CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES

SEC. 9. (a) Any person, or in the event of his death the next of kin of any person, who as the result of a lynching suffers death, physical or mental injury, or property damage shall be entitled to maintain a civil action for damages for such death, injury, or damage against

(1) any person who violates section 5, 6, or 8 of this Act in connection with such lynching;

(2) (A) the United States, or the District of Columbia, or any Territory, possession, or other governmental subdivision of the United States to which local police functions have been delegated and in which the lynching takes place; or

(B) the State or governmental subdivision there of to which local police functions have been delegated and in which the lynching takes place. In any action brought against the United States, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession or other governmental subdivision of the United States, or against any State or governmental subdivision thereof, proof by a preponderance of evidence that any officers charged with preventing the lynching used all diligence and all powers vested in them for the protection of the property damaged, or of the person or persons killed or injured shall be an adequate affirmative defense. In any action brought pursuant to this section, the satisfaction of a judgment against any individual or governmental defendant shall bar further proceedings against any other individual or governmental defendant. Where recovery in any action brought pursuant to this section is based in whole or in part on death or on physical or mental injury, the judgment shall be not less than $2,000.

(b) Where any action under this section is brought against the United States, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession or other governmental subdivision of the United States the action shall be brought and prosecuted by the claimant or claimants and any judgment recovered shall include reasonable attorney's fees.

(c) Any judge of the United States district court for the district in which any action under this section is instituted, or in which such action may have been transferred under the provision of secton 1404 of title 28 of the United States Code, may direct that such action be tried in any place in such district as he may designate.

(d) Any action brought pursuant to this section must be initiated within three years of the accrual of the cause of action.

SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 10. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, when Gov. James P. Coleman, of Mississippi; Attorney General Patterson, from Mississippi; and J. Salmon Bell, distinguished lawyer of Atlanta, Ga., will be with us.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, May 28, 1959.)

40361-59-pt. 2-39

CIVIL RIGHTS-1959

THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess at 10:08 a.m., in room 312, Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (acting chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Langer, Johnston, and Carroll.

Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff director.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., is compelled to attend another meeting at this time. I am presiding at the request of the chairman, who is unable to be here.

The temporary chairman is glad to see the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, Senator Langer, president.

At this time the committee will hear from Mrs. Sue Renfro, of Arlington.

Will you come take a seat there.

STATEMENT OF MRS. SUE RENFRO, ORGANIZED WOMEN VOTERS OF ARLINGTON, VA.

Mrs. RENFRO. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the Organized Women Voters of Arlington, having carefully considered, I might say, and thoroughly debated and just being able to take action the day before yesterday, wants to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee, the staff, and anyone else who made it possible for us to have this few minutes of the time of the committee. I will read the statement on behalf of the organization:

It is the opinion of the Organized Women Voters of Arlington County, Va., a bipartisan organization whose membership is made up of women who have come to Virginia from almost every State in the Union, that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the only solution to the social and financial problems confronting all citizens today. We would, therefore, appreciate your taking no action on the civil rights bills currently before your subcommittee.

A copy of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution recommended to the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments is attached hereto.

May I just summarize the constitutional amendment, sir. In effect, all it says is that the political subdivisions of each State by a twothirds vote of the qualified voters be allowed to make the determination on how their public school systems will be run.

Senator ERVIN. The committee is delighted to have you appear, Mrs. Renfro, on behalf of your organization and thanks you for coming and giving us the benefit of the views of your organization. Mrs. RENFRO. Thank you very much.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE ORGANIZED WOMEN VOTERS OF ARLINGTON, VA.

It is the opinion of the Organized Women Voters of Arlington County, Va., a bipartisan organization whose membership is made up of women who have come to Virginia from almost every State in the Union, that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the only solution to the social and financial problems confronting all citizens today. We would, therefore, appreciate your taking no action on the civil rights bills currently before your subcommittee.

A copy of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution recommended to the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments is attached hereto. Resolved, That the Honorable H. F. Byrd, W. A. Robertson, Joel T. Broyhill, and other Members of the U.S. Congress are hereby petitioned to take appropriate steps for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States in such manner as will authorize the States and the political subdivisions thereof to operate the public school systems of such States and political subdivisions thereof in such manner as they may decide, notwithstanding any other provisions of the U.S. Constitution: Provided, That the manner of operation is approved by two-thirds of the qualified voters of the political subdivision concerned.

Mrs. LUCY BUSSEY,

Chairman, Legislative Committee, Organized Women Voters.

By SUE RENFRO.

Senator ERVIN. We have a statement we will put in the record at this point from the Honorable Albert Rains, Member of Congress from Alabama, in opposition to Senate bill 810.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT RAINS, OF ALABAMA, IN OPPOSITION TO S. 810 Mr. Chairman, sponsors of the legislation which you are now considering have termed it a "moderate" bill. I challenge this contention because the fact is that title 1 of S. 810 pledges Congress to carry out a law made by the Supreme Court. This bill would in effect repudiate our traditional concept of the separation of powers. I cannot accept such a drastic proposition as "moderate". While various amendments to our Constitution have been subject to various interpretations, no one has yet raised any doubts as to the intent and purpose of articles I, II, and III of the U.S. Constitution. They state quite simply that Congress shall make the law, the Executive shall carry out the law, and the Supreme Court shall interpret the law.

I have read with some amazement statements made on the Senate floor by sponsors of this bill. Senator Humphrey has said that title I-and I now quote "will make it clear to the Nation and to the world that Congress stands foursquare behind the Supreme Court's desegregation decisions, and accepts full responsibility for seeing that those decisions are carried out everywhere in the Nation."

This appeared in the Congressional Record of March 18 on page 3992.

Now, I ask you, is the Congress of the United States ready to formally delegate its legislative powers to the Supreme Court? And are we in Congress ready to assume the Executive powers of seeing that laws are carried out? I for one think not.

Let us consider this portion of S. 810 from another aspect. If it is true that the Supreme Court acted on school integration within its jurisdiction and within the law, why is congressional support in the form of title I of this bill necessary? The very fact that title I is in this bill is an admission that the Court needs legislative support for the school integration decree. Have we in Congress ever been called on before to record that we stand foursquare behind the Supreme Court?

As Senator Talmadge, of Georgia, so well pointed out when he introduced the constitutional amendment to establish State control over public school systems,

a number of States entered the Union with explicit provisions relating to State sovereignty over schools. More recently Alaska joined the Union with a provision that Alaskan schools and colleges "shall forever remain under the exclusive control of the State or its governmental subdivisions."

Even if Congress and not the Court had made the school desegregation law I do not see how it could be enforced in those States which were admitted to the Union under such explicit conditions regarding school jurisdiction.

Titles II and III of S. 810 represent a very questionable type of point 4 for the Southern States. We are told that if we integrate our schools by abandoning long established tradition and practice as well as hundreds of modern Negro schools built by white taxpayers, if we bring about chaos in thousands of communities and wreck our school systems for generations to come, if we do all of this we may obtain a little "technical aid," and I quote the language of the bill.

Proponents of such a plan insist this is a "helpful proposal." I call it unjust and unconstitutional and the citizens of Alabama who have for years now sacrificed white school buildings in order to maintain equal facilities and equal teacher pay for colored schools are not, I am confident, interested in this kind of "technical aid."

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that at a time in our national history when we are faced with a most grave challenge to our scientific brains and abilities, the Congress must spend time considering such a bill as S. 810 and its House counterpart. Only last week our top scientists told the President American education needs $30 billion a year to keep abreast in the new scientific race upon which our future depends. All of our State school systems need help and encouragement and our work here should be directed toward a very positive kind of program instead of the measure you have here today.

History does indeed repeat itself. I am reminded that a scant hundred years ago the Supreme Court was attacked by Lincoln and by many others in the North for its decision in the Dred Scott case. Mr. Lincoln quoted Thomas Jefferson, who in 1820 had declared that if the Judges of the Supreme Court are to consider as "the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions" this could be "a very dangerous doctrine and indeed one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

The same elements, the same thinking, which then challenged the Dred Scott decision is today upholding the Court's school decision. Abraham Lincoln said, in regard to the Scott decree, "We propose resisting it as to have it reversed if we can and a new judicial rule established on this subject."

Today, Mr. Chairman, we in the South hold the same view concerning the school desegregation order, but we would prefer, to paraphrase the Lincoln statement, that legislation made by the Congress be established on this subject. I deplore this attempt to have Congress give lip service to laws handed down by the Supreme Court and at the same time I view with mounting concern the continued efforts to vest more and more power in the judiciary at the expense of State sovereignty and, in the final analysis, at the expense of the form of government which we have long cherished.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have some material to insert in the record: a memorandum on the amount of time we have used so far and the number of witnesses; and a short covering letter, and a statement from the National Community Relations Advisory Council. Senator ERVIN. That statement will be admitted into the record, and also the statement about the number of hours. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator Hennings.

From: Charlie Slayman.

Subject: Time and witnesses to date Civil rights hearings.

MAY 27, 1959.
Afternoon

Since the beginning of the current civil rights hearings on March 18, 1959, through today's hearing, the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee has heard a total of 55 witnesses:

(a) 21 proponents of civil rights legislation; and

(b) 34 opponents of such legislation.