ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

In the House, majority rule and majority control of the time for debate are not only fully justified, but a practical necessity in so large a legislative body. Moreover, majority rule in the House is justified for another reason. A Member of that body represents people-the people of his district-approximately 1 of 435 parts of the total population.

But the Senate was established and now exists on an entirely different basis.

When the framers of the Constitution were faced with the problem of what to do about the great disparity in size and population of the States Georgia, Mr. Chairman, was then the largest State, and Rhode Island the smallest--and were confronted by the firm determination of the smaller States to have somewhere equality of voting power, they hit upon a solution which has since challenged the admiration of the world.

A Senate was provided for-a continuing body in which each of the States-large and small, rich and poor-should have absolutely equal representation.

It was further provided in the Constitution that no State could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its own

consent.

Thereafter, until the advent of the First World War, the Senate operated under a rule of absolutely free debate.

Someone has said that it served as a saucer into which the hot actions of the other body could be poured to cool.

Senator TALMADGE. Will the witness yield at that point?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. I believe George Washington made that statement; did he not?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir. I did not know who had made it. "That remarkable body," William Gladstone once remarked of the Senate, "the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics."

A Senator-any Senator-could get on the floor, present all the facts as he saw them in connection with any issue, turn it inside out and upside down, test it, inquire into its fairness, justice, and practicability-in other words, and to an extent limited only by his own ability, turn the light of truth into all the dark places.

Indeed, it was his solemn obligation to do this. He represented his State. He was his sovereign State's ambassador to the Federal Government in Washington.

Of all the statements I have seen on this subject, one by the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge is perhaps the most penetrating. As a Representative, Mr. Lodge believed in cloture by majority vote, and himself was the author of a force bill. Then he came to the Senate where, in the course of time, his views radically changed. He said:

Cloture is a gag rule. It shuts off debate. It forces all free and open discussion to come to an end. Such a practice destroys the deliberative function which is the very foundation for the existence of the Senate. It was the intent of the framers of the Federal Constitution to obtain from the upper Chamber of the Congress a different point of view from that secured in the House of Representatives. Thus the longer time, the more advanced age, the smaller number, the equal representation of all States. Careful and thorough consideration of legislation is more often needed than the limitation of debate.

No wonder the Senate of the United States became known and rered as the last bastion of free, untrammeled debate.

Do you want to give this up and become-and I say this with no intention whatever of disparaging the other body-simply a second, albeit numerically smaller, House of Representatives?

And can you give it up without irreparable injury to the cause of free speech generally, and to the whole delicate system of checks and balances upon which our Government rests?

We don't think you can.

Consider some of the risks-the dangers-involved.

It is only stating the truth to say that many measures pass the House without the public ever having had an opportunity to understand them. This is because of the necessity for limited debate.

But here and I cite 169 years, many of them years of the greatest emergency, of experience with virtually unlimited debate in support of this no such necessity exists. Is it good or is it bad that before laws are passed affecting the lives of some 170 million people, they should somewhere be exposed to full and free debate?

Then there is the ever-present danger of partisanship-"the baneful effects of party spirit"-about which Washington warned. Suppose one party-either party-gains a substantial majority in the Senate. There was a time following the 1936 election when the Democratic Party had 76 votes out of the 96, and the Republicans had only 16the other 4 votes were among the Progressives and Farmer-Laborites. Perhaps at some other time this ratio will be reversed. The point is that to keep party spirit from running wild, there is need for full and free debate.

A little more than a century ago, Lord Macauley wrote an American friend of his:

Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.

He then made this somber prediction. He said that we—

would not be ravaged by Huns and Vandals from without, as was the Roman Empire in the fifth century, but by Huns and Vandals (who) will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions.

I do not know whether Lord Macauley was talking about modern organized pressure groups or not, but he could have been. And it is worth noting, in passing, that the cloture rule as it stands today is, in the words of Senator Stennis

the last bulkwark of strength against the demands of these groups.

Jefferson said the rule for unlimited debate is for the protection of minorities; and on the civil-rights issue, the southern people are said to be in the minority. But take any minority-religious, social, or political-that finds itself under serious, sustained attack, they know that they have a last and effective place of refuge: The floor of the United States Senate.

But, it is said, "the majority should rule."

I say to you with all the emphasis at my command that there are many situations-and this is one of them-where the majority should not rule-period.

The Constitution is based upon the philosophy, first enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights-rights of which he may not divest himself-rights which are inherent in man as a child of God and which cannot lawfully be taken away from him by any earthly

power. Among these are enumerated the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution itself coutains many limitations upon majority rule. Thus, the majority may not take my property without due process of law, or quarter troops in my house without my consent.

The right of trial by jury may not be taken away by the majorityor is this provision in the Constitution any longer valid? Apparently the Attorney General of the United States has found a way around it.

I plead with you, gentlemen, to see this issue in its true perspective. You are dealing here not with a simple change in the procedural rules of the Senate.

You are dealing with the fundamental principle of the rights of the States as written into the Constitution.

Incidentally, the provision of the Constitution that no State may be deprived of its suffrage in the Senate without its consent is the only part of the Constitution which cannot be repealed or amended except by unanimous consent of all the States. Senator Brandegee called the Senate the "Forum of the States."

You are dealing with the carefully wrought system of checks and balances upon the preservation of which our freedom as a Nation depends.

You are dealing with the last refuge of oppressed minorities-the last remaining free forum where unpopular views may find full and free discussion.

You are being asked to downgrade the Senate itself as an instiution; to pervert the all-important deliberate purpose the framers of the Constitution meant that it should serve; to make it subject to the passing whims of a temporary majority; and to surrender a part of your own dignity and power as lawmakers.

So I return to my original question: Are the movers of this effort to afford additional protection to a few so-called civil rights endangering other rights-rights of all the people, minorities as well as majorities which are far more precious?

We think they are.

Thank you.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Taylor, I want to congratulate you on that statement. I think it is one of the finest that has been presented to this committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Javits, do you have any questions?
Senator JAVITS. Yes, I do.

Mr. Taylor, we appreciate your coming here, and we appreciate your point of view; although I do not agree with it. I nevertheless appreciate its being exposed for consideration, and I think that is what we are here for.

So I am glad you are here, and I should like, if I may, to take a very few minutes to discuss some of these questions with you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.

Senator JAVITS. I gather you are a lawyer, Mr. Taylor, from the way you read the statement. Are you, by profession, a lawyer? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I am.

Senator JAVITS. I thought you were.

Mr. Taylor, I am very much interested in this. I notice a sentence at the very beginning of your statement which says:

* being a southern organization and opposed to all so-called civil rights legislation

Now, are the two synonymous, really? I mean, is that the whole character of the South: Being a southern organization, it is ipso facto opposed to every civil rights

Mr. TAYLOR. I start off with the assumption up there, Senator, that this is primarily aimed at the South; and then I follow up with a statement in our declaration of policy: that the council is opposed to all so-called civil rights legislation.

Senator JAVITS. I was more interested in the sectional aspect of it. You said "being a southern organization." Are we to assume that every southern organization is opposed to civil rights legislation? Mr. TAYLOR. No, I do not think that necessarily follows, but the council is.

Senator JAVITS. You say this is aimed primarily at the South. Of course, on Friday, the South did a little work on its own in connection with the dam, a great many other people did not like. So you might say that the East might say or the Middle West might say it is aimed especially at it.

Would you feel, therefore, that this effort is really-are you really serious about that that, that it is aimed specifically at the South?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have not heard of any agitation coming out of the South for it; and, on the other hand, I have heard much agitation coming out of the North.

Senator JAVITS. Of the other sections of the country?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. I noticed also a very interesting allusion to full and free debate in respect to some research you obviously did, which is fine. In 1936, you said there were 76 votes out of the 96 which were Democratic, and the Republicans had only 16.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. Now, on that basis, if the majority were just running wild, it could effect cloture immediately, could it not, even under the present Rule? You gain nothing out of that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, that was an extraordinary situation. But at the same time, Senator, I think you have got to recognize the fact of partisanship.

Take over in the House, as Senator Hill said when he was opposing this when it was up in 1952, I believe, the House does follow the leadership, and it is a partisan decision usually.

So that I do think there is some danger of that partisanship running wild.

Senator JAVITS. Well, I point out that under a top-heavy majority, the majority could work its will through cloture. So that you gain nothing out of the present rule, and it leads me to my next question, Mr. Taylor.

You understand, I really am seeking enlightenment as to your point of view. I think, incidentally, it is quite a representative one from the position from which you speak, and I think it should be elucidated as fully as possible. It leads me to this:

Are you satisfied with the present rule, or do you wish no rule at all? The present rule, as you know, gives cloture by a constitutional two-thirds.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I am satisfied with the present rule, for this reason, Senator: In times of national emergency, as in 1918-19, and 193940, it should be possible for a third of a constitutional majority to limit debate in case there are just a small number of what have been called willful men who are attempting to obstruct the program.

Senator JAVITS. But, of course, the rule is not limited to emergencies. It can be applied at any time by a two-thirds ruling.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, it is not likely to be applied except in emergencies.

Senator JAVITS. And your view upon that is not changed by the fact that you did have a 76-16 Senate?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, it is not.

Senator JAVITS. It is not.

I notice you also make the flat statement that the majority should not rule.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. Do you qualify that in any way? Would not Government be paralyzed if the majority should not rule?

Mr. TAYLOR. I say there are many situations the majority should not rule.

Senator JAVITS. You limit it, however. You do not say every situation?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. And also I noticed that you speak of the right, one of the enumerated rights of the Constitution is the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you feel that it is a denial of the pursuit of happiness to deny a man a job because he is a Negro?

Mr. TAYLOR. I believe that that is in the Declaration of Independence.

Senator JAVITS. Yes; I said it is.

Mr. TAYLOR. I thought you said the Constitution.
Senator JAVITS. I beg your pardon.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you restate your question?

Senator JAVITS. I asked whether you believe, or whether or not you believed that it was a denial of the right to the pursuit of happiness if you deny a man a job because he is a Negro.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, are you talking about the administration's civil-rights bill now?

Senator JAVITS. I am just asking a question of moral and constitutional right.

Mr. TAYLOR. If you are talking about the administration's civilrights bill, of course, as I understand it, that relates to voting.

Senator JAVITS. Well, I am not talking about that, Mr. Taylor. I just ask you this flat question: You say that one of the things we must protect very carefully is the pursuit of happiness, that right. I ask you whether you consider it a denial of that right to deny a man a job because he is a Negro.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; I would.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »