The first is a forthright suggestion that we place the shotgun to terminate debate in the hands of the majority. That is crazy but it is forthright. There is an artistic variation of that proposal which goes through certain preliminary machinery but arrives at the same result. There is a second proposal that the constitutional two-thirds requirement be reduced to a constitutional majority-that is from 64 to 49.

Then you have the third type, a proposal that the two-thirds constitutional membership be changed to two-thirds of those present and voting.

Now, I wish particularly to recommend that you have nothing to do with that latter resolution. That latter resolution is sponsored, I believe, by the Senator from California.

I have been living in hope against hope and against evidence, for many years that the Senator from California would prove to be the great California conservative. My hopes have been dashed in recent weeks irreparably. In my mind the Senator from California is more properly described as the great California compromiser, and I regard that resolution as a compromise which will lead to nothing but ultimate defeat.

We have had too much of this compromise, retreat, defeat, and I would urge the stout Senators, whose names are appended to that resolution, to reconsider and withdraw their support. I would urge it particularly of the Senator from Indiana, who I know believes that there is no real distinction between the two-thirds of a constitutional membership and two-thirds of those voting. I would like to point out to him that during this period of 1917 to date, it would appear that little difference, if any, would arise from either rule.

But it has not been many years that, in my opinion both parties in Congress, the leadership of both parties, has been under common control. That was not the case during the greater part of the period from 1917. And, therefore, I would expect that an elimination of the two-thirds constitutional membership requirement might well result in unexpected differences, distasteful to the Senator from Indiana and half a dozen other Senators of his like thinking.

Another reason why I would urge the Senator from Indiana and those other Senators to have nothing to do with this compromise resolution, is because we have seen that the first compromise means ultimately, merely after a lapse of time, ultimate victory for the enemy. We have seen that, sir, in the Bricker amendment fight in 1954. After years of building up a watertight Bricker amendment that would protect the American Constitution against improper legislation, when it became apparent that the top Chief Executive elected on a Republican platform was going to betray one of the major planks of that platform by scuttling the Bricker amendment, those stout Senators in that fight determined to compromise, and what happened?

In the first place they, of course, were defeated on the watereddown resolution, and worse than that, they lost a vantage ground that had been a rallying point for millions of Americans fervently desiring the Bricker amendment. A complete state of demoralization followed. They had to start all over again. This is the result of compromise. And if there is compromise in the acceptance of this rule, the same thing will happen. You will have a shotgun majority, after a short period, while the enemy retreats only to return.

93635-57-13

Mr. Chairman, you are going to have a voluminous record and I do not propose to make a lengthy statement. I do not wish to duplicate other excellent statements that you will have. I merely want to focus and emphasize one question.

I want to ask this question: From whence comes this powerful drive for the curtailment of freedom of speech in the Senate? I think that the forces behind this movement are concentrated and sinister and I want to express my opinion briefly.

In the first place, let me say that I was born in the State of North Dakota. I spent the greater part of my boyhood in northern Alberta, northern Canada. I graduated from college in northern New England and from a New England law school. I have been practicing law the last 30 years in a northeastern city, the city of New York.

The only appreciable period that I have spent any substantial time south of the Mason-Dixon line was in the year 1917 when I passed several months at the United States naval airbase at Pensacola, Fla.. learning to fly. We had the temerity to call it flying in those days. I shudder to think how the young jet pilot of today would describe

our antics.

However, I made up quickly for that brief sojourn in southern climes by going to Europe where a good deal of time was spent in flying over the North Sea and along the coast of northern Ireland.

I delve into this presumptuous and seemingly irrelevant geographic biography to point out that the greater period of my life has been spent in areas closer to the North Pole than to the delta of the Mississippi River.

I see abroad today a poisonous propaganda that is endeavoring to make the citizens south of the Mason-Dixon line appear to be monstrous creatures not worthy to bear the name "American."

There is a best-seller novel which is touted from coast to coast, which is being touted in the films and which will be touted on television, dealing with the people of Texas and painting them, the dominant race, as modern Simon Legrees. One of our better patriotic novelists, that gentlelady, Taylor Caldwell, happened to pass through Texas after reading this novel and remarked that from the gulf coast to Oklahoma she could find no trace of any characters such as those described. And of course, she couldn't because they weren't in Texas and they are not in any State below the Mason-Dixon Line.

This effort to paint the southern citizen as a man with his heel on the prostrate Negro is one of the most criminal efforts of our life, to divide race against race, to foment a reign of terror. I believe, sir, that the group that is responsible for fomenting this reign of terror has no right whatsoever to speak for our fellow citizens, the colored race. To me the colored race has tremendous potentialities, physical, and spiritual, and I believe that they will develop them, in lines parallel and distinct, to a great future. But I do not believe that these colored citizens of ours care to follow the leadership of what I regard as a godless group of men.

You will have noticed, sir, that it is only the godless men who will play the part of God. The godless man has utter contempt for his fellow humans, and complete confidence in the infallibility of his own judgment and in the complete propriety of imposing his will on his neighbors. I do not believe that the efforts made by this little group

will frighten American politicians into thinking that they can only win the colored vote by following the dictates of these leaders of pressure groups.

You will recall that during the past 20 years there have appeared on the American scene certain characters, self-styled as leaders of labor. Some of these have boasted of access to Governors' mansions and to the White House, and I have not seen these claims refuted. Recently, in this spring, one of these self-styled labor leaders ran into trouble. The result was that the facade which had protected him was pulled away, and what did we see behind it?

We saw behind the rank and file of American workers regarding their gangster leaders with a mixture of fear and hatred. We saw that. We saw the predicament that they were in arising because of the unholy alliance between these irresponsible self-styled leaders of labor and venal members of both the State and Federal Governments, executive, legislative, and judicial.

I want to say, sir, in my opinion Mr. David Beck has greater warranty to claim to speak for American labor than the leaders of these pressure groups have to claim the authority to talk for our fellow citizens of the colored race. This group, of course, has a facade. All evil men have facades. The facade is well studded with members from the pulpit and from the classroom. It brings to mind the words of an old friend of mine, the late Albert J. Nock, who said:

May the Lord deliver us from the good intentions of those men and women with first-rate sympathies and third-rate minds.

What tragedy has been brought to our country by these well-intentioned, fuzzy-minded dupes.

I will bring my statement to a close very briefly, Mr. Chairman, but first I want to go back to an instance that occurred in the winter of 1954 at the time that the Bricker amendment was being debated in the Senate. I participated in a discussion at the National Republican Club of New York City on this subject.

At that time, as I have stated before, it became apparent that the Chief Executive was going to scuttle the Bricker amendment, and I recall having stated that winter evening that the Eisenhower administration, in my opinion, was an administration which could, on occasion, in the spirit of jest or desperation, be referred to as Republican. At that time the National Republican Club, I would say, was infested by those Republicans who today might be termed "modern," so that you can imagine that the applause which greeted my words was not thunderous. I stated during the course of that evening, sir— and this is very relevant-that I did not want this United Nationsand I said this United Nations; I was not referring to a United Nations, some possible United Nations that some day might be represented by God-fearing nations, where our own representatives would represent our interests and protect our sovereignty-no, I was talking about this United Nations, teeming with enemies and spies and born in treason, and I said I want the Bricker amendment because I do not want to see this United Nations legislating for the American peoplemen, women, and children. And then I asked a question.

I said:

If I say that I want American laws for Americans made by Americans in America, am I an isolationist? If that spells isolationist, then print the word in large letters and I will wear it proudly on my breast.

Now, I thought that I had made a rather oratorical sally and I thought particularly that it was unassailable. But when I sat down, my opponent of the evening rose and called me an isolationist.

Now, I bring that incident up today, Mr. Chairman, not because my opponent that evening is presently the distinguished Senator from New York sitting to your right. I assure you and I assure him that that is pure coincidence. I brought this instance up for two purposes. In the first place, not during the course of that debate, nor before, nor after, nor at any time, have I ever heard any opponent of the Bricker amendment complain about the undemocratic provision of the American Constitution which requires a two-thirds vote to approve the Bricker amendment. That reminds you of those subversive characters who would tear up every provision of the American Constitution except one, the fifth amendment.

The second reason that I brought this up was-and in this brief time I will have to curtail my presentation-that I want to suggest that the Senators consider whether the forces at work here today demanding curtailment of freedom of speech in the Senate are not the same as those forces which insisted upon leaving a loophole in the Constitution where legislation could be forced upon the American people other than in accordance with constitutional procedures, particularly by foreign bodies to which our sovereignty is expected to be extended.

Now, it is one thing to destroy States rights and to bring all of the power of our Government into Washington. That is bad enough. But consider the enormity if, instead of vesting the sovereignty in Washington, we take it to the East River, we take it to some alien world government. Thing of the enormity of that.

And in my limited time I suggest that every Senator should individually examine that question and answer: Is this or is this not the case? Are these forces identical?

Now, it will be for each Senator individually to decide that fact and to decide what importance, if any he attributes to it. As far as I am concerned, once I see the arrogant men attempting to push us into world government, I say, "Pause and listen to the credo of one American. The country to which I owe allegiance is a sovereign nation under God and under one flag, the Stars and Stripes. I owe and I will recognize no allegiance to any debased segment of a godless one-world government." I have never consented to such debasement.

The American people have never consented. And may God forbid that the Supreme Court of the United States should ever dare to hold that the representatives of the American people have ever consented to such debasement.

I will close that phase of my statement, sir, by a little prophecy. The first Boston Tea Party was aimed at tyranny from without. I say, that a second Boston Tea Party may very well be aimed at treachery from within.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the Senate of the United States represents to me a tower of strength, a symbol in the world in which I choose to live. The world in which I choose to live is a world of terraces, where those who wish may dwell in the valley, and

those who wish may climb to any heights within their aspirations and their abilities—and the heights are limitless, intellectually, spiritually, and materially. And I am not sufficiently naive to be told that I cannot climb except by trampling on the faces of my neighbors. I know that the higher I climb the greater value I will be to my God, to my country, and to my fellow human beings.

I regard this world, sir, as under dire peril from a tide of atheistic, international collectivism. I see this tide sweeping down over these terraces-not just sweeping away millions of Americans that have climbed to merited heights, because that might be a matter of 1 or 2 generations but I see this tidal wave threatening the very terraces that have been raised through centuries of building into the sun. And I regard the United States Senate as one of the last strongholds in a desperate struggle to prevent that tidal wave from inundating all of

us.

And, therefore, I urge that the Senate of the United States give the proper treatment to every one of these proposals for the limitation of debate in the Senate and that proper treatment in my opinion, sir, is to deposit them in the closest wastebasket.

That is all I have to say.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?
Senator JAVITS. No, thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. We thank you very much for appearing, Mr. Montgomery, and for your very forthright statement.

The next witness is Mr. Edgar C. Bundy, president of the Abraham Lincoln National Republican Club, Wheaton, Ill.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR C. BUNDY, PRESIDENT, ABRAHAM LINCOLN NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CLUB, WHEATON, ILL.

Mr. BUNDY. Mr. Chairman, realizing the hour is late, I have a short statement and I believe that it will just take a few minutes. I ask your indulgence for this statement, and I might say that although I reside in Illinois, I was born a Connecticut Yankee, lived in New York City and in other States in the Union, spent 1 year in your State of Georgia while going to school.

Honorable members of the special subcommittee, my name is Edgar C. Bundy, resident of 1407 Hill Avenue, Wheaton, Ill., and I am aprearing before this committee today as president of the Abraham Lincoln National Republican Club, Chicago, Ill., as a spokesman in behalf of the membership of this organization which resides in 47 States and Alaska, to speak in opposition to any proposal to limit Senate debate which might change or modify the present Senate rule XXII.

The headquarters of our organization in Chicago, upon learning of the intended introduction of proposed changes in Senate rule XXII, sent out a general letter to our members urging them to express their opinion on these proposed changes. Every reply received in our headquarters was in definite opposition to any change in the present rule XXII. I am, therefore, appearing as spokesman for the club at this present hearing.

The United States Senate is one of the last free bodies in a world which is collapsing around us and in which world freedom of expression is being severely limited or entirely crushed.