lector. In addition, the small-business man runs the risk of violating some law or bureaucratic regulation and becomes subject to fine and imprisonment because he had unintentionally failed to properly serve as a forced tax collector.

Over the years, small-business men have watched with much inter-est the so-called filibustering on the floor of the Senate because in most instances the individual Senator doing the talking is either for or against legislation which will either be detrimental or favorable to small businesses.

Judging from the language used in the various bills introduced for the purpose of regulating freedom of speech on the floor of the Senate, the objective of those sponsoring these bills is to do away with the timehonored practice of filibustering.

The Senate of the United States of America is the greatest legislative body in the world, and in all probability in the entire history of mankind. While legislatures are of modern origin, the Greeks and Romans enacted legislation by the popular assembly. Representative lawmaking bodies in the modern sense never existed among the Romans. The ancient world trampled on the very verge of representative government without actually crossing the boundary.

The beginnings of the modern representative systems of government are found in the early English history, out of which the English Parliament, the first representative legislature known to history, was destined ultimately to evolve. And so we in this great Nation today owe much to the ancestor of the Anglo-Saxon people who came to this land and established a republican form of government which has stood without interruption since July 4, 1776.

The Founders of our Nation did not provide for limiting the debates on any subject by an individual Senator in the United States Senate chambers. They evidently realized that the time might come in the history of our Nation when it would be necessary for a number of our Senators to stand up and debate for or against national legislation for many long hours. The privilege of filibustering has been exercised by many Members of the Senate and a long list of filibusters from 1841 to 1951 may be found in the Congressional Record, 83d Congress, 1st session, January 7, 1953, pages 216-217.

Many statesmen in the United States Senate have successfully filibustered over the years, and it is interesting to note that a number of advocates of changing the rule to limit debates have taken advantage of their senatorial rights of freedom of speech and set new records. So, it would seem that it depends upon whose ox is being gored as to whether the ox should be dehorned.

For instance, Senator Morse, of Oregon, was formerly a Republican and a stanch opponent of freedom of speech on the floor of the Senate, also changing his attitude about the right to filibuster, when in 1953 he talked for 22 hours on legislation being considered by the Senate covering the confiscation by the Federal Government of tidelands belonging to the various States of the Union.

Our Founding Fathers realized the wisdom of permitting the honorable gentlemen of the Senate the right to talk as long as they wanted on any matter they have a mind to discuss. Realizing the Members of the Senate might talk a long time about important legislation and, possibly in the heat of debate, say something which might be disturb

ing, the founders of our Republic granted immunity to them for anything they may say on the floor of the Senate.

Freedom of speech is one of the most cherished rights granted to the citizens of the Nation by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Certain elements in the country would like to see our constitutional guaranties taken away from us. In fact, the forces of infiltration of communistic thinking is becoming more evident as time goes on. Now, it just might be that the proposals to limit the debate on the floor of the Senate could be the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in the Nation.

The judicial legislation now being enacted by the Supreme Court of the United States of America is far reaching and without control by Congress. It seems to me a great error could be committed by the Senate in changing rule XXII to limit freedom of speech in debate on the floor of the Senate, because the Supreme Court could interpret such legislation as being authority to reverse one of its decisions and rule against freedom to debate in the churches, lodge halls, union halls, and all public places where three or more are gathered.

In closing, I wish to thank the members of this committee for inviting me to present a statement here today. You are earnestly implored not to enact any legislation which would bring about a limit of debate on the floor of the Senate. During these uncertain days, when judicial legislation is being forced upon the people and the Congress is being bypassed, the last hope of a great, free people rests on the integrity of the Members of the Senate of the United States of America.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Henderson, I gather that the persons whose names are printed on your letterhead are all the officers of your organization?

Mr. HENDERSON. No. They are the regional vice presidents. We have directors in various areas of the country.

Senator JAVITS. These regional vice presidents cover the areas in which the organization operates?

Mr. HENDERSON. That is right. We have members from Maine to California. Where we have a larger number of members, then there is a regional vice president.

Senator JAVITS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the list of officers of this organization be made part of the record of Mr. Henderson's testimony.

Senator TALMADGE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Henderson, we appreciate very much your appearing before us and giving your views and your statement. The list of officers referred to is as follows:)

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SMALL BUSINESS
Incorporated in 1942

National headquarters, 431 Balter Building, 404 St. Charles Avenue,
New Orleans, La.

Allen H. Johness, Sr., president, realtor, 1102-4 Whitney Building, New Orleans, La.

Joseph M. Miller, vice president, Miller Mortgage Co., 912 Maritime Building, New Orleans, La.

Alice M. Kelleher, secretary-treasurer, Louisiana Press Clipping Service, 1702 Valence Street, New Orleans, La.

Joseph D. Henderson, national managing director.

Regional vice presidents:

Munger T. Ball, Sabine Towing Co., Inc., Post Office Drawer 1500, Port
Arthur, Tex.

A. T. Beardslee, Beardslee Launch & Barge Service, Inc., Foot of St. Francis
Street, Mobile, Ala.

Henry Biedenharn, Jr., Ouachita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Monroe, La.
J. C. Bolton, Rapides Bank & Trust Co., Post Office Box 31, Alexandria,
La.

C. E. Broussard, Beaumont Rice Mills, Post Office Box 3111, Beaumont,
Tex.

R. J. Castille, Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., Lafayette, La.

W. J. Gex, Jr., Gex & Gex, Attorneys at Law, Bay St. Louis, Miss.

T. E. Henry, Delta Distributing Co., Greenwood, Miss.

Walter G. Houghland, Jr., Walter G. Houghland Sons, Post Office Box 1040,
Paducah, Ky.

R. Lee Kempner, United States National Bank, Post Office Box 179, Galveston,
Tex.

A. L. Mechling, A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, 51 North Desplaines Street,
Joliet, Ill.

Paul O. Peters, research consultant, 939 D Street NW., Washington, D. C.
Leo W. Seal, Hancock Bank, Gulfport, Miss.

H. H. Shelor, furniture industries, Post Office Box 647, Florence, S. C.
M. B. Speir, Jr., Speir & Co., Inc., 130 East Fourth Street, Charlotte, N. C.
S. G. Thigpen, Thigpen Hardware Co., Picayune, Miss.

F. Wirt Waller, the Henry Walke Co., Post Office Box 1041, Norfolk, Va.
W. G. Winters, Sr., Hull Telephone Co., Inc., 2518 Drexel Drive, Houston,
Tex.

Senator TALMADGE. The next witness is Mr. Ernest W. Goodrich, attorney from Surry, Va.

Pardon me, Mr. Goodrich. I am sorry, but Senator Saltonstall has been waiting very patiently, and we would like to take him next, because he is very, very busy.

Excuse me, Senator. I am sorry. I forgot you were waiting.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETS

Senator SALTONSTALL. That is all right.

Mr. Chairman and Senator Javits, I shall be very brief, but I do want to speak on Senate Resolution 30 very briefly because I originally had intended to file such a resolution myself. When Senator Knowland and Senator Johnson determined to do it, I joined with their effort.

I have no prepared statement, but I would like to go into history for a minute or two.

Back about 1946, we had a long debate which concerned an amendment to the Chaplain's prayer, and we debated that amendment for 2 or 3 weeks, and then by agreement it was withdrawn. That was an amendment offered by the late Senator Hoey who was a very distinguished Senator and a great friend of mine.

As a result of that and discussion at that time, I determined that if we were going to have a cloture rule, it ought to be an effective rule.

So, on May 7, 1946, I filed a resolution, after consulting with Mr. Charles Watkins, the Senate Parliamentarian, to insert the words “major motion or other matter pending before the Senate or unfinished business."

The phrase "or unfinished business" was the suggestion of the late Senator Taft.

That resolution, filed in 1946, was heard by the Rules Committee. At that time, I did not make any suggestion on changing the number of Senators voting required for closure of debate. I simply wanted to include a "motion to take up" as a proper subject of a cloture.

Since there was no action on that resolution, I filed another resolution on January 6, 1947, which added that cloture could be invoked by a majority of the Senators present and voting.

I want to say now that I do not approve of that provision at the present time. I certainly have changed my mind on that subject. I believe it should be two-thirds of those present and voting but not a majority or a constitutional majority.

Again on January 5, 1949, with Senators Knowland, Ferguson and Ives, I submitted a resolution.

Now that resolution was made over into a clean copy-the same words that we filed on January 5, 1949-was made over into a clean copy on February 17, 1949, which became Senate Resolution No. 15 and was filed by Senator Hayden, who was then the chairman of the Rules Committee, and Senator Wherry, who was the ranking minority member of the Rules Committee, and it was put on the calendar. It was debated on several occasions, and an amended version was adopted on March 17, 1949, as the rule of the Senate.

It is the present cloture rule of the Senate. Senate may invoke cloture on any

Under this rule the

measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same,

It also requires a constitutional two-thirds of the Senate to invoke cloture and eliminates the possibility of cloture if there is a motion to change the rules.

The final form of the present rule was worked out on a Sunday morning with Senators Russell, Byrd and one other Senator on the Democratic side, and Senator Wherry, myself and one other Republican whom I do not now remember and was adopted by the Senate by a substantial vote shortly after that Sunday morning conference. Again on May 22, 1950, I filed a resolve for myself, Senators Ferguson, Smith of New Jersey, Senator Knowland of California, Thye of Minnesota, Ives of New York, and Hendrickson of New Jersey.

That resolve would have restored the vote of two-thirds of those present and voting to invoke cloture. I think it would have made no other change.

I testified before this committee on that proposal, according to my records, I think, in October 1951. No action was taken on it.

You now have before you Senate Resolution 30 which proposes in substance three modifications: It would change the requirement of a constitutional two-thirds to two-third of the Senators present and voting. It would change the rules so that cloture could be invoked on a motion to take up a resolution to change the rules. The existing exception of the application of rule VIII prohibiting debate on motions made before 2 o'clock to motions to proceed to consideration of proposals to change the rules is not affected.

Personally I think that that is fair. It resulted from a suggestion that I made, if I may respect fully say so, to the majority and the minor

ity leaders, after consultation with Mr. Watkins, the parliamentary clerk.

Now the third point simply puts into writing what the majority of the Senate felt this year: that the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

Personally I feel that this is appropriate. It merely puts into writing what has been the understanding since 1789, and I am in favor of putting it in simply to obviate future arguments such as we had at the opening of this session; also because I think it supports what is certainly my interpretation and what I believe I think to have been the general intention of the Constitution when it was drawn up in Philadelphia.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that that is all I have to say. I believe thoroughly in the principles of cloture after a full and free discussion. I say that because I believe that the Senate should be given an opportunity to vote. I am not in favor of a majority or a constitutional majority being permitted to invoke the cloture rule. I believe that minority rights should be protected. I believe that they are amply protected by the requirement of a vote of two-thirds of those present and voting to invoke cloture.

I think a constitutional two-thirds is too difficult and too extreme. I believe that the rules of the Senate should be continuing rules. I also believe that a resolution to change the rules should not be permitted to be made pending business of the Senate without an opportunity to discuss whether it should be brought up.

That is the substance of my thinking on this situation. I have been testifying on it now for 11 years before distinguished Members of the Senate, and I am glad to appear before two such thoughtful, able Members of the Senate who may have slightly divergent views on this subject.

Senator TALMADGE. Any questions?

Senator JAVITS. Senator Saltonstall, it is a great honor to have you before us. You are properly considered not only dean of the Senate but an intellectual leader of the Senate. I don't have to agree with every one of your findings to evidence my deep respect and regard for you.

I have only one question. I think you are a man of very great conscience, and this question is most serious to me and many others: Do you feel that if your suggestions were adopted in substance this would represent a denial of the right to express the point of view of a Senator or of his State in the Senate of the United States?

Senator SALTON STALL. No, sir, I do not. I would not be here arguing for it and I would not have been arguing for it for the last 11 years if I believed that that were true.

Senator JAVITS. You believe their rights will be fully safeguarded and protected within the purpose and spirit of the Constitution if your recommendations are in substance adopted?

Senator SALTON STALL. Yes, sir, I do; and as I have stated, I repeat I do not believe in cloture by majority vote as I proposed 10 or 11 years ago. My experience in the Senate since then has convinced me that two-thirds of those present and voting is more fair than a majority or, on the other side, of a constitutional two-thirds.