stifle freedom of speech on the Senate floor, but to maintain its present rule requiring an affirmative vote of "two-thirds of Senators duly chosen and sworn" as this country's greatest protection against adoption of harmful legislation promoted by special interest groups for selfish ends. Re Senate rule XXII. NATIONAL SOCIETY OF NEW ENGLAND WOMEN, Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Davenport, Iowa, May 14, 1957. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: I understand that a special subcommittee has been named to take testimony on proposals pending to change Senate rule XXII, relating to limitation of debate. If the constitutional government of our United States Republic is to endure, it is essential that no limitation of any kind be imposed upon the period of debate on any subject in our United States Senate. The system of checks and balances devised by the wise men who wrote our United States Constitution has been badly impaired, as it is, by the usurpation of power by the executive and judicial branches of government. It is imperative that the elected voices of the people, our United States Senators, be given full opportunity to speak for us, ungagged and unmuffled, if we are to retain any vestige of the freedom which made our Nation great. I hope that you will do your utmost to insure that there be no change which will limit free debate granted in Senate rule XXII. Sincerely yours, GWEN PATTON INMAN, RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY PATRIOTIC WOMEN OF AMERICA, INC. SENATE RULE XXII Whereas rule XXII, the filibuster rule, is a protection of the minority, and the early patriots knowing that limited debate could be and was harmful to the best interests of the young nation, established the rule now known as Senate rule XXII in 1806 which remained in force until 1917, when it was amended; and Whereas in 1949 the Senate realizing that the former provisions of the rule were best, changed the rule to its former status, which required two-thirds majority of all Members whether present and voting or not: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Alabama Council Patriotic Women of America, hereby oppose any change in or amendment to rule XXII of the Senate; and be it further Resolved, That the Alabama Council Patriotic Women of America, commend members of the subcommittee in their effort to have public hearings on proposed changes in this all important rule, believing as did the Founding Fathers that the citizens have the right of facts and information. RESOLUTION OF NATIONAL SOCIETY, SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, SUPPORTING FREEDOM OF DEBATE IN UNITED STATES SENATE I, the undersigned, Harold L. Putnam, executive secretary of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, hereby certify that the following is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly proposed and unanimously adopted at its 67th annual congress held at Salt Lake City, Utah, on May 29, 1957, viz: "Whereas maintenance of freedom of debate in the United States Senate performs the same essential function as freedom of the press, under the first amendment, in keeping the people fully informed in respect to matters which may vitally affect their freedom and the security of constitutional rights. "In recent years various attempts have been made to bring about the enactment of restricted rules in the Senate of the United States which may endanger freedom of discussion in that House of Congress. "We recognize the possibility of abuse of the right of free debate in the Senate just as we know that freedom of the press is, at times, abused. "The alternative, which is control of debate, and may lead to a condition equivalent to the censorship, is too dangerous to be seriously considered: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That we express our unalterable opposition to the enactment of any rule in the Senate which will substantially alter the right to freedom of discussion secured by Senate rule XXII. "We call upon the Rules Committee of the Senate to protect this essential right when acting on pending proposals relating to the change of that Senate rule." I further certify that said resolution has never been modified or rescinded, and that the same is now in full force and effect. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said society at the city of Washington, D. C., this 10th day of June 1957. [SEAL] HAROLD L. PUTNAM, Executive Secretary, National Society, Sons of American Revolution. NATIONAL SOCIETY UNITED STATES DAUGHTERS OF 1812, Re Senate rule XXII. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Davenport, Iowa, May 14, 1957. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: When the hearings on the subject of changing Senate rule XXII relative to the limitation of debate take place, I wish to be recorded as opposing any kind of limitation. It is becoming increasingly apparent to even the least observant person that executive dictatorship is replacing our constitutional government "by the people." Such dictatorship, together with judicial misinterpretation by executive appointees to the Supreme Court, presents a grave threat to our Republic. The voters elect the legislators to represent us, to make our laws for us, and to speak for us. You were not elected to do the bidding of a President; you were elected to check his power if his head becomes too big for his hat. You were not elected to relinquish to the Supreme Court your power to make the laws of our Republic. You were elected to check the power of the Supreme Court. Many of our Senators have forgotten that they represent us, the voters; they are our voice. The voice of the people must not be stilled, must not be limited. Our freedom depends upon our being heard. I urge you: Oppose any kind of limitation on Senate debate. Very sincerely yours, GWEN PATTON INMAN, Mrs. Gerald O. Inman, Iowa State President (retiring). us, sir. NEW JERSEY CHAPTER OF PRO AMERICA, INC., DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: The New Jersey Chapter of Pro America is strongly opposed to any limitation of debate in the Senate. We hope that you agree with Sincerely, WOODWARD, Mrs. H. Woodward, President, REPUBLICAN WOMEN OF PARK RIDGE, INC., ILLINOIS, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE United States Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We, the members of the Republican Women's Club of Park Ridge, Ill., strenuously oppose any limiting of debate in either the United States Senate or House. Such limiting of debate violates our freedom of speech; and violates article I of the first 10 amendments which have been in effect since December 15, 1791, to our United States Constitution. One of the many things our ancestors came to this country for was freedom of speech and we must always keep and guard our freedom. Yours very truly, Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. SAN DIEGO, CALIF., May 29, 1957. MY DEAR SENATOR: The San Diego Constitutional Foundation, in care of which you addressed your letter to me of May 11, 1957, is no longer an active organization, although it is still legally in existence, and I am still the executive vice president. However, I know what the attitude of the membership of the foundation would be in regard to changing Senate rule XXII relating to the limitation of debate. They would wholeheartedly agree with you that free and unlimited debate in the Senate of the United States is vital to the maintenance of free constitutional government in this country. Although there may be times when individual or small groups of Senators may abuse this rule, this is an evil which must be accepted to preserve the great good which depends upon the impossibility of gagging the United States Senators. It is my sincere hope that you will succeed in your efforts to prevent any substantial change in the Senate rules relating to freedom of debate in that body. Most sincerely yours, Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, LESLIE E. GEHRES. SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Your letter of May 13 pertaining to any proposed changes in Senate rule XXII relating to limitation of debate in the United States Senate arrived on schedule, but I delayed replying because I wanted to bring the matter before a meeting of our entire membership for action. This was done last evening and I am very happy to report that the following resolution was passed unanimously and with enthusiasm. The resolution follows in quotation marks and we want to thank you for having given us the opportunity of expressing an opinion on this important matter. "Whereas it has come to the attention of the Small Property Owners' Association of Omaha, Nebr., that several proposals have been introduced in the Senate of the United States, the purpose of which is to change Senate rule XXII relating to limitation of debate in that body; and "Whereas the Senate of the United States justly deserves the reputation of the world's greatest deliberative body by reason of the existence to its rules permitting the widest possible latitude in debate; and "Whereas the Senate of the United States has always been an effective check upon the House of Representatives in the matter of hasty, ill-advised and inadequately considered legislation; and "Whereas existing rules of the Senate provide the last remaining opportunity for minorities to express their views on legislation; and "Whereas a change in such rules would render the right to the expression of minority views subject to the will, whim, or caprice of the majority and constitute a genuine threat to our representative form of government by denying to those in the minority the last remaining forum to fully express themselves; and "Whereas the membership of this organization has by reason of its ownership of rental property been cast in the role of a minority group in the matter of legislation relating to Federal rent control, and has had occasion in the past to be grateful for the unlimited opportunity to have its views expressed in the Senate of the United States: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved by the Small Property Owners' Association in regular meeting assembled at the Rome Hotel, at Omaha, Nebr., on this 12th day of June, 1957, That this organization go on record as being opposed to any amendment of Senate rule XXII which would result in any limitation of debate in the Senate of the United States, and that it express its vigorous opposition to any such change in the interest of preserving inviolate the Senate as the greatest deliberative body in the world where the views of the minority may be fully and completely expressed; be it further "Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Senators from Nebraska, the Honorable Carl Curtis and the Honorable Roman Hruska; be it further "Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the chairman of the special committee of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration." Very respectfully yours, ARTHUR JENNINGS HANSON, President. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Your recent letter concerning the views of this organization on proposals to change Senate rule XXII relating to the limitation of debate has been received. The attitude of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is simply that there should be no limitation of debate in the Senate of the United States. We know that any further limitation on debate in that body would be the end of the only really free forum left in the world. Any further limitation on debate would merely mean that we had made the decision to surrender the Government of the United States to minority groups. Yours sincerely, WILLIAM D. MCCAIN. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 5, 1957. Hon. MICHAEL J. MANSFIELD, Chairman, Special Subcommittee, Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: This communication concerns the various pending proposals to change rule 22 relating to limitation on debate, now before your subcommittee for consideration. Free and unlimited Senate debate has not only been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right and privilege, but a necessary instrumentality and safeguard through which the American people may be protected against enactment of dangerous legislation by a tyrannical Senate majority. One of the proposals to change rule 22 is Senate Resolution 30, introduced by Senator William F. Knowland and endorsed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. We are unalterably opposed to this and all other proposals to change this vital rule, and so informed both Senators Knowland and Johnson in our letters of January 8 and February 8, 1957, respectively, copies of which are attached. In this correspondence we stated it as our opinion that the principal purpose in destroying the protective provisions of rule 22 is to make possible enactment of the Eisenhower administration's civil rights bill, giving additional special consideration and privilege to Negroes. In this connection, attention was directed to the gross discriminatory special treatment accorded the Negro, through enactment of special rights laws and rendition of Federal court decisions of questionable constitutionality, which is in such sharp contrast with the indifferent treatment accorded the American Indian, who, since being deprived of his lands and hunting grounds by the Federal Government, has been forced to eke out an uncertain existence on barren and unproductive segregated reservations. It is inconceivable that Members of the Senate, upon whom the American people so greatly depend for protection and maintenance of constitutional government, would give favorable consideration to legislation designed to destroy the protective provisions of rule 22, and we, therefore, respectfully urge your subcommittee to return unfavorable reports on all such proposals now before your honorable body. F. A. LYDY, President, United Neighbors, Inc. Very truly yours, Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, LOS ANGELES, CALIF, January 8, 1957. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: A Washington, D. C., news dispatch datelined January 7, 1957, reports that you are to introduce a bill, which would allow imposition of a gag rule to stop debate on any measure at any time on the vote of twothirds of the Senators present. This would mean that less than a majority of total Senate membership could stop debate upon any measure, no matter how important to the welfare of this Nation. In our judgment, such provision would constitute a threat to the best interests of the American people, as dangerous as any of the crackpot gag measures so far proposed in the 85th Congress. We regret, and are greatly concerned, that you, whom so many Americans have come to regard as one of our most stalwart champions of constitutional government, would become the instrumentality through which legislation so inimical to the best interests of this Nation would be proposed. We are unalterably opposed to such dangerous legislation, and it will be our purpose to utilize every means to prevent this proposal from being enacted into law. The question is continually being asked, and we would appreciate enlightenment, as to why such large numbers of congressional legislators and top Federal officials are expending so much valuable time and energy, that should be otherwise employed, in endeavoring to force enactment of discriminatory and undesirable legislation, much of which is of questionable constitutionality, in order to accord Negroes special rights and privileges, when their legitimate rights are now more than fully protected under our Federal Constitution and numerous biased and discriminatory class decisions of our Federal courts. We shall greatly appreciate hearing from you on these important matters, at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, F. A. LYDY, President, United Neighbors, Inc. Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Senate Majority Leader, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 8, 1957. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: We have your letter of January 16, 1957, in reply to ours of January 11, with respect to Senator Knowland's resolution, Senate Resolution 30, to amend Senate rule 22. You state that you and Senator Knowland are trying to act affirmatively to write the two-thirds rule into the permanent rules of the Senate. However, this resolution destroys the protection of the present two-thirds rule and substitutes therefor a rule under which it would be possible for less than a Senate majority to impose a gag to end free debate. You refer to Vice President Nixon's statement of January 4, 1957, and state that, in view of his opinion, there are no protective provisions of rule 22. However, Mr. Nixon's statement was merely an expression of his personal opinion and not a ruling, and he so stated. Also, there is a question as to whether his views may not conflict with provisions of article I of the Constitution, in which case they could have neither force nor effect. Is it not true that, by destroying the present protective provisions of rule 22, the Eisenhower civil-rights program, giving Negroes additional special consideration and privilege, would be assured of passage? In this connection, we have endeavored to determine why so many in high places are so overzealous in their efforts to force enactment of special rights legislation for the sole benefit of the Negro, which, as stated in our letter of February 5 to Attorney General Brownell, copy attached, is in such sharp contrast with the indifferent and neglectful treatment accorded the American Indian, who for years has been forced to eke out a bare existence on barren and unproductive reservations, where he was herded after being stripped of his lands and hunting grounds. Why has not the Federal Government called in business groups and others to consider the plight of the Indian and to adopt measures to advance his economic |