Now, I refer for example, to title IV of S 499 which is entitled, "Prohibition upon Importation, Transportation and Possession of Explosives," and so forth.

Now, while it is a part of the bill to which I refer, there are some Members of the Senate and some Members of the House who believe that it does not properly belong in the civil rights bill. It more properly belongs in the Interstate Commerce Committee, which has to do with transportation of goods of any kind, including explosives, in interstate commerce.

Senator HENNINGS. If I may interject there, Senator Hruska? I have the notion it belonged to the Subcommittee on Improvements in the Federal Criminal Code.

Senator HRUSKA. That is still a third place.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I might be inclined to agree with the Senator from Missouri and a member on the Subcommittee on Improvement of the Criminal Code, but my question is this, Mr. Congressman:

What feelings do you have or what comments would you like to make in regard to that type of legislation with which I presume you are familiar, at least in broad outline?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I feel that a proposal to authorize the investigative facilities of the Federal Government to participate in investigations of alleged bombings and attempted bombings of public buildings or religious institutions would have a great deal of merit, provided the enforcement of the actual laws relating to the bombing and attempted bombing would rest with the State law enforcement agencies. It has not been proven, and it has not even been charged, that the local law enforcement agencies are unable to prosecute vigorously, bombings and attempted bombings when the cases have been investigated and the culprits apprehended.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, as I understand it, the burden of this proposed legislation is not investigative so much as prohibiting the transportation across State lines, of certain explosive materials with the knowledge that it will be used for unlawful purposes or with the intent that it be used for unlawful purposes; so it is not a matter of sending investigative agencies to investigate the bombings as such, but the law would be directed to prohibiting the transportation of materials with that intent and for that knowledge.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I was referring to another type of legislation. Senator HRUSKA. You had another situation in mind, I am sure, but this is quite mechanical. It is something that is used in other fields of criminal law. For example, the transportation of narcotics, drugs, the transportation of stolen automobiles, and a host of other things. Now, the reason I raise it is this. I would not want to believe that your prepared statement should be subject to the implication that you are condoning and would like to condone acts of violence of this kind, and you would not want to share in passing laws which would have for their purpose, the prevention of additional incidents of that kind.

Do I make myself clear?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes, Senator. I hope that my statement did not create any inference that I did condone such acts.

Senator HRUSKA. I would not think it did. I would not want your silence on that subject to be the basis for some person saying, well, now, the Congressman does not want even this to be done.

Now, if you want to elaborate along that line, I think it would be interesting.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Well, I think in this whole field, we have reached a situation that is very similar to which came first, the chicken or the egg? On the one hand, we have judicial decrees, legislation, Executive orders, which give rise to a highly explosive situation. That situation, in turn, is manifested by acts of violence and lawlessness. Those acts of violence and lawlessness give rise to considering of further legislation; further judicial decrees; further Executive orders which are in due course of time, implemented.

Those acts then, and orders and decrees, then create additional explosive situations, and you have other acts of violence as a result of that. That is the kind of a situation-I don't know where this is going to end. There is a fundamental law of physics, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction. That is true of human nature just as it is in the case of the natural sciences. Human beings react. They may react in strange and wondrous ways and unpredictable ways but human beings react and every piece of legislation that is enacted in Congress has its reaction. Most of the reaction, fortunately, is mild and restrained and may extend only to vocal activity, but the reaction can be much more severe than that. That is what I am talking about.

Senator HRUSKA. What would your thinking be about Congress. passing a law such as that, which as I say, makes it illegal to transport explosive materials across State lines when they know or intend that that material will be used to blow up synagogues, churches, schools, or anything else?

Senator HENNINGS. Banks?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I didn't intend to voice objection to that section of the bill.

Senator ERVIN. You were trying to make a point a while ago, that the actual bombings themselves, which occur within the boundaries of the States are essentially local crimes which you think should be left to the States?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. The bill Senator Hruska has in mind deals exclusively with an area which is committed by the Constitution to the Federal Government, namely, interstate commerce.

Senator HRUSKA. That is right.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I think the principal advantage of that section would be not prosecutions under the section itself, but the authority that it would give to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate bombings, with something like, say, the Lindbergh law that said, well, there is a presumption created that the individual was transported if the individual is not discovered within a certain period of time, and so forth. That would give authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate alleged bombings and attempted bombings and would put the investigative powers of the Federal Government into the case. I think that would be the principal value of the section.

Senator HRUSKA. For the purpose of enforcing the law which— the provisions of which I outlined. It would not be for the purpose of course, of seeking the criminals or the perpetrators of that type of outrage, for the purpose of having them subjected to punishment of local law. It would be for the purpose of apprehending them to convict them under the Federal statute.

I am glad to get that explanation and I do hope that the Congressman understands, unless there were some voice of that kind in regard to his statement, it might be presumed and might be implied and I know unjustifiably, that you would be objecting to this type of remedial legislation. I know that is not the case.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, Senator Hruska.

Senator ERVIN. I might state at this point that I favor legislation of that type.

Senator HRUSKA. Are you not cosponsor of one of the bills?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Senator HENNINGS. This is not really civil rights legislation. It is a broad proposition of law and order.

Mr. Huddleston, I remember your revered father.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. He was, at one time, a colleague of mine in the House of Representatives. I want to say that I think I speak for the entire subcommittee, when I say that you made an excellent impression here this morning. You have conducted yourself in a temperate, restrained, and sensible manner and I would certainly expect you to have done that anyway. It does not come as a surprise that you have but I would like to say that while some of us cannot see eye to eye with all your philosophy, all of the observations that you have made-I think I indicated by some of my questions-that none of them, no questions were directed to you in a spirit of either malice, nor meanness, and that you as a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, come before us, and the Senate welcomes you, and we hope that you will continue to be of assistance. Your views, your experience, whether it be for or against certain legislation, is of assistance to all Americans and all who believe in the freedom of this great Republic of ours.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HENNINGS. It is not easy sometimes, when we run head on, apparently, over some issues that seem to be unfortunately, by some, impacted with great emotional surcharge, and so you have come in the spirit with which we welcome you, and I am sure I speak for my distinguished colleague, Senator Ervin, and equally distinguished colleagues, Senator Hruska and Senator Carroll. Thank you.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say I appreciate the very courteous treatment that the committee has shown me on the occasion of my appearance before you. I doubly appreciate the very thoughtful consideration which the committee has given to my humble remarks.

Thank you very much.

Senator HENNINGS. We will continue to give them that consideration, Mr. Huddleston.

The committee stands recessed until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 15, 1959.)

CIVIL RIGHTS-1959

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 312, Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (acting chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Ervin.

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

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

Chairman Hennings expected to be here this morning to open the meeting. He has just sent word that he is detained and has asked me to open the meeting and preside until he can be here.

Judge, the Senate is glad to welcome you to this meeting and extend to you an opportunity to make your presentation in any manner in which you see fit, either by a written statement or by oral statement or by a combination of the two.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE LEANDER H. PEREZ, PLAQUEMINES

PARISH, LA.

Judge PEREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to file my prepared statement. Since writing my prepared statement and further analyzing the several bills under consideration, I would like to make an oral statement to supplement my prepared statement. My name is Leander H. Perez, former district judge and district attorney of the 25th judicial district of Louisiana, for a total of nearly 40 years, since December 1919.

(The statement above mentioned is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY JUDGE LEANDER H. PEREZ, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA., IN OPPOSITION TO S. 955, тo S. 960, AND SIMILAR PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you in opposition to S. 955 and to S. 960, inclusive, and other similar Senate bills.

These bills purport to deal with civil rights and related subjects. We must suppose that these bills are presented to Congress for enactment under authority of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 8 of article I grants to Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And please let us bear in mind amendment X of the Constitution.

S. 955

S. 955 would create a new Federal crime, punishable as a felony, with penalties up to $10,000 fine and 2 years in jail.

It would make felons out of any and all persons, who by any threats, force, or by any threatening letter, or by any communication, whether threatening or not, even though it be a communication from an attorney expressing a legal opinion to a client, or even a communication or letter from a child to its parent, or from a mother to her child, advising against attending forced racially integrated schools, which in any manner might impede or interfere with the exercise of any rights or the performance of any duties, under any order of a U.S. court which ordered racial integration of any school, under authority of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., and other consolidated cases.

Any and all persons who by any communication or advice, whether threatening or not, would influence the withdrawal of white children from a forced racially integrated schools could be held guilty as felons for inspecting or interfering with the forced integration plan underlying the whole purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Brown and other consolidated cases.

S. 955 would make a felon of a mother, equally as it would make felons of white school boys and girls, who might communicate their mutual fears for the safety of the white schoolchildren, forced against their will into a racially integrated situation, whether it be from the threat of bodily harm from switchblade knives or immoral advances, all of which is shown to exist in forced racially integrated schools, such as in Washington, D.C., by the report of the Committee of the District of Columbia.

S. 955 would apply to these schoolchildren in spite of the joker that"This section shall not apply to an act of a student *** if such act is done pursuant to the direction of, or is subject to disciplinary action by, an officer of such school."

If such act of a schoolchild is not done pursuant to such direction and is not subject to such disciplinary action, such as a communication to their parents, pleading to be taken out of the forced racially integrated school, then the schoolchild is condemned as a felon for refusing to submit to the forced racial integration court order.

PRESENT LAW ADEQUATE

The broad provisions enacted by Congress in the obstruction-of-justice statute (18 U.S.C., sec. 1503), prohibiting anyone by threats or force from obstructing "the due administration of justice" under heavy penalties, have a clear and unmistakable meaning. That covers court orders, judgments, or decrees based upon law, but not those based upon the repudiation of a constitutional amendment and settled jurisprudence, but upon the adoption of foreign ideologies or the sociological whims of the judges of any of our Federal courts.

If the desegregation or forced racial integration decisions of the Court had as their basis the administration of justice under law, then the obstruction-of-justice statute applies, and we need no new enactment by Congress which, in effect, would put its stamp of approval on the adoption by the Court of the writings of members of pro-Communist and subversive groups dedicated to the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.

That is the evident purpose of S. 955.

If Congress should enact this type legislation, regardless of its unconstitutionality, then the legislative branch of our Government would put itself on record as favoring the Communist conspiracy and the Communist penetration of our Government, which it has been attempting to do through the infiltration of various departments for many years.

For fear that this statement may appear to be rash, let me file in connection therewith, the official report of the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 83d Congress, 1st session, on "Interlocking subversion in Government Departments," dated July 30, 1953.

It is a well-known fact, especially to Members of Congress, that the Communist Party set up scores and scores of Communist fronts to infiltrate and to penetrate not only Government but all facets of American life.

The sociological writings of the pro-Communist and subversive authors adopted by the Court are not disassociated with the Communist conspiracy against our Nation and its people.