If Abraham Lincoln were alive today and confronted with the problem, he might make the same remark which he actually did make to C. A. Dana in 1865: "When you have got an elephant by the hind leg, and he is trying to run away, it's best to let him run."

We have not attempted to brief the constitutional aspects of all the bills in question but we do think it appropriate to point out the obvious defects and fallacies in some of the bills.

Senate Bill 810 undertakes, among other things, to appropriate $40 million a year for the next 5 years for grants to areas where desegregation in public education is being carried out.

These grants are to be made "on such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall prescribe."

They may be made for the "construction, enlargement, or alteration of school facilities ***" or for "other costs directly related to the process of eliminating segregation in public schools, including the replacement of State payments to a school district or other political subdivision withdrawn because the applicant district or subdivision is eliminating, or is starting to eliminate segregation."

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to make plans for desegregation and after public hearings, to promulgate said plans. If the local school officials do not carry out the plans, the Secretary can turn the matter over to the Attorney General and he in turn is authorized to institute a suit against State or local officials or any individual acting in concert with such officials to enforce compliance with the approved plan.

The act further authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit in the name of the United States in behalf of anyone who complains that he is being deprived of his right to equal protection of the law by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin against any individual. As noted earlier, the Attorney General of the United States has indicated his opposition to such power being placed in his office. In effect, it would provide free legal services by the Government in any dispute between individuals involving religious or racial differences and would tend to foster even more bitterness than already exists. We think this act goes far beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown case, which simply said that children could not be denied admission to public schools because of their race. It goes far beyond the provisions of the 14th amendment and completely ignores the 10th amendment.

Its ultimate effect would be to place the Federal Government in the position of dominating the public school system and interfering in the private lives of the people in the various States-an image which caused the Attorney General of the United States to speak out firmly against such legislation.

Senate bill 955 provides that "whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, willfully prevents, obstructs, or interferes with or willfully endeavors to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with the due exercise of right or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States which (1) directs that any person or class of persons shall be admitted to any school, or (2) directs that any person or class of persons shall not be denied admission to any school because of race or color, or (3) approves any plan of any State or local agency the effect of which is or will be to permit any person or class of persons to be admitted to any school, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both."

Under this act, a newspaper editor could be fined $10,000 and sent to prison 2 years for writing an editorial in which he criticized an integration plan adopted by the local school officials and approved by a Federal court if he threatened to oppose the officials at the next election. This is inconsistent with time-honored procedures and authority of courts to punish persons for contempt.

It seems to us that it must surely be at variance with the first amendment to the Constitution which provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Senate bill 956 makes it a Federal crime to move in interstate or foreign commerce with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution, or custody, or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which he flees, for willfully damaging or destroying or attempting to damage or destroy by fire or explosive any building, structure, facility, or vehicle, if such building, structure, facility, or vehicle is used primarily for religious purposes or for the purposes of public,

or private primary, secondary, or higher education or (2) to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding relating to any such offense.

Senate bill 188 makes it a Federal crime to possess or transport explosives with the knowledge or intent that they will be used to destroy buildings and personal property for the purpose of interfering with the use for business, educational, religious, charitable, or civic objectives.

Laws such as these appear on the surface to be desirable. Certainly no good citizen is sympathetic with the terrorist who strikes against helpless people or destroys churches and schools.

The people of Florida are well aware of the threat these crimes present to our society and freedom and they demand that every effort be made to apprehend the criminal and to punish him severely.

The mayor of Jacksonville is working with the officials of other southern cities in an effort to deal properly with the problem and to secure the prompt prosecution of these criminals.

Our Florida Sheriffs Association has asked the Florida Legislature which convenes this spring to enact more stringent laws to facilitate the apprehension of this kind of loathsome criminal and to make the crime a capital offense. Florida prosecuting attorneys have made a similar recommendation. We believe the other Southern States are moving in the same direction and that there is no valid evidence of a breakdown of local law enforcement in this regard. In the absence of a showing that the States are shirking their duty to enforce these criminal laws, there can be no more excuse to make them the responsibility of the Federal Government than other types of heinous crime such as murder, rape, or organized gambling.

There is no evidence of an interstate aspect to the crimes in question although there definitely is in the case of organized gambling which inevestigations of your own committees have disclosed to be operated by national crime syndicates which move at will across State line. We think it peculiar and a reflection on the integrity of our State government that the crime of bombing churches and schools should be singled out as a Federal responsibility.

Law enforcement relating to crimes of a local nature is the responsibility of the State. Our system of Government has never contemplated that the Federal Government operate a police force which reaches into every community and relieves the local government of authority and duty to protect local citizens against crimes which do not directly involve the Federal Government.

We think Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who heads one of the most efficient and highly regarded law-enforcement agencies in the world has well expressed these thoughts and the dangers of a consolidation of police power in his letter of January 1, 1953, to all law-enforcement officials.

In his letter, Mr. Hoover said [emphasis supplied]:

"In the December 1952 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin I discussed some of the reasons why any move to centralize police powers in either a State or a Federal agency is unnecessary. It is also my belief that proposals of this kind are ineffective, unrealistic and, ultimately, dangerous substitutes for the democratic methods of police work now in use.

"When any plan leading to consolidation of police power is advanced we will do well to examine it carefully, no matter from what source it originates. Close examination may lead to the discovery of certain basic defects which the proponents of such proposals habitually overlook in their zeal to install an overall law enforcement agency.

"One of the results most evident is that the authority of every peace officer in every community would be reduced, if not eventually broken, in favor of a dominating figure or group on the distant State or National level. That official or group might be given the power by law to influence or dictate the selection of officers, the circumstances of their employment and the decisions they make in arresting and prosecuting those who violate the law.

"The excuse often advanced to justify this request for supervisory authority is that it is necessary to correct deficiencies in local law enforcement. Inasmuch as the officer in the community may fail in the proper performance of his duty by falling victim to certain pressures and temptations, the higher arm of Government must have the power to take over the job and do it right. This is a novel argument. It assumes that those who hold the reins of higher authority spring from a different breed not subject to the subtle influence of money and corrupt politics. While this may be true in any given case, experience gives us little basis for expecting a constant succession of such conscientious public

servants. Should the overriding power of law enforcement be held by a corrupt official, he and his superiors could just as easily reduce, rather than increase, the effectiveness of the local peace officer by subjecting his work to corruption from above in addition to that exerted below.

"A subordinate status for the community peace officer is the exact opposite of what we now require for better law enforcement. Our paramount need at this time is to give the local officers an opportunity to fairly and honestly exercise the authority which they now have by stripping off the apathetic public attitude and corrupt political control with which some of them are shackled. If these fetters are removed, the overwhelming majority of our officers will lack neither the ability nor the desire to enforce the law properly in the areas which they serve. The way to loose the bonds is by citizen action in the polling places and other public opinion forums available to every community, not by subordinating the sheriff or policeman to some higher authority whose decisions are just as likely to be a reflection of public morals, good or bad, as those of the local officer.

"Proposals to centralize law enforcement authority can be quite unrealistic; they tend to assume that either the State or Federal Government can and should do for each community what the people of that city or county will not do for themselves. This is a somewhat naive view of the problems involved in enforcing the law, a view based on the fallacious assumption that in 'the Government' there exists some magic method by which all good things can be accomplished, regardless of the will and the responsibility of the people. This is not the case. If the majority of the communities in a State are unable to enforce a law, either directly as a result of widespread disobedience or indirectly from public apathy, we have no reason to believe that some higher authority will be more successful. Federal experience during the prohibition era is strong evidence bearing on this point. The basic power of law enforcement still resides in the citizens of this Nation; without their cooperation no agency of government, whether local, State, or Federal, can do the job well.

"It may be argued in defense of these proposals that no such power in the State or Federal Government was either assumed or intended-that the authority proposed is to be used only in a limited and occasional situation where local law enforcement has broken down. This argument is not reassuring; it is little more than a promise that the power requested will not be abused. We had better catch the malefactors with the statutes now available to us rather than fasten another control over every community in order to fashion a new trap for improper law enforcement in a few of them.

"The most compelling argument against any move toward a centralization of police power is the danger which it represents to democratic self-government. We should not be misled by urbane representations that the power is limited and will be sparingly used. While this may well be the honest intention of those who first advance the proposal, we have good reason to fear a different result. Experience teaches that power once granted to a sovereign authority is seldom relinquished, more often used to the hilt and extended in scope. It may be a tool of great value when used only for the public good but it can become a vicious weapon in the hands of one who is corrupt. The judgment of history is on the side of those who take the skeptical view."

We have quoted Mr. Hoover at length because his statement is of farreaching importance.

I believe his convictions on the necessity for keeping responsibility fixed at the local level have made a greater contribution to law enforcement in this country than any other single factor during the shifting political tides of the past several decades.

I think his clarity of understanding of the function of the Federal Government in its relations with local law enforcement agencies is the cornerstone on which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been successfully built.

We think Mr. Hoover's logic and fundamental concern in fixing responsibility for good government at the local level should be recognized and adhered to, not only in the field of law enforcement. It is equally important in every other area of governmental actiivty and responsibility.

His statement that "the most compelling argument against any move toward centralization of police power is the danger which it represents to democratic self government" should never be forgotten whether we are considering the civic duties of policemen, school officials, farmers, or any other American.

Although in many respects we people in Florida, like people everywhere, have "looked at each other with a wild surmise" during the last few years

and now we stand "upon a peak in Darien," we feel that in due time we can adjust to this brave new world. But we can do it better without the image of Federal domination or the hair shirt of emotionally inspired Federal laws.

We survived reconstruction and the social adjustment of the past 90 years with the aid of a wise and fair legal doctrine called separate but equal.

Now that this has been denied us, by a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court of its own well-established precedent, we must find a new way for our people who share the same land but not the same cultural standards, to live together peaceably with a common respect for virtue and mutual tolerance of each other's faults.

With respect to education, we do not know what the answer will be but it may prove to be a combined system of public and private schools. We do not feel that any of the laws proposed here will help and we are sure that some of them will do harm.

We have weathered through the day of the carpetbagger, the times of famine, hurricanes, freezes, high water, and more recently burrowing nematodes, and the NAACP. We are not dismayed and we think Florida has a great future for all our people of every race.

Finally, I believe that racial tolerance and social acceptance must necessarily be freely given and graciously received. They result from the efforts of the humanitarian, not of penal codes.

There is reason to think that the yeast of discontent in our dealings with one another is at work throughout the land. But yeast is a delicate substance, easily killed if heated too fast and the loaf will not rise without it.

Many of us feel that the U.S. Supreme Court has made a grievous error in its school integration decision. Although we respect the Court as an institution of Government, we do feel free to criticize its opinions. We believe that the right of the people to disagree and to criticize is an essential safeguard to the integrity of a free and just Court.

We hope that Congress will not compound the error of the Court with unwise, unconstitutional, and unnecessary enactments which may destroy the patient efforts of those who value democracy more than their personal longings and private prejudices.

Senator HENNINGS. The following statements are also included for incorporation into the record at this point: The statement of Thomas R. Waring, editor of the News and Courier, Charleston, S.C.; a letter of Mrs. Robert E. Osth with my reply; and the copy of a bill which has been referred to this subcommittee by the Committee on the Judiciary, S. 1277, a bill to extend to uniformed members of the Armed Forces the same protection against bodily attack as is now granted to personnel of the Coast Guard.

The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. WARING, EDITOR OF THE NEWS AND COURIER,

CHARLESTON, S.C.

I am a spokesman for no organization or group of people. I am a newspaper editor in a position that offers opportunities to observe and report on people in the region where I live.

I believe it is a fact that the overwhelmingly majority of southern people are unalterably opposed to mixing races in public schools. They are opposed to it now or later.

They hold this view not on account of hatred or bigotry, as you may have been told. They hold it because they sincerely believe, on the basis of firsthand experience, that separate schools are best for both races.

In presenting this as the view of the majority of southerners, I refer to white southerners, because they are about 75 percent of the population. But the proportion varies greatly. In my home community, for instance, the population is about 50-50. In some neighborhoods, Negroes outnumber whites 10 to 1. In many school districts integration would mean sending white children to Negro schools.

While I do not pose as a spokesman for the colored people, nor pretend to read their minds, I believe that most of them are happy and satisfied. I do not

believe the NAACP by any means represents a unanimous feeling among the southern Negroes.

In some southerners are willing to accept token integration rather than shut down their schools it does not mean that they approve, or accept it permanently. Even token integration brings tension and constant threat of disorder, as well as fear of other evils.

If integration is wrong, as we believe it is, we do not concede that a little bit of it is right. The strength of resistance testifies to the depth of this belief. The choice between separate schools and no schools is an agonizing one for people who have spent years developing an education system.

Cordons of police ringed the school at Arlington to enforce admission of four colored children. Not even parents were allowed near the schoolhouse. An Associated Press reporter said the scene presented a picture of "Alcatraz, Southern style." The trappings of the police state were mounted within sight of the U.S. Capitol.

It is not alone the entrance of a few colored children at Arlington or elsewhere that created all this furor. White southerners are more accustomed to Negroes than people in other regions. It is the seizure of rights and powers for local self-government that makes southern hearts turn cold.

The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution it swore to uphold. Chief Justice Holmes, Justice Brandeis, and other liberals accepted "the law of the land" to mean the States had a right to operate separate but equal schools. Whether the South closes public schools under threat of mixing, or struggles in some regions with the perils of integration, public education will be damaged. For white pupils, standards of education will decline. This has been the experience in Washington, D.C., and in other places that have undergone mass integration. The statement is well documented and I haven't time to explore it further.

For colored pupils, the relaxed and familiar conditions of their own schools are lost. Discipline breaks down. We have no blackboard jungles in the South, and we do not want them.

Though not all southern schools, white or Negro, have achieved the highest standards, they have vastly improved in recent years. Southerners have spent billions of dollars on them. They had a contract with the Federal Government that guaranteed separation of the races. They would not have taxed themselves for mixed schools. And nobody knows how long they would continue to support schools they don't control. In any event, public education is bound to suffer.

Local self-government, through division of State and Federal powers, is the keystone of our Republic. It is being torn apart for the sake of a sociological experiment. If a police state is substituted for the Republic, no race will gain.

Once before, in Prohibition, the United States experimented with sociology. Prohibition was a failure. It brought on bootlegging and a crime wave. Eventually the people came to their senses. They repealed Prohibition. At least it had the authority of lawful constitutional amendment. This time the experiment is with the lives of children-on the basis of court decrees.

Southerners are concerned for the welfare of both races. They realize the need to educate colored people as well as white. They need colored citizens for manpower in the burgeoning new industries. They want to build the earning power of Negro workers so they can carry more of their share of the economy.

In his inaugural address last month, South Carolina's young Governor, Ernest F. Hollings, referred to these problems. He said, and I quote:

"I shall not dwell on the subject of segregation as it affects race relations. We have all heard too much on this subject and there is too much to be done in the days ahead for us to waste our energies and arouse our tempers over a subject upon which we, in South Carolina, are in essential agreement.

"We are fortunate in having a well-nigh boundless store of good will and understanding among all races and beliefs in South Carolina. In our schools, peace patrols the school corridors; unlike New York, we do not need armed guards. The Negroes of our State feel that schools are intended for education. They feel that their Governor and general assembly are doing everything possible to provide them the best educational program and the best opportunity to succeed on an individual basis. Let alone, we shall continue to do this.

"As a practical matter, this can only be done in the segregated pattern, and for those who would by integration destroy the education, culture, opportunity,