ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator, we appreciate very much your very fine statement and it certainly was enlightening to me on some of the background of the Senate rules. I appreciate it very much. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you very much.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Goodrich, you may proceed now, sir.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST W. GOODRICH, DEFENDERS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, SURRY, VA.

Mr. GOODRICH. Mr. Chairman, Senator Javits, without being presumptious might I make one observation before I begin. The Senator from Massachusetts said he has changed his thinking some in 10 years. from the majority to two-thirds.

I have read just a little bit of the hearings back in 1949. There were a number of Senators who were originally for cloture and as time went on they changed their views. I think perhaps the Senator's expression here bears that out.

My name is Ernest W. Goodrich, of Surry, Va. I am appearing for the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties upon an invitation from the Honorable Herman E. Talmadge.

I have been a member of the bar in Virginia since 1935 and am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia and the Supreme Court of the United States. From 1935 through 1939 I was associated with the United States Department of Labor here in Washington. Since 1940, I have been attorney for the Commonwealth for the county of Surry in Virginia, except for 4 years spent in the United States Navy during World War II doing labor relations work for the Bureau of Yards and Docks here in Washing

ton.

At the outset, I should like to make crystal clear, gentlemen, the fact that the Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties is not a rabble-rousing, hate-engendering organization, as some segments of the press have inferred. Over a large area of Virginia the finest people are members and active workers in this organization.

While the organization came into being following the Supreme Court's decisions in the segregation cases, it has from its inception concerned itself, as its name implies, with matters other than segregation and integration. We are dedicated to the preservation of our republican form of government, wherein the several sovereign States retain all functions of government not specifically delegated to the Federal Government.

It is because of this dedication that we oppose the present resolutions pending before your committee which are the subject of these hearings. From our view, the present attempt to change the rules of the Senate to make it possible for less than two-thirds of the Senators to cut off debate is but another manifestation of the determination of certain elements in our society further to throttle and ultimately destroy our State governments.

While I am not familiar in detail with the resolutions which are the subject matter of this hearing, it is my understanding that the purpose of the resolutions is to change the cloture rule, making it possible to cut off debate in the Senate with less than a vote of two-thirds of the Sena

tors, and it is to this general idea of making it easier to apply cloture that I shall address my remarks.

While it is considered old-fashioned and out of keeping with the modern philosophy of government to refer back to our Founding Fathers, it seems to me that a great many people in Washington need to review the genesis of our Government. I think that we need to study again the formation of these United States of America.

Subsequent to the Declaration of Independence and prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, I do not believe that anyone would argue that the State governments were not completely sovereign in every sense of the word, answerable only to the people of the States in which always reposes final sovereignty.

The architects of the Constitution-and I might say with pardonable pride that my State contributed its full share were zealous to retain within the several States every element of sovereignty consistent with a workable Federal system.

As you gentlemen well know, the great issue before the Framers of the Constitution was how to preserve this balance of power. Had Alexander Hamilton had his way, the States would have been destroyed, and I believe firmly that we would not have survived as a Nation.

The great strength of our Government is the division of power between the Federal and State governments and, within the Federal Government, between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The present philosophy which permeates the Supreme Court, the executive department, as well as the legislative branches, harkens back to the philosophy of Alexander Hamilton.

Realizing the necessity of safeguarding the powers of the individual States, our Founding Fathers very wisely provided that in this august body, the United States Senate, each State, regardless of its size, territorially or population wise, should have equal representation. Thus, the Senator from Delaware has as much voice in the deliberations of this body as does the Senator from New York.

I have not studied the history of the cloture rule, but certain it is that no rule of the Senate affords greater protection to the several States of this Nation than does this rule.

While much of the encroachment on the sovereignty of the several States has come about as a result of the grasping for power by the executive departments of the Federal Government and by judicial legislation by the Supreme Court, it is sad but true that the elected representatives of the people in the Congress of the United States have also constantly, through legislation, extended the powers of the Federal Government. While the United States Senate has played its part in this unfortunate movement, it has, at the same time, served as a bulwark against wholesale extension of Federal control.

Except in isolated cases of filibusters against legislation of minor significance, I believe that the record will show that the recurrent attempts to apply cloture have come when there was before the Senate legislation affecting the basic fabric of our Government. Certain it is, the current interest in changing the rule is because of the insistent demand of minority groups that the so-called civil rights legislation be enacted. It is somewhat ironical that the minority groups interested in the civil-rights legislation are willing to sacrifice one of their greatest protections, that of unlimited debate in the Senate, in order to insure

passage of legislation that, when the final history is written, will be termed the most destructive of civil rights ever enacted by the Congress. I would like to say here, gentlemen, the 1949 hearings reveal that during the twenties when the Senate of the United States was composed, it was thought, primarily of representatives of big business, the greatest arguments made against change in the cloture rule came from the American Federation of Labor. Yet, now, labor is taking the other side.

There is perhaps no one who has followed to any extent the proceedings of the United States Senate who has not had at one time or another a feeling of disgust at the waste of time as a result of filibustering. The difficulty, however, is in deciding which filibuster is a waste of time and which serves a useful purpose. It is my firm conviction that in those cases where a filibuster has no merit, 64 United States Senators will be man enough to stand up and be counted for cloture.

In order to legally change the Federal-State relationship, twothirds of both Houses of the Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve such change by amendment. Opposition to legislative attempts to change the Federal-State relationship should not be silenced by less than two-thirds of the Senate.

During the past 25 years repeated efforts have been made in the Congress of the United States in effect to amend the Constitution through the passage of legislation aimed at the further weakening of the sovereignty of the individual States. It is essential, it seems to me, that we preserve the right of unlimited debate in this body to help, in some degree, stem this tide.

One of the great dangers in the country today is that militant vocal minority groups are able to exert great pressure on the Congress and secure the enactment of legislation not favored by the great majority of the people in the country and so often inimical to the best interest of the country as a whole.

I would like to say on that point something I don't have in my prepared statement. That is this:

There has been some talk here this morning about whether we believe in majority rule. I think it would serve a useful purpose if an analysis could be made of the support for the social legislation that has been passed in the last 20 years to see whether or not more than 15 or 20 percent of the people of this country were really behind it.

As you gentlemen well know, in the hearings before this group and hearings of this type in the past on civil rights, and things of that nature most of the testimony at hearings before legislative committees have been from people that represent militant minority groups. They have paid representatives here in Washington that come to these hearings and testify in favor of legislation that changes the concept of government that our Founding Fathers had. I would like to say that I do not feel and the people of my State do not feel— and I believe that the great majority of the people in this country do not feel that the Federal Government owes the duty to the people to provide security from the cradle to the grave.

I think it was a disgusting spectacle at both of the national parties' conventions that so many of the speakers said there are still 20 per

cent of the people that are ill-housed and ill-fed and ill-clothed and the Federal Government-not the State government but the Federal Government-has got to correct that.

Our country was not founded on the theory that it was the Federal Government, a central government, that should provide every man unlimited security. It is up to the individual; and that is what we believe in my State, that the individual has certain obligations himself and should not look to the Federal Government.

No one today is so naive as to believe that minority groups do not exert an influence far beyond their numerical strength.

Were it not for the right of unlimited debate, the dangers inherent in legislation so often sought by minority groups would never be brought home to the great bulk of the American people.

During the hearings before the House committee on the civil rights legislation the chairman indicated very early that further hearings were not necessary because everything had been said on the subject that could be said. In the course of my testimony before that comrittee I tried to point out that the hearings should be continued until the American people were awakened to the dangers in such legislation. Even though the same arguments may be used over and over-and I know you gentlemen get tired of listening to the same arguments; you are hearing the same argument over and over here this morning, but unlimited debate serves a useful purpose in bringing to the attention of the American people the evils inherent in legislation which seeks to destroy the sovereignty of the several States.

If the civil-rights legislation is debated enough in this Senatethey have already started-if it is debated long enough, gentlemen, until the people of this country understand what is involved in it, there will be a resurgent demand from the people that the legislation be thrown out.

If the legislation is right, then there should certainly be 64 United States Senators who are willing to stand up and be counted for cloture. However, to permit a bare majority of the Senators to shut off the debate will prevent, in this case and perhaps many cases in the future, the American people from ever understanding the full impact of the proposed legislation, now and in the future, on their freedom and liberty.

While at the present time the great reformers are bent upon bringing about the millennium, they will, surely as the sun shines again, be faced another day with a majority bent upon destroying their freedom and liberty.

Failure of the Congress to enact legislation-I think this is important, gentlemen, that failure to enact legislation, however noble its purpose might be, can never be as bad as the enactment of oppressive legislation.

And we have heard a lot of argument that it will kill so much good legislation. I would like to know-and I do not know this, but I would like to know how much good legislation that has proven as time has gone on to be good has been prevented from being passed.

It may prevent the enactment of some good legislation, but if it serves to prevent the enactment of any bad legislation, then the right of unlimited debate will have served a useful purpose.

Twenty-three years ago when I was a student at William and Mary College in Virginia, the Honorable Josiah Bailey visited our campus

and spoke at a convocation. Conversing with him at a luncheon on that occasion, I asked him if the filibuster should not be completely eliminated. Í shall never forget his reply to that question. He said that the United States Senate is the only place where a man may talk as long as he wants about anything that he wants and that this right should be preserved as a citadel against oppression.

I say to you gentlemen that when the Senators from 17 States believe that legislation before this body is inimical to the best interests of this country, strongly enough to conduct a filibuster against such legislation and no one likes to do that; that is a tax on the strength of dedicated men-then the legislation should not be enacted into law. If less than the Senators from 32 States are convinced that the legislation deserves to pass, it should fail. The failure of many pieces of good legislation to pass at a given time will not result in as much evil as the passage of one piece of bad legislation.

We hope, gentlemen, that this committee will recommend that no change be made in the present Senate rule XXII and that in this body, at least, men who are convinced of the soundness of their position may speak unshackled as to time.

Senator TALMADGE. Have you any questions, Senator?

Senator JAVITS. I just wondered, sir, whether you thought you were speaking for a militant minority of people.

Mr. GOODRICH. Sir, we are trying to organize a militant minority group. That is all I can say, because we are unrepresented as I see

it now.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Goodrich, we appreciate very much your very fine statement. Thank you for coming.

The next witness is Mr. Frederick G. Cartwright, Englewood, N. J., representing the Englewood Anti-Communist League.

Proceed, Mr. Cartwright.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK G. CARTWRIGHT, PRESIDENT, ENGLEWOOD, N. J., ANTI-COMMUNIST LEAGUE

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Gentlemen, I am gratified to be given the opportunity to appear before a United States Senate committee as a defender of the rights of dissent and free speech. I regret to say, however, that this legislative Chamber is fast becoming one of the few remaining bastions of freedom in this country where these freedoms still exist. And even this fortress is now under attack.

Yes, gentlemen, the avenues open to lovers of liberty are becoming more and more constricted.

You normally would look to the newspapers for enlightenment and freedom of expression. A sizable segment of the press, however, has closed its columns to anti-Communists. Furthermore, the publishers have used their publications to vilify patriots, hoping to discredit them so that they will be ignored. Whenever opposition to their un-American practices develops, the publishers piously spout about what they call freedom of the press.

The present attempt to change the cloture rule and thus strangulate free debate in the Senate either has been ignored by this section of the press, or distorted versions have been given to their readers. Many of the radio and TV networks also have participated in the blackout of news favorable to the defenders of unlimited debate. Small won

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »