« 이전계속 »
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, sirand this is very relevant—that I did not want this United Nations and 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 people-men, women, and children. And then I asked a question.
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 peri] 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
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.
Every piece of legislation introduced into the Senate of the United States which might affect the future of our Republic, or any sovereign State of that Republic, should be thoroughly examined openly before the people with no restriction placed upon that examination; for, after it is passed, by simple majority vote, it may prove far more difficult to undo, if harmful effects should result from the same when it becomes law.
We are in too much of a rush today to get things done. In this pushbutton, streamlined, jet age we scarcely take time to live any more let alone examine measures thoroughly which may affect the last semblance of freedom on the face of the earth. We need to slow down and reexamine whither we are bound.
This representative Government of ours is being pressurized by highly vocal and well-financed minority groups to change its methods of doing things-methods which have proved themselves to be in the best interests of the Nation as a whole through many decades of trial; and experiments.
Year after year, since the first Senate met in 1789, individuals in this body have tried to introduce changes in Senate rules to limit full and free discussion, oftentimes in the form of gag rules. But, our Senators have steadfastly refused to adopt such restrictive measures with the exception of the present required two-thirds cloture rule passed in 1917. Why, might we ask, a two-thirds rule? Perhaps this can best be answered by stating that history proves that the majority is not always in the right.
We hear a lot of arguments advanced to the effect that small minorities in the Senate can obstruct the will of the majority, and that therefore this right of the minority must be taken away. This is contrary to the United States Constitution itself. Our form of government was never set up on the basis of stifling the expression of minorities, even by a majority of one.
If we consult the proceedings of the United States Senate, as a continuing body from 1789 until the present day, we will find that the only time the filibuster was used was on some measure against which there was strong minority opinion and a definite basis for opposition. Out of a total of 36 measures against which the filibuster was used, only 11 failed of passage (some of these were the same bills or similar ones introduced over a period of time) and the other 25 were eventually passed, usually after being modified by the elimination of potentially dangerous provisions, or by adding to them features which would benefit particular States or areas of the Nation. That is a pretty good record in the history of American legislation.
Granted that there may have been some inequities resulting from the use of the filibuster in conectionn with the i1 bills which did not pass, is that any reason to burn the proverbial "house" down in order to destroy a few "rats" in the basement ?
It is amazing, to say the least, how opponents of the present twothirds cloture rule, while demanding a change from two-thirds to a simple majority, conveniently ignore the fact a two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Congress is required to override a minority of one; namely, the veto of the President of the United States; and, a threequarter vote of all the sovereign States is required to ratify a constitutional amendment.
If the basis for the arguments presented over a period of years by those in favor of a simple majority as a means for closing debate is fol. lowed to its logical conclusion, then the President of the United States could be classified as an obstructionist to the will of the majority, and at least one-fourth of the States also constituted an obstruction to the will of the majority. These exponents of majority rule, in order to be consistent in their thinking, should ask that a Presidential veto be overridden by a simple majority of both Houses, and that a constitutional amendment be ratified by 25 States instead of by 36.
It would be well to recall at this point the words of the distinguished Senator John C. Calhoun, when on July 12, 1848, he stated concerning Senator Clay's proposal to introduce the “previous question” in order to limit debate, as follows:
There never had been a body in this, or any other country, in which, for such a length of time, so much dignity and decorum of debate had been maintained.
Despite the fact that there have been what might be classified as exceptions to the usual decorous procedure of the Senate at times in the life of this body, Senator Calhoun's statement is certainly applicable to the years since 1818 as much as to those prior to that date.
Again, in 1881, when a resolution was introduced to amend the Anthony rule and was objected to on the grounds that it was actually a form of introducing the use of “the previous question,” Senator Edmunds made a profound observation which could well be taken to heart today by those who propose to stifle unlimited and free debate by changing Senate rule XXII:
I would rather not a single bill shall pass between now and the 4th of March than to introduce into this body, which is the only one where there is free debate, and the only one which can under its rules discuss fully. I think it is of greater importance to the public interest in the long run and in the short run that every bill on your calendar should fail than that any Senator should be cut off from the right of expressing his opinion upon every measure that is to be voted upon here.
I, for one, as an American citizen, and an intelligence officer in the United States Air Force Reserve, who have seen with my own eyes the suppression of free discussion in Juan Peron's Argentina—and Mr. Chairman, I could go into that at length if we had the time, when I saw how he packed his own people in the Senate, put his own people in the court, and the common people had no recourse whatsoever, and only through violent revolution was that overcome-in Communist China when I served with General Chenault's 14th Air Force, and in Europe, agree with Senator Edmunds' statement wholeheartedly.
If minority rights are to be preserved, they should be preserved in the Senate of the United States first of all, as such minorities consist of men and women who are duly elected to this august body by majorities in their own sovereign States. They are directly responsible to the will of these people.
It would be a direct slap in the face to these majorities in the States to tell their elected representatives in the Senate that they will not be permited to speak as long as they desire on any given measure. If these particular Senators are in the wrong, then it is up to the people who send them to Washington to correct that wrong, and it is not up to the Senators from other States to draw such a conclusion. The ballot box is the finest free weapon we have left for correcting any abuse of senatorial privileges.