for 1 hour on the pending business. The only change in the present rule here involved is the substitution of present and voting for "duly chosen and sworn."

In addition, Senate Resolution 17 would also provide for a vote on the cloture motion 15 days, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, after it has been presented. In this case the question could be decided affirmatively by a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

These seem to me reasonable provisions. They would amply safeguard the right to full discussion and debate. Even after passage of a cloture motion, which itself would involve a minimum of 2 days, there could be as much as 96 hours or 12 eight-hour days of debate. Moreover, in actual practice a much longer time for debate would be available. This is because in most cases, as I am sure the subcommittee realizes, 2 or even 3 clotures might have to be invoked to arrive at final action on a measure.

In this connection, the subcommittee might wish to consider incorporation in Senate Resolution 17 of a provision to allow any Senator to yield to any other Senator all or part of the hour to which the former is entitled following passage of a cloture motion. This is not, of course, permissible at present except by unanimous consent. Such a provision, which is included in Senate Resolution 21 by Senator Morse, would permit greater flexibility and full use of the time allowed under cloture.

All the pending resolutions provide that the present provision of section 3, rule XXII which prevents the application of subsection 2, the cloture provision, of rule XXII to proposals to change any of the Standing Rules of the Senate should be eliminated. Obviously this should be done.

As Senator Anderson pointed out at the beginning of this session, the effect of section 3 is that the Senate cannot amend the present cloture rule. It is impossible, I think, to improve upon Senator Anderson's comment:

I do not like everything in the provisions regarding cloture. But I am outraged by section 3 which provides that I may do nothing about it.

Mr. Chairman, the great majority of the Members of the Senate are outraged by this situation. Moreover, as Vice President Nixon clearly indicated in his opinion of January 4 of this year, which appears on pages 140 and 141 of the Congressional Record, that provision of section 3 is undoubtedly unconstitutional as having the effect of denying a majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt rules. This leads me, Mr. Chairman, to my final point. Whatever recommendation the subcommittee may make I urge that this recommendation shall not in any way conflict or overrule the sound and statesmanlike opinion of the Vice President. Specifically, if the subcommittee should decide to recommend the adoption of Senate Resolution 30, sponsored by the majority and minority leaders and a number of other Members of the Senate, I urge that the words "as provided in these rules" be stricken from paragraph 2 of section 3 of that resolution. The full paragraph of that resolution reads as follows:

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

I would suggest striking that clause "as provided in these rules."

Whether or not intended, the effect of these words, "as provided in these rules," would be to prevent the Senate at the beginning of a

session from altering or amending its rules by majority vote. This would, of course, be directly in conflict with the position taken by the Vice President, and I believe, with the Vice President, that it would be unconstitutional.

Above all, Mr. Chairman, I urge prompt action. This matter has been before the Senate and various of its committees for a long time and on many different occasions. It has been fully studied. I am sure it is fully understood. It would be a travesty if this latest effort to correct a situation which has so long been crying for correction should fail. The Senate must act before the close of the present session.

As a new member of this committee, I am deeply concerned that Senator Anderson's prophecy, made on the floor of the Senate of the 4th of January last, should not come to pass. You will remember that just before the vote on the motion to table Senator Anderson's motion to proceed to consideration of the Senate rules he stated:

The Senator from California will find that he can send his resolution to the Committee on Rules and Administration, but that after weeks and after months it will not see the light of day on the Senate floor.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?

Senator JAVITS. Senator Case, I apologize for not being here when you started. I have a distinguished constituent of mine here, United States attorney for eastern district of New York, Mr. Leonard Moore, whom I wanted to meet our chairman and to meet you.

I would like to ask only one question.

Does the Senate believe that it wouldn't be best to strike all of paragraph 2 of section 3 of Senate Resolution 30, on the ground that even the use of the words "the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next" might by implication commit us to a ruling against Vice President upon the subject of this particular section of rule XXII?

Senator CASE. It may be that that should be done, although it had been my interpretation that the proposers of that resolution, acting as they did shortly after the Vice President's ruling, had thought that up to that point they were merely carrying his interpretation and his view as to the constitutionality of the matter into effect. But I wouldn't certainly quarrel with the elimination of the whole sentence because I don't think it is necessary.

Senator JAVITS. That is what I wondered. Does it serve any useful purpose? I am only talking about people like myself who are advocates of this position.

Senator CASE. I don't believe it is necessary. I think the acceptance of his position involves continuity of the Senate as a body for many purposes and the continuity of its rules subject to the right of the Senate at the beginning of the session to change by majority vote. These are, I think, sound and generally accepted and I don't think we need to say so in the rules.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Senator Case. We appreciate your appearing. We would be happy to have you sit with us at any of these hearings if you can conveniently do so.

Senator CASE. You are very gracious. I wish I could do so, but I have another committee meeting. Thank you so much, and again thank you, Mr. Bloch.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. BLOCH, MACON, GA.-Resumed

Senator TALMADGE. You may proceed at will now, Mr. Bloch. Mr. BLOCH. For the benefit of Senator Javits who had to leave, just before I suspended I was saying, if I may repeat one thing, Senator, that my father was born in Alsace-Lorraine in 1862 at the time when it was French territory. When the Germans took over in 1870, he didn't believe in the tyranny of a Kaiser, Kaiser Wilhelm I, so as soon as he could, he left and came to this country in 1882 and settled in Louisiana.

He was the greatest believer in constitutional government I ever saw. He used to tell me about it. That is where I first learned about it, that the only hope of people like him who fled from tyranny was in constitutional government, and I might add this, too, to what the Senator said about me in his introduction, that while I have not the right to speak for the American Bar Association, and I am not pretending to speak, assuming to speak for the American Bar Association, I am chairman of the American Bar's committee on judicial selection, tenure, and compensation. I appear here as a representative of the Honorable Marvin Griffin, Governor of Georgia. I oppose the proposed amendments to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate pertaining to limitation of debate, and in my prepared notes there I want to interpolate what you will find attached to the prepared notes which is a statement that I just ran across recently which was made by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in a dissenting opinion in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett (319 U. S. at pp. 646 and 647). He said:

One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Courts' opinion, representing as they do the thought and action of a lifetime. But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic. We owe equal attachment to the Constitution and are equally bound by our judicial obligations whether we derive our citizenship from the earliest or the latest immigrants to these shores. As a member of this Court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard. The duty of a judge who must decide which of two claims before the Court shall prevail, that of a State to enact and enforce laws within its general competence or that of an individual to refuse obedience because of the demands of his conscience, is not that of the ordinary person. It can never be emphasized too much that one's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one's duty on the bench. The only opinion of our own even looking in that direction that is material is our opinion whether legislators could in reason have enacted such a law.

I have examined Senate Resolutions 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, and 32. I have more closely examined Senate Resolutions 17 and 30 than I have the others. Senate Resolution 17 does not show Senator Javits as one of those who submitted the resolution. However, the staff study of the Committee on Rules and Administration, which is a comparative analysis of the various resolutions, does show Senator Javits as a sponsor. Senate Resolution 30 has 39 Senators sponsoring it.

It would serve no purpose to discuss in detail the differences or likenesses in the various resolutions. In various forms, they would

accomplish the same result. Each and every one of them, if adopted, would limit debate in the greatest deliberative body the world has ever known, the Senate of the United States. The Constitution provides in article I, section 3, paragraph 1, that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of "two Senators from each State." While the 17th amendment has changed the method by which the States select their Senators, the Senate is still composed of two Senators from each State. The Senate never dies. It is a continuing body, eternal as far as mortal man can make it so. It is fitting that it should be such for here sit the representatives of the 48 sovereign States which, grouped together, are known as the United States of America. Within the boundaries of the State of New York in 1950 there were nearly 15 million people. Rhode Island had less than a million. California had 1012 million inhabitants. Its neighbor, Nevada, less than 2 percent of that number, about 160,000. Pennsylvania, with its 10 million, is bordered by Delaware with about 300,000. To the northwest of Illinois with its approximately 9 million are the Dakotas with around 600,000 each.

But on the floor of the Senate, and its committee rooms, caucuses, and councils, the voice and vote of Nevada is equal to that of California; the voice and vote of Rhode Island, with its 1,248 square miles, is equal to that of Texas, with its 267,000 square miles.

It was so planned by those who drafted, proposed, and ratified the Constitution of the United States. In this Union of States no one State is more important than any other in that group of ambassadors which the States have sent to Washington, and who form the Senate of the United States. To insure that no one State might ever be outvoted by any other State in the Senate of the United States, the Constitution provides specifically in article V thereof that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

While it is not yet proposed that any one of the States be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, it is now proposed by these bills that certain varying numbers of Senators can deprive other Senators, ambassadors from sovereign States, of their free and untrammeled right to place before the Senate and the people of the Nation their right to debate and discuss, as fully and freely as they deem best, problems which involve their very life.

Today, you seek to limit the voice of the States.

Tomorrow, will you seek to limit the vote of the States?

The gentleman who preceded me, Mr. Deutsch, quoted somewhat from a book, Burdette, Filibustering in the Senate, by the Princeton University Press. I happened to have had that book with me and, at that juncture in my notes, I have made a note to call attention to the fact that, on a filibuster or a debate in 1893, Henry Cabot Lodge contended that there is another right more sacred in a legislative body than the right of debate, and that is the right to vote.

Senator Lodge happened to have changed his mind later, as Mr. Deutsch pointed out, but on the next day Henry M. Teller, of Colorado, retorted:

I have not learned in anything I have read in the teachings of the fathers that the right to vote exceeds in sacredness the right to speak, and I want to say, with all deference to the Senator from Massachusetts, that the rule he has indicated is a rule that Napoleon the Third laid down for the French Assembly, that the right to vote was of more importance than the right to speak.

Teller went even further:

It is useless [he said] for anyone to say that the majority are capable of conducting things properly and will always conduct things properly. There is nothing in the world more wicked and cruel than the majority in government instituted and preserved to protect minorities against the majority. Majorities

protect themselves.

We hear it said that, in this Government of ours, the strength of the majority shall prevail. Those who formed the United States did not so provide. One man in Nevada expressing himself through his Senators has the voice and vote of 200 men in New York.

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont, Arizona, Delaware, Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, 13 States, each had a population of less than a million, according to the 1950 census. Will it next be attempted by Senators from New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California to deprive those less populous States of their right to vote in the Senate on an equality with the more populous States?

Is the force and power of numbers to rule henceforth in this Nation? Is might to make right? Can you blame us for asking these questions when we hear men in high places say, in support of unconstitutional legislation, that the end justifies the means? That was the governmental foundation upon which the gas chambers of Dachau were built.

In a comparatively recent case, I interpolate, Senators, Justice Douglas referred to that phase in the case of Ray v. Blair, the Alabama case that arose in 1952 where the State of Alabama imposed upon candidates for presidential electors the pledge to support the nominees of the party, and it was attacked as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States held it constitutional. Justice Douglas, in his dissent, page 235, said:

It is not for me, as a Judge, to pass upon the wisdom or righteousness of the political revolt this measure was designed to suppress. For me it is enough, be it ever so benevolent and virtuous, the end cannot justify these means.

One Senator from New York sponsored Senate Resolution 17; another seems to sponsor Senate Resolution 30. One Senator from Illinois sponsors Senate Resolution 17; another sponsors Senate Resolution 30. One Senator from Pennsylvania sponsors Senate Resolution 30; another, Senate Resolution 17; one Senator from California sponsors Senate Resolution 30. Is it mere coincidence that 7 of the 8 Senators from New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California seek to hush the voices of their fellow Senators?

With this hue and cry of majority rule, what will come next? Will you seek to change the Constitution so as to permit convictions in impeachment proceedings without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present?

Will you seek to change the Constitution so as to provide that the Presidential veto of legislation may be overridden by less than twothirds of each House of Congress? You know that the votes of Senators from just 17 States can prevent the passage of a bill over Presidential veto. Will you seek to change that in the shouting for majority rule?

Will you seek to change article V of the Constitution so that amendments may be proposed by less than two-thirds of both Houses of