also excellent in terms of specifics. I
thought the example which the Senator
gave us from his own experience in the
Public Works Committee was particular
helpful and useful. It showed clearly
how the failure of the States to apportion
properly and be representative in their
legislatures interferes with their rela-
tionships with their own cities and their
own localities, necessitating adjustments
to be made at the Federal level which are
often awkward and prevent full justice
being done to the people within the State.
Also, as the Senator from West Vir-
ginia made emphatically clear, inequal-
ity in apportionment makes it necessary
for the Federal Government to move into
situations that otherwise ,the States
might be able to handle for themselves.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I again thank the
Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator
from Illinois, who have been gracious and
generous in their references to my effort
here today. I say to both of them that
there are times when we feel an urge?
and I have felt it?to stand, to speak,
and to serve in support of a principle
which needs to be emphasized. So to
the extent that I have reinforced and
supplemented that which the Senators
from Wisconsin and Illinois have so well
said, I know that my contribution-at least
is a sincere one. I hope it will add some-
thing to an affirmative determination on
the part of the Senate to approve, rather
than to tear apart, a historic decision,
in the onward sweep of American democ-
racy, enunciated by the Supreme Court.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia for his fine speech.
Now, Mr. President, for what purpose
is the Senate now tied up with the Dirk-
sen amendment to the foreign aid bill?
Why? Strictly from the standpoint of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
1-964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
those who want the Dirksen amendment.
What difference will it make whether we
act on it this year or whether we have
action pro or con next year? The fact
is that there is not one single State leg-
islature which will meet before January
1965. If we should fail to act now, our
failure could have no effect that I can
understand on actions by State legisla-
tures next year. Therefore, I hope that
the leadership on both sides of the aisle
will give very real consideration to the
possibility of ending this unfortunate
stalemate by withdrawing the Dirksen
amendment and pressing in 1965, when
the decks will be clear for action and it
will be possible to stay with the subject,
and when it will be possible to have Sen-
ators attend these debates and it will be
possible to have more than one quorum
call a day.
It is no legislative secret that it is the
duty of Senators who favor a proposal
to obtain a quorum. It is their responsi-
bility, not ours. It is not the responsi-
bility of those who are opposing a meas-
ure.
During the civil rights debate those of
us who were for the civil rights bill worked
hard and long, and made great sacrifices
in terms of not being able to get out to
our States and make speeches around the
country, canceling commitments in order
to be present in the Senate for quorum
calls.
I understand that the distinguished
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] was
present for more quorum calls than any
other Senator at that time. Perhaps
there were two or three others who did
as well as he did. We were then able to
get a quorum in less than 20 minutes;
usually, 15 minutes. We were unable to
get a single quorum on Thursday; we
were not able to get a quorum on Friday.
Today we have been in session since 12
o'clock and nearly an hour Was re-
quired-50 minutes?to get a quorum,
although Senators were urged to return
to Washington, D.C. As time goes on it
is obvious that it will be harder and hard-
er to maintain a quorum. In the absence
of a quorum it is difficult for the Senator
from Wisconsin to see how we can be
criticized by our opposition and taunted
about not speaking to a full Chamber.
After all, if the proponents of the meas-
ure cannot deliver Senators to the Cham-
ber so that the Senate might be held in
session, it is not our responsibility?at
least those of us who oppose the amend-
ment?to continue talking. If we do
talk, we are hopeful that our opposition
will see that Senators are present.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PELL
in the chair) . Does the Senator from
Wisconsin yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that
during the debate on the civil rights
bill well over 100 quorum calls were called
by the opponents of the civil rights
measure, and they were live quorum calls
which were demanded?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is
correct. Live quorums were demanded.
No. 181-4
Mr. DOUGLAS. We have asked for
only one live quorum. Still the idvo-
cates of the Dirksen amendment have
not taken the hint, and have not ap-
peared on the floor to defend their posi-
tion. Is that not true?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is absolutely
true. It seems to me that the proponents
of the measure have given only a very
brief time in support of their position,
although the debate relates to a most
important constitutional issue. No
hearings have been held on the question.
No record is before the Senate. We have
no record from the House, though the
measure would have most serious con-
sequences on all 50 of our State legisla-
tures.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe the RECORD
will show that my colleague, the junior
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] , who
is chief sponsor of the amendment, spoke
for less than 1 hour. He did not speak
again. Later, on the Democratic side,
the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANS-
FIELD], who is a cosponsor of the amend-
ment, spoke for 10 minutes. Neither one
of them has spoken since. There may
have been one brief speech in support
of the proposal, but there has been vir-
tually no discussion.
? During the debate on the civil rights
Issue, those of us who were in favor of
civil rights felt an obligation to present
our side of the case. We felt that we
should not depend upon pure muscle,
but that we should try to argue the points
involved.
The RECORD will show that for 3 weeks
we conducted a debate with Senators
going into every phase of the civil rights
bill in great detail so that a case might
be laid before the Senate and the coun-
try.
Now the supporters of the Dirksen-
Mansfield amendment in effect refuse to
do that. They have refused to state
their case. They will not come to the
floor of the Senate. In many cases they
have helped to prevent a live quorum
from being obtained. They are depend-
ing on the strength of the groups be-
hind them, and possibly of the organ-
izations of the two parties.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The situation is
most peculiar, particularly in view of
what has happened in the course of the
debate. One might think that time was
working on their side. What has hap-
pened? On the move for cloture, I pre-
sume the minority leader, the distin-
guished junior Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN], would not have filed a cloture
motion if the did not believe that he had
a good prospect of getting a two-thirds
vote in favor of that motion. I am sure
that he was confident that he could get
it. Not only did he feel that he could
get the necessary two-thirds vote, but
also after the debate had gone on, after
the situation had been explained and our
arguments had been made, the cloture
motion was defeated by a vote of more
than two to one.
Furthermore, even more convincing
was what happened to the Tuck bill.
The Tuck bill passed the House by 40
votes. But what a spectacular change
21693
transpired in congressional attitude after
that House action. The bill came over
to the Senate. It was offered as an
amendment, and was defeated, as I re-
call, by a vote of 56 to 21?a resounding
and overwhelming defeat.
The Tuck bill embraced the same prin-
ciple as the Dirksen amendment. In view
of the circumstances, in view of the fact
that the opposition seems to be losing
ground, in view of the fact that the Sen-
ate came close to passing a proposal that
would have in essence approved what
the Supreme Court did, one would think
that Senators who desire to have the
Dirksen amendment passed would at
least come to the floor and make their
arguments in favor of it.
The speech just made by the distin-
guished Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RNDOLki] pointed out that the
Founding Fathers had some question and
some reservation about universal suf-
frage. He pointed out a statistic that I
had always been curious about. Some-
thing like 10 or 12, or perhaps 15, per-
cent of the adults, in the early years of
our Republic, actually voted. Of course,
all women were excluded from voting.
Slaves were excluded from voting: There
were property qualifications in many
States. Presumably, there was greater
difficulty in voting. In spite of all this,
as I have been trying to show, and as I
tried to demonstate on Wednesday last,
our Founding Fathers came out over-
whelmingly and unanimously on the side
of proportional representation, on the
side of population representation in the
State legislatures.
The only reason why the Congress of
the United States has been organized on
a different basis, the only reason why the
Constitution provides for a Senate of the
United States that is not based on popu-
lation representation, is that it was the
only way we could have had a Union.
Many of us have argued that this was a
wise decision. I feel that it was, but it
was not on the basis of any principle.
It was arrived at because it was the only
way that the States could combine to
form a Union.
Elbridge Gerry supported the com-
promise in these words:
We were, however, in a peculiar situation.
We were neither the same nation nor differ-
ent nations. We ought not, therefore, to
pursue the one or the other of these ideas
too closely. If no compromise should take
place what will be the consequence? A seces-
sion he foresaw would take place; for some
gentlemen seem decided on it; two different
plans will be proposed, and the result no
man could foresee. If we do not come to
some agreement among ourselves some for-
eign sword will probably do the work for us.
It was clear, in the words of Elbridge
Gerry, that it was not a matter of ac-
cepting a great principle in having the
Senate represent States, instead of peo-
ple. It was a matter of getting the kind
of unity necessary to preserve the inde-
pendence of the United States of
America.
George Mason agreed with him in these
words:
There must be some accommodation on
this point, or we shall make little further
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9
21694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
progress in the work. Accommodation was
the object of the House in the appointment
of the committee; and of the committee in
the report they had made.- And however
liable the report might be to objections, he
thought it preferable to an appeal to the
world by the different Sides, as had been
talked of by some gentlemen.
No one could contend that the coun-
ties or the cities within States have the
sovereign power which the States had,
and which they were willing to cede to
a Federal system at the Constitutional
Convention. Those who argue that since
the Congress is composed of one House
based on something other than popula-
tion, and therefore the States should be,
constantly overlook the fact that the
States had the sovereignty, the power,
the taxing power, virtually all the at-
tributes of individual nations, when they
came together. In the history of the
United States there has never been a
time when counties or cities came to-
gether to cede powers to a State.
First the States are created, and it
Is the States which create the cities,
counties, or other administrative con-
veniences through which the States
operate; but there is no basis for saying
that there should be an individual
identity in a county which warrants its
representation in a State legislature.
James Madison, father of the Consti-
tution, and others were unwilling, even
in the face of a need to compromise State
sovereignty with national unity, to pro-
mote the principle of equal State repre-
sentation. James Madison fought hard
for equal popular representation in the
U.S. Congress, even in the Senate.
[Madison] expressed his apprehensions
that if the proper foundation of Government
was destroyed, by substituting an equality in
place of a proportional representation, no
proper superstructure would be raised.
What Madison meant was that there
should not be equal representation for
each State because we would destroy the
principle that one man had one vote so
far as the Federal Government is con-
cerned. Madison was strongly for the
principle and believed deeply in it.
[Madison] reminded [the small States] of
the consequences of laying the existing con-
federation on improper principles. * * * It
had been very properly observed by Mr. Pat-
terson [sic] that representation was an ex-
pedient -by which the meeting of the people
themselves was rendered unnecAcsery; and
that the representatives ought therefore to
bear a proportion to the votes which their
constituents if convened, would respectively
have. Was not this remark as applicable to
one branch of the representation as to the
other? But it had been said that the Gov-
ernment would in its operation be partly
Federal, partly National; that although in the
latter respect the representatives of the peo-
ple ought to be in proportion to the people:
yet in the former it ought to be according to
the number of States. If there was any
solidity in this distinction he was ready to
abide by it, if there was none it ought to be
abandoned.
This was Madison's clear principle
that he said in the 1787 constitutional
debates must be accepted.
In all cases where the General Government
Is to act on the people, let the people be repre-
sented and the votes be proportional. In all
cases where the Government is to act on the
States as such, in like manner as Congress
now acts on them, let the States be repre-
sented and the votes be equal. This was the
true ground of compromise if there was any
ground at all. But he denied that there was
any ground. He called for a single instance
in which the General Government was not to
operate on the people individually.
This particular 'point is philosophical
but it is vital. Mattison saw the Federal
Government as acting directly on indi-
viduals, that therefore that they ought
to have equal representation; to him it
was only with the greatest reluctance
that there should be a compromise es-
sential to get a union. He agreed with
Jefferson, Hamilton, and others that the
States should have equal popular repre-
sentation in their own State legislatures.
Madison pointed out that:
The practicability of making laws, with
coercive sanctions, for the States as political
bodies, had been exploded on all hands. * * *
He enumerated the objections against an
equality of 'votes in the second branch.
This was Madison's argument against
the kind of decision to which the Con-
stitutional Convention finally came with
respect to equal representation in the
Senate for large and small States.
Madison listed his objections, as fol-
lows:
1. The minority could negative the will of
the majority of the people.
2. They could extort measures by making
them a condition of their assent to other
necessary measures.
3. They could obtrude measure on the ma-
jority by virtue of the peculiar powers which
would be vested in the Senate.
4. The evil instead of being cured by time,
would increase with every new State that
should be admitted, as they must all be ad-
mitted on the principle of equality.
5. The perpetuity it would give to the pre-
ponderance of the northern against the
southern scale was a serious consideration.
- James Wilson agreed with Madison (id. at
10) : "A vice in the representation, like an
error in the first concoction, must be fol-
lowed by disease, convulsions, and finally
death itself. The justice of the general prin-
ciple of proportional representation has not
in argument at least been yet contradicted."
What Wilson could point out is that
despite the fact that there had been
serious and extended debate by our
Founding Fathers, there was no contra-
diction of the fundamental principle that
each man should have an equal vote. To
this principle all of our Founding Fa-
thers agreed.
James Madison implied clearly his view
that apportionment of State legislatures on
some basis other than population was unfair
and that a provision was necessary in the
new Constitution to prevent the persons
who as a result of malapportionment con-
trolled State government from running con-
gressional elections to serve their own inter-
ests (id. at 241) : "Besides the inequality of
the representation in the legislatures of par-
ticular States would produce a like inequal-
ity in their representation in the National
Legislature as it was presumable that the
counties having the power in the former case
would secure it to themselves in the latter.
Objections to the Senate's considera-
tion of treaties was based on the fact
that Senators represented States rather
than an equal number of people.
George Mason supported the proposal that
revenue bills must originate in House of
Septemer ? 22.
Representatives and cannot be modified in
Senate on the ground that (II Farrand 273-
274) : "1. The Senate did not represent the
people but the States in their political char-
acter. It was improper therefore that it
should tax the people. * * * The House of
Lords does not represent nor tax the people
because not elected by the people. * * *
the pursestrings should be in the hands of
the representatives of the people."
Much of the opposition on September 8 to
the proposal that treaties must be ratified
by two thirds of the Senate arose from the
fact that a minority of the people will elect
a majority of the Senators. Hugh William-
son of North Carolina (II Farrand 548) : "re-
marked that treaties are to be made in the
branch of the Government where there may
be a majority of the States without a major-
ity of the people. Eight men may be a ma-
jority of a quorum, and should not have the
power to decide the conditions of peace."
Elbridge Gerry similarly stressed (ibid) :
"* * * the danger of putting the essential
rights of the Union in the hands of so small
a number as a majority of the Senate, rep-
resenting perhaps, not one-fifth of the
people."
I wish to continue this speech, because
I think it is very important to document
the attitude of our Founding Fathers in
establishing our Constitution.
I wish to yield to the Senator from
Oregon, but first I wish to make it clear
that my experience has no doubt been
the experience of other Senators also,
namely, that the main objection, the
prime question asked by those who op-
pose the Supreme Court's decision in
Reynolds against Sims and to the course
the Supreme Court has taken is, Why
cannot States have the same kind of rep-
resentation in their legislatures that the
Federal Government has provided for in
its two Houses of Congress?
I believe it is necessary to go back to
these debates to document fully and
accurately and exactly why we have a
U.S. Senate and why the Founding
Father& felt very strongly about one
fundamental principle of democracy.
That each man should have one vote.
Under no circumstances would the
Founding Fathers compromise that prin-
ciple, with the single exception that they
felt they had to have a Federal Union,
and that the only way they could get a
union was to compromise and permit
each State to have an equal number of
Senators.
I shall come back to this point a little
later, but at this time I ask unanimous
consent that I may yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Moan], without losing my right to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
{election, it is so ordered. .
THE PRESIDENT'S TOUR OF PACIFIC
NORTHWESTERN STATES
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator very much for yielding to
me. I doubt that it will be necessary for
him to come back to his subject today.
I have been advised that it is contem-
plated that the Senate will recess or
adjourn at a reasonable hour this after-
noon. I have asked the Senator from
Wisconsin to yield to me at this time be-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070013-9