A great American, William E. Borah, a Senator from Idaho, made this moving statement 20 years ago:

"We do not know what the future has in store for us as a nation, but we do know that the system of government which was brought forth on this continent nearly 150 years ago, baptized with the blessings and crowned with the wisdom of great leaders, has brought greater contentment and prosperity and more freedom to the average man and woman than any form of government yet devised. This fact alone should burn into our very souls the determination to preserve it in all its essential principles. It is one thing to adopt and adjust principles to new conditions; it is another thing to permit new conditions to disregard principles-the former is the highest achievement of the statesman and the lawgiver, the latter the work of the timeserver and the adventurer."

In closing, I add this observation to Senator Borah's stirring words: We shall not preserve any of the essential principles of the Government which brought these great blessings to America if we permit the Constitution to be destroyed by judicial usurpation.

EXHIBIT D

The following is a true copy of a resolution adopted unanimously by the Georgia State Democratic Convention meeting in the city auditorium, city of Macon, Macon, Ga., on October 14, 1958:

Whereas citizens of Georgia of every faith and creed are shocked and grieved by reason of the dynamiting in Atlanta early last Sunday morning, a House of God, a temple in which Americans of the Jewish faith worship God; and

Whereas no good man, woman, or child of whatever faith or creed can condone wanton, lawless conduct such as that illustrated by this bombing; and

Whereas we, as members of the Democratic Party of Georgia, are firm adherents of every principle of constitutional government, including the right of all Americans to worship God according to the tenets of their faith; and

Whereas we desire Americans everywhere to know that we deplore and utterly condemn such incidents and demand that those guilty of their perpetration be ascertained and promptly tried, convicted, and punished according to the magnitude of their crime: Be it

Resolved, (1) That we abhor and denounce any such unlawful act as the bombing of this House of God;

(2) That all law-enforcement agencies of the State of Georgia which may have Jurisdiction in connection with this bombing be requested to make a thorough, prompt, and complete investigation thereof, in order to discover and apprehend those guilty of the commission of such crimes;

(3) That we earnestly request the Federal Bureau of Investigation to turn over to the law-enforcement agencies of the State of Georgia such information as it now has or may obtain as to incendiaries, Communist or otherwise, now seeking to create racial turmoil in Georgia and the other States of the South. The creation of prejudice and bias by setting creed against creed, and race against race, only supports the Communist line to divide and conquer;

(4) That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the officers of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation and the members thereof.

Senator ERVIN. We will stand in recess until 2:30.

(Thereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness is the Honorable Joe T. Patterson, attorney general of the State of Mississippi.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. PATTERSON. Following the Governor of my State here, Senator, I wish to say in the beginning that, of course, I endorse all he has said before this committee, and shall merely add my statement to his.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity extended me to appear before this committee in opposition to the many civil rights bills now pending before this committee and in the Congress.

I want to say in the beginning that I come before this committee in the same spirit that I have appeared before a similar committee of the House of Representatives, and I should like to say here, as I stated before that committee a few weeks ago, that I do not come before this committee in a spirit of resentment, nor in a spirit of vindictiveness, nor in a spirit of defiance, but as a citizen and public official of the State of Mississippi who is interested in the problems. that the pending bills propose to correct as well as the problems that the enactment of the pending civil rights bills are destined to bring about, not only in the State that I represent, but in all other States that these bills are designed and intended to have direct effect upon, I have read approximately 20 bills that are now pending before this committee or in the Congress and, of course, I shall not burden this honorable committee with an effort to discuss each and every bill in detail. I shall attempt to cover all bills in my discussion, referring specifically at times to the bill which I have reference to.

I have read the message of the President setting forth his sevenpoint program pertaining to civil rights, and it appears that all of the pending bills attempt to come within the seven recommendations made by the President on February 5, 1959.

I had hoped that with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the now known result thereof, that those who so aggressively advocate such legislation would come to the realization that the end sought to be accomplished cannot be done by law.

However, after reading the proposed bills now pending before this committee, and after reading the statements of ardent advocates of this legislation made before this committee in support of these bills, it appears that the sponsors of the so-called civil rights legislation refuse to take cognizance of such fact, and now want to proceed on the theory that the act of 1957 was not dictatorial enough and not harsh enough to accomplish the desired results, and therefore they urge the passage of the bills now before this committee, especially the features of those bills that confer arbitrary and dictatorial powers in the Federal Government, primarily in dealing with the public school systems of those States who are not conducting their public schools in the way that the advocates of civil rights legislation would have them conduct them; and secondly, over elections in the States: and thirdly, over employment in States on Government contracts.

S. 810, pending before this committee, appears to be a companion bill to H.R. 3147 pending before the House of Representatives, and appears to be the bill that the most ardent advocates of civil rights legislation, both in and out of Congress, desire to see passed.

Title I of S. 810 is composed of proposed congressional findings, findings that are almost equal to the findings of fact by a court at the

end of a long trial upon which a finding of guilt and severe sentence is to be imposed.

The findings set forth in S. 810 are all debatable, and again like a court passing upon highly conflicting testimony, depend entirely upon proof that is to be believed for its accuracy. Some of the proposed findings in title I of S. 810 are conclusive evidence of the unsoundness of the desegregation decision and of the chaos, unrest, and turmoil which they have caused throughout the Nation. Some of said findings proceed on the erroneous theory that Congress has the right to order and institute integration or mixing of the races in the State schools. I could indulge in considerable argument as to the accuracy of the conclusions reached in the findings set forth in S. 810. However, for the sake of time, I will not burden this committee with such argument other than to say that such findings and conclusions are not well taken insofar as they apply to the State of Mississippi.

Title 2 of S. 810 simply attempts to put the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare into a gigantic propaganda program at Government expense for the purpose of attempting to change the philosophy of Government, the social view, and the different ideals of a people who happen to have a different view from those who advocate this legislation. In short, this section simply authorizes a branch of the U.S. Government to engage in a program of propaganda and brainwashing under the guise of publishing and distributing information for the purpose of imposing the will and views of the advocates of civil rights legislation upon the Southern States.

Furthermore, this section authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to expend from an already depleted Treasury $10 million over a 4-year period solely for the purpose of propagandizing and brainwashing in an effort to compel a people to submit to that which they are wholly unwilling to submit to.

Title 3 of S. 810 may well be referred to as the cash inducement section. It merely says to States, municipalities, and school districts which maintained racial segregation in their public schools on May 17, 1954, that if they will cast aside their thinking and attitude on the question of integration and segregation, and accept the political philosophy and ideologies of those who advocate this legislation, that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will give to them Federal funds to employ additional teachers; to indoctrinate those teachers and other school personnel in the sociological ideals of those who advocate an all-out integration program in this country. It even offers to help pay the cost of employing specialists in the field of propaganda, to not only indoctrinate the teachers but to even indoctrinate the parents, schoolchildren, and the general public of the area affected.

In short, this section authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to expend, over a 4-year period, a hundred and sixty million dollars in Federal funds for the sole purpose of seeking to change the social order and way of thinking of the people of the Southern States by offering to pay them well for such change. If the authorized expenditures set forth in this section were raised to billions instead of millions, such purpose would not be accomplished.

Section 4 of S. 810 is a followup of sections 2 and 3 in that it provides that in the event propaganda does not prevail, as provided in

title 2, and offers of money do not prevail as provided in title 3, then the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may prescribe and promulgate his own plan for the operation of the public schools in à State that does not see fit to accept them.

Titles 5, 6, and 7 of S. 810 provide that if the State and local authorities, or either, will not accept the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare's plan, then he may call upon the Attorney General of the United States to bring a suit, by injunction or other appropriate methods to force the acceptance of his plan. The Attorney General is given full authority to do whatever may be proper in these suits which, in his judgment, would best bring about ultimate desegregation with whatever he might decide is deliberate speed.

Title 6 of the act is a sweeping power to the Attorney General to bring such suits as he may think proper to protect anybody from invasion or loss of equal protection of the laws. The Attorney General may even choose between the people he will sue, as he himself may determine who are unable on their own resources to bring suits.

Title 6 is also an effort to bring back to life the eliminated title 3 from the Civil Rights Act of 1957, provisions that many Members of the present Congress saw fit to eliminate from the act of 1957 and I believe will see fit to do the same thing again when this bill comes up for final passage. I submit that we now have ample laws, both Federal and State, to protect all of such rights and that it is a reflection upon the integrity and good intentions of the courts of the States to presuppose that courts and public officials of those States will ignore the constitutional rights of any of its citizens. Ignoring State laws, State courts, and State officials, and conferring supreme power upon the U.S. Attorney General cannot make of the U.S. Attorney General a superman; neither can it confer upon him, nor any staff that he may surround himself with, the ability to deal with the many and varied problems arising when dealing with race relations in a State.

Had the provisions of section 6 of S. 810 been on the statute laws prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Topeka, on May 17, 1954, it would have been the duty of the Attorney General to stop all efforts on the part of the NAACP and others to overturn the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court prior to that date, we would have then heard the NAACP and their running mates scream loud and long about their constitutional rights being violated, their right of freedom of speech, freedom of action, but now they seek to deprive others of the very rights that they so loudly proclaim for themselves.

There are a number of bills pending before this Congress providing for the prosecution of those guilty of flight "to avoid prosecution for destruction of educational and religious structures." These bills further provide that violations of such acts may be prosecuted in the Federal judicial district in which the crime occurred or in which the person accused is apprehended. No right-thinking American citizen will approve or condone bombing or burning of school buildings and churches, or any other unwarranted forms of violence toward property or persons. However, I wonder how the authors of these bills reconcile the provisions of such bills wherein it is provided that the person accused may be prosecuted in the Federal judicial district in

which the person is apprehended, with the sixth amendment to the Constitution which provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy, and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, *

Federal statutes dealing with bombing and burning of schoolhouses and churches are not necessary for the people of Mississippi. The legislature of my State, sometime ago recognized the heinousness of such crimes and enacted ample laws to deal therewith, and I might say they go further and provide a more severe penalty than the proposed bills right here.

I cannot understand why the ardent advocates of the many bills that have been introduced in this session of the Congress dealing with bombing and burning have seen fit to confine their bills solely to schools and churches. Is not the crime just as great, just as cowardly, and just as deserving of severe punishment for a person to bomb, or to attempt to bomb, a home, or a train or bus known to be occupied by the traveling public, or the facilities of a public utility or industry, endangering the lives of those working and living nearby, as it is to bomb a schoolhouse or a church?

There has been no bombing of schoolhouses or churches in Mississippi. We have had in the past few years two or three Negro schoolhouses to burn at night. Much time and money has been spent in an effort to apprehend the arsonists and all indications are that at least one of such burnings was at the hands of members of the Negro race. In another instance, all indications are that the fire was caused by defective wiring.

The only bombings that we have had in Mississippi within the past 5 or 7 years occurred during a labor dispute while a strike was being conducted. In 1955, we had five or six bombings to occur in Mississippi during a strike against Southern Bell Telephone Co. by the communications workers. A number of underground transformers were dynamited in the dead hours of the night and in each instance nearby homes had their windows and walls shattered and the families put in a state of fear and terror. In one instance, dynamite was planted on top of the operating building of the telephone company in Pascagoula, Miss., at a time when the perpetrators of the crime knew that workers were on duty in the building. Of course the top ranking spokesmen of the union denied any knowledge of such bombings and at one time went so far as to say that such bombings were inspired by manage

ment.

Senator ERVIN. If I may interrupt at that point, I don't claim to be a statistician, but I would venture the assertion that there have been 10,000 bombings in labor controversies for any bombing that there has been of any schools or churches.

Mr. PATTERSON. Sure.

However, when the strike was finally settled, the bombings immediately ceased, and the union later walked into a Federal court in Nashville, Tenn., and entered into an agreed judgment against them for damage occasioned by such bombings. I might add it was later determined that those who actually did the bombings were professionals from the city of Chicago employed by top men in the union outside of the State of Mississippi to come to