others, by a Clinton, Tenn., judge. We felt that the order could have been construed to have enjoined free speech, which we felt in that case should have been extended even to advocacy urging disobedience of a previous order. We have carried this concern for free speech to the floor of the United States Senate in one of its most heated political debates of this decade the debate involving the censure of the late Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Whereas the American Civil Liberties Union approved certain portions of that censure, we advised against censuring Senator McCarthy on the ground that he had been contemptuous in attacking the Watkins report and the committee which wrote the report because such censure, we felt, would establish a bad precedent for free speech in the Senate of the United States. It is because of this long devotion to and deep concern for freedom of expression that the American Civil Liberties Union has been unalterably opposed to the practice of filibustering in the Senate of the United States. Accordingly, we urge a reforming of rule XXII. Our opposition to filibustering rests on the simple proposition that the purpose of free speech, particularly that expressing a minority view, is to help in the formulation of wise decision by majority will. Frustrating that majority will by a minority engaged in filibustering tactics cannot be condoned. In behalf of my organization, I am proud to say that our opposition has been consistent and steadfast. For instance, in the spring of 1953, during the opening weeks of the 83d Congress, we expressed our concern early in the debate on tidelands legislation that it not be extended to filibuster. At that time, the late Senate Robert A. Taft took cognizance of our position by placing our statement into the Congressional Record, a of which, with the permission of this committee, I would like to have filed into the record of this hearing. copy Senator TALMADGE. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:) [From the Congressional Record of April 22, 1953, p. 3739] Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Record a news release by the American Civil Liberties Union, attaching a letter from Patrick Murphy Malin, executive director, to the Honorable Paul H. Douglas, commenting on and regretting the fact that the Senator from Illinois should be engaged in a filibuster. There being no objection, the release and letter were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: "APRIL 22, 1953.-The Senators opposing the tidelands bill were urged today not to conduct their floor debate to the point of filibustering. "In a letter addressed to several of the Senators leading the debate against the administration offshore-oil bill, Patrick Murphy Malin, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized that there is some good evidence that the opponents of the bill are not going beyond what is needed to insure adequate debate, and recording of expressions of individual opposition. However, he cautioned that public reaction justifies a hope that even the appearance of filibustering will be avoided. "Malin, in his letter, reaffirmed the ACLU's position on filibustering as follows: "Democratic action means decision by the majority after thorough discussion of all points of view. Our Constitution is gloriously emphatic in its protection of individuals and minority groups, and of even the smallest sovereign State in our Federal Union. The American Civil Liberties Union is constantly engaged in supporting those protections. But we believe there are enough of them without the Senate filibuster. "Dictatorships act quickly and tyrannically. Democracies-to preserve their nature must act relatively slowly, after mature deliberation. But their legislatures must act in foreign and domestic policy; and there was never a time in history when their ability to act was more crucial than it is today. The Senate is under the compulsion of the time in which we live to act now to make itself free to decide for or against vital legislative proposals. Our democracy cannot afford indefinite postponement of decision. The purpose of free speech is to aid decision-for or against, right or wrong-not to prevent decision. Decision by filibuster is analogous to decision by dictatorship. It is the tyrannical decision by a minority over a majority.' "AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, "Hon. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, "United States Senate, "Washington, D. C. "MY DEAR SENATOR: In my testimony on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union on October 2, 1951, before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration during hearings on four resolutions dealing with cloture, I said in part: ""The four resolutions*** all aim *** to improve on the present solution of the age-old problem of democracy: How to balance the need for full debate and the need for prompt action. *** Our interest in this problem of cloture goes to the root of the matter, and is not confined to an effort to eliminate obstruction to any particular legislative proposal. *** "Democratic action means decision by the majority after thorough discussion of all points of view. Our Constitution is gloriously emphatic in its protection of individuals and minority groups, and of even the smallest sovereign State in our Federal Union. The American Civil Liberties Union is constantly engaged in supporting those protections. But we believe there are enough of them without the Senate filibuster. "Dictatorships act quickly and tyrannically. Democracies-to preserve their nature must act relatively slowly, after mature deliberation. But their legislatures must act in foreign and domestic policy; and there was never a time in history when their ability to act was more crucial than it is today. The Senate is under the compulsion of the time in which we live to act now to make itself free to decide for or against vital legislative proposals. Our democracy cannot afford indefinite postponement of decision. The purpose of free speech is to aid decision for or against, right or wrong-not to prevent decision. Decision by filibuster is analogous to decision by ditcatorship. It is the typrannical decision by a minority over a majority.' "We write now with respect to the present debate on the offshore-bill, though of course not taking any position on the merits of the bill itself. Without detailed examination of the record, we cannot judge the question of whether there has been what we would regard as adequate debate on facts and ideas; and there is some good evidence that the opponents of the bill are not going beyond what is needed to record their individual opposition, or introducing irrelevant material. But certain public reactions give us enough cause for concern so that we must express our earnest hope that even the appearance of filibustering will be avoided-for the sake of the considerations outlined in the above excerpts from my 1951 testimony, for the sake of other legislation on which prompt action has been or will be threatened by filibuster, and for the sake of the leadership which opponents of this bill have so long demonstrated in applying all the principles of the American rule of law. "Sincerely yours, "PATRICK MURPHY MALIN, Executive Director." Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has been courteous in this matter. He did not place the letter in the Record until he had consulted with me and found that I had received it. The Senator from Ohio has acted the part of a gentlemen throughout this whole affair, in thorough keeping with his good character and reputation. However, I wish to point out that we who are opposing the joint resolution are not engaged in a filibuster. [Laughter.] It is very important that we keep in mind the fundamental characteristics of a filibuster. A filibuster is a prolonged discussion intended to prevent a vote. There is no such desire on the part of those who are opposing the pending measure. We want this measure to be brought to a vote. We would have been perfectly willing to accept the proposal of the Senator from Ohio that the initial motion should have come tonight at 7:30. We would have been willing to have it come tomorrow night, or the night after. But the Senator from Ohio has now given us a great deal of time. Time will be almost running out of our ears, so to speak. But we did not request this time. What we are trying to do is not to prevent a vote, but to enable the vote, when it comes, to be more intelligent, because we have spent much time in preparing for this discussion. For 7 years, really for 8 years, a campaign of misinterpretation has been carried on throughout the country. I will not say it was intentional misinterpretation; I think it has been unintentional. The press of the country, with some exceptions, such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has been indifferent to the issues at stake. So it has been necessary for the opponents of the Holland joint resolution to educate not merely Senators, but also the press and the public. All this takes time. The Senator from Ohio really should have been listening to the debate a little more thoroughly than he has been. Last Saturday he expressed the opinion that no new points would be developed during the course of the debate. As will be remembered, the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Kefauver] took the floor and spoke for 2 days, bringing out a new point, namely the effect of the Holland joint resolution upon the fishing industry of the United States. Yesterday the distinguished junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fulbright] took the floor and made a very able speech on education. Today the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humphrey] has developed some extremely interesting points. For instance, he brought out that the constitutional convention considered the equal-footing clause; rejected proposals that States admitted beyond the Alleghenies should be brought into the Union on inferior terms; and virtually laid down the equal-footing provision which is involved in the Texas and Florida cases. The Senator from Minnesota also pointed out extremely interesting cases in the early history of the United States with respect to the control of the Federal Government over the marginal sea. So the debate has been germane, and we shall keep it that way. There will be no recipes for pot likker introduced on the floor. No extraneous materials will be introduced. We shall argue the issues. We shall welcome courteous participation on the part of our opponents, instead of frozen silence. I say to my good friend, the Senator from Ohio, who has done me the honor of including in the Record a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, that this is not a filibuster; this is an attempt to educate the American public, the American press, and, through them, the United States Senate. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I only wish to say that I am greatly encouraged by the Senator's statement that he does not intend to prevent a vote. Tomorrow I shall renew my efforts to set some day, on which I hope the Senator will be prepared to agree, when the vote may take place. Otherwise, all I have to say is that I know a filibuster when I see one. Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator withhold the motion? Mr. TAFT. I yield to the Senator. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding to me to make clear that this is not a fiilibuster, and that this will not be considered as a speech in my time. I thank the Senator for yielding to me in this fashion. I hope my statement will establish a parliamentary record of the fact that this does not constitute a speech in my time on the pending question. Mr. FERMAN. We likewise expressed ourselves on the extended debate on the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 during the closing days of the 84th Congress. The history and experience of the present rule XXII indicates the ineffectiveness of a cloture rule based upon a vote of two-thirds of the Senate duly chosen and sworn. Therefore, we support Senate Resolution 17 introduced by Senator Paul H. Douglas. Its basis for cloture in a two-thirds vote of those Senators present and voting, after which debate would be limited to one hour per Senator for 15 days following the introduction of a cloture petition would lay the basis, we feel, for sound decision after full deliberation of all views. We favor Senator Douglas' resolution over Senator Johnson's Senate Resolution 30 because of its provision repealing section 3 of the present rule XXII. We feel that section 3, barring the application of cloture to debate on a change of rules, is in violation of article 1, section 5, providing that each House may determine the rules of its proceeding. We are in accord with Vice President Richard M. Nixon's views expressed in the Senate on January 4 of this year: Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. It is also the opinion of the Chair that section 3 of rule 22 in practice has such an effect. I respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of Senate Resolution 17, so that we can preserve the legislative power of our Senate. In this way, we can protect our cherished institutions which rest on the ideals of the first amendment. Senator TALMADGE. Any questions? Senator JAVITS. No. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much for coming. If not, this concludes today's session. We will meet on Friday morning at 10 a. m. in this same room. (Communications from Association of Citizens' Councils of South Carolina; Pride of Malaska Council, No. 100, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Phillipsburg, N. J.; and Pride of New Jersey Council, No. 243, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Woodbridge, N. J., were received by the subcommittee for inclusion in the record, and may be found in the appendix, in exhibit 2.) (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, June 28, 1957.) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1957 UNITED STATES SENATE, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a. m., in room 155, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman E. Talmadge (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Talmadge (presiding), and Javits. Also present: Senator A. Willis Robertson, Gordon F. Harrison, chief clerk and counsel, Committee on Rules and Administration; Langdon West, special counsel to the subcommittee; Robert S. McCain, professional staff member; and Sidney Kelly, Jr., administrative assistant to Senator Javits. Senator TALMADGE. The subcommittee will come to order. We have two communications from Senators for insertion in the record at this time: A letter from Senator Hennings and a statement from Senator Potter. Following Senator Hennings' letter, I wish to insert my reply thereto. (The documents referred to are as follows:) UNITED STATES SENATE, June 24, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Washington, D. C. DEAR HERMAN: There has been brought to my attention the attached pamphlet by Austin F. Hancock, a witness who appeared pursuant to your request before your Special Subcommittee on Rule XXII. I feel certain that you are probably unaware of the fact that it had been distributed. I believe you will agree that the contents of the pamphlet include inaccuracies and intemperate opinions which form no part of the thinking of any Member of the Senate. Even if that were not the case, you and I and the other members of the committee will still highly disapprove of any pamphlet presented by a witness before a Senate subcommittee assuming the appearance of an official publication. The attached pamphlet, on its face, carries in large type the words "United States Senate" and, in addition, the name and membership listing of the Committee on Rules and Administration. Whether it was so intended or not, this type of labeling could readily create a serious false impression that the Committee on Rules and Administration in some manner, however remote, officially sanctioned the above brochure. As chairman of the committee, I can unequivocally state that such is not the case. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record of the proceedings before the Special Subcommittee on Rule XXII, and I know you and Senator Javits and the staff of the subcommittee will cooperate to the extent possible to |