These bills would not protect a Catholic unless the Catholic is denied his constitutional rights on account of his religion. He could be denied his constitutional rights on any other grounds, and these bills wouldn't give him one iota of relief.

These bills are not concerned about any Americans except those denied their constitutional rights on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. All other Americans can be denied all their constitutional rights, and they could get no relief whatever under these bills. I say any legislation is bad legislation which doesn't apply to all Americans alike under the same circumstances. And this bill does not apply to all of them.

All other Americans may be denied all their constitutional rights so far as this bill is concerned on any grounds except race, color, religion, or national origin.

Senator HENNINGS. As far as this bill is concerned.

Senator ERVIN. Yes, sir. This leaves all other Americans, like the Irish, Italians, the Germans, and all the other groups that came to America, in a situation where their rights must be enforced by the same process which applies to all other men. It does not make them favorites of the law.

In my judgment, any law that makes any group of citizens favorites of the law is bad legislation.

Thank you.

Senator HENNINGS. Of course, we know Fernando was mayor of New York in the 1870's, after the Civil War; and the then-Tammany Hall group and others quickly embraced the Irish as soon as they got off the boats. They quickly saw to it that they became voters. Sometimes, I understand, they voted more than once. That was very prominent in the political life of New York.

Mr. WILKINS. I would like to say, if all the laws in the States and all the practices applied with equality to all citizens at the present time, I repeat, especially the laws that give access to the ballot box, we will take our chances in the precincts, in the counties, in the villages, and in the towns, because we have something to say, then, about the election of the judges and clerks and Senators and Congressmen and Governors, and give us a chance to do this and we won't annoy Senator Ervin or anybody else with any legislation here in Washington.

Now, all they have to do is remove the special restrictions and we won't ask for the enactment of what he calls, and I believe erroneously, preferential legislation.

Senator CARROLL. Just one further question.

Have you ever, since you have been testifying, given the history, the outline of the activity of the NAACP? This organization is almost 50 years old, is it not?

Mr. WILKINS. Senator, we are celebrating our golden anniversary this year. We were organized in 1909 and we do have some histories. It is a little too optimistic to expect the Senator from North Carolina to become a member, but I am sure in his search for knowledge he would not mind reading some of the history of this organization, and we will be happy to send it to him.

Senator ERVIN. I will be glad to have it and will be glad to read it. Since I am a Member of the Senate, I do not join any organization which is interested in legislation, even organizations that are inter

ested in legislation that I believe ought to be passed. It doesn't annoy me for people to come in and urge legislation. It is my function to hear them, no matter how much I may disagree with them.

As a Member of the Senate, I am trying to defeat these bills because I am convinced that if they were enacted into law, they would seriously impair our constitutional and legal systems to the disadvantage of all Americans of all generations and races and religions. Moreover, as a Member of the Senate, I am insisting that we retain for all Americans such basic rights as the right of trial by jury, and that all laws shall apply to all Americans alike, and that none of them shall be made special favorites of the laws. I think that in so doing, I am best serving your race and my race and all Americans of all races, religions, and generations.

Senator HENNINGS. I am very glad now that we can count on the distinguished Senator to help us when further attempts are made to assault the jurisdiction and power and dignity of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I welcome that statement from him for that

reason.

Senator ERVIN. Well, I said nothing about the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senator HENNINGS. I thought you said judiciary.
Senator ERVIN. I am talking about our Constitution.

Senator CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the NAACP history put into the record at this point. voluminous?

Is it

Mr. WILKINS. It is not voluminous. We can have a relatively short statement.

Senator CARROLL. I think it ought to appear in the record. Senator ERVIN. I wouldn't want to object but I would like to know how short it is. It might be like the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Senator CARROLL. How many pages?

Mr. WILKINS. Mr. Chairman, it is relatively brief. I assure you it isn't as long as Judge Parker's opinion, and it isn't

Senator HENNINGS. We didn't hear all of Judge Parker's opinion read here today, did we?

Mr. WILKINS. I read all of Judge Parker's opinion. Senator Ervin was kind enough to read only the pertinent part, that is, the part that supported his contention, but this decision itself I read in its entirety.

Senator ERVIN. I can assure you if the NAACP history is not over 50 pages long I won't object, but if it gets

Senator HENNINGS. I think we can quickly come to an agreement on that: that it be confined to, let us say, a reasonable number of pages. Would that suffice?

Mr. WILKINS. Yes. That will suffice.

Senator HENNINGS. Is that agreeable to you, Senator?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Senator CARROLL. Yes.

Senator HENNINGS. Without objection that will be printed as a part of the record of these proceedings, that is to say, a brief summation, a succinct summarization of the association known as the NAACP and its history, its activities, objectives, and such other relevant information as may be of interest to the subcommittee and to the Senate.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

BRIEF HISTORY OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, 1909-59

The Nation's largest and most effective civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.

The association, now with more than 300,000 members in 44 States and the District of Columbia, was organized as the result of a historic call issued by 60 prominent Negro and white publicists, social workers, clergymen, educators, and philanthropists on February 12, 1909, the centennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

The call was the idea of Mary White Ovington, a young New York social worker, who was deeply shocked when she read William English Walling's account of a bloody race riot in August 1908 in Lincoln's home city, Springfield, Ill. Walling's article, published in the Independent magazine, indicated the need for a "large and powerful body of citizens" to defend the rights of Negroes. In response to the call for "a national conference for discussion of present evils, the voicing of protests, and the renewal of the struggle for civil and political liberty," nearly 300 white and Negro men and women from all sections of the country met in New York City, May 31 and June 1, 1909. It was at this conference that the basic policies and program to which the NAACP still adheres were formulated. Oswald Garrison Villard presented to the conference a blueprint providing for an organization to combat racial discrimination and segregation through legal action, legislation, and publicity.

When Miss Ovington conceived the idea for an NAACP, the civil rights of the Negro were at a low ebb. The organized crusade against racism launched on the centennial of the birth of the Great Emancipator has been productive of results which few Americans envisioned in 1909.

The NAACP today is known throughout the country and its fame has extended to Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Its influence is recognized even by those who most bitterly oppose its program. It enjoys substantial moral approval and the sustaining financial support of the Negro community. In the first year of operation, the NAACP proposed a budget of $6,500. The 1959 budget calls for $846,000.

Largely as a result of NAACP efforts, lynching has become an obsolete crime; segregation in public facilities, institutions, and services has been outlawed; Negroes are again voting in some areas of the South; the right to live where one wishes and can afford to has been affirmed by court decisions and by State and city legislation; the Negro's right to serve on juries has been established; fair employment practices statutes have been enacted in 17 states and 30 cities; a civil rights act has been passed by Congress for the first time in 82 years; and a more favorable climate of opinion has been developed.

Contributing to this achievement have been the devotion of the hundreds of thousands of men and women of both races who have been enrolled in the association over the 50-year period, the support given to the organization by the Negro church, press, organizations, and institutions, and the cooperation of white individuals and organized groups such as churches, trade unions, civic associations, and minority group societies.

The association has had three presidents during the half century; Moorfield Storey, Boston attorney who served as secretary to Charles Sumner, 1910-29; Dr. J. E. Spingarn, Columbia University professor, 1930-39; and Arthur B. Spingarn, brother to his predecessor and New York City attorney, 1939 to the present.

Chairmen of the board of directors have been Oswald Garrison Villard, 191012; J. E. Spingarn, 1913-18; Mary White Ovington, 1919-30; J. E. Spingarn, 1931-35 (while also serving as president); Dr. Louis T Wright, 1936–52; and Dr. Channing H. Tobias, 1953 to the present. Alfred Baker Lewis has been treasurer since 1957.

The association's first executive secretary was Frances Blascoer who was succeeded in turn by Mary White Ovington, 1911; May Childs Nerney, 191215; Roy Nash, 1916-17; John R. Shillady, 1918-20; James Weldon Johnson, 1921-30; Walter White, 1930-55; and Roy Wilkins, 1955 to the present.

In 1913, the Spingarn Medal was established, the gift of J. E. Spingarn, to be awarded annually to a Negro American for distinguished achievement. The

following year, the first medal was presented to Dr. E. E. Just, noted scientist who then headed the department of physiology at Howard University. Winners of the award include, among others, Miss Marian Anderson, William H. Hastie, Ralph J. Bunche, A. Philip Randolph, Mrs. Mary McLeod Bethune, Harry T. Burleigh, Thurgood Marshall, Richard Wright, Carl Murphy, George Washington Carver, Charles H. Houston, Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Little Rock Nine, together with their mentor, Mrs. L. C. Bates.

From its earliest days, the NAACP has attracted to its support some of America's most distinguished sons and daughters of both races Eminent men and women have served on is board of directors, or as members of important committees or life members, or as officers of local branches. Senator Arthur Capper, of Kansas, was once president of the Topeka, Kans., NAACP branch; and Harold L. Ickes, once a president of the Chicago, Ill., NAACP branch.

In addition to a series of notable victories in the courts, the association has sponsored a number of other significant and dramatic campaigns, actions, and demonstrations which have had an impact upon our times.

Among these have been the defeat of a packet of anti-Negro bills introduced in the Congress and similar bills introduced in non-Southern State legislatures, 1913; the silent parade of 15,000 persons marching to muffled drums down New York's famed Fifth Avenue in protest against the East St. Louis, Ill., massacre, 1917; exposure of the mistreatment of Negro troops in World War I, 1919; sponsorship of Pan-African Congresses, 1919 and 1921; investigation of the occupation of Haiti by U.S. Marines, 1920.

Also the defeat of a judge nominated by President Herbert Hoover for the Supreme Court, 1930; aid to the drive to unionize Negro workers in the basic industries, 1935-37; campaign for Executive Order 8802 establishing the wartime FEPC, 1941; conferences with Hollywood producers in efforts to secure better film roles for Negro performers, 1942 and 1957; civil rights mobilization of 4,000 persons in Washington, 1950; investigation of courts-martial of Negro officers and soldiers in Korea; 1951; Freedom Fulfillment Conference in Washington, 1954; Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in Washington, 1957; and the drive for enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

In

In the early years of the association its program and activities were largely defensive in that they were chiefly concerned with actions to protect the Negro against lynching, injustice in the courts, peonage, intimidation, and terror. the mid-thirties the NAACP developed a planned assault upon the institution of segregation, the bulwark of racial injustices. The association was opposed to segregation from the outset as indicated in the discussions at the first conference, May 31, and June 1, 1909, and as expressed editorially in the first issue of the NAACP monthly organ, The Crisis, November 1910. But conditions during the early period required concentration on defensive measures.

In the offensive against segregation its most notable achievement was the U.S. Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, banning segregation in public education. Previously, the Democratic party "white" primary and the restrictive racial covenants has been knocked out by Supreme Court decrees. Following the antisegregation ruling of 1954, the Supreme Court, in response to suits filed by the NAACP, went on to ban segregation in transportation and in publicly financed recreation facilities.

The shift of emphasis from defense to offense created a new situation and new problems for the NAACP. With the demolition of the legal bases for segregation, these problems are now largely in the area of public relations involving attitudes, emotions, and traditions. The winning of public support for the Supreme Court's rulings against segregation is a major problem for the NAACP today. Despite diehard resistance in some Southern States, the association is confident that the elimination of segregation in public facilities, services, and accommodations will be achieved. The present objective is the elimination of all State-imposed racial discrimination and segregation by 1963, the centennial of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Slayman, do you have any questions of Mr. Wilkins?

Mr. SLAYMAN. No, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. A great many questions probably could be asked, still. However, we have been 211⁄2 hours with Mr. Wilkins this morning. He has been very patient.

Mr. WILKINS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HENNINGS. We may be able to elicit from other witnesses discussions of some of the other matters. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Joseph Rauh, Jr., attorney, who is appearing as counsel of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Carroll left the hearing room.)

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., COUNSEL, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Senator HENNINGS. We are very glad to have you here this morning, Mr. Rauh, and have the benefit of your views and observations on the legislation now pending before this subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.

You may proceed in any fashion you like reading from a prepared statement or inserting a statement for the record, or making an oral statement. I see you have a prepared statement. It will be made a part of the record, in addition to any oral summary and remarks. Mr. RAUH. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman, because of the shortness of the hour. I would suggest we put the statement in the record and then I would summarize it, if that is satisfactory.

Senator HENNINGS. That is satisfactory. Without objection that will be so ordered. Mr. Rauh's statement styled "Testimony of Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., on Civil Rights Legislation, etc.," will be made a part of the record of these proceedings.

(The prepared testimony of Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., ON CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. I am appearing this morning as counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action, as its vice chairman on civil rights matters. I express our appreciation to the committee for this opportunity to offer comments on the civil rights bills now before you.

With your permission, we would like to submit for your consideration a comparative analysis prepared and issued by the executive committee of the Leadership Conference, of S. 810, the Douglas-Javits-Celler bill, S. 955-960, submitted by Senator Dirksen and S. 499, sponsored by Senator Johnson.

This analysis helps to demonstrate that only by enacting S. 810 can Congress meet its responsibility for effectuating the law of the land and protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. The Douglas-Javits-Celler bill is the one specific remedy yet proposed to cure the cancer of segregation which infests our society. The civil rights organizations are united and determined to see that this bill becomes law.

We are dismayed by the failure of the Executive to recognize that it has a vital function to perform in enforcing the law. The refusal of the administration to support part III, which was deleted from the 1957 act and which would authorize the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in desegregation cases is inexplicable in light of its purported desire for this provision 2 years ago. We are told by Attorney General Rogers and other administration representatives that recent events in Virginia may represent a major breakthrough and that this is a time for inaction, watchful waiting, and solemn pieties about public opinion resolving all problems. We wish that there were some facts to support this rosy view. But it is now almost 5 years since the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education and no State in the Deep South has made even a beginning toward compliance. Instead.