THE DOMINICAN CRISIS AND THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 22, 2003
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: May 26, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
Tell the President if he has any poverty
left over from some other place to please
send it down here. It's better than us moun-
tain folks has been used to.
And the man lives in the heart of the
Appalachian area.
CORRECTION OF VOTE
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, on May
25 I requested unanimous consent to
correct a rollcall. I asked that I be re-
corded as being present and voting "yea"
on rollcall No. 104. I was referring to
rollcall 105 on final passage of H.R. 8122
authorizing appropriations for the
Atomic Energy Commission for which I
was present and voted "yea" and not
referring to rollcall 104 for Which I was
not present, having been temporarily and
unavoidably called away from the House
Chamber.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the permanent REC-
ORD and Journal be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
land [Mr. MATHIAs], and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. REaI.
We have been, as many Americans
have been, deeply concerned with the
situation in the Dominican Republic, and
have conscientiously sought to anal-
yze the situation in a constructive way
which might contribute to the national
good. As a part of this effort, the state-
ment which we have prepared was taken
by myself and the gentleman from Kan-
sas [Mr. ELLSWORTH] yesterday, to the
Department of State where we gave a top
official of the Department an opportunity
to review it.
It is highly coincidental that the re-
port which appears in this evening's Star
followed so closely on the heels of the
meeting of last evening at the Depart-
ment of State. But I would like to point
out clearly that if the anonymous State
Department officials were referring to
my colleagues and myself in this state-
ment of justification, they missed the
mark. First, we have not criticized, nor
do we intend to criticize, the adminis-
tration on any of the grounds set forth
in the story in this evening's Star which
I oted for the RECORD. We do not state
the OAS should have been con-
sulted. ~~tlilaut
We do suggest that the OAS
THE DOMINICAN CRISIS AND THE should have been informed.
INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM ' Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER. Under previous or-
der of the House, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MORSE], is recog-
nized for 30 minutes.
(Mr. MORSE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, just a few
moments ago I obtained a copy of this
evening's Washington Star, and on the
front page of the Star are two stories
of particular relevance to the remarks
that I shall make in a few moments.
The first is a report of a background
briefing, attributed to key U.S. officials
without further identification, in which
they seek to explain the conduct of the
United States in the Dominican Repub-
lic, and indicate that criticism is unin-
formed. In the course of this particular
report it is stated:
The critics have attacked the American
actions on three main grounds: (1) That the
OAS should have been consulted and there
should have been no unilateral U.S. inter-
vention; (2) there was no need for such a
large force as the more than 20,000 marines
and paratroopers sent to the Dominican
Republic; (3) the intervention was impul-
sive.
On the same page there appears a re-
port of an interview conducted by Secre-
tary of State Rusk in which he told the
news conference "that the question of
a standby military force for the OAS
would be discussed by a meeting of for-
eign ministers of the hemisphere which
convenes here tomorrow."
I bring these, stories to the attention of
the House because they have relevance to
the remarks I will make.
I would like to go into a little bit of
background of this matter. I speak on
behalf of some of our colleagues, the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ELLS-
WORTH], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. HORTON], the gentleman from Mary-
Mr. MORSE. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker,
I compliment the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts on this report, and join with
him in his remarks. I think the key
point he is alluding to here, in the first
place, is not critcism of the actions that
the administration took in regard to the
Dominican Republic, but a criticism of
how they were carried out. Specifically
he is alluding to the failure, which in
my judgment was indefensible, to inform
the OAS of the action that the United
States was planning to take with regard
to the landing of troops in the Domini-
can Republic.
I would ask the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts if he could not comment on
information which I believe he has
touching on the point of whether or not
the U.S. Government informed the OAS
before taking action. It is my under-
standing that our Government did not
do so.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman. In this regard I can
only say that our statement that the
OAS was not informed before the opera-
tion got underway was based on a re-
liable report by a top official of the U.S.
administration.
Mr. REID of New York. Has there
been any report that led you to believe
there was any substantive reason why we
should not or could not have informed
the OAS particularly in light of the fact
that President Kennedy not only was able
to inform the OAS with regard to cer-
tain projected actions relative to the
Cuban missile crisis but was able to ob-
tain actual agreement? Is there any
reason that you, know of why we could
not at least have picked up the telephone?
Mr. MORSE. In this regard, let me
say to the gentleman that an explanation
of the failure was made but it did not
11275
seem to me to be a satisfactory explana-
tion. However, I point out to the gentle-
man that in my view, the two situations
are somewhat different-the October
1962 missile crisis and the present Do-
minican situation. However, I do feel
strongly as the gentleman does, that it
would have been proper and feasible to
have notified the OAS before the troops
landed.
The second criticism to which the ad-
ministration has responded is that there
should have been no unilateral U.S. inter-
vention. In this regard, let me make it
clear that we do not dispute the necessity
of the intervention. We agree that the
United States, indeed any nation, would
be justified in extending protection to
their own citizens who are in danger in
foreign uprisings. We also agree that in
view of the statements made by the
President as to the imminence of a Com-
munist takeover, our action, the action of
the United States, was a necessary
response.
Third, the administration claims that
its critics have attacked American ac-
tions on the ground that there was no
need for such a large force of more than
20,000 marines and paratroopers in the
Dominican Republic. We do not criticize
the number of troops. Rather we criti-
cize the failure of the administration
properly to explain to the American peo-
ple and to the world why that number
was necessary_
Last, a criticism which is referred to
in this article is that the intervention was
impulsive. It is not our suggestion that
the intervention was impulsive. Quite to
the contrary. We indicate that the ac-
tion was justified and certainly immedi-
ate action was essential if the lives of
American citizens were to be protected.
So with this background, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to share with the House the
thoughts of the five Members, my four
colleagues and myself, on the Dominican
crisis and more especially on the effect
that the Dominican crisis will have on
our inter-American system and our re-
lations with our sister Republics in the
Western Hemisphere.
I will also discuss what are, I believe,
hopefully constructive recommenda-
tions which have, in part, been endorsed
by the Secretary of State, and the de-
vices whereby the Organization of
American States can be strengthened so
as to avoid the kinds of situations we
are presently experiencing.
The current Caribbean crisis has two
vitally important aspects. The first is
the search for a stable, progressive,
democratic and independent govern-
ment in the Dominican Republic. This
aspect is dramatic and well-publicized.
The second and equally important as-
pect of the Dominican crisis has been
less publicized. It is the impact of the
crisis on the Organization of American
States and the future of collective se-
curity in the hemisphere.
The drama and pace of events in the
Dominican Republic must not be al-
lowed to obscure the most vital long-
range need of the hemisphere-an inter-
national structure within which the
growing political and economic strength
of the Latin American nations can ac-
crue to the benefit of tile hemisphere as
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 11276
a whole. The greatest immediate test
of V.S. statesmanship is whether it can
prevent preoccupation with the crisis of
the present from undermining its com-
mitment to the future of the hemisphere.
The Inter-American Conference of
the Organization of American States,
Which was to have met last week in Rio
de Janeiro, and has been postponed, will
nonetheless convene in the wake of the
Dominican crisis whenever it does meet.
That crisis and the part that the United
States was required to play in it will in-
evitably affect the progress in inter-
American relations which.has been so
painstakingly promoted over the past 30
years, unless the administration acts to
make a new, lasting and unequivocal
commitment to a mutual system of
hemispheric defense.
At the Conference, and in prep-
arations for it, the administration will
have an excellent opportunity to em-
brace the concept of an OAS strong
enough to remove any reason for future
unilateral action in the hemisphere on
the part of any American nation. The
fundamental principles of the inter-
American system demand the true com-
mitment of all to collective security.
Never should the OAS be treated as an
instrument which any of its members
can use or ignore at its own convenience.
The United States and all nations are
justified In extending protection to their
own citizens endangered in foreign up-
risings. The first phase ' of U.S. opera-
tions in the Dominican crisis reflected
this just concern.
Neither the United States nor any
nation of the Organization of American
States can afford the establishment of
another Communist dictatorship in this
hemisphere-nor can any member of
the OAS afford to stand idly by while
an effort is made toward that end. Its
quick action in the face of potential
Communist conquest in the chaos of the
Dominican revolt demonstrates' that the
administration understands this. And
even though their position has occa-
sionally been obscured, the Latin Ameri-
can nations also know that the spread
of communism cannot 1;?e tolerated in
this hemisphere. Their votes and their
comments in the OAS have reflected a
genuine understanding of the need for
action in the Dominican crisis.
But on the other hand the adminis-
tration can help to build the strength
of the inter-American system only if it
fully appreciates the depth of and the
reasons for the equally genuine Latin.
Americah concern over recent U.S. ac-
tions in the Caribbean. The most valu-
able asset in hemispheric relations is the
capacity to see ourselves as others see
us-to view, our policy from Latin eyes.
From this perspective there are at least;
five legitimate concerns over U.S. policy
in the Dominican Republic or, more par-
ticularly, over the implementation of
U.S. policy. Each may directly effect
the confidence with which Latin govern-
ments will greet U.S. professions of sup-
port for collective security in the hemi-
sphere.
First. The failure to inform the OAS
of U.S. intervention before it was under-
way was an insensitive oversight. The
Approved For Releas 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
CONG]3ESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
adninistration has repeatedly stressed
tha?; time was precious and that it could
not afford to wait for an OAS decision.
Let it be agreed that this made OAS
agreement to the U.S. action impractical
befsrre the fact.
Although President Kennedy was able
to ecure OAS support for the naval
quarantine in the 1962 Cuban missile
cruses in less than 24 hours, it is clear
tha; the administration could not have
wat;ed this long in the current crisis.
But' at the very least, it could have in-
formed the OAS of its intentions before
the:' were implemented. The OAS could
have been told that we were going to send
the Marines in, that we would prefer to
wa.i; for an OAS decision but time did
not `allow, and that we hoped that a
force authorized by the OAS-which in
all likelihood would have included U.S.
forties-could assume responsibility at
the earliest possible moment.
This course might not have been fully
satisfactory either, but it would have
pro Aded evidence of our good intentions.
The= course the administration followed
seemed, to many Latin Americans, tan-
taur:ount to saying to the rest of the
hemisphere that we did not really care
what they thought.
N]r. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker,
will'the gentleman yield?
Ntr. MORSE. I yield to the gentleman,
from New York.
IVr. REID of New York. Would not
the gentleman agree there were perhaps
two courses of action we could have fol-
low,-d: one, we discussed the importance
of informing the OAS of the action we
were going to take; and a second pos-
sibl- course in addition to the first would
have been to request the OAS to send
observers with our forces as they went
ashore. This could have been done very
promptly.
Mr. MORSE. I think either one of
the suggestions of the gentleman would
have been a more correct course of
act: on.
The difference between notification
anc: nonnotiflcation may seem subtle to
many but it is of paramount importance
in maintaining the psychological atmos-
phe re of mutual trust and confidence
witiin which real political and economic
progress is possible throughout the hem-
isplsere.
E econd. The vast number of U.S.
troops used seems disproportionate to
the need. The latest reports indicate
that there have been 23,000 U.S. troops
in 3anto Domingo.
Latin Americans understandably tend
to equate the contemporary U.S. actions
with U.S. intervention in the Caribbean
area earlier in the century-interven-
tion broadly resented throughout Latin
Air.: rica. The United States landed
sizable contingents of troops in Panama
in 1903, in Cuba in 1906, in TAexico in
1914, in Haiti in 1915, in the Dominican
Republic in 1916, and in Nicaragua in
1919 7. On some occasions the troops re-
mained for many years. But there were
fever U.S. forces used in all of these epi-
soc s combined than in the current Do-
minican crisis.
It has not been made clear why a force
of this size is necessary. Perhaps the
May 26, 1965
immediate threat demanded it; perhaps
the administration has desired to deter
other Castro-backed efforts through a
determined demonstration of purpose.
Some, but certainly not all, of the 23,000
were required to facilitate the withdraw-
al of the 4,000 civilians evacuated from
the island. during the first phase of U.S.
operations. In any event, further clari-
fication of the need of a U.S. presence
in such numbers is essential. Without
a persuasive explanation Latin American
fears will persist. We must always re-
member that the exercise of North
American' military strength which serves
as a protective shield for the hemisphere
may, to Latin Americans, be reminiscent
of a paternalism which they had hoped
had ended long ago.
Third. The U.S. presentation of the
imminent: dangersof Communist capture
of the Dominican revolution has not been
sufficiently documented to gain full and
unquestioning support. Latin Americans
frequently 'relieve that the United States
is unduly anxious to ascribe Communist
direction to any popular manifestations
of the social and economic revolution in
which the entire continent is absorbed.
it is vital, therefore, for the United States
to document with precision the evidence
which proves its case in any instance
where it either asks for multilateral ac-
tion or feels it must act alone in the face
of Communist efforts in the hemisphere.
The implementation of administration
policy in the Dominican crisis has created
questions in Latin. America-questions
which more careful explanation could
have avoided. The suddenness with
which the purpose of U.S. intervention
was changed from protecting U.S. lives
to preventing a Communist takeover in-
evitably raised some doubts in Latin
minds. Identification of 58 Communists
in the rebel movement, including some
with Cuban training, certainly justifies
the need for concern, but it does not serve
as proof to skeptical eyes of the need for
a massive intervention by the United
States.
It is neither necessary nor possible to
convince all who doubt U.S. motives or
wisdom of the factual basis of our pol-
icies. But the public presentation of the
case should be made-and it should be
full, consistent, and unemotional.
Fourth' U.S. Policy has regrettably
been accompanied by occasional ten-
dencies toward the patronizing attitude
to which the Latin American have be-
come understandably sensitive through
the long history of hemispheric relations.
Particularly in times of stress U.S.
spokesmen must be doubly careful not to
use ambiguous language which may lead
to misunderstanding.
During, the Dominican crisis official
U.S. pronouncements have permitted two
unfortunate interpretations: First, that
because crf Latin Insufficiencies, only the
United States can adequately protect the
hemisphere and its peoples; second, that
there is something noble about U.S. in-
tervention.
Two examples will suffice. First,
when Ambassador Harriman, one of our
Nation's most highly respected states-
men, left. Santiago, Chile, on May 7 he
was reported to have said:
Approved For Releaso-2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11277
President Johnson should never again be ? After the arrival of both the U.N. and minican Republic to an OAS "presence"
put in the position of having to act unilat- U.S. missions, the OAS mission resigned. may be a natural prelude to further in-
erally to protect the security of the The Eisenhower, Kennedy
hemisphere against Communist subversion. , and John- stitutional steps to strengthen the
son The choice of language was unfor- st engthen the machinery of the OAS to Organ The United States should welcome and
tunate because it allowed, by inference, deal with the subtle but very real threat support OAS reforms which might in-
unintended criticism of the Latin Amer- which Communist subversion presents to elude the following:
leans-in the sense that they had some- the hemisphere. The Dominican crisis, First. The Foreign Ministers could be
how placed the U.S. President in this by demonstrating the need for greater required to meet at least annually and
unenviable position. What appears to speed in the reaction time of the Organi- not only under crisis conditions. At
be an effort to fix blame is one of the zation, may in one sense have had a present they meet in emergencies or in
most common obstacles to agreement positive effect in this direction. But the very infrequent Inter-American Confer-
when crises occur.. In Inter-American implementation of U.S. policy, as de- ences. The last regularly scheduled In-
relations the result can be disastrous. scribed above, may have had the opposite ter-American Conference was in 1954.
On May 3, at the AFL-CIO building, effect by raising serious doubts in Latin Second. The existing Inter-American
the President nostalgically referred to a America over our sincerity when we Peace Committee could be given ex-
favorite quotation of his childhood from plead for a strengthened system of cal- panded authority to act to avoid the use
the 19th century Massachusetts Senator, lective security. of force between members through the
George Frisbie Hoar. The We feel confident that the people of the peaceful settlement of disputes. At
read: passage United States will support the adminis- present this Committee, which operates
I have seen the glories of art and archi- tration at the forthcoming Inter-Ameri- only to moderate between members in
tecture, and mountain and river; I have seen can Conference in its efforts to minimize dispute, cannot even do this without the
the sunset on the Jungfrau, and the full the long-range effects of the unilateral approval of both disputing parties. It
moon rise over Mont Blanc. But the fairest U.S. intervention in the Dominican Re- might be beneficial to make its opera-
vision on which these eyes ever looked was public and to maximize the opportunities tions more flexible by permitting its in-
the flag of my country in a foreign land. to build a stronger Inter-American sys- .volvement upon the approval of any
The President, no doubt, meant only tem.. single member, by encouraging its in-
to convey his pride in the willingness of If the United States is passive and volvement in situations where disputes
U.S. boys to risk their lives in a just apathetic toward proposals to strengthen can be anticipated and by providing it
cause. But the statement, in the im- the capacity of the OAS to meet threats a modest operating budget.
mediate context of the Dominican crisis, to hemispheric security through collec- Third. A new permanent Security
may give rise to the fears and fearsome tive action, the Latin American nations Committee could, be created to act with
memories of Latin peoples. To them the may lose all confidence in U.S. inten- speed and authority in any instance
thought of the U.S. flag in a foreign land tions. The results would be cata- where elements external to the hemis-
is vividly reminiscent of the gunboat strophic. Every aspect of U.S. relations phere, a ' dispute between members, or
diplomacy of U.S. policy in the first part within the hemisphere would be sub- events within any member's territory di-
of this century. Today's pride in coup- ject to the most profound suspicion and rectly jeopardize the security of the
try has little in common with the less distrust. Most importantly, the United hemisphere. The existing Peace Com-
try restrained has little
of a less romper States might deny itself the opportunity mittee serves only to encourage the
raed age, nut on must of not a assume that to be identified with the broad social peaceful settlement of disputes between
this cleax to -
cat is age, but t all. and economic revolution throughout the two members. There should also be a
Fifth. The administration has n_ hemisphere and might no longer have permanent committee which represents
tention The encouraged the impression the opportunity to encourage that revo- the OAS foreign ministers, and which,
that it has only limited confidence in lution in directions which conduce to- working in conjunction with the Secre-
the OAS, even after the Organization ward stable and progressive democracy. tary General, can claim jurisdiction in
had assumed significant rin If, on the other hand, the United any crisis which threatens the security
the Dommid s crisis. After landing responsibility t its States welcomes proposals to strengthen of the hemisphere. It could act in ad-
the D
the i icaned sis. encouraged the the capacity of the OAS to meet threats vance of a full meeting of the Foreign
OAS to act. The OAS did act encouraged the to the peace of the hemisphere through Ministers and subsequently could super-
OAS a to
in g
special t. mission So Santo by send- a system of mutual security, the adverse vise the execution of their decisions.
, but subsequent Domingo effects of the Dominican situation may Such a committee might have obviated
tto work for may have led stability, Latin nt ag ac- be minimized and the capacity to meet the U.S. conclusion that the OAS could
tans to question the depth of U.S. sin- future crises increased. Many Latin not have acted with sufficient speed to
caty in encouraging the OAS to under- Americans construe U.S. policy in the prevent a calamity in the Dominican
t ke responsibility encouraging
in the OAS. Dominican crisis as a lack of commit- Republic.
ca
ment to the multilateral approach to Fourth. The Secretariat of the OAS
First. On May 14, in the U.N. Se- problems in the hemisphere, as a lack of could be greatly strengthened in author-
eurity Council the United States voted confidence in our Latin American part- ity and function, including the right of
in favor of a U.N. mission to the Domii- ners. The United States must leave no the Secretary General to help initiate
can Republic In the eyes of many Latin doubt that its commitment to the multi- limited action in the peacekeeping field
Americans, including most of the mem- lateral approach is unabated and unqual- in advance of a meeting of Foreign Min-
bers of the OAS mission, there was no iied. We must embrace the concept of isters. At present the powers of the
need for a U.N. mission because the OAS a much-strengthened OAS with the ca- Secretary General and the Secretariat
had assumed responsibility. A U.S. ab- pacity to act, to act swiftly, and to act are extremely limited. The requirement
stention at the U.N. might have been decisively.
better evidence of the faith of our Gov- for speed, which was so evident in tu-
ernment in the regional defense system The Inter-American Conference will Dominican crisis, suggests greater au-
ernment an extraordinary opportunity to thority for the permanent staff to act in
of the hemisphere. do so. In fact, the Conference was orig- conjunction with a new Security Com-
Second. On May 16, the United States, inally called at the initiative of Latin mittee in anticipation of early approval
without prior consultation with the OAS, Governments to discuss changes to by the Foreign Ministers. Obviously the
sent its own mission to the Dominican strengthen the OAS in the field of eco- office and person of the Secretary Gen-
Republic to seek stability. While the nomic matters. The meetings of the eral must retain the full confidence of
presence of Messers. Bundy, Mann, OAS Ministers on the Dominican crisis each member that his actions will be in
Vance, and Vaughn no doubt under- have indicated clearly that the Latin the interest of all.
scored the determination of the admiis- Americans desire to strengthen the Or- Fifth. A small, permanent OAS peace-
tration in finding a just and lasting set- ganization so that no nation will feel keeping force could be created for use in
tlement of the crisis, it also may have required to act alone to preserve hemi- disputes between members or, even more
further undermined the effectiveness of spheric security. In fact, the process of importantly, in cases where elements
the OAS mission. changing the U.S. "presence" in the Do- alien to the hemisphere threaten the
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 Approved For Release -2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
11278
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE May 26, 1965
security of any member. Such a force
would have been ideal in the Dominican
crisis; and an OAS force formed to re-
place U.S. troops in Santo Domingo can
be a natural predecessor to a permanent
force. The force would best be fully in-
ternationalized and on a standby basis
under OAS command. The force would
be under the ultimate command of the
OAS Foreign Ministers, but the Secretary
General and a new Security Committee,
under the revised structure described
above, might be 'given the authority to
order its limited use where time was of
the essence and the Foreign Ministers
had not had the opportunity to meet.
Sixth. Long-range OAS reform could
reflect a separation of economic and po-
litical issues. A plethora of bureaucratic
institutions serves no useful purpose, but
the artificial centralization of vastly com-
plex and essentially distinct programs
may work to the disadvantage of each.
The present highly centralized OAS
structure may not distinguish adequately
between political and economic concerns.
Many Latin Americans advocate separate
and major OAS structures for each, and
the United States should welcome moves
in that direction. If a decentaralization
of OAS functions were to come about it
might be possible and desirable to take
the centers of OAS economic and social
activities out of Washington and estab-
lish the appropriate institutions in Latin
America itself.
Not all, and perhaps none, of these
major changes can be fully explored and
given effect at the Inter-American Con-
opportunity to make a new commitment lie senikto New York and Milwaukee and
to the principles of mutual security and New Orleans to protect these victims of
multilateral action. For the United mob role. But those who shed crocodile
States the opportunity is a necessity be- tears over the violence stirred up by out-
cause it has risked not only its prestige side agitators in Alabama and Mississippi
but the hemisphere's capacity for col- astxsngely quiet now that the shoe is
lective security through its necessary re- are r the other foot.
bean. to recent actions in the Carib- I have waited patiently, too, for those
anMembers, particularly in the other body,
The long-term Interests, U wellnited as the Who have been so vocal in their cry for
to a larger and larger sums for larger and
favor-term interests of nation, the U commitment to a States
favor a new nal l The relations within larger police forces to repel some of these
the Weestestern Western Hemisphere .e e in the attacks. None of them have, as far as I
decades will provide a continuing a con next test two know, deplored the manhandling of this
thcapacity of the polices nan in New York mentioned in the
the capacity the ththroes United States - first story. It causes one to wonder what
Nations in nomic hepreservation e and d eco- the purl a of higher police budgets is
nomic freedom. The revolution v facing this sif, at he same time, these mobs are en-
country is whetherwe cha the halleng e rapincourat ed to take to the streets and obey
and only ';hose laws that suit their whim
welcome the country tgrowing ?a independence prepared to
and fe.ncy.
political maturity of the developing Latin The professional agitators in CORE,
Nations as "a new source of strength with- the N, i.A.CP, SNIC, and SCLC and others
in the Western World. have l Predicted another long, hot summer
The United States cannot shut its eyes of th(Ir racial violence. If these three
must encourage and to the future the progress Is storict are harbingers of what is to come,
mot encourage change e and will, sincerely regret it but I will be, at
of others. the same time, glad these pigeons are
thriving It must and strong nrecognize that a vital Americta, is and an not co ming home to roost because of any
impetus to an even more vital and thriv- a,ctioa:I have taken.
Ing and strong hemisphere. If we choose Under unanimous consent, I insert the
to embrace the future we will seek hems- three stories I have mentioned.
spheric institutions which reflect the po- MOB ATTACKS POLICEMAN, FREES ARRESTED
tential strength of the Latin Nations. We - NEGRO
must encourage the day when mutual NEW YORK, May 22.-A chanting, shouting
hemispheric security provides precisely mob of 200 Negroes surrounded and attacked
a white policeman in the Bronx last night
and released a Negro prisoner the policeman
had apprehended. A white grocer who tried
to help the policeman was stabbed in the
back and critically wounded.
Four persons were arrested as a result of
the assault and later attacks on other police-
men and detectives stemming from the
incident.
The mob surrounded Patrolman Philip
Siegel, 43, and hit him with a pop bottle
before his prisoner fled from the scene.
Later, two detectives and a patrolman,
seeking witnesses, were attacked by two men
scene, the mob scattered ant Negron was
found sprawled on the sidewalk with a stab
wound.
Edward Collins, 18, whom the policeman
identified as one of his attackers, was among
the arrested, charged with felonious assault.
MILWAIIXEE
At least 50 persons looked on without help-
ing as youths armed with a switchblade
knife, a nail-studded board, and a chunk of
concrete beat three motorcyclists Friday
night, police reported yesterday.
Samuel Hicks, 43, suffered a broken jaw
and was knocked unconscious during the
attack. Donald Peterson, 29, was cut and
bruised and his wife, Margaret, 23, was also
bruised.
The victims are white. They said the
four teenage boys who attacked them were
Negro.
NEW ORLEANS
A fist fight between a group of young
whites and Negroes at a bus stop in New
Orleans early yesterday resulted in the fatal
stabbing of one of the white men.
Frederick Riehm, 21, New Orleans, died in
a hospital a short time after being stabbed
in the chest.
The white teenagers said they were in a
car with Riehm and drove past a bus stop
where six young Negroes were standing when,
they said, one of the Negroes threw a rock
through the car's rear window. They got
out of the car and the fight followed.
(Mr. BERRY (at the request of Mr.
QUILLEN) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
Approved For Release-2003/10/15_: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
that. T5-hasten that day, we must seek
common; policies on common problems
through dedication to the common cause
of all w. io cherish freedom.
Mr. ILLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I
would litre to say that I heartily concur
in what the gentleman from Massachu-
setts ha3 said and want to associate my-
self wits his very constructive and re-
sponsible remarks in this critical area of
our national life and of the life of the
internallonal community, particularly
complin lent the gentleman for the really The trouble started when Siegel spotted
outstanding job which he has done in two Negroes breaking the window of a shop
bringini these matters and problems and and caught one of them after a chase.
positive suggestions to the attention of He took the' youth back to the furniture
store and telephoned police station for a
the House. patrol car.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the gentleman Soon the mob milled around Siegel and be-
from Kansas. gan chanting, "Let him go."
When the policeman tried to put hand-
cuffs on the suspect, he was struck from
NEGRO VIOLENCE AGAINST WHITES behind and shoved to the ground. The
The i EAI+R pro tempore (Mr. AL- suspect starter to run. Siegel drew his gun,
BERT). -Under previous order of the fired a warning shot in the air and again
caught the suspect.
House the gentleman from Louisiana Once again the mob closed in on Siegel and
[Mr. VTAGGONNER] is recognized for 10 chanted, "Why did you shoot?" and "Let
minute3. him go."
Mr. 'IVAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, in One of the ;mob, armed with a soda pop
last Simnday's Washington Post there bottle, stepped forward and. told Siegel,
were three stories printed under a single "'re going U) -bake him away we hit Siegel on the a d viithmthe bottle
h.eading, all dealing with incidents in and the prisoner broke free and fled.
which mobs of Negroes, armed with Siegel, his gun pointed at the mob, was
switchllade knives, nail-studded boards backing away when he heard a voice behind
and rocks, attacked whites in widely his saying, All right, officer, ".I'm with you."
scattered areas of the Nation. One of "I didn't turn because I wanted to keep
these attacks was upon a policeman facing the crowd," Siegel said.
While he was performing his duty. He explained that the voice was that of
the grocer, Enrique Negron.
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
11312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
color~ It is a matter of going into court
,griU-having these statutes enforced.
Fenet, the French statesman, in mak-
ing a report for the revision of the law
of France and the adoption of a civil
code, and having in mind the failure of
the French Revolution in its effort to
take leave of past thought and achieve-
ment and to set up a new social and
governmental system based upon sup-
posedly new ideas, gave expression to a
maximum which should not be forgotten.
It recites:
It is better to preserve what it is not neces-
sary to destroy.
I ask you to think of this maxim for a
moment-
It is better to preserve what it is not neces-
sary to destroy.
For this is the basic proposition that
must be resolved in your minds and in
Your hearts before a vote is cast on the
proposal before us. It is better to pre-
serve the freedoms and the liberties the
Constitution guarantees us, as long as it
is not necessary to destroy it.
It is an endless process, Mr. President,
to preserve liberty.
Liberty cannot be forced by the bay-
onet nor granted by the rash act of a
legislature. True liberty is gained
through the orderly process and can only
be preserved by it. This has always been
and always will be.
The overriding issue at stake here is
whether we are going to uphold the or-
derly process, or whether we are going
to succumb to those who teach civil dis-
obedience and call for demonstrations
and street scenes to provide it.
The question is whether we are going
to take the low, dangerous road of ap-
peasement and expediency, or the high
road of reason and orderly process.
The question is whether we are going
to continue to live by the Constitution,
or whether we are going to abandon it
to meet the demands of the hour.
The question is simply whether we
are going to nullify and amend the Con-
stitution by statute, or whether we are
going to adhere to the provisions of it
that provide the orderly way for change.
And this is the question, Mr. Presi-
dent, that each of us must answer be-
fore we cast our vote on S. 1564. For
this legislation, by its enactment, would
nullify and repudiate vital provisions of
the Constitution and destroy many of
our legal institutions.
The Constitution of the United States
has often been called "a divinely inspired
creation." I think the hour is here for
us to pause and rededicate ourselves to
it and to "pledge our lives, our fortunes,
and sacred honor" to preserve it. And
in the solemn moment that we do, we
take renewed meaning of the wisdom
and warning expressed in that immortal
Farewell Address in 1796:
Should a modification of the Constitution
be necessary it should be made by an amend-
ment in the way which the Constitution
designates. But let there be no change by
usurpation.,
Mr. President, the United States is
a constitutional system of government.
It was by the Constitution that it took
life.
It has been by the Constitution that
it has survived.
It will be by abuse of the Constitu-
tion that it dies.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Nevada is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President:
The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
A Nevadan wrote those words nearly
100 years ago. They became the 15th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Nevada was the first State to ratify this
amendment, and it has been a part of the
Constitution since 1870. Yet today these
historic words are the focal point of one
of the major issues before Congress-and
before the people.
Without question this amendment has
not only been ignored but brazenly
abused in some areas of our Nation. Its
basic guarantees have been willfully de-
nied to the Negro of the South and to
other racial groups elsewhere. Efforts
to correct this flagrant wrong in State
and Federal courts and at local govern-
ment levels have failed. Now Congress
has turned at last to the second para-
graph of the 15th amendment: "The
Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation."
Our duty is clear. We in Congress
must take every necessary step to guar-
antee the right to vote to every American
equally. This is why the voting rights
legislation proposed by the President and
now before the Senate will be enacted.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAss
in the chair). The Senator from Missis-
sippi is recognized.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may yield to
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGzx]
on his own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi for yielding to me at this time.
PROBLE111 c!)rTHE DOMINICAN
' REPUBLIC
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wish to
address myself to a column that was
published last evening in The Evening
Star. Since the subject is not germane,
I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed to speak on the question at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McGEE. The column by Mr.
Charles Bartlett is entitled "Problems in
`Casting' Dominicans." The burden of
Mr. Bartlett's article is that many of the
reports of the crisis in Santo Domingo
have stemmed from efforts on the part
of some making those reports to pick out
the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and
contrast them with one another, when,
May 26, 1965
as Mr. Bartlett aptly points out, neither
are all good or all bad, and one is not
clearly distinguishable from another.
It is in the pattern of that complexity
that the American people have been
asked to formulate their judgments in
regard to what is transpiring in the
Caribbean. In the conclusion of his
column, Mr; Bartlett, writes-
Preconceptions of American clumsiness in
Latin affairs persist from the days before
1958 when few of the problems and realities
had been recognized. The crisis in Vietnam
has encouraged an hypothesis that reporters
may be more perceptive than the officials on
the scence.
. But the lesson of Fidel Castro, on whom
many of us erred, was that the United States
cannot afford to be mistaken on the nature
of the men who -seize power in neighboring
republics. This lesson should inspire deep
patience with the President's wariness in
forming a coalition to govern this pulverized
country.
Mr. President, there are those of us
who can criticize and freely criticize.
We ought always to be able to do so in
this country, and we can even criticize
with the luxury of not being responsible
for our criticisms. We can criticize with
sincerity, and if we are wrong, there is
no major disastrous consequence.
But the President of the United States
and those directly responsible to him
cannot enjoy that luxury. They must be
right, if possible, the first time. That
is the essential difference between critics
and those who carry the frightful burden
of decisionmaking both in the Dominican
Republic and in Vietnam, as they seek
the wisest possible courses of action that
will survive the tests of the future and
the reflections of hindsight.
Therefore, I would hope that we could
do a great deal more than we have been
doing until now to get before the people
of our country the real complexities and
the contradictions and the befuddle-
ments of the many overlapping and in-
tertwined issues in both of those areas of
the world in order better to understand
the need for the kinds of decisions that
we ultimately make.
The attitude, all too prevalent, that
any person who runs casually through
those torn countries can make a better
judgment and a better decision than
someone whose neck is really on the
block and who has to bear the conse-
quences of the decision, is one of the
failings that we find in our midst at this
time. I should like to believe that we
could find a way to correct some of the
misstatements that have been made or
some of the partial statements that are
being made at this time.
I have encouraged the Secretary of
State to consider accepting questions
in a more public way than he has until
now from whomever he designates, or
whatever segment of our critics would
seem appropriate, and to respond to
those questions in a better way, more
than merely in print-preferably in one
of the communications media of the air,
on radio, TV, or both-in order that the
difficulties involved can be eliminated
and the separation of fact from fiction
can likewise be more accurately made.
Such a course would contribute a great
bit in the sense of public information,
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1.1311
future demagogues on any issue what-
ever who, through manipulation of mass
emotion and hysteria, force the enact-
ment of measures which similarly flaunt
our basic constitutional provisions?
What then will happen to our constitu-
tional rights-to the Constitution itself-
and what then will be the course toward
which our Government and our country
will be directed?
These are the questions that I ask each
and every one of us to seriously and con-
scientiously ponder. I ask Senators this
as an American. I ask Senators this in
appreciation of those before and in con-
cern for those ahead. I ask Senators to
take a long look at the road ahead and
see where all of this may lead us. I
would remind the Senate that delay is
preferable to error. The easy course
today may be appeasement and even sur-
render to the emotional demands for leg-
islation which clearly repudiates the
Constitution; but may I say that we do
this at an exorbitant and dangerous cost
to the generations of Americans who will
come after us and we breach a trust to
those who, came before us-who gave us
our constitutional system-and to those
who have given their lives to preserve it.
For, when we leave a system of govern-
ment of laws for a government of men in
response to the clamor and expediency
of the day, we give open invitation to the
dangers and possible destruction of
which we have been warned.
Two thousand years before the Vir-
ginia Convention of 1788, where this
abiding truth was to be more eloquently
expressed, Aristotle warned of the dan-
gers that arise when a government of
laws is corrupted by a government of
men. In his "Politics," Aristotle praises
the rule of the law and says this:
Therefore, he who bids the law rule may
be deemed to bid God and reason alone rule,
but he who bids man rule adds an element
of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and
passion perverts the minds of rulers, even
when they are the best of men. The law
is reason unaffected by desire.
The law is reason unaffected by de-
sire, Aristotle declared-unaffected by
mass hysteria and emotion, by demon-
strations and sit-ins, by political thirst
and political power and, above all, by
expediency.
Mr. President, every Member of the
Senate knows, regardless of his per-
sonal feelings on the subject, that the
Constitution clearly reserves to the
States the authority to establish quali-
fications for voting. This authority is
expressly provided in article I, section 2,
and confirmed in the 10th and 17th
amendments of the Constitution. Under
this reserved power the States have for
175 years determined the rules and re-
quirements for voting by their citizens.
But now in this bill the Federal Govern-
ment proposes to u urp this authority
and take over the fuhetion of establish-
ing voter qualifications. If Congress can
so blatantly ignore and nullify a specific,
unqualified provision of the Constitu-
tion in this instance, what other parts of
the Constitution can _ever again be re-
garded as Inviolate?.
Not only would this bill usurp the
constitutional powers of the States, but
No. 95--15
it would do ifunder a formula designed gress has the power to fix and regulate
so that only . of taln selected States will voting qualifications in the indlV dual
"
be brought v,Fithin its application, and States. It pretends to justify any action,
tates excluded. The Attorney by the Congress on the basis of the ap-
other States'
General of The United States admits propriate legislation clause of the 15th
this. He admits that while the bill is amendment.
supposed to be a bill for the entire In fact, Mr. President, S. 1564 can pre-
United Statet it just so happens that tend no such thing. History shows that
the standard; set forth in the formula the 15th amendment does not justify any
of the bill apply only to a few States. such contention that Congress has any
The Attorney General admits that it such power under the 15th amendment.
just sohappens that these States are, as The history of the 15th amendment and
he put it in' his testimony before the the debates and the proceedings in Con-
Senate Judictary Committee, a part of gress at the time it was adopted make
the "old Coidederacy." I submit, Mr. clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that
President, that these are indeed weird the proponents and sponsors of the
standards, by those who are supposed to amendment had no intention of giving
represent all of the people of the United Congress the authority to fix and regu-
States, and the Attorney General's own late voting qualifications in the indi-
testimony prts us on guard as to the vidual States. The 15th amendment
real purpose and meaning of the bill simply declares that "the right of cit-
before us. izens of the United. States to vote shall
The bill would give one Federal offi- not be denied or abridged," by either
cial, the Attcrney General, the power of State or Nation, "on account of race,
decision in ruard to which States may color, or previous condition of servitude,"
or may not 4inforce their existing voter and it gives Congress the power to en-
qualificationlaws, and which are to be force this provision for impartial suf-
taken over by Federal registrars. The frage by "appropriate legislation."
bill would prevent any State seeking re- There is an assumption only of the po-
lief from ar'itrary enforcement action tential right to vote. There is no as-
by a Federal -officer from going into any sumption of a vested right to vote. The
U.S. court, oilier than the District Court potential right to vote can become actual
for the District of Columbia. This un- only by a law of the State, or in a terri-
precedented restriction is an insult to tory by a law of Congress. There is no
the integrity, of the Federal judges in mandate that the actual right shall be
the Southerii States, and impugns the conferred in either case. The only man-
honor of the' entire Federal judicial sys- date is that, in conferring it, the grant
tem. The bill would by legislative fiat must be impartial among all citizens.
determine and declare that the right to The plain import of the amendment,
vote is bein?;- denied in four States be- therefore, is that when the right to vote
cause they t-pllect a poll tax as a pre- is granted, it must be impartially grant-
requisite to ;noting. It would provide ed; State but to it declare is that always "when." competent to the
that if the constitutionality of poll taxes As we see, Mr. ]President, it is abun-
is sustained by the courts, the Congress dantly clear that the 15th amendment
shallthen ba.empoweredto override the was not intended to give Congress the
court's decisions and regulate the pay- power to strike down State literacy tests,
ment of poll taxes in the four States to set voter qualifications, or to regulate
involved. Envision by provision, the State poll taxes. A long line of Supreme
bill goes on in the same harsh, punitive Court decisions have confirmed that the
and discriminatory way. power to set voter qualifications, by the
I may say; Mr. President, that in my language of the Constitution, rests with
last speech on the bill I discussed the the States and confirm that neither the
matter of the poll tax. What an incon- 14th nor the 15th amendment gave the
sequential, vanishing phenomenon it is Congress the power to change this by
today. As ]d said, in my State of Ala- legislative flat.
bama the pall tax is $1.50. We cannot The proponents of S. 1564, however,
go back for more than 1 year in the col- argue that in some States, literacy tests
lection. of it The maximum, therefore, and other means: are used. to exclude
is $3. Ever 9' cent of the dollar and a Negroes from voting in violation of the
half goes tcl the public schools for the 15th amendment and, therefore, that
education a.. the youth of the State of this legislation is necessary to protect
Alabama. certain constitutional rights. They ar-
The bill is entitled "A bill to enforce the gue then that we :must destroy the Con-
15th amendment to the Constitution of stitution in order! to preserve it.
the United States, and for other pur- I contend again, however, that there
poses." is a lawful and orderly way to accom-
The truth is, Mr. President, that S. plish any desired result through amend-
1564 was n)t drafted with the idea of ment to the Constitution in accordance
dealing wit a a constitutional problem. with the procedurces outlined in article
I contend i~; was drafted primarily for V. I contend again that it is not neces-
"other purloses," that is, to satisfy the' sary to destroy the Constitution or any
mass demor ftrations blocking our streets provision of it in order to preserve it,
and highways, and to stop the invasion and that if it is, a requiem at this time
of public buildings with lie-ins and sit- would be more appropriate than a vote
ins. The bill pretends to be "appropri- at this time.
ate legislat Cop" to prevent the voting In one of my : last speeches on the
rights of citizens of the United States bill I cited not one, not two, not three.
from being denied or abridged by States not four, not five, but a number of cases
on account f race or color. It pretends which guarantee that a person shall have
that under the 15th amendment Con- the right to vote regardless of race or
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 ,,~.. Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
-gay 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
and thus lic understanding, of what
is t ring in both of those areas.
I am firmly convinced, after pursuing
the subject as closely as one can from
this position, that the President has
followed the problem with extremely
great patience and insight, and that our
policies are beginning to show their real
substance and strength. But it will re-
quire a little more time than some of
the quick reactions that we have been
reading about or are being told about
would allow for. So I call special atten-
tion.of the Members of this body to the
column by Mr. Bartlett in the Evening
Star of yesterday, and I ask unanimous
consent that the column be printed in-
tact following my informal remarks.
There being no objection, the column
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star
May 25, 19651
PROBLEMS IN "CASTING" DOMINICANS
(By Charles Bartlett)
The roots of the discord between the John-
son administration and segments of the press
over the crisis in the Dominican Republic are
tangled and deep.
The Government officials in charge of the
Dominican nettle do not cloak their anger
and dismay at the tendency of some impor-
tant reporters in Santo Domingo to portray
the United States as the suspicious party,
the rebels as the heroes, and the junta
leaders as the villians In the messy situation.
The anger is goaded by instances in which
these reporters appeared to be stretching
Isolated instances to support a contention
that U.S. policy is aimed in fact at crushing
the rebels and installing rightwing au-
thority.
This is a shortcut that some have urged
and that President Johnson has doggedly re-
sisted, It Is the answer that is no answer
but it attracted those whose concern with
the larger consequences was dwarfed by the
drama on the scene.
This outlook, infected many Americans in
Santo Domingo, particularly those who had
watched American boys fall to snipers. One
wrote last week, "If the fools who sit and
deliberate what must be done and how wick-
ed intervention is could see their own blood
spilling out, they might decide that drastic
action is necessary."
Johnson's need to avoid the trap of this
emotionalism led him to supplant the diplo-
mats on the scene with John Bartlow Mar-
tin and to direct Secretary of Defense Rob-
ert S. McNamara to put the U.S. forces under
a general "who didn't wear his stars too heav-
ily." The President has reflected an aware-
ness throughout the crisis that he must jus-
tify his intervention by Installing a broad-
based government.
His show of support for Gen. Antonio Im-
bert Barrera was criticized as a move to im-
pose a strong man. Some insist that he was
only diverted from this course by the flurry
of press criticism, Imbert performed the
useful function of replacing Gen. Wessin y
Wessin, and some, including Martin and the
papal nuncio, believed he might become a
rallying point. When this possibility faded,
the President dispatched the Bundy-Vance
mission.
In covering these developments and the
subsequent moves to establish a coalition
weighted toward the rebels, the reporters who
flew into Santo Domingo were seriously
handicapped, They were largely strangers
to the incredibly complex Dominican scene
and they could not be kept closely informed
on the delicate maneuverings that were un-
derway.
The most insidious myth that confronted
them was the idea that the contenders could
be divided into good and bad men. All the
major figures on both sides have been badly
warped by the long dictatorship and they
defy any ready classification.
Juan Bosch had the opportunity, for ex-
ample, to become a heroic figure by assert-
ing his leadership in the chaos created by
his followers. But his courage failed him
and he remained in Puerto Rico. He must
now defend his self-respect by denouncing
the United States.
Rafael Fernandez, a Bosch favorite whose
death last Wednesday added new bitterness
to the crisis, will almost certainly become a
martyr. He was a promising and popu-
lar individual. But curiously he served as
deputy director in the Trujillos' secret po-
lice in the period after the dictator's assas-
sination when these police was imposing
brutal revenge in many quarters. Later as-
signed to the Dominican Embassy in Spain,
he became involved with a Communist cell.
It is difficult to gage such men.
Preconceptions of American clumsiness in
Latin afi?airs persist from the days before 1958
when few of the problems and realities had
been recognized. The crisis in Vietnam has
encouraged an hypothesis that reporters may
be more perceptive than the officials on the
scene.
But the lesson of Fidel Castro, on whom
many of us erred, was that the United
States cannot afford to be mistaken on the
nature of the men who seize power in neigh-
boring republics. This lesson should inspire
deep patience with the President's wariness
in forming a coalition to govern this pul-
verized country.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1564) to enforce the 15th
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may I
inquire how much time I have remain-
ing?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Mississippi has 32 minutes
remaining.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.
I believe it is a fair summary to say
that instead of devoting a little time to
the application and enforcement of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which fully
covers, many fields, including voting
rights, the pending bill was put together
hurriedly, without caution, because of
the pressure of the marchers. It is a
bill that was introduced as a matter of
political expediency. It has, had that
tone and tenor all the way through.
Another aspect of the matter relates
to the far-reaching provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was a
revolutionary act. There has not been
enough time since its passage for people
in many areas of the country to adjust
to it and for the rank and file leadership
at the various political levels of govern-
ment really to understand how it ap-
plies to them, what their duties are, and
what they can do as a practical matter
to stand behind the law of the land.
Whether the people like the law or not,
almost everyone is willing to abide by it.
It is a double tragedy that even though
we already have that law, and this rush
order, as I,have already mentioned, has
been given to meet the marchers' de-
mands, even without allowing time to ap-
11313
ply the law, the actual provisions of the
proposed law invade some of the most
sacred and most important and essential
parts of the Constitution of the United
States.
I come quickly to the part that I be-
lieve is most vital; that is, the part that
invades the provisions of the Constitution
with reference to voter qualifications.
The bill provides for a downgrading and
a degrading of voter qualifications; an
outlawing of some of the most vital and
essential parts of voter qualifications,
including one on which there should not
be any real difference of opinion; that is,
a simple literacy test.
I am impressed by the fact that the
Senate in 1 week passed a bill with
reference to extending the educational
processes in the Nation, even in the ele-
mentary schools, and only a few weeks
later, by a meat-ax method, is consider-
ing a bill to abolish literacy tests in large
areas of the country, even to the extent
of the ability to read and write.
I have also noticed in all that has been
said, from the White House, from the
Attorney General's office, from the floor
of the Senate by the proponents of the
measure, and in the press, that nothing
has been said about the responsibilities
of citizenship with respect to voting.
That has not been emphasized. Every-
thing that is emphasized relates to
rights-so-called rights. Nothing is said
about obligations. Everything is said
about rights; nothing is said about re-
sponsibilities.
Nothing has been said to the people
about self-improvement in matters of
citizenship. Nothing has been said about
the lessons to be learned from self-denial
in order to improve oneself as a citizen.
Nothing has been said about the under-
lying principles of self-control and self-
improvement.
I believe in citizens voting and exercis-
ing their basic privileges. But I believe
that in order to protect those persons,
there must be some kind of regulation,
some kind of control, some kind of quali-
fications established to regulate the vot-
ing privilege. It is not a right; it is a
privilege. In one of his writings on self-
government, the great Woodrow Wilson,
a man of strong moral courage and intel-
lectual capacity, and having a spiritual
reservoir that lent strength and judg-
ment to his every act, said :
Self-government is not a mere form of
institutions, to be had when desired if only
proper pains be taken. It is a form of char-
acter. it follows upon the long discipline
which gives a people * * * the habit of or-
der and peace and common counsel and a
reverence for law which will not fail when
they themselves become the makers of law,
Any comment by me, upon those mar-
velous words of wisdom from the pen
of that truly great man would be su-
perfluous. I shall only say that he
summed up in those words the meaning
of self-government, It depends upon a
form of character that results from proc-
esses of self-denial. That should be the
watchword today, rather than the- gen-
eral idea that everyone's salary will be
increased, everyone's welfare payments
will be increased, and that poverty will
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
 11314
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE May 26, 1965
be abolished without any attempt at self-
help.
The abolishment of qualifications for
electors, of literacy tests, and of other
requirements that I have mentioned is
a myth. It Is a myth that will lead us
down the road to self-destruction.
The worst feature of the bill is that It
undertakes to suspend the Constitution.
It does not meet head-on the contention
that the qualifications of voters must
be valid; that the literacy tests are valid.
The courts have recognized their valid-
ity. A former Attorney General can be
quoted to that effect, and so, I think,
can the present Attorney General. The
bill does not meet that proposition head-
on but seeks to suspend the Constitution
of the United States. Under the guise of
enforcing one provision, the bill proposes
to suspend the Constitution in other par-
ticulars. One provision of the Constitu-
tion cannot be suspended on the ground
of enforcing another. The bill sets the
most dangerous of precedents for the
future by providing that the Constitu-
tion, including the 15th amendment, can
be enforced by letting Congress write the
remedy. I verily believe we have already
written that remedy by the provisions of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The operation of the remedy must be
through the judicial processes, through
the courts. The courts must be kept
open. The pending bill literally would
close the doors of the courts to a large
segment of the citizenry of our country.
It is essential that in a republican form
of government the courts remain open to
the people. We propose, in effect, to close
even the Federal court with the exception
of this small avenue of remedy which
would be available in the courts of the
District of Columbia. The District of
Columbia is more than 1,000 miles from
the place where the litigation may arise.
I believe that it is absolutely essential
to due process of law that the courts re-
main open. The due process of law, men-
tioned in the 14th amendment, is essen-
tial in a republican form of government.
The courts must be kept open to the
litigants, to the people, and to the Gov-
ernment.
It is essential in a republican form of
government that, under due process of
law, the legislative processes of the vari-
ous States be kept open. The pending
measure would literally close the door
on the State legislatures which might be
affected by the application of the bill.
It is unthinkable. It is unheard of. I
do not believe that it would be tolerated
here for 10 minutes on any subject except
on a voting rights bill.
The pending measure demonstrates
the sadness of the situation that we have
got into in our country. It illustrates
what can happen when there is an emo-
tional wave engendered by the marchers
and the groups with political demands
of expediency, even before there was an
opportunity for the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to begin operation.
Perhaps I am too strict in my interpre.
tation of the Constitution. I do not be-
lieve that I am. However, one of the
minor atrocities of the pending bill is
that, sailing along here under the guise
of enforcing the 15th amendment, we
launch f iut into a wholly different terri-
tory ant f argee to what I call the New
York State amendment. On the other
hand, V ;e propose to go Into a State in
which t iere is no charge of any kind of
racial discrimination and dip down into
the net very deeply, to check the quall-
fication,i they have established for citi-
zens tc register and vote and their
literacy -tests. in the pending measure,
we undifrtake to overrule the great State
of New ? York on an extraneous matter to
this bill, on a subject that is irrelevant
to the :-5th amendment to the Constitu-
tion.
Mr. President, only by the broadest
stretch ? of the imagination could the
matter be related to any part of the Con-
stitutien as it pertains to voting rights.
If the 'amendment amendment pertaining to the
State (tf New York were to be upheld, it
would mean that the Constitution would
be gone and that there would no longer
be any provision of the Constitution rel-
ative to voting qualifications that would
have any meaning whatsoever.
Mr. President, how much time do I
have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senat,)r has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr.' STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Ct'lair. I believe there is an error
there.
ThE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the
Senator will suspend, the Chair will
check the time.
Mr.STENNIS. I thank the Chair. I
thought I had 32 minutes remaining.
This PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator used 28 minutes of his time on
yeste:?day and 15 minutes today, which
leave i exactly 17 minutes.
Mr, STENNIS, I thank the Chair very
much:
Mr. President, for the second consecu-
tive 3 ear the Senate has seen fit to invoke
cloture on a measure which presents
graves and far-reaching constitutional
issues. The debate limitation thus im-
poseil will prevent full and adequate con-
sideratiozi of the proposal now before
the Senate, even though that proposal
refieits a philosophy foreign to many
traditional concepts of constitutional
government in this Nation. I believe
that S. 1564 is unreasonable, unwise, and
unn