a filibuster is not only justifiable but salutary." The first would arise, he thought, "when a vital question of constitutional right is involved"; the second "when the measure is evidently the result of crude or inconsiderate action"; and the third "when the Senate is convinced that because of some compulsion a 'vote' will not express the honest conviction of the Members."

I suggest, sirs, that the legislation to which these resolutions are really directed, the Brownell bill, has all three of those vices. The 22 Senators from the 11 real Southern States are a "minority group." The other 74 Senators can outvote them. If they do, our Southern Senators may well say, "You are sounding the death knell of constitutional government. Do not think that the people of our States will suffer from that destruction alone. The bell tolls for you and yours, too.”

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions, Senator?

Senator JAVITS. I don't want to ask any particular questions. I wondered whether that book was by Dr. Franklin L. Burdette.

Mr. BLOCH. I think so, sir. By Franklin L. Burdette.

Senator JAVITS. Now, would it interest you to know that Dr. Franklin L. Burdette appeared before this committee on June 25, 1957, and recommended the adoption of Senate Resolution 17, the very resolution you are testifying against?

Mr. BLOCH. Yes, but I might make it plain that I was not citing the opinions of Mr. Burdette. I know nothing about Mr. Burdette. My reason for using this book was that he quoted from the Congressional Record in quoting certain Senators of days gone by. I don't know Mr. Burdette and I don't mean to cite him, his views, as authority. I do cite as authority his quotations from the Congressional Record.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you. I didn't mean to in any way infer that you did otherwise.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Bloch, we appreciate very much your presentation here and your very fine statement, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to the next witness, I would like to advise the Chair that I would like at the Chair's convenience to have time for consideration of the question of closing these hearings and inviting witnesses after a certain date to submit written statements.

Senator TALMADGE. Do you want to do that now?

Senator JAVITS. I will do anything that the Chair desires.

Senator TALMADGE. Suppose we finish hearing the witnesses and then we can go into that at some length if you desire.

Mr. John U. Barr, please. Mr. John U. Barr of the Federation for Constitutional Government, New Orleans, La.

You may proceed at will, Mr. Barr. We are happy to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF JOHN U. BARR, FEDERATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Javits and members of the committee. I appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing. I feel somewhat inconsequential following those bril

liant statements made ahead of me, some of which, of course, are duplicated here and may be treated in a different way.

I appear before you today as chairman of the executive committee of the Federation for Constitutional Government.

We are a voluntary group, dedicated to do whatever we can to keep ourselves and our countrymen informed and alert to any damage, departure, or erosion of our God-given Constitution, which, in our opinion, was truly a divine revelation given to our Founding Fathers for the formation of the most perfect republic on the face of the earth. Millions of words have been spoken and written pro and con on the subject of rule XXII of the United States Senate.

So few of our fellow citizens realize that during the few years after the birth of this Republic, and the adoption of unlimited debate in 1806, it had quickly become apparent that the safety of our infant Nation would, in the last resort, depend upon a calm, deliberate, and unshackled legislative body.

It should not be necessary for us to remind ourselves that, as a nation, we made our greatest strides during the 110 years of unlimited Senate debate.

There are still some living Senators, both in and out of office, who would hate to have to face (in the light of what later took place) the implications of the dire, but now ridiculous predictions they made unless rule XXII be amended or abolished.

Members of Congress, both Republican and Democratic, from Senate and House, from North and South are today worried about the decisions of our Supreme Court. I think that the time may be very near when the Congress, and particularly the Senate, will in some concrete manner show the Court that the legislative branch of our Government has not abdicated.

Still, less than 10 years ago, a living ex-Senator made the ridiculous plea for abolition of rule XXII on the theory that the Supreme Court would, and could, be trusted to take care of all "worthy minorities."

He was right in his own way, except for the fact that the people of his State repudiated him not very long afterward, because they felt that the ex-Senator had no mandate from them to consider the Commy Party of the United States as a worthy minority.

To balance this on the other hand, the late Senator McNary opposed any limitation of senatorial debate on the grounds, "I may want to talk some day, myself."

The most amazing fact stands out as one traces the words of those who, like McNary, have over the years defended the right to have the Senate remain a really great deliberative body.

Of the thousands of words spoken by the proponents of rule XXII on the floor of the Senate, it is impossible to find a single argument that was in conflict with the intent of either the Founders or Constitution of this Republic.

Many of the great statesmen of Europe, both in the 19th and 20th centuries, have spoken in praise and envy of the Senate of the United States. I think it was Gladstone who first said that, in our creation of an unshackled Senate, we had for the first time in history perfected a legislative body where even a political tyrant would find a barrier. I always get a laugh at that picture of a mother, showing her young daughter the armless statue of Venus de Milo and the mother's warning to the child about biting her fingernails. I do not think it funny,

when I realize that many fine men in the Senate are willing to nibble away the strong arm of the Senate.

The adoption of rule XXII was a compromise and now again the opponents of rule XXII want to compromise the compromise. Where will this stop, what will be left for freemen to defend?

Is there any question in anyone's mind that the Senate was selected as the body where the smallest State shall have the same rights and powers of the largest; where any group of small States could protect and defend themselves against political domination by combinations of sister States.

Have we forgotten that Senators are the ambassadors of sovereign States to a creation of these sovereign States? We must stop this nibbling of senatorial power and dignity.

Many years ago Stalin told publisher Roy Howard:

The people of the Soviet Union will not use force to alter the governments of the surrounding states; the people of the surrounding states will do that themselves.

Are forces working to make that monster's prophecy come true in our land? This is the question both the Senate and the Supreme Court should now be asking themselves.

I am confident that there are no Communists in the United States Senate or Supreme Court. I am just as certain that there are Members of both bodies who refuse to recognize the horrible fate that certainly awaits us, at the end of these primrose paths of compromise and departure from the basic truths and principles of this Republic.

To those who would help destroy the deliberative power of our Senate, I respectfully urge that they mark well and remember the words of Palme Dutt, the British Marxist historian and doctor of political science, uttered earlier in this century:

If the sequence of events unfolds as the Communists plan and anticipate, and if these plans are carried into successful execution, the world or most of the world will indeed attain political unity before the close of the present century. Is this the unity we seek?

Is it the unity that was sought after on the bloody streets of Budapest, Poznan, or East Berlin?

Can the enemies of either rule XXII, or the enemies of unlimited free senatorial debate, point out a single remaining free nation that would not willingly trade their lot for ours, take what we have, what we have achieved under our form of government in exchange for what they have to offer?

That we ourselves fail to understand the perils of these changes and compromises is sad to contemplate. We have softened. We have compromised, but at least it can be hoped that it is not too late and we can still turn the tide of political expediency and compromise back to what we were meant to be.

We cannot be of much help to a world half slave and half free, if we enslave ourselves by defaulting on our constitutional obligations to keep a strong legislative branch of government to curb the excesses of an ambitious or compromising executive, or judiciary.

Can the Congress, in truth, declare that "Marry in haste and repent at leisure" has become a shopworn admonition? For a Senator to court or marry this weakening of the Senate by a change in rule XXII will condemn the American people to untold years of agonizing

93635-57-15

repentence. Where this evil would stop, nobody knows or could dare to predict.

"Stop, look and listen" has saved countless lives. To destroy the right of a Senate minority to have their opportunity to make the Senate refrain from haste and to "Stop, look and listen" can save the life of our Republic, when that occasion arises.

In 1937, when the Franklin Roosevelt court-packing plan started real senatorial spine stiffening, the words "spineless puppets" were often heard. First, to describe the judges Roosevelt was going to pack the court with, and then later the Members of the Senate Roosevelt was going to back if his purge revenge plan had succeeded. I now implore you to look long and hard at the prospect of allowing yourselves to degenerate into legislative, spineless puppets by voluntary surrender of your independence insurance as it is provided by Senate rule XXII.

Has our preoccupation with material success made us blind to the values of patient and honest cultivation of mind and character? We who have the remarkable record of leading the world in economic prosperity, also have the unenviable record of leading the world in reckless tampering with our freedom.

If our Republic fails to fulfill the high hopes of the men who founded it and sustained it in its days of weakness and trial, then the fault will be with us of the generation that has seemingly lost the inspiration of their ideals.

Chip and nibble away the powers of the Congress and then we go through the meaningless forms of democratic government in vain, if we have lost the sense and meaning of individual and collective responsibility, the cement that prevents freedom from crumbling into license.

That is why I have spoken in defense of rule XXII; it does help preserve your, and my sense of individual responsibility for the good of all the Nation.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions, Senator?

Senator JAVITS. I just hope the witness will state for the record what is the Federation for Constitutional Government. Is it a membership organization?

Mr. BARR. It is not a membership organization. It is a group that has formed together by voluntary expression.

Senator JAVITS. Is it local in New Orleans?

Mr. BARR. No, sir. It has substantial support from every State in the Nation with the exception of two.

Senator JAVITS. Does it have dues-paying members? It has members?

Mr. BARR. It is not a membership organization.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Mr. BARR. But it has expression of interests, not solicited but merely from our literature that we send out.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much for appearing and making your statement.

That is the aye and nay call for the Senate. I understand we are to vote on the Austrian treaty. If it is satisfactory with you, we will recess for 20 minutes. Thank you for appearing.

(Recess.)

Senator TALMADGE. The subcommittee will come to order. Senator JAVITS. I have a statement from a constituent in New York to go into the record. Howard Norman Mantel.

Senator TALMADGE. I have several insertions for the record at this point. A petition from St. Louis, Mo. Another petition from Miami, Fla. And several statements from organizations-3 from councils of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty; 1 from Pride of the Park Council, No. 15, of Farmington, N. J.; 1 from the Lafayette Council, No. 27 of Riverside, R. I.; and 1 from the State Council of Ohio, the American Education Association; the Anti-Communist League of America, Inc.; and a petition from Tallahassee, Fla. They will all be inserted in the record.

(The communications referred to above may be found in the appendix: Statements from organizations in exhibit 2, and petitions in exhibit 4.)

Senator TALMADGE. The next witness is Mr. John J. Gunther, legislative representative for Americans for Democratic Action.

You may proceed at will.

STATEMENT BY JOHN J. GUNTHER, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. GUNTHER. I have a very short statement. I realize the Senate is in session, and I have no desire to detain you longer than to simply put our position into the record.

I am John J. Gunther, legislative representative of Americans for Democratic Action. I appear here today on behalf of ADA to urge that the practice of majority rule be restored in the United States

Senate.

ADA has a long record of support for majority rule. Each convention of the organization since 1949 has adopted resolutions urging the Senate to amend its rule XXII to provide for majority cloture. We have on several previous occasions presented testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, urging amendment of rule XXII to provide for majority cloture. We have appeared before the platform committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties in support of this proposition.

I might add there, Mr. Chairman, we have had some good fortune in appearing before the platform committees. Not only did we think we did some work in educating the public and the press and delegates, but, actually, the Democratic platform of 1952 and 1956 took notice of the fact that witnesses had appeared and urged that the rules be changed.

The filibuster stands as a constant threat to democratic procedure in America. Combine the filibuster with section 3 of rule XXII (which bars any debate limit on rules change) and the concept of the Senate as a continuing body with continuing rules, and you establish minority rule in the Senate. The protection of minority rights is no justification for such a grant of minority tyranny.

ADA supports Senate Resolution 17, a proposal introduced by Senators Douglas, Ives, and others to provide for a workable cloture rule. Under this proposal, two-thirds of those Senators present and voting could limit debate within 2 or 3 days, while a majority of those Senators "duly chosen and sworn" could limit debate after 15 days.