to the Federal registrar or examiner. The prospective registrant ought not to be put to the delays, the hardships, and the indignity of attempting to satisfy hostile State officials before he can come to the Federal registrar.

"(3) Extended coverage of the registrar or examiner provisions of the bill, so that persons who have been wrongfully denied the right to vote, regardless of their geographical location, will have the benefits of these provisions of the legislation.

"(4) Further and maximum protection of registrants and voters both those who will be registered under the bill and those already registered, and prospective registrants, from all economic and physical intimidation and coercion. In extending such protection, the Federal Government should use the full range of its powers, criminal, civil, and economic, to protect the citizens from the beginning of registration process until his vote has been cast and counted."

The prompt enactment of the pending legislation should achieve great and worthy national purposes. First, it will secure to millions of Negro citizens the equality of participation in the democratic process which is their constitutional liberty. Second, Negro suffrage in the South will serve to restore the moral fiber of the South and of the Nation, by ending the debasing political and social apartheid system. The power of the vote will help to replace the bitterly divided dual societies with a working alliance between the leadership of the responsible Negro and white communities-an alliance for the achievement of common understandings and solutions. Finally, the great image of America as the land of liberty and equality which has been so badly tarnished in recent years will be restored to its former position. At a time when the people in the underdeveloped nations are searching for the relevant social economic revolution to promote their human aspirations, it is vital that the Nation born in dedication to liberty and equal rights speak to them with a clear conscience. With the voice of a clear conscience restored, not Communist or totalitarian demagogues but those who point the way to the democratic ideal will provide the pattern for the peoples whose own declarations of independence are being written in the 20th century. Enactment of this legislation will thus be a vital symbol of our rededication to the great first principles of liberty and equality, for which Americans have given their lives at Bunker Hill and Gettysburg, at Philadelphia, Miss., and on the road from Selma to Montgomery, Ala.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT, of CaliforNIA

MARCH 30, 1965.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for granting me this opportunity to offer testimony in support of H.R. 6400, to enforce the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. My endorsement of this important legislation has been indicated through introduction of an identical bill, H.R. 6500.

Mr. Chairman, the events in Alabama during the past few weeks have served to awaken the conscience of America. We have been witness to a historic fight in which death and lawlessness have come to our fellow Americans who have but peacefully demonstrated their determination to obtain for our Negro citizens the fundamental right to vote as stated in the 15th amendment to the Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The bill now under consideration by this committee is the "appropriate legislation envisioned in section 2 of amendment 15. To register and vote is a privilege to be exercised and enjoyed by all Americans. When one group is denied the freedom to exercise this right, we deny all Americans. This denial cuts deep at the roots of our great democracy, for at the heart of the success of any democracy lies the right of the citizenry to freely express itself at the polls. When any group within the society is denied the rights guaranteed it, democracy itself is in jeopardy.

We have known for some time that there were many within our country who were disenfranchised because of the color of their skin, and we have tried through peaceful demonstration and protest to restore this right to them. We have spoken of many solutions. However, words and thoughts will no longer do to win the battle for equality. We must now take positive action to end the breakdown in local law which has taken place in some of our States. Steps must be taken by this Congress to insure every man regardless of the color of his skin

the privilege of casting his vote. We cannot bury our heads in the sand, and we cannot look on this as the struggle of others. As the President stated in his message to the Congress, "there is no Negro problem, there is no southern problem, there is no northern problem. There is only an American problem." And we must meet that problem as a unified Congress and a unified America. This great struggle for human liberty is one which must be borne by all of us. And while the road ahead may be a long one, with each step we serve to strengthen and reinforce the bonds of democracy.

May I take this opportunity to applaud the fine members of this committee who have worked diligently for long days and nights in consideration of this bill. The tireless work of the committee members and staff is to be commended.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I add my voice to the appeal for your early and favorable report on H.R. 6400.

STATEMENT BY MINORITY RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF WESTCHESTER, MOUNT KISCO, N.Y.

The members of this committee come from the ranks of the hard-pressed, longsuffering segment of the American public who love this country, respect its laws, work hard to pay outrageous taxes. We are productive and, as a rule, we are temperate. These remarks will not be temperate.

Mr. Chairman, how low is the Government of the United States going to crawl before the mobs of the world? This Government is on its knees in every continent. Will it crawl on its belly here at home?

The so-called civil rights movement, the vanguard of the looters' revolution, has gotten out of hand with the tolerance and encouragement of the President, of Congress, of the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General. We believe that there has been enough of it and that it must be stopped forthwith. The Communists have stated it quite clearly. We quote the Worker of March 18.

"Those who forecast, or hoped for, a decline in the freedom fight after passage of the civil rights law, including President Johnson, failed to understand the nature of the goals of the civil rights revolution."

Our responsible leadership must understand that a bloody revolution has been begun which is neither social nor peaceful. No legislation will diminish it as long as it is pandered to as we shall show.

Where in the Constitution are citizens of the 50 States authorized to invade a sovereign State to address the Governor of that State and force that Governor to accept invasion by Federal armed troops to protect the invaders? What possible right have the citizens of New York, Michigan, California, and Alaska to go to Alabama demanding immediate action on matters being adjudicated in the courts? What kind of example is this for our youngsters in the Nation's schools already getting the message and staging their own violence, abetted by agents of the looters? Will someone please tell us?

What right has Martin Luther King, or any other citizen, to stand up and declare defiance of the courts, address the President personally to demand and get instant legislation tailored to his liking? Will somebody please tell us, sir? What possible right, under the Constitution, have Representatives to Congress, employed to represent Westchester County, New York State, to join other Congressmen in urging the President of the United States to invade with armed troops and, by inference, to overthrow the lawfully constituted government of a sister State, or 2 percent of the United States? Will someone please tell us? The office of Mr. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States, was invaded by the mob. According to press accounts, the Attorney General maintained the dignity of his high office by literally getting on his knees to talk with them on their lie-in level. In a "friendly, picnic-type mood" Chief U.S. Marshal James J. P. McShane had lunches sent up to them. In New York City Mr. Katzenbach's marshals were attacked and beaten by a flying wedge of nonviolent demonstrators; but there were no arrests. Will someone tell us why? Mr. Chairman, there is a most serious matter before your committee which seems to have been laid aside in deference to the demands of Mr. King through the office of the Chief Executive. That grave matter has to do with the right and responsibility of 190 million Americans to determine for themselves how they shall be governed. We refer, of course, to the Reynolds v. Sims mobocracy decision by members of the Supreme Court.

Congress spent many months last year drafting and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that are are more "rights" than any segment of the population can take advantage of in a lifetime. There has not even been time to implement

that recent act. The fact that the voters righters will not wait for development of results of that legislation suggests that their motives are other than claimed. Regardless of that, it would seem that for the present Congress has spent more than enough time on the "rights" of 20 million. The question of reversing or nullifying the one-man, one-vote decisions involves 190 million people, including the "civil righters," and must by seniority have priority at this time.

Fifty sovereign States are being kept waiting. All the people in them are being kept waiting while Congress, representing the 50 States and the 190 million people meekly accepts the demands of Martin Luther King and lets them wait. Can anyone tell us why?

The 88th House of Representatives acted properly within the power delegated to Congress by the States to regulate or to except in matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 3 of the Constitution when it passed the Tuck bill. The Senate balked and fiilibustered. It did not act.

This committee contends that under the laws of contract, in this case the Constitution, an agent, which the Supreme Court is, created by the contract may only act as an agent (Court) within the powers delegated in the contract. As upheld in over 80 decisions of the Supreme Court itself, attempted acts by agents outside the powers delegated are not acts but are null and void.

Mr. Chairman, this matter directly involves the life or death of this Republic. The 89th Congress now has before it the pleas of the States for relief by the amending process and/or constitutional convention. We believe that neither of these long processes are necessary and that, if it wanted to, Congress could immediately reconsider the Tuck bill or similar legislation. This is the most crucial issue ever to come before Congress. It should have been and now should be resolved before consideration of any other matter. Therefore, we ask that you put aside the demands of Martin Luther King and discharge your sworn duty to "support this Constitution" and defend this Nation from enemies within and without.

If this is not done in the immediate future, either by exercising the power delegated to Congress in article 3 of the Constitution or by proposing an amendment acceptable to the States with all due speed, this committee will be forced to join the many who will ". . . Dare Call It Treason."

For God and country,

MILDRED E. BRUSH,

Chairman.

STATEMENT OF BASIL L. WHITENER, REPRESENTATIVE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

APRIL 1, 1965.

I welcome the opportunity to state some of my views with reference to H.R. 6400, which was introduced by the chairman of this committee on March 17, 1965.

In my judgment this proposed legislation constitutes a naked assault upon established constitutional principles and provisions. This is true, notwithstanding its title which states that it is "to enforce the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

At the outset, I hasten to take my stand with those who defend the right of every qualified voter in the United States to cast his ballot and have it counted. No one can jusify a position supporting the denial of such rights if he believes in the plain language of the Constitution (15th amendment, 19th amendment). The proposed legislation goes far beyond constitutional authority of the Federal Government. For that reason H.R. 6400 will not have my support.

The latest constitutional decision by the American people on the question of who determines the qualifications of voters is found in the 17th amendment, which became effective in 1913. This is the amendment which provides for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It carries forward the language found in article I of the U.S. Constitution to the effect that "the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." This is a clear statement that nothing in the Constitution, or the several amendments thereto, has divested the several States of the right to fix the qualifications of voters.

H.R. 6400 would, in effect, seek to eliminate basic, necessary, and proper qualifications required of citizens to vote by the several States in all elections. Thus, if it is enacted into law, it will strike down the right of the States and local governments to determine who shall vote in non-Federal, as well as in

Federal, elections. This, I believe, is not a proper constitutional effort of the Federal Government.

This would be accomplished by providing in section 3 (a) of the bill that in any State or political subdivision where a qualification test is required and the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percent of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964, the Federal authorities could then take over local elections.

The unfairness of this proposition is immediately apparent when one gives it the slightest consideration. An example of the unfair result that might be experienced will be seen in North Carolina where the are extensive military operations and the military personnel and their dependents are credited for census purposes to the local communities and to the State. A major portion of the military personnel and their dependents would not be eligible to vote in North Carolina but would be considered in the formula provided by section 3 (a) of the bill.

The same condition exists in the States of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, where there are large military installations which increase the census population figures. When considered against registration and voting in the 1964 presidential election we find that less than 50 percent of the adult population enumerated in the 1960 census were registered and voting at that time.

Furthermore, under the provisions of the bill an entirely different application of its principles would be found if in some of those named States there were no voter qualification tests applied while in other there were such tests.

Another example of defect in the legislation is that in a State where there are no literacy or qualification tests there could be rank discrimination against voters without any intervention of the Federal authorities if more than 50 percent of the voters of that State were registered and voted in the presidential election of November 1964. This is an untenable situation if we are to have uniformity of the Federal law between the several States.

Before concluding I would like to vigorously protest the language contained in section 3 (c) of the bill. The requirement that a political subdivision or State, which falls within the absurd formula outlined in subsection (a) and (b) of section 3, bring a declaratory judgment action against the United States in the District of Columbia is unworthy of a second thought by members of this committee.

To require that all such actions be filed in the District of Columbia before a three-judge district court places an unfair burden upon the States and local governments and casts a reflection upon Federal courts throughout the Nation by inferring that they are incapable of fairly handling this type of litigation. It gives the impression that the Congress of the United States and the administration are setting up a kangaroo court situation for the purpose of adjudicating certain actions between the Federal Government and State and local governments because some Government officials do not have confidence in our several local Federal judges. This subsection is shocking in its content. It is unworthy of support by any person who believes in evenhanded justice.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other valid contentions that I could make against this bill. I will forgo them at this time since as a member of the full Committee on the Judiciary I will have an opportunity when we come to write up the bill to point out those contentions. At that time I believe that the full committee will give judicious consideration to the suggestions of our colleagues on the committee. At that time we can either defeat this bill or write up one which will be consistent with constitutional principles and standards of fairplay. In the meanwhile I urge that your subcommittee not favorably report H.R. 6400 to the full committee in its present form since I know that its basic defects are readily apparent to each member of this subcommittee.

If. after consideration by the subcommittee and the full committee. this legislation is brought to the floor of the House for debate, I will undertake at that time to encourage the House of Represenatives to vote it down.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

APRIL 1, 1965.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to present my views with regard to H.R. 6400 and the general subject of voting rights legislation.

As we all know, the subject has been one of real concern to the Congress for several years; and justly so, since it involves one of the most fundamental concepts of our democratic system of government.

The 15th amendment to the Constitution guarantees to every American citizen the right to cast a ballot. This right is basic to representative government. I believe in this right of every qualified citizen to register and also to cast a vote on election day. Anything less than a full and equal opportunity to vote by all qualified citizens presents our country with a problem which must be corrected.

And I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I join with other citizens from all parts of the country in regretting the violence which has broken out in recent weeks over this issue. It has been a tragic series of events, not only for Alabama, not only for the South, but for the United States. I know that we all concur in the need to bring an end to violence, and to bring men of good faith together in the interests of advancing harmony and progress.

We, in Alabama, also regret that the issue has been presented to the Nation in a vastly oversimplified manner based on incomplete information. We would ask that events in Alabama be judged on the basis of demonstrated facts, and according to the same standards used to judge events elsewhere. With this kind of approach, concerned persons everywhere will reach conclusions reflecting a realistic combination of understanding and indignation.

For example, if law enforcement officers in Washington, D.C., or Rochester, N.Y., find it necessary to forcefully eject demonstrators from public buildings and streets in the interests of community order, then perhaps it is conceivable that law enforcement officers in Southern States can act in similar ways to maintain law and order in their own communities without bringing down the wrath of the Nation. Alabama citizens are also concerned with order in their communities. And these are sentiments which I believe we hold in common with other respectable people throughout the Nation.

All of us will agree that the key to the American right of peaceful demonstration and protest is responsibility. Reasonable men assume that a demonstration by individuals acting responsibly is to be honored. But how easy it is to lose sight of the distinction between responsibility and irresponsibility when we are far from the scene. And how quickly the distinction becomes clear when one's own freedom to move through a hallway or along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington is affected.

And, if I may add, gentlemen, how easy it is for citizens around the country to divert their attention from unsavory social and economic and political conditions in their own cities and towns in order to join in what has evidently become the popular activity of pointing an indignant finger at an easy target.

Without question, many of the individuals engaging in demonstrations in Alabama have been motivated by a sincere desire to see voting rights extended to all citizens. Unfortunately, others have sought to becloud the facts so as to exploit the good intentions of many other Americans for their own purposes, to encourage the setting of a double standard of values, and to arouse emotion both in Alabama and elsewhere.

What are some of the facts which have been effectively submerged?

1. On February 4, 1965, in Mobile, Federal District Judge Daniel H. Thomas issued an order, acting under the civil rights laws of 1960 and 1964, requiring the board of registrars in Dallas County, Ala., where Selma is located, to receive and register all persons who submitted applications.

Further, he ordered that if the requested registrations could not be completed by July 1965, the Federal voting referee would receive and process applications. I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the officials of Dallas County, though not pleased with the order, were going about the business of complying with it. Further, they were taking pains to let the country know of the actions they were taking and planned to take. But this real evidence of progress toward expansion of voting rights made no difference to the professional demonstrators. The agitation work was begun, and senseless violence erupted, even though the avowed goal of the demonstrators had already been achieved through the courts.

2. In Alabama, we do not have the oversimplified voting participation pattern that some would have the Nation believe. We have approximately 115,000 Negroes registered to vote in the State, more than 20 percent of the vote cast in the 1960 presidential election.

In other words, today's objective in Alabama is not a complete reversal of direction. Rather, we have made some good beginnings, and we have been