of debate. The bill referred to are S. 17, S. 19, S. 21, S. 28, S. 29, S. 30, S. 32. We are in favor of 1949 cloture rule of the Senate which requires an affirmative vote of the total Senate body and not the simple majority vote. Therefore, we are writing to ask you to vote against these bill, so same can be defeated. DEAR SIR: Under this date the above council has written Senators Clifford P. Case and H. Alexander Smith to oppose the seven bills pending in the Senate, to change Senate rule XXII; namely, S. 17, S. 19, S. 21, S. 28, S. 29, S. 30, S. 32. Yours truly, Mrs. ALMA BAKER, Recording Secretary. RIVERSIDE, R. I., June 27, 1957. SENATOR TALMADGE. DEAR SIR: The members of Lafayette Council, No. 27, of Riverside, R. I., a unit of the National Council, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, protest the passage of seven bills, now pending in the Senate S. 17, S. 19, S. 21, S. 28, S. 29, S. 30, and S. 32-and ask that you work to defeat them. We, the members of Old Glory Council No. 56, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Clearfield, Pa., Clearfield County, do hereby object to change of Senate Rule XXII, relating to limitation of debate, bills No. S. R. 17, S. R. 19, S. R. 21, S. R. 28, S. R. 29, S. R. 30, and S. R. 32. Trusting it will be of some benefit in protesting these bills. [SEAL] NANNIE BAILOR, Recording Secretary, Clearfield, Pa. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE. PRIDE OF BELLEVILLE COUNCIL No. 215, DEAR SIR: We wish to have the members of this council to go on record as being opposed to the following bills and hope that they are defeated: Senate Resolution 17, Senate Resolution 19, Senate Resolution 21, Senate Resolution 28, Senate Resolution 29, Senate Resolution 30, and Senate Resolution 32. Fraternally yours, [SEAL] Mrs. BESSIE KOHLER, Recording Secretary. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, PRIDE OF MALASKA COUNCIL No. 100, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: I wish to inform you that our council has taken action on the seven bills pending in the Senate to change Senate rule XXII relating to limitation of debate. We are protesting these bills and have written to our Senators, and urging that they be defeated. Very truly yours, [SEAL] Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, RUTH KNERR, Recording Secretary. PRIDE OF NEW JERSEY COUNCIL No. 243, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: I am writing to inform you that I, as the recording secretary of the above subordinate council of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, have under date of June 22, wrote to our two United States Senators from New Jersey asking them to oppose any and all legislation that will effect the present status of Senate rule XXII. This was done in accordance with a request from our national legislative committee of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Wishing you success in your efforts to prevent any changes in Senate rule XXII, we wish to remain. Very truly yours, [SEAL] Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, EDWARD S. BROOKFIELD, PRIDE OF THE PARK COUNCIL No. 15, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. DEAR SIR: As a patriotic organization we would ask you to use your influence in defeating the seven bills pending in the Senate to change Senate rule XXII relating to limitation of debate. DEAR SIR: In accordance with the instruction from the legislative committee of the National Council, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, I am writing to you asking for your vote against seven bills pending in the Senate to change Senate rule 22 relating to limit of debate. These bills are numbered Senate Resolutions 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, and 32. In our understanding, the Senate was created as a curb upon hasty action by the House of Representatives. Senators represent States which are equal, not areas of population as in the House. The Senate is the only free parliamentary body left in the world. To stifle freedom of speech on the Senate floor strikes at the fabric of our form of government. Anything that will make it easier to secure controversial legislation by shortening and cutting off debate should be rejected. No good legislation has failed of eventual passage because of prolonged debate, but some bad legislation has been stopped. Therefore, we 93635-57-24 of Ohio State Council, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, ask you to protect these bills and help to defeat them. Fraternally in friendship, patriotism, and integrity. Approved by State Councilor. [SEAL] Mrs. BEATRICE COOVER, BETTY MORAN. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, TRUE AMERICAN COUNCIL, No. 3, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At the regular meeting of True American Council, No. 3, Sons and Daughters of Liberty, held June 28, 1957, by unanimous vote of the members present, I was instructed to write regarding several bills pending in the Senate to change Senate rule XXII, relating to limitation of debate. These bills are Senate Resolutions 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, and 32. The Senate is the only free parliamentary body left in the world. To stifle freedom of speech on the Senate floor strikes at the fabric of our form of government. We feel that no good legislation has failed of eventual passage because of prolonged debate, but some bad legislation has been stopped. Trusting that you will do all you can to prevent the passage of these bills. Very respectfully yours, Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GEORGE F. UNSELD, Secretary. SONS OF UNION VETERANS OF THE CIVIL WAR, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. June 24, 1957. MY DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Your letter to Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant III of June 18 relative to submitting a written statement for introduction into the record of the hearings relative to proposed amendments to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate pertaining to limitation on debate was referred to our commander in chief, Mr. Fred E. Howe, of Niagara Falls, N. Y. Commander in Chief Howe is at present traveling and attending our various State conventions and has instructed me to advise you of the following statement of position which has been unanimously approved by our national council of administration: "The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, a nonprofit, patriotic, and educational organization, composed of descendants of the Union soldiers, sailors, and marines who took part in the Civil War, feels honored at the invitation to comment on the proposed legislation to change Senate rule XXII relative to limitation of debate. However, our order is constrained to recognize that this is a matter entirely within the prerogatives of the Senate, that it is political and, at least to some extent, partisan, and therefore one in which our participation as an organization is prohibited by article IV of our constitution. We are consequently constrained to refrain from comment as such. Nevertheless, being assured that it is the desire of your committee to be informed of the views of patriotic citizens as far as possible throughout our broad land, and wishing to be helpful as far as we properly can, our commander in chief has asked for the individual opinions of the members of our council of administration and officers, and in no wise a statement of the attitude of the order as a whole, or of the council speaking for the order in anticipation of the national encampment's next meeting. "There is necessarily no unanimity on the subject in the group of leaders mentioned above. We are mindful of the fact that unlimited debate in the Senate on occasion has prevented undesirable legislation and postponed contentious subjects for further consideration until there was a meeting of the minds. We remember the anecdote of Jefferson at breakfast with President Washington, after the former's return from France, saying that the one thing he did not like about the Constitution was the bicameral organization of the legislature. Whereupon Washington pointed to Jefferson's cup of coffee, much of the contents of which he had poured into his saucer, and asked 'Why did you do that?' Jefferson is reported to have answered "To cool it off, of course.' Washington's response was to the effect that 'so we thought the Senate necessary to allow legislation to cool off.' "On the other hand, we realize that such unlimited debate has on occasion prevented and may again prevent the passage of much needed legislation, it having proven too often impracticable to secure an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Senators to pass the cloture resolution. In view of the increased load of legislation now requiring prompt action by Congress, especially in our foreign relations and to meet sudden changes in our economy, we believe that such delays may now prove more deleterious to the national welfare than in the past. "Therefore, we unanimously, as individual citizens having the national interests at heart, are of the opinion that some modification of the present rule XXII would be in the national interest without making it too easy to shut off debate. Having confidence in the attendance of Senators conscientiously opposed to a motion to close debate at the meeting at which the vote is to be taken, we consequently believe that amendment to permit two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to decide the matter after due advance notice (12 or 15 days), but in no case less than a majority of all Senators." Sincerely yours, Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. ALBERT C. LAMBERT, National Secretary-Treasurer. DR. PIERRE CHEMICAL CO. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: It is my understanding that the section of the first amendment to the United States Constitution relating to freedom of speech has not, as yet, been repealed, but I would like to know of what value to the people is freedom of speech if it is denied their legislators? Although its character was somewhat weakened when, under the terms of the 17th amendment, its membership became elected by the people rather than by the State legislatures, still the Senate ranks as the most important remaining segment of our republican form of government. Any attempt to limit debate in the Senate by changing rule XXII is, in my opinion, an attempt to further weaken our republican governmental structure. I believe that a United States Senator should be entitled to the same rights guaranteed to a Communist traitor and I am therefore completely opposed to any change in Senate rule XXII that would limit to the slightest degree freedom of speech. Sincerely yours, ROBERT BENT TAFT. STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE XXII (RELATING TO CLOTURE), BY WILLIAM M. BEARD, PAST COMMANDER IN CHIEF, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, WESTFIELD, N. J. Gentlemen, I am submitting this statement to this special subcommittee as the representative of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The Sons of Confederate Veterans are opposed to the proposed amendments to rule XXII (relating to cloture) for the following reasons: 1. When the United States Constitution was adopted, the framers of that document were careful to provide that arbitrary power should never be lodged in any majority. Each dictator in modern times has claimed that he holds a mandate from the majority. Majority rule is in its essence the doctrine that might makes right and that right is the selfish interest of the strongest. Our Founding Fathers knew and believed that there are human rights to be put beyond the reach of the majorities, mobs, or masters. These human rights include the immemorial rights of Englishmen: the right of personal liberty, personal security, and private property. The right of personal liberty includes the right of free speech, free debate, the right of Senators to express their thoughts and opinions without limitation as to time. The proposed new rule to limit debate imposed by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, or by a majority of the authorized membership of the Senate would constitute a very serious and unwarranted limitation of the right to debate. The matters coming before the Senate of the United States are of sufficient moment, that free and unlimited debate should be possible under all circum stances unless cloture is imposed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The late Senator James A. Reed, of Missouri, stated, "so long as we can keep this forum free, so long as a vigorous and determined minority can prevent passage of a statute, so long this country will be safe, reasonably safe at least, for no great act of treachery can ever be consummated where there are some brave souls to stand in its resistance and to stand to the end* * *." If you adopt the proposed amendments to rule XXII, you not only strike down the right of the minority to be heard, without limitation of the right of free speech and free debate, you are setting a precedent for changing the rules so that in the future the rules may be changed in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner, with the result that debate may not only be limited, but it may be entirely prohibited. This would mean the end of free government. Debate in the "greatest deliberative body in the world" would be either unreasonably limited or prohibited. I respectfully submit that the proposed change in the rules is not in accord with sound democratic processes. It is a step toward totalitarianism by imposing an unjust and unnecessary limitation upon the rights of the minority. 2. On December 20, 1829, Senator Samuel Foote, of Connecticut, offered a resolution to have the Senate Committee on Public Lands "inquire into the expediency of limiting for a certain period the sale of public lands, to such lands only, as have heretofore been offered for sale, and subject to entry at a minimum price." This resolution was briefly debated December 30, 1829, by Senators Benton, Foote, and Holmes. The debate was resumed on January 13, 1830. From January 18, 1830, when the great debate got under way, Benton, Holmes, Hayne, Webster, debated the resolution at intervals until it was finally tabled on May 21, 1830. During this debate, Benton, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun were not limited by any gag rule on debate. Their speeches at times were vehement, they were prolonged and the speakers sought victory for the cause they championed. This debate was only a continuation of the discussions in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 of the issues between Jefferson and Hamilton. 3. In the debates on the civil-rights bill, there should be read into the record the full and complete history of the reconstruction of the South, 1865-77. Not only the Members of the Senate, but the American people need to have their recollections refreshed as to what happened in the South during those 12 tragic years when free Negroes, northern carpetbaggers, and southern scalawags backed by Federal bayonets were in control of the Southern State governments. No Senator should vote for the civil-rights bill until he has read The Tragic Era by Claude G. Bowers, Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1929. Before the people of the South are subjected to another reconstruction by the Federal Government, their representatives should have absolute right to unlimited debate in the Senate on a bill, which in its essence, is nothing but a Federal force bill. The present civil-rights bill in its express terms and implications will reconstruct the South more drastically than it was reconstructed or destructed during the tragic 12 years, 1865–77. The civil-rights bill if enacted into law will have more far-reaching and divisive effects than any law enacted by Congress since the end of the War Between the States. 4. Under the Constitution, the right of the several States to regulate their own affairs must remain inviolate. In 1786 Jefferson wrote Madison that in the proposed Union there should be a proper division of powers between Federal and State Governments. Repudiate that principle and our liberties are lost. Jefferson well said, "When our Government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power it will become venal and oppressive." Chief Justice John Marshall, speaking for the Supreme Court, declared in 1819, "No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States and of compounding the American people into one common mass." Andrew Jackson said in his farewell address: "There are those who wish to enlarge the power of the Central Government. Their attempts should be firmly repressed." Any bill which infringes on or violates the provisions of the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be subjected to free and unlimited debate. Among the powers reserved to the States under the 10th amendment is the right to establish qualifications for voting, subject nevertheless, to the limitation |