페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

ofttimes—well, I would say in the average southern city, large towns, you will find better schools, buildings, and equipment for the Negro children than you do for the white children, more modern.

Senator Talmadge knows the situation that prevails in Georgia. I can only speak for Alabama. But for, I guess, 30 years, we have had a law, and it hasn't been merely a law-it has been enforced law-whereby every child in the State of Alabama has the same number of schooldays. There is nothing said about color. Every school teacher with the same training and experience gets the same pay, and there is no distinction at all made in it.

The improvement has come about in almost exactly the same manner and to the same degree that economic improvement has come about, and it convinces me, and it strengthens me in the conviction that I have long had that, basically, the problem is enonomic, and I think it is terribly bad and near tragic that it has become so deeply involved in politics.

Senator JAVITS. Well, Senator Sparkman, I guess we will have plenty of opportunity to debate this. I don't want to detain you any longer this morning.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Sparkman, I want to thank you for your very fine statement, and express my apologies for not being here at the outset of your remarks. However, I was before your own committee at that time endorsing the nomination of Hon. Erle Cocke, Sr., to the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Thank you, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. He is a very fine man, and I shall go up there and, if they haven't voted yet, I will vote for him.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you.
Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you both.

Senator TALMADGE. I believe Senator Saltonstall is due in about 20 minutes, so we will proceed with the next witness, Mr. Merwin K. Hart, of New York City, president of the National Economic Council.

Mr. Hart, we are very happy to have you with us, and you may proceed at will, sir.

STATEMENT OF MERWIN K. HART, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ECONOMIC COUNCIL, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, Senator Javits, on behalf of the National Economic Council, I thank this committee for the opportunity to appear and speak on the proposed changes in rule XXII.

While the Senate rules are primarily the concern of the members of the Senate, yet in a larger sense this rule XXII is of vital importance to the whole people, since it insures unlimited debate. And unlimited debate always has been a guaranty against over-hasty legislation.

Since the freedom the American people enjoy includes freedom of speech, with the accompanying freedom to petition the Government against grievances, real or alleged, this freedom of necessity permits activities not only by those who wish to preserve, but by those who are willing, for whatever reason, to destroy, any of the freedoms we enjoy.

The movement to change rule XXII is, of course, championed by Communists. I say “of course” because, whatever its sponsorship

in the past, it is presently one of the many measures that pattern the effort to bring all power into Federal hands, from which a Communist take-over could be most easily accomplished.

We hear incessant talk these days about the virtues of democracy. But the constitutional convention discarded democracy, just as it discarded monarchy, when it was considering the form of government to set up in the United States. It discarded democracy on the ground that throughout history democracy had always failed.

What they set up was a republic—a government with a separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial, with its accompanying checks and balances. Through its Bill of Rights it guaranteed the individual citizen against encroachment by either Federal or State governments—even encroachment by a majority—with respect to the citizen's fundamental rights.

The lower House of Congress, with its 435 members, is perhaps compelled to fix a limit on debate. Hence, as a rule it has been possible for certain measures that many think unwise to slip through the House because of insufficient consideration and debate.

But the Senate, with only 96 members, is different. By rule XXII the Senate has reserved to itself the right and duty of examining, at length and without reference to the time spent in debate, measures, unwise or inadequate, some of which may have come from the House.

This, we take it as private citizens, is the reason for the existence of rule XXII. We agree thoroughly with Senator Russell of Georgia, who said in 1951 that,

Grave evils often result from hasty legislation, rarely from the delay which follows discussion and deliberation.

During the past 20 years, many important measures have been passed by Congress under the pressure of war or depression or some other crisis, real or alleged. We can see now that it would have been far better for this country if some of these measures had not been passed.

As things are today, the existence of rule XXII is about the only remaining bulwark the people have against unwise legislation by the Congress.

I spoke a few moments ago of the right that any group, of whatever turn of thought, has to organize and petition the Congress, that is, to engage in lobbying. For the past 30 or 40 years this country has been under constant pressure from collectivist influences, Socialist and Communist. And it has been shown that these influences have no lack of financial support. Some of this support may come from outside the United States. Americans who give money to strengthen these influences certainly receive their initial inspiration, whether they realize it or not, from outside the United States. Thus the Communist Internationale in 1922 established the International Red Aid—the IRA-in order to promote the weakening of the immigration laws of various countries, particularly the United States. The American section of IRA, organized in 1925 as the National Labor Defense, within 10 years has developed 800 subsidiary organizations. These, as we well know, include in their membership a tremendous number of wellmeaning and often well-heeled Americans who have worked aggressively at times to persuade the Congress to weaken its immigration laws.

And while the highly organized left-wing groups are working on Congress, directly or indirectly, those conservative groups that wish to retain the more stable factors in our form of government are inadequately organized and financed. Many indeed of the left-wing internationalist-socialist groups have secured deductibility before taxes for their individual contributors, while hardly a single conservative group has secured such deductibility. In fact, such deductibility has been specifically denied many of them.

So rule XXII, which permits continued and unlimited debate, is an absolute necessity if we are to prevent a bare majority from wiping out all those minority rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Many efforts have, of course, been made in the past to change rule XXII. Presumably in each of these cases the reason for the effort to change it has been some pending legislation of very great importance on which feeling on both sides has run high.

The legislation which has apparently stimulated the present drastic effort to amend rule XXII is, of course, the demand for so-called civil rights. The present civil-rights bills would bring about:

1. A grant of power to the Department of Justice to intervene directly by employing Federal injunctions and contempt proceedings in cases of alleged violation of civil rights.

2. The establishment of a Federal Civil Rights Commission with subpena powers.

3. Creation within the Justice Department of a special Civil Rights Division.

All of these provisions are an invasion and preemption of States rights.

Federal intervention in these State and local rights would deprive the citizens of the right of trial by jury, one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Now what is back of all this is, of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization formed at the instance of the Communist Party for the very purpose of stirring up friction and discord. I am advised that there was only one Negro member of the original committee, and throughout its history its main motivation has come from white members.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation case turned its back completely upon long-accepted principles of American constitutional law and of American custom, and instead adopted the views of sociologists as experts. One, at least, of these, who was of foreign birth, had expressed contempt for the Constitution of the United States. The Court has likewise turned its back on established law and custom in such cases as the Steve Nelson case, the New York Slochower case, the Michigan so-called "dirty book” case, the bus segregation case, the Girard College case, and many others could be mentioned.

Hence, there is reason to believe that any of these civil rights bills that are pending would, if passed, be sustained by the present Supreme Court, even though it meant the attempted repeal by the Supreme Court of vital provisions of the Bill of Rights.

For the Senate to modify rule XXII, thus rejecting unlimited debate, would assuredly lead sooner or later to the passage of some one or other of these objectionable civil rights bills. Then the Supreme Court, having usurped, as would be likely, the role of the Congress and

the legislatures of the 48 States, would arrogate to itself the power to amend the Constitution and wo’ld remove the last bar to the destruction of the American Republic. And the Senate, if it weakened rule XXII, by such action would literally abdicate in favor of the Communist-Socialist influences that are abroad in the land.

It will be asked by some, Do we not all believe in rule by the majority?

The answer is, on all ordinary day-to-day matters, “yes.” But under the great underlying principles of the Constitution there are some questions so grave and involving rights so vital to the people as a whole that experience shows it is not safe for all the people to leave these to the decision by majority vote. In the past we have prospered as a Nation because we have held these rights sacred and above and beyond all other rights.

The idea underlying this thought is one of the fundamental ideas in the Constitution-in fact, in the idea of even having a written Constitution. The Constitution gives vast powers to both the legislative and executive branches, and implied powers, at least, to the Supreme Court, which powers incidentally the Supreme Court is now trying to expand and augment.

But in certain provisions of the Bill of Rights, notably amendments IX and X, and in the terms of article V of the Constitution providing ways in which the Constitution can be amended, it is perfectly clear that the framers of the Constitution intended to make it difficult for the Constitution to be amended. These safeguards have been observed practically throughout our history, until very lately.

Now, since the obvious purpose of the efforts to amend rule XXII is to clear the way for the passage of pending civil rights legislation, and since the civil rights legislation would to a large extent throw amendments IX and X down the drain, there is all the greater reason why rule XXII should not be tampered with.

Human experience has taught that speedy action on ordinary matters is often required and is reasonably safe. But there are certain fundamental matters of the kind dealt with in the Constitution itself and in the bill of rights, which according to the theory on which we have always gone should not be changed except after a long lapse of time in order to give plenty of time to the people and to the people's representatives in Congress and in the States to weigh them carefully.

This is why we have had only 22 amendments to the Constitution in 168 years.

If this rule XII should be amended and if the present objective of those who wish to amend it were obtained—namely, the passage of the proposed civil rights legislation—then some of the most vital rights of the American people as a whole would be destroyed.

Therefore, we of the National Economic Council respectfully ask the Senate, but with all possible emphasis, not to amend rule XXII but to leave its present wording intact.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?
Senator JAVITS. No.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Hart, thank you very much. We appreciate your appearing before us and giving us your views.

The next witness is Mr. J. D. Henderson, national managing director, American Association of Small Business, New Orleans, La. You may proceed at will, Mr. Henderson.

93635—57- 16

STATEMENT OF J. D. HENDERSON, NATIONAL MANAGING DIRECTOR,

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SMALL BUSINESS, NEW ORLEANS,
LA.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

Mr. HENDERSON. My name is Joseph D. Henderson. I am the national managing director of the American Association of Small Business, Inc., a national organization which had its inception during 1941 and received its charter February 20, 1942. We were organized in New Orleans, La., and our membership has spread throughout the country. At this time, we are working in all 48 States of the Union, including the District of Columbia, in opposition to any legislation which would withdraw the constitutional rights of freedom of speech from any individual Member of the Senate and the right to unlimited debate in the Senate of the United States of America.

We send our material to newspapers throughout the country, each United States Senator and Members of the House of Representatives in Washington. We also contact State legislatures, municipal councils, and other public bodies. We have made statements in testifying before committees of the Congress, State legislatures, city councils, and boards.

We support legislation beneficial to all small businesses and our members in particular, and we oppose legislation which is detrimental. We render services to small businesses and individuals, helping them to go into business, stay in business, secure sources of supplies and material, funds to operate the business and for expansion purposes. There is no service too large or small for the American Association of Small Business, Inc., to undertake for one of its members. All a member has to do is tell us about his problem and we do our utmost to help solve it.

We are a service organization and we endeavor to encourage small businesses to patronize each other, work together so that they may expand and become as big as their initiative, ability, and energy wil permit.

Various organizations are working in a rather limited field, but the American Association of Small Business, Inc., in the conduct of our public relations program dedicated to keeping small business in business, is working in a field of over 125 different business and professional categories, because small business is the grassroots and backbone of the American way of life.

This information has been presented to you so that the members of your committee may have a better understanding of the scope and sincerity of the services performed by the American Association of Small Business, Inc.

At least seven bills have been introduced in the Senate during the 1st session of the 85th Congress affecting freedom of speech and Senate rule No. XXII.

The members of the American Association of Small Business, Inc., are in favor of the great freedom of the individual Senators to participate in the discussion on the floor of the Chamber, because it has provided minorities with one of their most potent weapons, the filibuster.

Small business is a minority which is having great difficulty in staying in business in many instances because of excessive taxation, ertravagance in Government spending, regulations, regimentation, and the unrewarding responsibility of being forced to serve as a tax col

« 이전계속 »