AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: September 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
21696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
meet them. Three changing forces are bring-
ing a new era to conservation. Th first is
growing population. By the year 2000, more
than 300 million Americans will need 10
times the power and 21/2 times the water
that we now consume. Increasing pressures
will take our resources, and increasing leis-
ure will tax our recreation.
The second is the triueaph of technology.
The bright success of science also has had a
darker side. The waste products of our
progress, from exhaust fumes to radiation,
may be one of the deadliest threats to the
destruction of nature that we have ever
known.
The third force is urbanization. More of
our people are crowding into cities and cut-
ting themselves off from nature. Access to
beauty is denied and ancient values are
destroyed. Conservation must move from
nature's wilderness to the man-made wilder-
ness of our cities. All of this requires a new
conservation. We must not only protect
from destruction, but we have the job of
restoring what has already been destroyed?
not only develop resources, but create new
ones?not only save the countryside but, yes,
finally, salvage the cities. It is not just the
classic conservation of protection and devel-
opment, but it is a creative conservation of
restoration and innovation. Its concern is
not with nature alone, but with the total
relation between man and the world around
him. Its object is not just man's welfare,
but the dignity of his spirit.
Above all, we must maintain the chance
for contact with beauty. When that chance
dies, a light dies in all of us. Thoreau said,
"A town is saved not more by the righteous
men in it than by the woods?that surround
it." And Emerson taught, "There is no po-
lice so effective as a good hill and wide
pasture."
We are the creation of our environment.
If it becomes filthy and sordid, then the
dignity of the spirit and the deepest of our
values immediately are in danger. In the
development of a new conservation I intend
to press ahead on five fronts:
First, we seek to guarantee our children a
place to walk and play and commune with
nature. The demand on our recreational
facilities is doubling each decade. We must
act boldly or our future will be barren. We
will move vigorously under our recent laws
to acquire and to develop new areas for recre-
ation in this country?emphasizing areas of
concentrated population. And we will be
ready to expand Our programs to meet the
developing needs. A national program of
scenic parkways and scenic riverways is on
the horizon. I hope, for instance, to make
the Potomac a conservation model for ?our
metropolitan areas. In our cities, open
spaces must be reserved where possible, and
created where preservation comes to light.
Second, we must control the waste prod-
ucts of technology. The air we breathe, the
water we drink, our soil, our wildlife, are all
being blighted by the poisons and the chem-
icals, and all the inevitable waste products
of modern life. The skeleton of discarded
cars, old junk cars, litter our countryside?
and are driving my wife mad. She thinks
that one of the advantages of getting de-
feated is to give her some time to get out and
do something about cleaning up the country-
side and these old junk cars along our beau-
tiful-driveways. I intend to work with local
government and industry to develop a na-
tional policy for the control and disposal of
technological and industrial waste. I will
work with them to carry out that kind of a
policy. Only in this way, I think, can we
rescue the oldest of our treasures from the
newest of our enemies.
Third, we must increase mastery over our
environment through the marvels of new
teahnology. This means rapidly increasing
emphasis on comprehensive river basin de-
velopment. So we plan to cooperate at every'
level to develop the resources and to preserve
the values of entire regions of this land. It
means drawing fresh water from the oceans.
Within a few years economic desalinization
will be a reality for a large number of Amer-
icans. It means learning to understand the
weather and to do something about it. The
advance notice that we got on Hurricane
Carla saved us thousand of lives and millions
of dollars. It means that use in every field
of the newest knowledge to meet the oldest
needs. It means encouraging the develop-
ment of the genius of man in order to unlock
the secrets of the earth.
Fourth, we must prevent urbanization and
growth from ravaging the land. I will sug-
gest, in cooperation with local government
and private industry, policies for such pre-
vention. Their goal will be to insure that
suburban building, highway, construction,
industrial spread, are conducted with rever-
ence and with the proper regard for the
values of nature.
Fifth, we must conduct conservation on a
global scale. The Antarctic Treaty, weath-
er, and fishery agreements, the treaty with
Canada that we celebrated yesterday, are all
examples of what can be done if Nations will
devote common effort to common interest.
These are some of the fronts of the new
conservation which I will work to carry for-
ward. And I tell you now that this hope
will always be among the closest to my
heart.
From the beginning, we have been a peo-
ple of open spaces. We have lifted our eyes
to the deserts and to the mountains, and
now we are lifting them to the stars. But
on this earth the ring draws closer around
us. So let us - ot leave our task with the re-
proach of our children already ringing in
our ears. Far, far too much is at stake.
There are the resources on which our future
rests, but there is a good deal more than
that. In a thousand unseen ways we have
drawn shape and strength from the land.
Respect for man and reverence for God
have taken root in our spacious soil. In
isolation from nature lies the danger of
man's isolation from his fellow and from his
creator. All my life I have drawn sustenance
from the rivers and from the hills of my na-
tive State. I do not see them so often any
more these days, and I am lonesome for them
almost constantly. But their message of
love and chalenge is written in my spirit. I
want no less for all the children of Amer-
ica than what I was privileged to have as
a boy.
In the book of Matthew, it says "The floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
the house, and it fell not, for it was founded
upon a rock." The house of America is
founded upon our land and if we keep that
whole, then the storm can rage, but the
house will stand forever.
This morning you have an unusual as-
semblage in this room. -I was escorted to
the dais by a progressive young Republican
Governor. I was met by a cordial, hospitable
mayor. I flew across the continent with a
number of outstanding leaders of the Con-
gress, of the House and of the Senate. You
have an unusual quality of leadership in this
great Northwest. We celebrated some of the
fruits of that planning yesterday in Canada,
fruits of the work of men like the two great
Senators from Washington, and this wise,
veteran legislator from Vermont, George
Aiken, who sits on the front row and does me
great honor by coming to this area of the Na-
tion with me.
Oregon, Washington, California, and Mon-
tana, all the great West, is here this morning,
not to just talk about the glories of the past,
but to try to pull the talent of this great
region together to undertake an adventure
of tomorrow. I first carne to Portand as a
youngster fresh out of uniform in the early
days of the war to scrap the battleship Ore-
gon. I saw then all of the hope and the dar-
ing, and the idealism, and the spirit of con-
September 21
servation that I have observed reflected by
your spokesmen in the halls of the House of
Representatives and in the Senate. We have
come along ways in those 20-odd years, but
we have not gone nearly far enough. The
eyes of the Nat'on are looking to you to pro-
vide the leadership that will not just make
this the best conservation Congress we have
ever had, but that will help us to bring our
dreams of a more beautiful America, a safer
America, a healthier America available to
our children r s t has been available to us.
Thank you vcry much for your wonderful
hospitality.
Mr. MORSE, he speech was in keep-
ing with the :onservation philosophy of
the great Pnchot and Teddy Roosevelt.
It was in keeping with the great conser-
vation philosophy of Woodrow Wilson
and Franklin Roosevelt; of Charles Mc-
Nary and Hiram Johnson; of Clarence
Dill, George Norris, and Robert LaFol-
lette. It was n keeping with those men
in public life who through the years have
stood up and opposed all the nefarious,
selfish attempts that have been made
by certain groups that put a dollar sign
always above the public interest; that
would have sought to turn the rivers of
this country and their hydroelectric
power potential over to their selfish in-
terests, and thereby deny to the people
the maximum development of their riv-
ers for the benefit of the public interest.
As I said in Portland after the speech,
I say on the floor of the Senate today,
that, important as the speech is as of
today, it will be a speeth of greater im-
portance 3 or 4 years from today, because
by that time I am sure we will have ac-
complished an implementation of many
of the challenges that President Johnson
laid down in his Portland speech.
I am proud to be associated with a
statesman who has the vision and the
foresight President Johnson portrayed
in his great speech on conservation last
Thursday morning. He has given, irre-
spective of their partisan affiliations, a
challenge to all Americans to carry for-
ward with a basic tenet for which so
many of us have fought so hard for so
many years in the Senate. We have a
common obligation to see to it that we
perform our obligations as trustees of
God's gift of the natural resources of this
rich land to the people of the country,
and that we have an obligation to see to
it that we leave those natural resources
in a better condition than that in which
we found them. When all is said and
done, that is the underlying principle of
the philosophy of the great conserva-
tionists of all time. It certainly was
demonstyated last Thursday to be the
underlyin philosophy of our great
A ENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend fur-
ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, and for other purposes.
MT. MORSE. Mr. President, I turn
now to the pending business before the
Senate.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. Mc - yield.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. PROXMIRE. In the event the
distinguished Senator from Oregon fin-
ishes his remarks and moves to adjourn
the Senate in the absence of the Senator
from Wisconsin, would the Senator from
Oregon at that time ask that on Tues-
day, after the mbrning hour, the Senator
from Wisconsin shall have the right to
complete the speech which he started
today and would like to complete, but
did not, because he wished to accom-
modate the Senator from Oregon and
yielded to him so that he might speak?
It is my understanding that the Senator
from Oregon has a substantial state-
ment to make and will take some time
today. Although, as the Senator from
Oregon said, it is planned to have the
Senate adjourn at a reasonable hour, it
might not be possible for the Senator
from Wisconsin to return to the Cham-
ber.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, we ought
to attend to that matter right now. I
appreciate the special consideration that
has been extended to me. I think we will
all agree that, under the circumstances,
the Senator from Wisconsin was most
courteous in being willing to suspend his
speech temporarily while I made mine,
In view of the reason I have given for
in? absence from the Senate during the
next 2 days. Therefore, it is only cour-
teous that I should now ask unanimous
consent that when the Senate recon-
venes at its next session, after the trans-
action of routine morning business, the
senior Senator from Wisconsin be recog-
nized to complete the speech that I have
interrupted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the "can
of worms" that is before the Senate
should be referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary. The debate on the Javits
amendment in the nature of a substitute
established that there is no area of
agreement on the authority of Congress
in this field. The opponents of the
Javits substitute insisted that because it
had no force of law, it was useless; and
the advocates of the Javits amendment
claimed that Congress had no authority
to enact binding legislation in this field
and, hence, could do no more than ex-
press its opinion. The debate on the
Javits substitute revealed all the weak-
nesses of a parliamentary body when it
fails to use its committee system.
It has been charged that the courts
have caused confusion, but we are only
compounding it by our procedure in the
Senate. Ask the Committee on the Ju-
diciary for its printed hearings on bills
or proposed constitutional amendments
relating to reapportionment. The an-
swer will be given that there are no hear-
ings, printed or otherwise, The Commit-
tee on the Judiciary has not held pub-
lic hearings on this subject at all.
That is a travesty on the legislative
process. We are dealing with some of
the basic, abstract principles of con-
stitutional rights. We have no record
or a single statement from a single con-
stitutional law authority in this land.
What are we thinking of? I say to the
stract principles of our constitutional
government. Here is a flouting, a denial,
a desecration of a basic principle of our
American constitutional system; name-
ly, that there shall be three coordinate,
coequal branches of government, each
branch having its supposedly protective
rights within its own domain. We have
a Congress in which many Members are
engaged in a game of playing that they
are Justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
It is for the Supreme Court, not Ccin-
gress, to decide the constitutional rights
of the people. That is undeniable. It
has been undeniable ever since 1803,
when the great Marshall, of Virginia, in
a landmark decision, handed down a rul-
ing that the constitutional rights of the
American people are determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
That is where the Congress vested the
right giving the people the check, and
that Check, of course, is the check of the
constitutional amending process.
I do not care what kind of semantics
are used. As Senators know, I did not
make myself too popular last week; but
any time popularity and image cultiva-
tion becomes my motivating principle, I
will get out of the Senate. I did not
make myself too popular by being the
one so-called liberal in the Senate who
refused to go along with the Javits
amendment. Of course, I did not go
along with the Javits amendment. I did
not teach constitutional law to walk out
on my teaching merely because I walked
into politics.
The Javits-McCarthy-Humphrey sub-
stitute for the Dirksen amendment that
was voted on the other day was an af-
front to the Supreme Court of the United
States. I do not care what language the
liberals use to rationalize their position.
They affronted the Supreme Court when
they sought to advise it on the handling
of apportionment cases. They affronted
our system of government that is based
upon three coordinate, coequal branches
of government. They tried for the mo-
ment?and I say this respectfully, but
I believe it is true?for reasons of politi-
cal expediency to put themselves above
the Supreme Court.
How wourd. these flaming liberals
really feel, if some day the Supreme
Court were to meet .and hand down a
"sense of the Court" opinion telling the
Senate how it should transact its busi-
ness. I can hear the speeches now.
Mr. President, if it becomes necessary
between now and Christmas to tell the
Senate what I believe those speeches will
say, I shall be glad to do so. I am ready
to stay until Christmas. I am willing to
stay in this Chamber until I drop to pre-
vent the Senate from affronting the
Supreme Court.
There is a candidate for the Presi-
dency making speech after speech
undermining the prestige of the Su-
preme Court. I hope the American peo-
ple will recognize those speeches for what
they are?as I am sure they will?and
will give him the treatment in November
he has coming to him.
American people: You do not have The system of three coordinate, co-
rights of freedom separate from the ab- equal branches of Government must be
21697
preserved,- if the -American people are to
remain free.
Congress has no Constitutional right,
legal or ethical?and I underline the
word "ethical"?to sit in legislative as-
sembly and affront a coequal branch of
Government.
I have listened to many cheap argu-
ments of political expediency during my
20 years in the Senate: "We must go
home to campaign. I must get to cam-
paigning."
My answer is, "So what?"
No Member of this body has any right
to vote for a substitute to the Dirksen
amendment that is itself a rebuke to the
Supreme Court?as the Dirksen amend-
.ment is a rebuke to the Supreme Court?
out of any motivation of political selfish-
ness.
It is not important for any Senator to
go home to campaign, so long as his pri-
mary trust is to keep faith with the oath
he took when he was sworn in at the be-
ginning of his tour of duty. He has a
clear duty to stay and fight, so long as it
may be necessary, to stop the passage of
the Dirksen amendment until there have
been committee hearings.
Let me make clear, as I have done so,
many times, that when I participate in a
filibuster in the Senate, I never partici-
pate in one aimed at preventing a vote
from ever occurring on a piece of legis-
lation. I am participating in a filibuster
now. I am the only liberal who admits
to participating in a filibuster at this
moment. Most of my liberal friends are
great in the use of semantics. When-
they engage in educational debate, they
say they are engaged in prolonged de-
bate, when everyone knows what they
are engaging in. They are engaging in
a filibuster.
We need to ask ourselves the question:
"What kind of filibuster?" Not a fili-
buster to prevent a vote from ever oc-
curring, but a filibuster that assures the
American people time will be made avail-
able to accomplish two things: First,
committee hearings; and second, a com-
mittee report. Committee hearings are
vital to the legislative process. Those
hearings and the committee report can
be used by the courts, and ultimately by
the U.S. Supreme Court, to determine
the meaning of the legislation from the
standpoint of legislative intent at the
time it was passed.
But they are much more important to
us here in the Senate for our own guid-
ance.
I participate in that kind of filibuster.
That is why I am perfectly willing to
participate in a filibuster on this ques-
tion until Christmas or longer, if neces-
sary, in order to prevent the many injus-
tices of the Dirksen amendment, to be
used as a shackle upon the freedom of
free men in this country.
I participate in filibusters, and shall be
glad to particpate in a filibuster on this
question, including a filibuster against
any substitute.
I serve notice that I am fed up with
substitutes such as the Javits-McCar-
thy-Humphrey substitute of the other
day, which is only a little less objection-
able than the Dirksen amendment.
I Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
21698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Any substitute which affronts the Su-
preme Court, any substitute that seeks
to win approval of Congress for what
amounts to a reprimand of the Court,
any gratuitous comment directed to the
Federal judiciary about any class of
cases, I shall filibuster.
It will be interesting to see how many
liberals join me in that cause.
I am in good voice. I take it for
granted that the Senate would not act
while I was away attending the funeral
of a colleague. I shall be back on
Thursday. ?
(At this point Mr. PROXMIRE took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am
against substitutes. I have attended
the meetings and they have yet to put
together a chain of words which do not
amount in meaning and in fact to a re-
buke of the Supreme Court. They say it
is justified because Senators wish to go
home. It is justified because Senators
wish to get out of Washington. It can-
not be justified. The only issue we can
justify is a vote to lay on the table until
we can have hearings.
So, Mr. President, I am going to fili-
buster against the Dirksen amendment.
I am going to filibuster against substi-
tutes to the Dirksen amendment, until
we can get some hearings on the Dirksen
amendment and on the substitute.
I have listened to the liberals saying,
"Oh, there have been no hearings on the
Dirksen amendment." I did not hear
them even whisper that there had been
no hearings on their substitute.
Let me say to my liberal friends that
it is just as wrong to go-to a vote on a
substitute as to go to a vote on the Dirk-
sen amendment. It is bad, rotten, legis-
lative policy. It does not protect the
American people. So, let us stop all this
shadowboxing, all this subterfuge, all
this legislative hypocrisy. I am speaking
only my opinion and charging no one
with it, I merely give an interpretation.
Let us be determined to protect this
basic right of the American people to
have hearings on the Dirksen amend-
ment.
Then, Mr. President, I shall filibuster
against it because it is a rider on the
foreign aid bill. I have listened to these
magnificent speeches about how bad that
policy is. But a substitute is a rider, too.
It is just as bad from the standpoint
of the legislative process. We cannot
justify legislation on a major subject
matter by way of a rider on another ma-
jor subject matter, when the two are
nongermane to each other. That pol-
lutes the legislative stream of the Senate.
It makes it stink. It is a stinking proc-
ess.
Mr. President, can we not as liberals
stand together for once in support of
purity in the legislative process? Do not
tell me again, "Oh, but you must com-
promise, WAYNE." Of course, we must
enter into many compromises. I enter
into compromises, but never knowingly
compromise what I consider to be a mat-
ter of principle. This is a basic principle
in the legislative process. I shall not buy
that expediency. On the contrary, I be-
lieve that we have a solemn trust and
obligation to stand up against legislating
by way of a rider on the foreign aid bill.
And, I am against the foreign aid bill.
I have been asked, "What are you
objecting so strenuously for? You are
against the foreign aid bill. This will
help you." I would not use those tactics
to defeat a bill that I was against. If a
bill cannot be defeated because of its in-
nate badness, if the bill be one on which
there have been hearings and a com-
mittee report, I shall be ready for a vote
after I have said all I wish to say about
the bill.
So I am not interested in seeing the
Dirksen amendment used to defeat the
foreign aid bill.
I shall filibuster in order to give the
American people time to catch up with
Congress. I have seen the importance of
that procedure so many times in my
years in the Senate. This will also give
the Senate time to catch up with itself.
Many a time I have seen a measure that
the old "steamroller" in the Senate was
ready to push through, with full steam
ahead, when 25 percent of the Senate
would be the most that really knew very
much about the merits of the bill.
When we have a major bill such as
this bill, full of all the abstracts that
this bill contains, involving so much of
the constitutional history of the Repub-
lic, related so directly to our basic free-
doms, we must have time for the people
to catch up.
We have been discussing this matter
now for 30 days. Did anyone really think
30 days ago that there would be any-
where near the public interest in this
subject matter from the standpoint of
its substantive merit that there is today?
Thirty days ago, the editorial writers
were still uninformed.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Even the prescient
Walter Lippmann misunderstood the is-
sue and wrote an editorial implying that
the Dirksen amendment was a forward
step.
Mr. MORSE. He performed a great
disservice to the American constitutional
form of government in this country by
that column.
Mr. DOUGLAS. But he has since
turned at least halfway back.
Mr. MORSE. He has made some noise
in that direction. But I am still waiting
for the Lippmann article in which he rec-
ognizes his previous disservice and his
new enlightenment on the subject?if he
has been converted.
The American people are thinking
about it now. The American people
know the importance of the 14th amend-
ment to the preservation of their free-
doms. We have caused such disturb-
ance in the thinking of so many people
in regard to the issue we have brought
to their attention, concerning their
rights under the 14th amendment, that
we have had rightist groups, ultra-
reactionary extremist groups pour out
' propaganda that the 14th amendment
really is not a legal part of the Consti-
tution of the United States. Such non-
sense. Where do those extremists pro-
pose to repeal it? See what will happen
if they try. Tell the American people
September 21'
that we must get rid of the 14th amend-
ment, and see what their reaction will
be. Thank God, the overwhelming ma-
jority of the American people believe in
the implementation and constitutional
guarantee of equal protection of the law.
We cannot have a free society without it.
The difficulty is that with problems as
abstract as this, there is always a ten-
dency for some people to take refuge in
a rationalization shelter labeled "theory."
They think it is too theoretical. How
are we to make the American people
understand that these theoretical prin-
ciples of government are the stuff out of
which freedom is woven? They are the
warp and the woof of our liberty. It
takes time.
That is the reason why the senior Sen-
ator from Oregon is giving his third
reason for opposing any quick vote on
this question, except a vote to lay on the
table. I believe we ought to keep this
great seminar going. I look upon the
Senate of the United States these days,
as far as the Dirksen amendment is con-
cerned, as a seminar in assembly.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not lamentable
that the supporters of the Dirksen
amendment do not take the floor and
justify their position?
Mr. MORSE. They cannot justify it.
How can they justify an unconstitutional
amendment? How can they justify at-
tacking the U.S._Supreme Court in the
carrying out of its duties within its con-
stitutional prerogatives? They cannot
justify it. So, they want to railroad it
through. The head of steam has been
on. A few of us, however, have been
throwing a few barriers on the tracks.
We are not through.
I announce that I am perfectly willing
to stay here until Christmas. It will not,
have any effect on the elections if we
stay here. The people in the States of
Senators who oppose the Dirksen
amendment will respect them for stay-
ing here and carrying out their trust.
The President of the United States will
be elected overwhelmingly throughout
the country. The American people are
becoming more frightened day by day by
the irresponsibilities of the Republican
candidate.
IRRESPONSIBLE CHARGES IN FOREIGN POLICY
I digress long enough to say that I
was shocked, as chairman of the Sub-
committee on Latin Ameri6an Affairs of
the Senate, to hear the Republican can-
didate attack the late beloved President
of the United States, John F. Kennedy, a
former Member of this body, with his in-
excusab:e slander and libel that Presi-
dent Kennedy played politics with the
security of this country in 1962 in con-
nection with the Cuban crisis.
If Jack Kennedy were sitting in the
seat in the rear of the Chamber which
he occupied for many years, the Senator
from Arizona would have his hand dalled
in no uncertain terms and his libel an-
swered. Jack Kennedy is dead. He
cannot answer. But as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee
on Latin America, I propose to answer
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the Senator from Arizona and say that
there is not a word of truth in his libel
and slander against Jack Kennedy.
Mr. President, I know what happened
in the hours of the early dawn of that
historic morning. Jack Kennedy was
not a war monger. Jack Kennedy be-
lieved that he had a sacred trust as
commander in chief and President of
this country to win a peace with honor,
but to proceed to meet the security needs
of this country any time a crisis called
upon him to do so.
I should like to say for the benefit of
the Senator from Arizona that when the
State Department and the Pentagon sub-
mitted to the President of the United
? States the incontrovertible truth, that
Castro and Khrushchev had placed in
position in Cuba land-to-land missiles?
not land-to-air missiles, which under in-
ternational law Castro had to put in
place as a matter of national security of,
his own country?but land-to-land mis-
siles, thereby jeopardizing the security
of the United States and the Western
Hemisphere, the President made his de-
cision in those early hours of the dawn.
He served notice that those missiles
would be dismantled or we would dis-
mantle them.
He did bring about their dismantling,
and he did it without resort to war or
armed attack of any kind. He did it with
a loss of life limited to one or two obser-
vation pilots.
. Yet the Senator from Arizona seeks to
discredit one the greatest achievements
of the American Presidency in order to
pick up a few votes. Ever since October
of 1960, he has indicated that his policy
toward Cuba would be one of war and
near war. His formula is not the achiev-.
ment of U.S. objectives through the
channels of international law, as was
Jack Kennedy's objective, but the pre-
scription of violence and use of force to
achieve, those objectives. That is why
Jack Kennedy is now under attack for
one of his finest contributions to world
history.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Did he not make a
further statement that if any nuclear
missiles fell upon the United States, they
would be treated as missiles coming from
the Communist bloc and we would retal-
iate with the full force of our nuclear?
power?
Mr. MORSE. He made that perfectly
clear. Khrushchev understood it and
Castro understood it.
Mr. President, for any candidate in
the midst of an election campaign to
try to deceive the American people into
believing that their Commander in Chief
at that critical hour was playing politics
with the security of this country estab-
lishes irresponsiylity?and that is the
kindest word I can use within the rules
of the Senate. That is my answer to the
American people. There is no place in
this campaign for the desecration of the
grave out in Arlington Cemetery over
which a perpetual torch burns, continu-
ing to send out a light symbolic of the
lamp of world statesmanship that Jack
Kennedy kindled and kept burning.
There is no place in the Senate for play-
ing politics either in the preservation of
our system of three coordinate and co-
equal branches of government.
I am opposing the Dirksen amendment
again today because the Dirksen amend-
ment is so alarming from the standpoint
of its repercussions and its future impli-
cations to our whole constitutional sys-
tem of government. If in shortsighted-
ness the Senate should surrender and go
home after adopting either the Dirksen
amendment or ?a substitute amend-
ment, that would have exactly the same
effect so far as being a rebuff to the Su-
preme Court is concerned.
BAD LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
I have already pointed out that the
Senate Judiciary Committee has not
held public hearings on this subject.
The committee reported, without hear-
ings, S. 3069, introduced by our colleague
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN].
But the language of that bill is quite
different from the language now before
us in the present Dirksen-Mansfield
amendment. The fact is that there are
no hearings and no committee report on
the Dirksen amendment.
Moreover, there is no guidance to Sen-
ators who have been suggesting alterna-
tive language to the Dirksen amendment.
We are all sitting here spouting curb-
stone opinions about the manner in
which the Federal courts have been han-
? dling reapportionment cases, and
whether Congress should do anything
about it, and if so, what. To do that
without the help of so much as an hour
of hearings, without the help of any
opinion or position from the Justice De-
partment, is an exercise in futility.
It is worse than that. It is an insult
to the American people, for the American
people have, a right to expect us to do
our legislative job thoroughly. They
have a right' to know that we shall at
least have a basis for knowing all the
Implications of any major issue upon
which we are called to vote. It would
be a very interesting set of examination
papers that we would get back from the
Senate, may I say most respectfully, if
we submitted to the Senate about 20
questions on constitutional law related
to the Dirksen amendment, including
constitutional history.
The suggestion that the courts should
be supervised by Congress is bad enough
without trying to aceomplish the super-
vision by means of a Committee of the
Whole.
No one who is seeking to give the
American people an honest and unfet-
tered opportunity to pass upon the merits
of a constitutional amendment changing
the court decisions should object to that.
Of course, the backers of the Dirksen
amendment have indicated that that is
not what they want. Our friend from
Illinois reminds us again and again that
time, in his opinion, is of the essence and
that reapportionment must be stopped,
pending enactment of a constitutional
amendment.
I ask: Why must it be stopped? Why
is it not just as feasible to let the admin-
istration of justice proceed? Obviously,
.if that administration of justice is as
21699 ,
heinous as the Senator from Illinois
tells us it is, then the American people
will change the Constitution quickly
enough. They can always do that.
They can do it with fairly represented
legislatures, as well as with the present
malapportioned ones, if that is what they
really want.
There is nothing whatever in our con-
stitutional system or in our 150 years of
practice under it that sanctions the sus-
pension of justice, the suspension of the
Constitution, until a constitutional
amendment can be passed.
And however it may be phrased, that
is what is sought to be done here with
the Dirksen amendment and the various
substitutes. The Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DIRKSEN] thinks he is directing the
courts to give the States time; the Javits
proposal was designed to express the
opinion of Congress that the courts
should take into consideration any con-
stitutional amendment that may be
offered on the subject.
I am tired of hearing Senators say
they are willing to vote for something
if it is meaningless. There is no reason
to vote for something meaningless; and
nothing that is enacted on the subject
will be meaningless because it will have
great impact upon the American people
even if it has no impact upon the courts.
It simply is not possible to intrude up-
on the function of the courts and still be
meaningless. And if there is to be no in-
trusion upon the function of the courts,
then there is no call to pass anything.
Both the Dirksen and Javits proposals
have one thing in common; they are in-
tended to slow down the courts in reap-
portionment orders. Why else are they
offered? One is a directive, the other a
request. But the Senator from New York
would have no reason in the world to pro-
pose any language on the subject at all
if he were not seeking to restrain, to slow
down, to caution the courts on their ap-
plication of the 14th amendment to State
legislatures. He has advocated his
"sense of the Congress" approach as be-
ing more effective with the Court than
the Dirksen language. But at the same
time, support for it was sought among
liberals on the basis that it was mean-
ingless and would have no effect.
That is the measure of how confused
we are in our deliberation and in our un-
derstanding of the issue.
If one is really seeking to vote for
something meaningless, one could prob-
ably vote for the Dirksen amendment,
because, as the Senator from New York
has said, it is undoubtedly unconstitu-
tional and therefore null and void. Cer-
tainly it would be disregarded by the
courts just as readily as a "sense of the
Congress" resolution would be disre-
garded.
The debates and votes taken so far in-
dicate to me that Senators do not really
know whether they want to do some-
thing effective or not. A "sense of the
Congress" resolution is ineffective be-
cause it is only advisory. But the Dirk-
sen amendment is ineffective because
it is unconstitutional. So what is the
difference?
Both constitute an attack upon the
Federal judiciary. They lend aid and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012:0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
21700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
comfort to those who seek high office on
a platform of undermining the Federal
courts. Moreover, that is the intent of
most of them. It is their design to _keep
the State legislatures intact. We have
no other reason to be considering any
proposal on the subject at all.
The argument between Senators with
that intention is how to do it effectively.
I regret that so many others who do
not want to suspend the administration
of justice have lent themselves to one or
the other of these devices as being the
lesser of the evils. I think they are
wrong in their choice, for one thing. A
case can be made that the Dirksen
amendment is less harmful than any-
thing else because it it so patently un-
constitutional.
For my part, I deny the validity of the
objective of all these proposals. They
are designed to perpetuate an unsound ?
system of area representation of the
State legislatures, in violation of the 14th
amendment. They are designed to per-
petuate an illegality until it can be made
legal.
Why do not the advocates of mal-
apportionment simply put their efforts
behind a constitutional amendment to
change the 14th amendment? Why do
they not concentrate on educating the
American people to get behind a change
in the 14th amendment? Why it is that
they are not willing to leave the issue to
the wisdom of the people?
What they are really trying to do is to
? amend the Constitution by suspending
_its enforcement. I shall always be op-
posed to that approach. There is noth-
ing the Federal courts are doing with
respect to the State legislatures that
cannot be overturned in the years ahead
if the American people decide they do
not like the application of the Constitu-
tion as it is now written.
The Senators who are ardently back-
ing the Dirksen amendment have made
repeated pleas to the effect that time is
of the essence, that Congress must act
now. But time for them is only of the
essence because they know that once the
people have tasted equal representation
in their legislatures they will never go
back to the old system. They know that
Congress must act now, because if it does
not, all is lost for malapportionment for-
? ever. They know that over the years, the
American people will appreciate, and not
oppose the Court decisions, just as they
came to appreciate and not oppose the
civil rights decisions.
If the Supreme Court has decided that
the 14th amendment applies to a situa-
tion the people do not want it applied to,
they will change their Constitution in
time.
Why is that not good enough for the
Senator from Illinois and his colleagues?
If a constitutional amendment is ever
passed, every single State reapportioned
under Court order will be free to go back
to the old system. Why is that not good
enough for the backers of these "Court-
busting" propositions?
It is not good enough because they
know it would never happen that way.
I am a veteran here in the Senate in
connection with Court-busting bills,
Time and time again in the Senate, in
the dying days of a session, there have
been attempts to steamroller through
this body various attacks on the U.S.
Supreme Court. I have called them
Court-busting bills. I refer also to wire-
tapping bills.
I believe the record will show that
three different times the senior Senator.
from Oregon has prevented the passing
of wiretapping bills in the closing days
of the session by engaging in a filibuster
in the Senate. On a few occasions I had
'some help. Each time I said I would be
perfectly-willing to enter into an agree-
ment to fix a time to vote, or to limit
debate on the wiretapping bills, after
there had been committee hearings.
I knew what would be shown in those
committee hearings. I knew what the
overwhelming majority of the American
people would say about them once they
got the facts on the merits of the issue.
I am satisfied that once the American
people know of the attempts that pro-
ponents of wiretapping bills are engaged
in to invade their privacy, and that a
candidate for the Presidency of the
United States is seeking to capitalize on
them for political purposes, by giving the
? American people the false impression
? that the President of the United States
is responsible for law enforcement?even
in Phoenix, Ariz., which has one of the
highest crime rates in the country, by the
way?they are going to recognize that
the problem of law enforcement is basi-
cally a State and lo-dal problem. The
Federal Government must cooperate
with the local law agencies, and does.
They sit down with the FBI, with one of.
the most dedicated public officials in my
time, J. Edgar Hoover.
Come forward with evidence that the
Justice Department does not cooperate
with the States when they ask for help
in connection with criminal law enforce-
ment. But it again is misleading and
deceiving the American people to create
in the midst of a political campaign the
false impression that, because we have
stopped the passage of Court-busting
bills in the Congress of the United States,
we have added to the crime rate. There
is not a scintilla of evidence that sup-
ports that contention. Police state
methods do not have to be adopted in
order to have efficient criminal law
enforcement.
SAME PROCEDURE USED IN OTHER COURT-BUSTING
? BILLS
I joined in preventing the passage of a
Court-busting bill that sought to take
away one of the precious guarantees of
freedom in this country in the field of
habeas corpus law. Let me say to the
American people: "You would not be a
free people if you did not have the pro-
tective rights under habeas corpus. Do
not forget that your constitutional
fathers carried on a successful revolt
against the British Crown in part be-
cause of the tyranny of the British
Crown in the field of habeas corpus."
How short are our memories?
I am ready to do it again this year, be-
cause it is in the incubator; it is in the
hopper. I have given clear notice that I
shall fight it as hard this year as in ?
past years.
There is another Court-busting bill,
Snitember 21
or a bill that has some Court-busting
features in it, which would repeal the
Mallory rule. The Mallory rule was in-
corporated in the unanimous decision of
the Supreme Court which declared that
When a Federal arresting officer puts his
hand on the shoulders of free men and
Women, he has the legal obligation to
take the arrested man or woman without
delay before a committing magistrate
for commitment or release.
Yet in this political campaign we find
the deceptive tactic being used by the
Republican candidate for President
which seeks to mislead the American
people into the false belief that the
preservation of that precious right of
freedom and protection from false arrest
under the Mallory rule shall be denied
to the American people. The basis of
the false argument is that the preserva-
tion of the rule has something to do with
crime rates.
The rule exists in the District of Co-
lumbia. However, I ask Senators to go
over to Baltimore, where it does not ex-
ist, and take a look at the crime rate; or
to go to Phoenix, Ariz., or go to any city
in this country where, under State ad-
ministration, not bound by Federal rules,
the Mallory rule does not exist. The
crime Tate is as high or higher than in
the District of Columbia.
If the 'police have probable cause for
the arrest, the arrested person is bound
to be Committed. If the police do not
have probable cause for the arrest, the
accused should be -released forthwith.
That is all that the Supreme Court
said. It is a simple, elementary -prin-
ciple in protecting the American people
and the constitutional right to be free
from false arrest.
Only a few years ago the great Senator
Carroll, from Colorado, who is no longer
'with us, a member of the Judiciary Com-
mittee, a brilliant lawyer, and fine consti-
tutionalist, stood with me on the floor
around 2 am. on the last night of the
session. We stood shoulder to shoulder
as we assured the Senate we would be
very happy to have their company for
the next several weeks, if necessary, if
that is what it took to prevent the in-
vasion of what we considered to be a
precious safeguard of liberty, the right
to be free of a public third-degree in-
quisition device.
The Senator from Colorado, as a part
of our parliamentary strategy, decided
that we ought to raise a point of order.
We were sustained. I shall never forget
the brilliant parliamentary argument the
Senator from Colorado made on that oc-
casion. I say good naturedly that it Was
to the relief of many of our opponents
when we were sustained. They knew
that the resolution for sine die adjourn-
ment could then be adopted before
morning.
Mr. President, one must expect to be
misunderstood during these fights on the
floor of the Senate. HoWever, one must
never let those misunderstandings and
criticisms divert one for even a second.
I believe, as an old teacher of criminal
law and criminal procedure, that no sac-
rifice on our part in the Senate by way
of whatever effort we find necessary to
put out to stop that kind of invasion of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
freedom is too much for our people to
ask.
I know what a police department can
do. As a member of the Committee on
the District of Columbia and as chairman
of the subcommittee which has jurisdic-
tion over law enforcement in this city,
I shall continue to do everything that I
can to strengthen our police, but within
the limitations of the constitutional
rights of the American people.
I shall never give to any police depart-
ment the authority to arrest an Ameri-
can citizen, to take him down to the
police department, and subject him to
the inquisition of that department?and
this was possible prior to the Mallory
rule?for as many hours as they want to
put the third degree on that person.
Those are police state tactics, not the
tactics of a democracy.
As one who participated in many crime
surveys before coming to this body, I say
that it has taken the dedicated service of
those many people in this country who
have brought forth, in the last 30 years,
a series of _crime surveys, to put a check
on the abusive, arbitrary, ?third degree
practices of one police department after
another in this country.
I shall never be a party to reviving
those abuses. Therefore I have opposed
that kind of Court-busting legislation.
PASSPORT REGULATIONS
Mr. President, a few years ago the U.S.
Supreme Court handed down a landmark
decision in the field of passport law. In
the State Department we had a Passport
Division which was prosecutor, jury, and
judge, all in one, and which acted be-
hind the black curtains of concealment.
Those curtains hung as a symbol of the
death of the rights of free men and
women behind those curtains. The State
Department had relegated unto itself the
dictorial function and authority to de-
termine whether a free man or woman
could travel abroad.
The Supreme Court in that great de-
cision made it clear that that cannot be
reconciled with freedom, either. How
well I recall the speeches of abuse against
the Supreme Court made on the floor of
the Senate. How well I recall the wild
charges about aiding Communists and
playing into the hands of Moscow. I
have always taken the point of view that
the best way to whip a Communist in his
vicious lying propaganda is to get him
out in the open. So there were attempts
in the Senate to pass a Court-busting bill
with respect to passport legislation. I
did my best to forestall it in the closing?
hours of that Congress, and it was not
passed.
Thus, far, such bills have been beaten.
But the attempt will be revived. Extreme
rightists in this country will attempt
again, from time to time, periodically, to
make political capital out of their super-
patriotism. But if they are allowed to
get by with it, they will extinguish one
great constitutional guarantee after
another, and set up their own police
state.
I could continue indefinitely. I was
counting up the cases the other night. I
think there have been some 10 or more
No. 181-5
Court-busting bills in recent years that
I have fought to block in the dying days
of a session. . I have always appreciated
? the help I received from a few colleagues
each time. There were never very many;
there were never enough, judged from
the standpoint of support those of us
- who fought those bills should have re-
ceived.
I find myself today in disagreement
with some of my beloved liberal col-
leagues in the Senate in regard to the
parliamentary course of action that
should be followed in connection with
- the Dirksen amendment. Some of them
have convinced themselves that they
ought to compromise the issue. This
? great constitutional issue cannot be
compromised without doing irreparable
damage to the precious rights of the
, American people. I will not be a party
to the compromise proposals of the lib-
erals in the Senate. I consider them to
be dead wrong in their approach, and
equally guilty with the proponents of the
Dirksen amendment. For every pro-
cedural argument they use against the
proponents of the Dirksen amendment,
they are equally guillty in their own pro-
cedure.
What they have offered as A substi-
tute is no substitute. They, too, are
guilty of affronting the Supreme Court
of the United States. They think that if
they put a little semantic sugar around
the amendment, it will make it less
poisonous. But, of course, it will not.
They would do irreparable damage be-
cause they would mislead American pub-
lic opinion. They would raise questions
in the minds of the people in regard to
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
and they would play into the hands of
the Republican candidate for the Presi-
dency, who is, making false attacks and
is going about the country seeking to
undermine the confidence of the people
In the Supreme Court.
I say to my liberal colleagues in the
Senate: "You cannot justify your action.
You, ought to withdraw from your posi-
tion quickly. Stop proposing substitutes
for the Dirksen amendment, for the very
nature of your substitutes is a repri-
mand to the Court. It is bound to be."
But they say: "We are going to use
almost entirely the language of the
Court." What in the world does that
have to do with the purport of a resolu-
tion when the language of the Court is ,
written into the framework of ?a reso-
lution that seeks to give direction and
advice to the Court? That does not
happen to be the prerogative of our con-
stitutional system.
It is no less gratuitous. It is no less
outside the framework of the Constitu-
tion. A blow to the courts from their
friends is no less' damaging than a blow
from its enemies. ,
Again I say, as I said earlier this after-
noon that we can imagine the howling
that would go up in this august body if
the- Supreme Court started to hand out
sense-of-the-Court opinions in regard to
how the Senate ought to do its work.
What about the old saying that what is
sauce for the goose is sauce for the
21701
gander? I say to my liberal friends that
that saying is applicable to them.
What the proponents of the Dirksen
amendment are asking Congress to do
now is to suspend the Constitution.
DIRKSEN AMENDMENT WOULD SUSPEND
CONSTII 02 ION
What the proponents of the Dirksen
amendment are asking Congress to do
now is to suspend the Constitution.
What connotations that carries with it.
What meager history one has to know to
know the implications- of that. How
many nations have headed down the
road to totalitarianism with that first
step of suspending the constitution and
constitutional liberties, or any portion of
them.
Usually it is done by a chief executive.
Usually it is an announcement by a head
of state that he is suspending the con-
stitution until unrest or violence is
curbed. Often that is the last that is
heard of the constitution, until a revolu-
tion takes place and a new one is formed.
I wonder what Members of Congress
would say if a President of the United
States announced that he was suspend-
ing the Constitution, or some part of it,
or some right that it guarantees. The
Constitution permits the suspension only
of the right of habeas corpus, and that
only in time of rebellion or invasion.
That is the only provision of the Con-
stitution that the document itself admits
of abeyance. It was suspended in the
early days of the Civil War by President
Lincoln; but a court test later established
that the terms of the Constitution meant
that only Congrest could suspend it.
Yet it is common among strong men
governments to see the blessings of the
rule of the law taken from the people as
a key step in their subjugation to the rule
of tyrants.
What we have here before us is a
suspension by Congress of a constitu-
,tional prevision. That is what the Dirk-
sen bill provides. The equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment is to be
suspended until January 1966, insofar as
it applies to State legislatures.
That is what the Dirksen amendment
provides. -It is an incredible thought to
many of us that such an action could so
much as be contemplated by Members of
Congress, much less supported.
The senator from New York [Mr.
JAvirsl argued quite rightly that Con-
gress has no power to do such a thing,
and so the Dirksen amendment would be
found unconstitutional by the courts
when it came time for them to pass upon
it.
So instead, it was suggested that
rather than try to suspend the Constitu-
tion ourselves, we simply ask the courts
to do it. The Senator from New York
argued on behalf of his substitute that
that was a more effective approach.
That is the argument that will continue
to be made on behalf of most of the other
substitutes for the Dirksen amendment.
All the various compromise proposals
call for some language that would ask the
Federal courts to suspend the equal pro-
tection clause in this field for some spe-
cific or indefinite time.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0 .
21702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
What a devotion to constitutionalism.
With one breath, Members of Congress
condemn the Supreme Court and the
Federal judiciary for usurpation of
pciwers or for a variety of alleged distor-
tions of the Constitution. And in the
next breath, those same Members call
upon the courts to suspend this provision
of the Constitution altogether for as long
as it may please the Congress of the
United States.
That is some lesson to give the Federal
judiciary. That is some directive on how
to conform to constitutionalism.
That is some example to set for the
younger generation that has just-gone
back to school, to learn about our con-
stitutional system.
What are we thinking of, that we even
entertain these measures and their var-
? ious alternatives is simply beyond me.
Yet the Dirksen amendment to sus-
pend a portion of the Constitution?to
suspend the administration of justice?
for 2 years has been before this body
for some weeks. Opportunity to dispose
of it has been presented, but not agreed
to.
A substitute that asks the courts to
suspend a portion of the Constitution
instead of doing it ourselves has at least
been rejected. That is some comfort.
I believe that if mayhem is to be com-
mitted upon the Constitution, it should
be done by the advocates and not by
an agent directed by them. We should
at least do our own dirty work, and
not ask the courts to do it for us.
That is all these sense-of-the-Con-
gress resolutions provide. They ask the
courts to do only what we doubt we have
the power to do ourselves. It remains
my view that not only do we not have
the power to hold up the application
of the 14th amendment for any period
of time whatsoever, but that we also have
no power to ask the courts anything at
all.
I will tell Senators the only way they
can influence the Federal judiciary at
all in this matter: it is to go home and
express their individual views as citizens
on reapportionment. The Federal ju-
diciary is no more going to take notice
of the sense of Congress acting as a
unit than it would take note of 'an act of
Congress suspending enforcement of the
14th amendment for 2 years, and for one
simple reason: the first has no more con-
stitutional sanction or authority than
the other.
The unofficial, individual requests that
Members of Congress may direct to the
courts would have more standing with
the courts than would any usurpation of
power by Congress, whether it is worded
as a directive or as a request.
Congress as an institution simply has
no grant of power to interfere with the
administration of justice, either by di-
rection or by request. It' has no grant
of power to coach, advise, direct, beg, or
plead With the judicial system in the
disposition of constitutional cases.
EARLIER ATTEMPTS TO ALTER DECISIONS
The most powerful effort in this cen-
tury to interfere was much more in-
direct?it was in 1937, with the attempt
to add more judges to the Supreme Court.
At least, that was within the power of
Congress to do. Congress has to fix the
number of judges on the Court because
the Constitution does not. But what is
being advanced now, either by way of
statute or by way of an advisory opinion,
is outside the power of Congress to do.
Since 1954, there have been many other
efforts, usually directed to the jurisdic-
tion of the Court or to specific decisions,
rather than to its personnel.
Probably the most onerous of these
were H.R. 3, relating to the construction
to be given to Federal statutes by the
judiciary, and what was known as the
Jenner bill, revoking appellate jurisdic-
tion from the Court in cases involving
congressional committees, executive se-
curity programs, State security pro-
grams, and admissions to the State bar.
I have already reminded Senators of
the disposition that was made of H.R. 3.
That bill was passed by the House July
17, 1958, by a substantial majority; 241
to 155.
A companion bill was reported from
the Senate Judiciary Committee. It
sought to direct the Federal courts that
in construing Federal laws, none was to
be regarded as having preempted State
laws on the same subject unless the Fed-
eral statute specifically so provided.
That, too, was an effort by Congress to
interfere in the administration of jus-
tice. It tried to preempt for Congress
the authority not only to make ..its laws
but also to interpret them as well.
When H.R. 3 was offered as a floor
amendment to another bill, an effort to
table it failed by a vote of 39 to 46.
But by the next day, wiser counsel
had had the opportunity to make itself
heard. The amendment was committed
to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That is where this amendment should
go.
That bit of legislative history also took
place late in a dying Congress. 1958 was
an election year, too. There was pres-
sure to adjourn. Members were anxious
to get home to campaign. It was evi-
dent that there would be no calm delib-
eration but only rash haste in the con-
sideration of the measure.
In those circumstances, the Senate re-
turned the matter to committee.
In the same year, it declined to act
hastily and under adjournment pressure
on the Jenner-Butler bill, altering the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by
withdrawing from it jurisdiction over
cases in four specified areas. That bill
had been reported to the Senate from the
Judiciary Committee. It was on the cal-
endar.
Senator Jenner offered it as an amend-
ment to a pending House bill that related
to court appeals from orders of regulatory
agencies.
This, too, came late in the session. On
August 20, 1958, the Jenner amendment
was tabled by a vote of 49 to 40. Once
again, the Senate refused to deal with a
matter basic to the separation of powers
.on a "hurry-up" basis.
There was every reason to doubt the
constitutionality of much of the Jenner
bill. That alone was sufficient reason to
table it.
But all the same doubts adhere to the
Dirksen rider and the substitutes pro-
September 21
posed for it. The Senate is widely di-
vided on what our constitutional ,author-
ity is in this field, since it does not relate
to any powers delegated to Congress. We
are totally divided and uncertain over
what the effect of any of these proposals
would be.
We are also divided over whether the
U.S. Supreme Court should be rebuked
by Congress. That is what some of the
substitute language does. Some Sena-
tors feel that merely rebuking the Court
is better than doing anything of a statu-
tory nature.
But a case can be made that since Con-
gress can in fact do nothing of a statu-
tory nature, the only effect of any meas-
ure at all on this subject is its effect upon
public opinion.
There is no language so innocuous that
it will not harm and weaken the Federal
judiciary among the American people.
In a year when a presidential election
campaign is being fought as much on
that issue as any other, I cannot under-
stand how so many Members of the Sen-
ate can contemplate giving any support
whatever to that campaign.
There is no doubt that the Republican
candidate for the presidency is carrying
on a campaign against the Supreme
Court, a campaign which seeks to under-
mine the prestige and the confidence of
that Court with the American people.
This is an irresponsible attack that the
Republican candidate is making. I am
at a loss to discover any good reason why
any of my liberal colleagues on the Re-
publican or Democratic side of the aisle
would join in undermining the prestige
of the Supreme Court.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
SON in the chair.) Does the Senator
from Oregon yield to the Senator from
Illinois?
Mr. MORSE. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am really pained
that my good friend the Senator from
Oregon is now indulging in the language
that he is using. I believe that those of
us who regard ourselves as liberals and
who have borne a large share of the bat-
tle against the Dirksen amendment, have
been doing so in order to defend the
Supreme Court. I believe that we have
shown proof of our feelings by the fight
which we have been making on the floor.
I yield to no one in the efforts I have
made to defeat the Dirksen amendment.
We welcome the opposition of the Sen-
ator from Oregon- against the Dirksen
amendment. He has been a valiant ally
in this respect; but I do say in all sweet-
ness of spirit that he is no stronger an
opponent of the Dirksen amendment, no
stronger a defender of the Supreme
Court than we are. It is not betraying
any confidence to state that our group
would reject any and all language which
would in any event try to provide for a
postponement of the decision of the
Court from going into effect, or which
would constitute a rebuke of past deci-
sions of the Court, or which would sus-
pend operations while a constitutional
amendment was being offered. More-
over, so far as I personally am concerned,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
I would certainly oppose any amendment
limiting the Courts powers in apportion-
ment matters.
All that we have tried to do has con-
cerned the possibility of drafting lan-
guage which, in effect, would tell the
lower Federal courts to do precisely what
the Supreme Court has told them they
could do; namely, take into considera-
tion the proximity of elections, and the
time in which they have to prepare an
alternative plan, and to try to throw the
responsibility upon the State legislatures
to as great a degree as possible, con-
sistent with getting action.
Although I respect my friend, the sen-
ior Senator from Oregon, I do not like to
be put in the pillory and told that we
liberals are rebuking the Court and not
being faithful to the decisions of the Su-
preme Court. That is not the case and
I do not like to hear us charged with it.
What I would personally like to have
happen is precisely what the Senator
from Oregon would like to have happen;
namely, for a tabling motion for the
Dirksen-Mansfield amendment, to be
proposed at an appropriate time. I
would like to have it come at a time when
we will have the maximum attendance
and the support of the Senate demo-
cratic leadership and of the administra-
tion. For then we would have our best
chance of success. -
I hope that my good friend, the Sena-
tor from Oregon, will not proceed to
divide our ranks. Although I respect his
principles very much, I do not think
there is any division-, so far as purposes
are concerned, between the principles of
the Senator from Oregon and the rest
of us.
We are probably not strong enough to
carry a motion before the Senate. We
are, however, strong enough by our per-
sistence, probably, to defeat the Dirksen
amendment. Whether we would be
strong enough by ourselves to carry
a tabling motion, however, which has
parliamentary precedence, and which
can be voted on without debate, is an-
other matter.
We face a situation in which there are
three or four groups, none of which is
probably strong enough to impose its will
affirmatively. In order to get an affirma-
tive solution, we must get the supplirt of
an intermediate group, partly Repub-
lican, partly Democratic. We will accept
somewhat meaningless- language as rela-
tively unobjectionable. But we would
firmly object any propbsal which rebuked
the Supreme Court itself.
I hope the Senator from Oregon will
take these points into consideration and
withhold his answer. After all we have
been comrades in arms and we do not
ordinarily rebuke one's fellows in this
fashion.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I say to
thy friend the Senator from Illinois, that
his professed -love for me could not pos-
sibly be greater than my love for him.
I repeat every criticism now by refer-
ence that I have made of the liberals on
the floor of the Senate today. I am fam-
iliar with the rationalizations of my good
friend the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
Dnucsm] . We completely disagree with
what he is attempting to do.
His substitute, no matter how much
sugar he puts on the pill, is a rebuke of
the Supreme Court. His substitute would
undermine the confidence of the Amer-
ican people in the Supreme Court. His
substitute plays into the campaign of
the Republican candidate for President,
who is trying to stir up a loss of confi-
dence of the American people in the Su-
preme Court. I do not care what lan-
guage is used, even though it be the lan-
guage of the Supreme Court itself in writ-
ing it into the framework of the resolu-
tion. The fact is that they are giving ad-
vice to the Supreme Court. They are
seeking to ask the Supreme Court to sus-
pend the implication and the enforce7
ment of the 14th amendment for the time
being.
I am shocked,by their course of action.
I not only do not withdraw the state-
ment that I made this afternoon in cri-
ticism of them, but I repeat it. I think
they are performing a great disservice
by the course of action they are follow-
ing, on a so-called sense-of-Congress re-
solution. I tell them once more what I
told them in private conference, that
they ought to stay here as many weeks
as necessary in order to fight this resolu-
tion, by way of a filibuster, if necessary,
and let them try to pass a cloture mo-
tion. Then, let the American people pass
judgment on every politician in this body
who votes for a cloture motion without
a resolution rebuking the Supreme Court
going to committee hearings, without a
single witness for it, without a single
constitutional law authority appearing
? before the committee.
I am sorry that I have a great dif-
ference of opinion with my liberal friends
on the Senate floor. I do not question
their motivation, but I think their judg-
ment is terrible in this instance. It is
their judgment that I have been against.
I am sorry, but so long as I feel that
my trust calls upon me to do so, I shall
do everything ,that I can to prevent even
the liberals from passing what they say
is a meaningless resolution. If it is such,
it is an act in futility. It is bound to be a
resolution that will be interpreted by the
American people as a slap in the face of
the Court.
There is nothing they draft that is
not gratuitous advice or comment to the
Federal judiciary. I am against the
policy altogether, irrespective of the class
of cases involved.
I say to my dear friend the Senator
from Illinois that I appreciate his ad-
vice. But I reject his advice. It is bad
advice, in my opinion. I stand, on the
basis of my conviction, in opposition to
their course of action, as far as their
proposal for a resolution expressing the
sense of Congress by way of a substitute
for the Dirksen amendment is con-
cerned.
It is an unfortunate development in
the Senate. Do not talk- to me about
splitting the liberals. I did? not split
them. They split themselves when they
proposed a resolution that, in my judg-
ment, is unsound in constitutional his-
tory, unsound in constitutional law, and
unsound in American public policy.
M. President, I am about through
with my speech on this subject today,
21703
although I shall speak at great length
If necessary later.
The white backlash is not to be culti-
vated openly in the months ahead, nor
will civil rights get much attention in
its own right. But the same cause will
be served by partisan candidates by de-
nouncing the Federal courts, especially
the Supreme Court.- Read the papers.
Read the accounts of the election cam-
paign. One will read that in many parts
of the country we are hating a contest
between one nominee and the Supreme
Court.
That is the trend this campaign is tak-
ing, and the U.S. Senate will only ex-
pedite and promote it by adopting any
measure of any kind that can be con-
strued as advice or criticism of those
courts.
Thus, in closing I say that what we
ought to do is to stand firm, offer our
vote for a motion to lay on the table, or
offer to stay here and fight against this
unconstitutional proposal for as many
weeks as it may take, putting it up to-
the population in regard to the so-called
cloture motion. I know it is said to me
half a dozen times a day, "Do you want
a cloture motion?" The answer is no.
But if a cloture motion is desired, I am
for holding responsible in American
political life those who so vote. That is
the answer. But the answer is not to
compromise the Constitution. The an-
swer, is not for us to stoop at the altar
of public expediency and convenience.
On the contrary, the answer is that if we
must go down in defeat, -we should go
down in defeat in defense of what we
know is unanswerable, sound, constitu-
tional theory. For, out of that theory
will rise again the rights Of the Ameri-
can people. The American people will
lean forward and assert themselves in '
the reestablishment of their constitu-
tional rights.
I close by asking unanimous consent
that there be printed at this point in
the RECORD an editorial from the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch of September 17,
1964, entitled "The Goldwater Constitu-
tion," an editorial from the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch of September 13, 1964, en-
titled "Attack on the Supreme Court,"
an editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dis-
patch for September 16, 1964, entitled
"Where Is That Chaos?" and an edito-
rial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch en-
titled "Mississippi Bar Manifesto."
There being no objection, the edi-
torials were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Sept. 17, 1964]
THE GOLDWATER CONSTITUTION
Senator GOLDWATER'S repeated attacks on
the Supreme Court introduce a strange ele-
ment in the presidential campaign. The Re-
publican candidate is not running against
the Supreme Court, and there would not be a
great deal he could do about the Court if he
were elected until vacancies occurred. Apart
from that, he displays himself as something
less than a constitutional expert.
On his southern tour, the GOP candidate
asserted that the Court is taking away from
State and local agencies "the traditional
powers to apprehend and punish criminals."
He mentioned three cases in which he said
the Court had done this. But his interpreta-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
21704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
tion was not the Court's, 'and his conclusion
? misreads what the Court did.
In one case the Supreme 'Court unani-
mously found unconstitutional a police
search, without a warrant, of a suspect's '
hotel room in California. In another, it
struck down use of evidence obtained from
a warrantless search of an automobile after
four suspects had been removed to jail. In
a third case, the Justices held that a Chicago
man's confession could not be used against
him in court because it was obtained after
police denied him the right to see his lawyer.
In these cases the Court took nothing away
from law enforcement agencies that those
agencies could properly claim. The Court
did nothing in defense of criminality. The
Constitution requires warrants for searches
and provides for the right to counsel. In up-
holding the Constitution in such matters the
Supreme Court was upholding the rights
given-to all the American people.
The same thing can be said of other deci-
sions for which Senator GOLDWATER has criti-
cized the Court. In demanding popular elec-
tion of both houses of State legislatures, the
Court was protecting the citizen's right to
have his vote counted equally with all others.
In rejecting State authority to order religious
services in public schools, the Court was de-
fending freedom of religion, not denying it.
Senator GOLDWATER is on risky political
ground in attacking the Court for defending
civil liberties. Why does he do so? Perhaps
he is trying to capitalize on varying anti-
court sentiments prompted by different deci-
sions?the opposition to racial rulings in the
South, to apportionment rulings among con-
servatives generally, to the School prayer rul-
ings among some groups.
If the Goldwater forces could somehow
amalgamate all the forces opposed to these
decisions, they still would have mustered no
more than a curious alliance of misunder-
standing and disbelief in the essential princi-
ples of American Government. Against them
should be arrayed every citizen who values
his constitutional freedoms.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Sept. 8 to 13, 19641
ATTACK ON THE SUPREME COURT
Senator DIRKSEN'S ride against the Su-
preme Court has been stalled. Only 30 Sen-
ators voted to shut off debate on his plan to
restrict Court power over State legislature
apportionment, while 63 (including Missouri
Senators SYMINGTON and LoNc) voted against
cloture.
Unfortunately, the rider to the foreign aid
bill is not dead. A motion to table it was de-
feated by 49 to 38. So the situation is as it
was, with Senator DOUGLAS, of Illinois, and
his band free to go on talking against the
Dirksen plan. As the debate proceeds, the
public should become fully aware of the
grave issues involved.
Senator DIRKSEN insists he is not attacking
the Supreme Court. He says the issue is
whether the Constitution empowers the
Court to say how State legislatures shall be
composed. What he means is that Congress
should decide the Court's power; but the
Constitution has already decided that.
It is true, as critics of the Court have said,
that the Constitution gives Congress some
control of 'appellate jurisdiction and of lower
courts. But the Constitution also creates
the Supreme Court, and gives to that Court
full jurisdiction in all cases arising from the
Constitution.
The Court was enforcing the Constitution
in holding that its "equal protection of the
laws" clause requires both houses of State
legislatures to be elected by popular vote.
Senator DIRKSEN is ignoring the Constitution
in proposing that Congress, by simple legisla-
tion, tell the courts they cannot enforce the
equal voting rights principle for a year and
more. In that time the Senator hopes for'
passage of a constitutional amendment to
override the Court decision permanently.
This is not the first attack on the Supreme
Court, but it is one of the more serious.
Only once in history has Congress actually
restricted the Court by legislation. In 1868,
during a struggle over Reconstruction, Con-
gress withdrew the Supreme Court's author-
ity to hear habeas corpus appeals from lower
Federal courts. Even so, Congress did not
tell the High Court it _could not hear direct
appeals on this great writ, and soon a more
thoughtful Legislature rescinded its ruling.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to
pack the Coilrt in 1937, when he was dis-
satisfied with decisions adverse to the New
Deal. He proposed that he be given power
to name an additional Justice, up to a total
of 15, for each one who failed to retire at
'the age of 70. The Senate of those days was
properly outraged, and properly killed the
plan.
As a result of the McCarthy period hys-
teria, former Senator Jenner, of Indiana, in
1957 tried to remove Supreme Court jurisdic-
tion from cases involving contempt of Con-
gress, Federal loyalty actions, and various
subversive activities. The Jenner proposals
were tabled and never even reached a vote.
Now, for the first time, Congress is asked
to interpret the Constitution for itself, tak-
ing from the Court that responsibility which
the Constitution gives it. Could there be any
stronger attack on one branch of Govern-
ment by another, or any heavier assault on
judicial review and separation of powers?
The Dirksen forces have suffered a de-
served defeat, with a stalemate as the re-
sult. Perhaps Senator HUMPHREY Will suc-
ceed with his effort to turn the Dirksen com-
mand to the courts to advisory legislation
only, though there is no great reason for
Congress to advise the courts to give States
time to 'comply with the Court decision.
The States will have to have time in any
case.
But when Senator DIRKSEN insists that he
is willincto fight for his cause until Christ-
mas or after, the champions of the High
Court cannot depend on leaving their
trenches by Christmas. However long' it
takes, however long the Senate must remain
in session, the authority of the Supreme
Court to uphold the Constitution must be
maintained.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Sept. 16, 19641
WHERE IS THAT CHAOS?
In two votes the U.S. Senate managed to
do nothing at all about the Supreme Court
and the State reapportionment issue, and
nothing is precisely what should be done.
_First the Senators voted 42 to 40 against a
compromise advising the Federal-courts to
give the States time to reapportion their
legislatures. This was a substitute for Sena-
tor DIRKSEN'S rider flatly ordering a court
stay until 1966. Both the Senator and op-
ponents of his rider agreed that the com-
promise was pointless.
Then the Senate defeated by 56 to 21 Sena-
tor THURMOND'S motion withdrawing all Fed-
eral court jurisdiction in State apportion-
ment cases. This was 6imilar to the House-
approved Tuck bill, but its affront to the
Constitution was too much for the Senate
to swallow.
So the Dirksen rider and the filibuster
against it will proceed as before, with noth-
ing accomplished. And why should anything
be -accomplished? The main argument of
the Dirksen forces is that "chaos" will result
If the States are forced to act swiftly.
Such arguments hide a remarkable lack of
fact. One fact is that the Supreme Court,
in ordering that both houses of State legis-
latures be apportioned by population, sug-
gested no action until after the November
election. A second fact is that States which
September 21
have already carried out apportionments have
experienced no chaos.
Senator DOUGLAS, in response to support-
ers of his Illinois colleague, has pointed out
that the Colorado Legislature met in special
session this year and apportioned the State
senate on the basis of population, giving
Denver its rightful number of members.
There is no chaos there. Senator DOUGLAS
said the Legislature of Connecticut, in which
12 percent of the people control one house,
expects to reapportion in time for a primary
in late September, and there is no chaos
there. Michigan voters already have held
a primary under a reapportionment plan,
without chaos, and apportionment litigation
is underway in Oklahoma, and there is no
chaos.
By way of contrast, the Dirksen rider itself
would create a strong element of uncertainty.
Apportionment suits have been filed in most
States, including Missouri, and 47 legislatures
will meet in 1965, including Missouri's. Fair
apportionment could thus proceed on a regu-
lar course in the courts and the legislatures
next year. But if the Dirksen rider were
passed, the courts could not act and many
legislatures would not act, and possibly some-,
apportionment decisions would be set aside.
Chaos is a dramatic word. What the Dirk-
sen rider would accomplish might better be
called confusion, and an already confused
Senate would do far better to let the matter
drop.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Sept. 14, 1964]
MISSISSIPPI BAR MANIFESTO
The officers and commissioners of the Mis-
sissippi State Bar deserve commendation
and encouragement for the resolutions they
have adopted upholding the rights of ac-
cused to counsel in civil rights cases and for
the machinery they'have asked their presi-
dent to set up to implement that stand.
It is another matter to agree with the
assertion in the same resolution that the
lawyers of Mississippi have never failed in
their duty to represent all persons accused
of crime "regardless of race, creed, color, or
national origin" and whether their cause
was "popular or unpopular, respected or
despised." There have been lawyers in
Mississippi who have taken civil rights cases
which they knew would alienate them from
what Prof. James W. Silver calls "the closed
society." But have all of them carried their
advocacy as strenuously as in cases involv-
ing less personal risk, and have there been
enough of them willing to assume substan-
tial risks?
They know, as does every other Mississip-
pian, that in the words of Hazel Smith, the
newspaper publisher, "Today we live in
fear. * * * It hangs like a dark cloud over
us dominating every facet of public and
private life. None speaks freely without
being afraid of being misunderstood."
Frank E. Smith, a former Mississippi Con-
gressman now on the board of directors of
the Tennessee Valley Authority, writes:
"The Mississippi Advisory Committee to the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has been
composed of brave men and women. Only
those willing to face physical threats and
economic and social pressure could con-
template serving on it."
The record in civil rights cases of the Mis-
sissippi courts is a poor one. So little confi-
dence did, the Mississippi summer project
have in the prospect of obtaining ready and
forceful counsel from the Mississippi bar
that it took along its own staff of lawyers.
We would honor the Mississippi State Bar
resolution more unreservedly, and find
greater promise of concrete improvement in
it, if it boldly admitted the shortcomings of
this record instead of taking the defensive
attitude that there is no fire in the smoke.
' But even with that defect it is a forward
step. Particularly encouraging is the pro-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
posal for a liaison committee with the State
and Federal courts, local bar ..associations,
and accused persons. If it aggressively pro-
motes a heightened sense of personal re-
sponsibility regardless of the risks involved
it may stiffen a few spines, serve as a meas-
ure of organized counterpoise to the local
prestige of segregationism, and enter some
opening wedges into the closed society.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in in-
serting those editorials from the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch in the RECORD, I
wish to pay my high commendation to
the journalistic statesmanship of that
great newspaper. For some years the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, without excep-
tion, has led the newspapers of this
country in its frequent editorials edu-
cating the American people in respect
to their constitutional rights and guaran-
tees. It is a wonderful thing to have a
newspaper that recognizes its education-
al duties in the field of government. All
one has to do is to read the editorials
that I have just put into the RECORD to
have a better understanding as to why
the senior Senator from Oregon will re-
ject any compromise of this issue and
will insist that the Senate stand up and
face directly the Dirksen amendment,
either by a vote to lay it on the table,
or by a vote against cloture, and then
continued debate for as many weeks as
it takes in order to defeat the amend-
ment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OterICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is my under-
standing that I yielded the floor to the
Senator from Oregon so that he could
make a speech today, that I still retain
my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
unaniinous-consent agreement was that
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROX-
MIRE] would be recognized tomorrow aft-
er the close of morning business. As of
now the Senator may be recognized in
his own right.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the speech that my good
friend the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Moan] made?I believe it was last
Tuesday?at any rate, it was just before
the vote on the so-called Javits-Mc-
Carthy-Humphrey compromise?was, I
believe, the clearest and most concise
speech made on the subject. I subscribe
to 99 percent of it, but not 100 percent.
I thought that the speech was logical.
It was unanswerable. That is the word
I used in discussion with others who
had the same sentiment that I had in
supporting the position of the Senator
from Oregon in respect to any rebuke
of the Supreme Court, direct or implied.
However, I feel that it is possible to
draft a resolution which would not con-
demn the Supreme Court or rebuke the
Supreme Court or imply any criticism
whatever of .the Supreme Court. In-
deed, it woukl affirm the position of the
Supreme Court, and at the same time it
would make it possible for us to indicate
that we feel that there might be some
justice or some reason for persuading,
or for giving the position of the Senate
that the subordinate courts?inferior
courts?might follow the dictation or the
decision of the Supreme Court in pro-
viding more time for apportionment.
The Senator from Wisconsin feels very
strongly that the Supreme Court was
correct in its decision in the case of Rey-
nolds against Sims. The Senator from
Wisconsin feels very strongly that-popu-
lation apportionment?one man, one
vote?is a vital and fundamental prin-
ciple, and one for which we should con-
tend however long it might take.
However, it would seem to the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin that there may be a
way of winning this fight?and we all
want to win it?without compromising
principle at all and without implying any
criticism of the Supreme Court. If that
opportunity were available, then this
Senator would support our leader, the
distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS], who made a fine statement
earlier today, in affirming that he be-
lieves, as I understand, that we should
work in the direction of affirming the
court, working for population appor-
tionment, and at the same time, if it
meets those requirements, of adjourning
sine die as soon as 'convenient.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I should first like to
have a motion offered to table the Dirk-
sen-Mansfield amendment which would
carry. And to do so I would need full
leadership support.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed.
Mr. DOUGLAS. That is, Senator, a
motion to table the Dirksen amendment.
If that motion should fail, I would then
be willing to accept an amendment which
would merely tell the inferior courts that
in the judgment of Congress they should
do that which the Supreme Court has al-
ready told them they should do. I do
not regard that as a rebuke of the Su-
preme Court. I believe it is merely an
additional injunction to affirm the quali-
fying conditions which the Supreme
Court itself threw around its instruc-
tions; namely, that the lower .Federal
courts should consider the proximity of
elections and pay some slight attention
perhaps to factors other than pure popu-
lation, even though they should re-
tain equality of representation as the
substantial, overruling, and predominant
criterion for decision.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Illinois. Once
again?I feel it so strongly that I wish to
say it again?the Senator from Oregon
has made magnificent speeches, both
last Tuesday and today. His speeches
are unanswerable because we agree with
them so wholeheartedly.
At the same time, I believe that there
is one element upon which we obviously
disagree because we voted differently. I
believe it is consistent with a deep respect
for the Supreme Court and with an ab-
solute commitment to the principle of
one man, one vote, which I have, to vote
in favor of a compromise which in my
judgment would in no way call that prin-
ciple into question.
21705
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if
there is no further business to come
before the Senate, as a further mark of
respect to the late Representative WAL-
TER NORBLAD, Of Oregon, I move that the
Senate adjourn until noon tomorrow.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator withhold his motion?
Mr. PROXMIRE. .1 withold the mo-
tion.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, is it
understood that at the conclusion of
morning business tomorrow the senior
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PaoximaE]
will be recognized and will have posses-
sion of the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That
understanding is included in the unani-
mous-consent agreement.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Wisconsin renew his
motion?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I re-
new my motion.
The motion was unanimously agreed
to; and (at 4 o'clock and 28 minutes
p.m.) , the Senate adjourned until to-
morrow, Tuesday, September 22, 1964,
at 12 o'clock meridian.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate September 21, 1964:
POSTMASTERS
The following-named persons to be post-
masters:
ALABAMA
Emory C. Gibbs, ilanceville, Ala., in place
of E. H. McNutt, deceased.
ARIZONA
Lawrence A. Lippert, Florence, Ariz., in
place of L. M. Morrell, retired.
CALIFORNIA
John B. Shamlin, Ceres, Calif., in place of
J. lVf. Gondring, Jr., retired.
Harold B. James, Guerneville, Calif., in
place of G. L. Clare, retired.
Mary S. Black, La Honda, Calif., in place of
V. M. Benedict, resigned.
Arlie D. McCoy, Lockeford, Calif., in place
of F. J. Figge, retired. ?
FLORIDA
Rosa M. Priest, Morriston, Fla., in place of
L. W. Mills, retired.
GEORGIA
Lucille E. McCurdy, Pine Lake, Ga., in
place of W. I. Cushing, retired.
ILLINOIS
Kenneth M. Mosher, Dahinda, Ill., in place
of A. R. Woolsey, retired.
Floyd E. Lacey, Milton, Ill., in place of R.
H. Keys, deceased.
Glenard E. Miller, Willow Hill, Ill., in place
of S. L. Keeler, retired.
INDIANA
Harold L. Shepard, La Porte, Ind., in place
of R. W. Leets, retired. -
Robert W. Rushton, Monrovia, Ind., ifl
place of R. C. Bray, retired.
Chester A. Etchason, Jr., Plainfield, Ind., in
place of A. C..Morphew, retired.
IOWA
Sidney J. Ness, Underwood, Iowa, in place
of E. L. mopping, retired.
KANSAS
Myron L. Van Gundy, Reading, Kans., in
place of W. R. Jones, retired.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300070012-0