Idle schools in our troubled cities today are eloquent testimony of the folly of the concept of the use of Federal force. We must not continue to repeat blindly the mistakes of the past. Supporters of civil rights bills state that many people have been imposed on, deprived of their constitutional rights, but very few convincing concrete examples have been shown. The number of malcontents of any given racial or social group would far exceed the number of concrete examples shown in this so-called civil rights field. But, and only for the sake of argument, let us assume that there are a number of our colored people who think and believe that they are being deprived of something, would it not be better to try to divert the tremendous resources of the Federal Government toward a voluntary relocation plan? Would it not be better to help these people resettle themselves than to try to destroy and realine a whole social and governmental structure affecting more than 40 million Americans in about one-quarter of the land area in this country? Would it not be better to help these people find happiness elsewhere than to try to destroy a whole society and then try to rebuild it in an image of their utopia? Would it not be better to give a proposal like Senator Russell's relocation plan a fair chance to work than to resort once again to the force concept which has proven for nearly a century not to work at all but merely to injure most, to retard most, the people it was designed to help? I do not feel that we should continue to follow the mistakes of the past indefinitely. The idea of Federal force in this problem area has taken an immense toll in lost education and human misery. If some Federal legislation is necessary, it should be directed toward solving the problems on an individual basis, not aggravating it by disrupting whole communities and State systems of government. The bills being considered by your committee vary widely in their scope and purpose, but everyone would agree that all of them are, in some measure, punitive. They are all directed primarily at the South. Taken together, I doubt that they would protect a single civil right. Instead, they would jeopardize the civil rights of us all by suspending in many cases such constitutional guarantees as freedom of speech and the right of trial by jury. There is great danger in vesting the Federal Government with great powers over local institutions. There is greater danger in the philosophy of coercion for nonconformists and bribes for wavering conformists. Within the scope of bills considered here, both these strange ideologies find expression. I have read the pending bills, and would like to direct my comments to the three more comprehensive ones: S. 456, S. 499, and S. 810. S. 456 is a revival of part of the vicious part III of the old civil rights bill which was discredited and so soundly defeated 2 years ago by a Senate vote of 52 to 38. It would confer vast new powers on the Attorney General-greater powers than the President now has-in controlling local affairs and interfering in the orderly processes of State and local law. He would be empowered by statute to institute suits in the name of the United States, invoking equity jurisdiction for the Federal courts. This is the most powerful legal weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement. The operation would of necessity be directed toward local officials and local institutions such as schools and such people as members of the school boards. These boards are made up of civic-minded people, usually of limited means, who have devoted much time and effort to the building of a better community institution for education of the youth, white and colored, of that community. Under the plans set forth in this bill, these public officials would always be subject to legal harassment unless their conformity with the political climate then prevailing in the executive branch of the Federal Government was complete. A temporary injunction served suddenly upon them renders the local board or officer paralyzed and powerless to act. The orderly process of administration stops. Although they will have the opportunity to appear in court to defend themselves, bad judgment or even misunderstanding as to the effect of injunction in any attempt to carry on the processes of education can result in serious legal trouble for them. How many civic-minded citizens will be willing to add this awesome danger to the already formidable problem of school administration? Very few can afford to run this risk. School administration is bound to suffer if such a bill is placed on the statute books. S. 499 would establish a community relations service. Where mediation and conciliation could operate as a line of communication between divergent groups of a community and where a need for such a service was felt by the leaders of the community in border States or in States where the racial problem is encountered for the first time, such a service might do some good. I am unable to tell from the language of this bill whether this new Federal agency could intervene voluntarily in a community without being requested to do so. I think that this language needs to be clarified and the consent of the parties to accede to intervention of the service should be spelled out explicitly. Title II of this bill would extend the life of the Civil Rights Commission. This Commission, admittedly formed to "study the problem" other legislation sought to solve, has met with a disappointing history for those who favored it most. I think this agency should be allowed to die quietly and to extend its life would merely mean to prolong its frustration. Title III grants the Attorney General the right to supplement his already tremendous power by conferring the right to subpena voting records in the States. This feature does have the protection of the right of the local election officials to be heard by three-judge Federal court on the validity of the subpena, but I have always been doubtful about the wisdom of ever conferring the subpena power on a purely executive agency. Whenever the agency vested with the subpena power is also the prosecuting agency, the danger of abuse of that power is compounded. Title IV of this bill prohibits imports, transportation, and possession of explosives with intention to damage thereby a building or other property used for business, charitable, religious and civic objectives, and provides a fine and term of imprisonment on conviction. It has not been demonstrated to me that the States had not taken every necessary step to halt the series of bombings which occurred in recent months, and I see no real necessity for Federal jurisdiction in this criminal area. FBI assistance on the request of local officials in investigating bombings could be helpful, perhaps in extending the State investigative power for the purpose of law enforcement. However, it would not be necessary to define a new Federal crime in order to accomplish this purpose. I pass now to consideration of S. 810. This bill, I believe, is the most vicious proposal of all in that it would grant the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the power to substitute his plan, conceived in Washington, and enforced by the Federal Government, for the judgment of the State and local school officials who have the legal responsibility for maintaining education as well as maintaining order. Whatever connection this plan might have with a knowledge of the educational process because of its authorship by Secretary of HEW is lost once the plan becomes the subject of litigation, since the bill provides that the Attorney General-not the Secretary of HEW-may modify the plan after a suit has been filed. Thus, the Attorney General has the final say in the matter of school segregation, displacing both the judgment of the local officials and even the Federal department which is now vested with some jurisdiction over educational matters. Title III of this bill is the most transparent example of a Federal bribe that I have ever seen. Grants of up to $40 million a year are authorized to bait school districts into conformity with the desegregation philospohy. This creates a special class school, opens wide avenues for a new type of Federal expenditure, and is cynically designed to dangle the dollar in front of school districts harassed by financial as well as intgeration problems. Title VI of this bill revives much of old title III of the civil rights bill of 1957, which has been covered above. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my detailed criticism of some of the measures now being considered by your subcommittee. I know there are others, many of them threadbare revivals of old and discredited approaches to the problem of the ages. I fully believe that any solution of the problem must rest on a positive program of individual attention. When such a program is adopted, the people of good will of both races will reassume the high degree of cooperation that has marked our past, and build better communities, a better economy, and better opportunities for all. I feel that most of my thoughts here will be evaluated by political standards, but I am sure that, in my own way, I express the views held by millions who are far removed from the political or even official scene. Recent testimony, both before your subcommittee and the House subcommittee, of many concerned and respected citizens such as our Boyd Campbell, of Jackson, Miss., an outstanding Mississippian and American, was well received. Their testimony should be carefully considered. They know the problem, have lived with it for years, and know that the solution lies not in force or coercion, but on patience and understanding. Senator CARROLL. Any other testimony here this morning? Senator CARROLL. The Chair will announce that there will be a meeting tomorrow morning in this room at 10 o'clock. We will have the attorney general from Virginia, the attorney general from Tennessee, another witness from Mississippi, a witness, Mr. Hugh Grant, from Augusta, Ga., and Congressman Robert W. Hempill, from South Carolina. If there is nothing further to take up, we will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 27, 1959.) CIVIL RIGHTS-1959 WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess at 10 a.m., in room 312, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (acting chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Ervin. Also present: Senators Eastland and Kefauver; and Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff director. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. We have here a number of busy men, I know. Bob, how long a statement do you have? Mr. HEMPHILL. Probably 10 or 15 minutes. Senator ERVIN. If Mr. Mounger could wait, would that inconvenience you too much? Mr. MOUNGER. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. The committee will hear from Congressman Hemphill at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. HEMPHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to first express my appreciation to you for your courtesy to me this morning and to the gentleman who very kindly allowed me to come here and precede him. I also wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your subcommittee, for having more hearings on this question than you originally planned. It is in the best American spirit to allow all to be heard. I want to thank you again for letting me come on this particular morning. A month or so ago, on the 29th day of April, I appeared before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. I asked the members of that subcommittee, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to declare a moratorium on civil rights legislation. I told that committee that the continual prodding of the civil rights controversy by a Supreme Court in disrepute, and a Congress which neglects the consuming danger of inflation, was and is detrimental to race relations all over this country. I lay at the feet of civil rights proponents and their fellow travelers, the "do-gooders," the blame for the violences which are erupting in |