spacer



The Papers of Clarence Mitchell Jr.

                          and of the NAACP Washington Bureau 1942 - 1978

 

spacer


 

Synopses

Lion in the Lobby
Volumes I&II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V


Tables of Contents

Volumes I&II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume V
 

Documents

Sample Documents I
Sample Documents II
Sample Documents III
Sample Docs III Cont..

Sample Documents IV

Sample Documents V

 
Background

Mitchell A Profile
Project Scope
Mitchell's Reports


 


Prof. Denton L. Watson

About Prof. Watson
About Us
Contact Us
Blog


 



 

February 8, 1955

 

LEGISLATION

 

“It was undeniable that I was arrested twice, spent two days in jail, was inconvenienced, and was recommended for separation (from the Air Force) merely because I wished to remain in a seat on a bus that I had paid for, a seat that the very Constitution of the United States guarantees me. It is evident, I hope, that one Federal law could have prevented the aforementioned occurrences and a thousand kindred ones. I hope they will be prevented in the future.”

 

The foregoing words were spoken in 1954 before the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee during hearings on legislation to end segregation in interstate travel.[1] The speaker was Lieutenant Thomas Williams a 28 year old former officer of the U.S. Air Force. He had enlisted at the age of 18, but was dropped from the Service following his arrest in Florida because he refused to accept segregation on an interstate bus.

 

Lt. Williams was such a clean cut, fine young man that even southern members of the committee grudgingly commended him.

 

This year, Senators Magnuson, Case of New Jersey, Ives, Butler, Humphrey, Lehman, and others have introduced bills to eliminate segregation in interstate travel. Similar bills have been introduced by Congressmen Heselton, Powell, Scott, Dawson and other members of the House. Senator Magnuson has promised that he will hold hearings on the Senate bills in February or March. Congressman Heselton is working for early consideration and prompt report on his bill and others.

 

The Anti-Jim Crow Travel Bills are S. 657, (Ives-Butler), S. 908 (Magnuson, Lehman, Douglas, Humphrey, Jackson, McNamara, Morse, Murray, Neely, Neuberger, and Pastore); H. R. 434 (Heselton), H.R. 691 (Powell), H.R. 2877 (Scott), H.R. 3252 (Heselton), and H.R. 3301 (Dollinger).

 

This proposed legislation is not placed at the beginning of this report because it is more important than any other bill. It is mentioned first out of respect for Lt. Williams. He called the Bureau a few weeks ago to indicate his willingness to testify if hearings were held. He was killed in the crash of a jet aircraft during the month of January while serving with the New Jersey National Guard.

 

FEPC Bills

 

Fair Employment Practice proposals (S. 899 in the Senate and H.R. 690 and others in the House) have been introduced and referred to the Labor Committees in the Senate and House.

 

In the Senate, the sole uncompromising opponent on the committee is chairman Lister Hill of Alabama. In the House, there are many anti-FEPC committee members and the chairman is Graham Barden (D.,N.C.). Neither Senator Hill nor Congressman Barden will voluntarily agree to hearings on FEPC Bills.

 

It is hoped that Senator Lehman, who is a member of the Labor Committee, will be made chairman of a subcommittee to hold hearings. This could be accomplished if his fellow committee members voted to override the chairman’s obstruction. In the House, Congressman Powell has said that he will seek appointment as chairman of a sub-committee to hold hearings on a bill, but, if he is defeated in this, will work actively for a discharge petition which requires 218 signatures.

 

Omnibus Bill

 

We wish to call attention to the Omnibus Civil Rights Bills (S. 907, H.R. 389, and H.R. 627) which have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Senator Harley Kilgore of West Virginia, and to the House Committee, headed by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York.

 

Because these bills make a broad attack on civil rights problems, Mr. J. Francis Polhaus, counsel in the Bureau, has prepared a memorandum explaining what would be accomplished by this proposal. Copies of his memorandum are available at the Bureau. Congressman Celler has promised to hold hearings in March. As yet, we have no commitment from Senator Kilgore on when he will hold hearings.

 

Other civil rights bills now before Congress include a proposal to establish a commission on civil rights, an anti-poll tax bill, and an anti-lynching bill.

 

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

 

On the reverse side of civil rights, Senator Holland of Florida is leading an effort to get S.J. Res. 29 passed by the Senate. This resolution is a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw the Poll Tax. We have registered our opposition to this measure.

 

Introduced in the Senate and the House, also, is a proposal to end the electoral college and establish a system of proportional allotment of popular votes. S.J. Res. 31 in the Senate was introduced by Senators Price Daniels of Texas, Hubert Humphrey, and others. This proposed amendment was defeated in the 82nd Congress through the efforts of the NAACP. Unfortunately, at that time, very few liberal organizations supported us in this action because many persons, including President Truman, seemed to believe this amendment would be a useful advance in this country. We will continue our opposition, of course.

                                                ----                                          ----

The Bureau has sent to each member of Congress a statement outlining our objectives in the legislative field and asking for support.

 

The administrator was in Washington in connection with matters related to revision of the Senate Rules. It is presumed that he will discuss this subject in his report, and, for that reason, no mention of it is made in the Washington Bureau report.

 

Federal Aid for School Construction

 

Several bills to provide Federal aid for school construction are before Congress. The president has sent a message to Congress on this subject. The director appeared before the Senate Labor Committee to testify on S. 5 and other bills. In our testimony, it was recommended that:

 

(Each state plan requesting Federal aid shall) “certify that school facilities of the state are open to all children without regard to race in conformity with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.”[2]

 

This simple request has precipitated an attack by some of the supporters of Federal aid who say that inclusion of it will kill the bill.

 

One criticism worthy of note came from Mrs. Agnes Meyer, wife of the owner of the Washington Post and Times Herald. Mrs. Meyer told the director over the telephone that if inclusion of this provision resulted in the killing of the bill she would strongly criticize the NAACP and would “personally demolish” the director of the Bureau. She asked that her views be conveyed to the NAACP Board, which is why they are included in the report. The director is unable to say what Mrs. Meyer meant with reference to him but presumes that this will become clear if and when the demolition begins.

 

Manpower Bills

 

After several conferences with military officials and interested civilians, we have notified the Department of Defense that the proposed National Reserve plan will be discriminatory in many states because of Jim Crow policies in National Guard units. This legislation is before a House subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, headed by Representative Overton Brooks (D., La.). We have been advised that we shall be heard on it. Meanwhile, Carter L. Burgess, assistant secretary of Defense in Charge of Manpower and Personnel, has told us the following about the plan:

 

“Young men who are subject to military service, may volunteer for service, within quotas to be established under the proposed law, in either the Reserve of the Army, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard or in the National Guard of a state. In either case, these young men will be required to participate in a six months training program and assume a nine and one-half year military service obligation.

 

“The well known integration policy of the Department of Defense, will, of course, be fully applicable to the six months training program. Furthermore, no change is contemplated in the integration policy applicable to service in the Reserves of the military services. With respect to Reserve service with a state National Guard unit subsequent to the six months training period, the laws and policies of the state are applicable.”

 

We have underlined the reference to the National Guard in order that it may be properly emphasized in the mind of the reader.

 

EXECUTIVE POLICIES

 

Many newspapers have mentioned with approval the President’s issuance of a new executive order strengthening Fair Employment policies within the Federal Service. This order, which was ready during the spring of 1954 but not issued, was recommended to the White House by the Washington Bureau.

 

By one of the ironies that sometimes accompany events of this kind, the new order has halted action on several important cases being processed by Mr. Polhaus before the Federal Fair Employment Board. However, this difficulty will be overcome shortly, and, because of the increased statue [stature] given to the program, we possibly will obtain better results.

 

On the matter of employment discrimination in government, the Washington Bureau’s annual report contained the following case which concerned:

 

“A young woman who discovered a note in which her supervisor called her a darky and joked about how she got the ‘run-around’ when she complained about unfair employment practices. When she brought the note to the attention of her superiors, she was fired for having the personal property (i.e., the note) of another employee in her possession.”

 

This matter is now satisfactorily settled because of able handling by Mr. Polhaus. An excerpt from the letter of appreciation sent by the complainant reads as follows:

 

“Recently, in my behalf, contact had to be made with the Fair Employment Officer of the Army. This was done very ably by your representative, Mr. J. Francis Polhaus. I had been discharged from my Civil Service job due mainly to racial discrimination. Quietly, with determination and know-how, he was able to see me restored to duty on January 12, 1955.

 

Please accept the enclosed donation ($25.00) to help carry forward the program of a wonderful organization.”

 

President’s Committee on Government Contract

 

In the annual report, we also mentioned that the secretary and the director have consistently sought action by the President’s Committee on Government Contracts on the Capital Transit Company of Washington, D. C., as well as the Telephone Companies in Baltimore and Washington. These companies have a long record of denying employment to colored people who seek jobs as operators.

 

<It now appears that the Capital Transit problem will be resolved at last. The following is an excerpt from a letter sent to us by the Committee on Government Contracts. We made official inquiry because there had been extensive newspaper coverage of the agreement of >

It now appears that the Capital Transit problem will be resolved at last. We made official inquiry because there had been extensive newspaper coverage on the agreement of Capital Transit to hire colored operators, but we had no direct word from the committee about whether the case was closed. The following is an excerpt from a letter sent to us by the Committee on Government Contracts:

 

“This will acknowledge your letter of January 19 wherein you inquired as to the status of several complaints which your organization has filed with the Committee.

 

“Our Committee has not officially closed the Capital Transit Company matter, although the company has informed us that they have upgraded a number of qualified Negroes, to become platform operators. These men are currently undergoing a process of training and have not as yet become full-fledged operators. Our Committee intends to keep this situation under review for a period of time. When, in the opinion of the Committee, the matter has been satisfactorily resolved, we will, of course, inform you thereof.

 

“With reference to Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Washington, our special subcommittee is still negotiating with the company. We have made certain progress in this case but a great deal remains to be done and our Committee does not at present regard this matter as being satisfactorily resolved.

 

“The complaint against the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephony Company of Baltimore is currently being investigated by the agency having a contract with it and as yet we have not received the investigative report.”

 

The Director wishes to call the Board’s attention to the fact that much of the work on the Transit and Telephone Companies was and is handled by Mr. John Roosevelt, who is a member of the Committee on Contract Compliance.

 

During the month of January, the Director and Congressman Powell had a conference with Vice President Nixon to discuss ways of strengthening and speeding up the Committee’s work.

 

Ten Per Cent Deal

 

The National Association of Home Builders met in Chicago this month and repeated its “pledge” to build ten per cent of its total housing program for Negro occupancy. This, of course, is coupled with the proviso that “suitable sites” must be found. This Jim Crow quota arrangement has the approval of Albert Cole, administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, who said that it should be applauded by the whole country. It also appears that Joseph Ray, Head of HHFA’s racial relations service approves this policy.

 

We have again reminded the Attorney General that the problem of government policy in housing is one that urgently demands attention.

 

South Africa Sinks Navy Policy

 

The carrier Midway of the U.S. Navy visited Capetown, South Africa, this month. Its captain and the U.S. Consul agreed to a South African requirement that colored personnel (Americans of Japanese, Filipino, and African ancestry) would be segregated ashore.

 

We urged the Navy not to visit Capetown and asked for a conference with the Secretary of Navy. He was ill but his Naval Aide said the matter would be handled by the Acting Secretary. We then asked for a conference with the Acting Secretary who was out but his office advised that a telegram would be sent to us. When the telegram did not come we traced it through the Navy Communication Center and found that it had been sent but with a notation that it be delayed until the following morning. By that time, of course, the Midway was in Capetown.

 

The Navy said it had to use Capetown for logistic reasons. However, our investigation revealed that the Navy was on a so-called good will visit.

 

We then asked the State Department to indicate what part it played in this matter because the Navy said diplomats had “arranged for the visit.”  We also pointed out that the visit was a violation of previous Navy policies. Scott McLeod, Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, has advised that he is investigating the matter.

 

A question on this was raised at the President’s press conference, but he declined to comment. Later, the Navy issued a statement saying that the visit helped to promote democracy. At least two representatives of the daily press willfully and knowingly wrote glowing stories about the success of the Midway’s visit.

 

At the request of Congressman Powell, the Library of Congress asked the Navy for a copy of the previous policy which would have barred the Midway’s visit. At first, the Navy said it had no record of any such policy. When the identifying numbers of the policy statements were cited, the Navy said that part of it (P.R. 300, Serial 3101) was a document that could not be released. This is an incredible blunder because the Washington Bureau has a copy of that policy statement which we will furnish to any interested person upon request.

 

Senators Lehman and Humphrey promptly joined us in protesting against the visit of the Midway to Capetown. Senator Case of New Jersey is also interested in the policy question we have raised. The most recent Navy statement was sent to Senator Humphrey. It enclosed a photostatic copy of a laudatory article of the Midway’s visit to South Africa. This article appeared in the New York Times. The Navy made no mention of an editorial in the Times condemning the Midway’s visit.

 

Mississippi Problems

 

A number of the problems of our Mississippi members are being handled by the Bureau. These include:

 

  1. Dr. T. R. M. Howard of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, was being threatened with induction into the Army by his draft board, apparently because of his civil rights activities. We took this matter up with the Selective Service and have been assured that Dr. Howard will not be inducted.

 

  1. After clearance with assistant special counsel, we urged Attorney General Herbert Brownell not to recommend appointment of Gerard Brandon of Mississippi to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Brandon is one of those leading the fight against enforcement of the Supreme Court decision in the school cases. The press in Mississippi had reported that he was under consideration for the post. The Attorney General has turned this matter over to Mr. William Rogers, Deputy Attorney General. We have also asked Mr. Rogers to withhold endorsement of any Mississippi lawyer who is a part of the Anti-Supreme Court conspiracy in Mississippi. This action was taken after we received word from Mr. Carsie Hall, a Jackson lawyer, saying that 1100 lawyers in the state had agreed to join a concerted drive to circumvent the Court’s decision.

 

  1. The director of the bureau and Mr. Polhaus met with the head of the Farmers Home Administration and two of his assistants on complaints that FHA assistance is being denied persons because they have been active on civil rights.

 

Walter S. Strider and Shirley O’Neal, of FHA, in Mississippi, have publicly denied that loans were withheld because of civil rights activity. O’Neal, who is colored, denied that he asked whether the applicants were NAACP members.

 

The conference with FHA officials in Washington was not satisfactory. They were unable to produce a direct refutation of the charges made. The FHA officials said that to prove that loans had not been denied because of civil rights activities of applicants it would be necessary to reveal information on the credit status of the complainants. The officials insisted that they could not reveal this information without a signed authorization from the complainants. We are requesting this authorization and will seek another conference on the matter.

 

During the conference, the GHA officials stated that they had also received an inquiry from Senator Stennis (D., Miss.) on this complaint.

 

  1. Mr. Polhaus discussed the case of Charles Evers, a former radio disc jockey, with the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Evers was released by station WHOC of Philadelphia, Mississippi, because:

 

“Economic pressure on the owner (of the station) in the form of curtailing the advertisements and non-purchase of his wholesale goods, made it necessary that Mr. Evers be released (with) regrets of the owner himself.”

 

Mr. Evers stated that he did not wish to press action through FCC.

 

Birmingham, Alabama

 

The Bureau referred to the Department of Justice the case of Mr. Charles Patrick, who was brutally beaten by two police officers of Birmingham, Alabama, because he had been involved in a dispute over a parking place with the wife of one of the officers. The dispute arose when the officer’s wife attempted to take the parking space that Mr. Patrick was backing into. She advised him that her husband was a policeman and would cause trouble for Mr. Patrick. Mr. Patrick left the scene and was later arrested and taken to jail, where he was beaten in his cell by the two officers, one of whom was the husband of the woman involved in the incident.


 

MS: NAACP II: 656, DLC.

[1] 5/13/54, Hearings, 42. See also 12/7/53, and headnote on Struggle to End Jim Crow Travel, Vol. III.

[2] Mitchell noted in his prepared statement noted that, rather than obeying the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, four states to date – Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina – had enacted legislation to preserve racial segregation. 1/27/55, Hearings, 249. Mitchell next testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor. 5/20/55, Hearings, ????. See 6/6/55 for reference to this testimony.

 

 

February 9, 1956

 

Preparations for Legislative Action

 

On September 7, 1955, Mr. Wilkins, Executive Secretary; Mr. Marshall, Special Counsel; the Director of the Washington Bureau; Mrs. Hurley, Southeastern Regional Secretary; and Mr. Evers, Field Secretary for the State of Mississippi, met with Warren Olney III, Assistant Attorney General, to discuss some of the problems of violence and denial of right to vote we now face in the South.

 

At the conference, it was agreed that among other things the Department of Justice had an obligation to tell the Congress where its existing powers need strengthening in order to cope with crimes such as the Till[i] case, the shooting of the Reverend George W. Lee, and the persistent program of denying colored people the right to vote.

 

As a follow up on this conference, the Director has had meetings with the Attorney General and members of Congress in an attempt to work out a coordinated approach to the legislative side of this matter. The following are the results of these meetings:

 

1.         The Attorney General has studied bills which are now pending in the Congress and has prepared recommendations which the Director is advised incorporate some of the provisions in pending bills that deal with protection against violence and protection of the right to vote. The Department of Justice has promised that these recommendations will reach the Congress in February.

 

For the record, it should be noted that the Director of the Bureau has not seen the actual text of the Department’s proposals and cannot, therefore, say whether they are adequate or acceptable.

 

It is also noted, for the record, that the idea of a bi-partisan Commission to investigate civil rights violations appears to have gotten its main support from the White House. Congressman Frelinghuysen (R., N.J.) has introduced H.R. 8350, which is a bill to establish this type of commission. Needless to say, there will be many who will try to use the commission idea as an excuse for not acting on other bills.

 

2.      There is now in the House of Representatives a bi-partisan working committee of Congressmen which is the nucleus of a larger group that is pledged to support a civil rights program. The working committee has agreed that a meeting of all Congressmen who are in favor of civil rights will be called as soon as the Justice Department’s recommendations are sent over to the Hill. At that meeting, the group will either support the Justice Department’s recommendations or agree upon changes which will strengthen these recommendations, if necessary.

 

Because hearings on Civil Rights Bills were held during the summer of 1955 by the House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 2, the bi-partisan group of Congressmen agreed that further hearings in the House are unnecessary and all effort should be concentrated on getting a bill or bills out of committee.

 

3.         The Director has met several times with Chairman Emanuel Celler of the House Judiciary Committee who is also a member of the group working for a bi-partisan approach to civil rights. The current legislative situation has also been discussed with Thomas J. Lane (D., Mass.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee, which is in charge of Civil Rights Bills. Mr. Lane has declined to give a specific commitment on when his subcommittee will act on the pending bills.

 

4.         The Director has talked with Senator Harley Kilgore, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Thomas Hennings, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, which handles civil rights legislation, and also with other members of the Senate on the question of whether hearings will be held promptly on Civil Rights Bills.

 

The Director has advised Senator Hennings that the Attorney General has stated that he is willing to appear at these hearings and testify in person. As yet, there is no commitment from the Senate Judiciary Committee or the subcommittee on a specific time of hearings.

 

Some members of the Senate have suggested that, when the Attorney General sends over his recommendations, it will be well to have these introduced as a bi-partisan bill. In view of the fact that no hearings have been held in the Senate, introduction of these recommendations as a new bill would not in itself cause any unnecessary delay, provided, of course, the recommendations are sent to Congress during the Month of February.

 

Passage of Anti-Violence Bill

 

The House has passed H.R. 5205, which is an NAACP supported bill to protect servicemen against violence. This bill was sponsored by Representative Celler of New York. Other sponsors of this bill in the House were Congressmen Boyle of Illinois and Powell of New York. Passage of the House Bill was arranged chiefly by Chairman Celler of the Judiciary Committee with the help of Mr. Lane, Chairman of subcommittee No. 2

 

The companion bill in the Senate is S. 1089. Senator Lehman of New York, chief sponsor of the Senate Bill, has been doing extensive and careful work through members of his staff to obtain Senate passage of this bill. It has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, but Chairman Hennings of that subcommittee has not officially reported it to the full committee.

 

Plans for Civil Rights Conference

 

Pursuant to the agreements of organizations cooperating in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, there will be a nation wide meeting in Washington on March 4, 5, and 6. The Director has had the assignment of obtaining meeting places.

 

After a conference with the Secretary of Labor [James B. Mitchell], we have been granted use of the Interdepartmental Auditorium for Sunday evening, March 4, and all day Tuesday, March 6. The Auditorium is not available on March 5 during the day because of a meeting which the Department of Labor is holding.

 

Other facilities for the meeting are at the Willard Hotel where the Ballroom will be available for meetings all day Monday, March 5. We have a verbal commitment that the Metropolitan Baptist Church, 1225 “R” Street, N.W., will be available for a Sunday afternoon meeting on March 4.

 

The Bureau has reservations for approximately 150 hotel rooms during the conference. It is requested that anyone who desires a room should so indicate before February 20. The reason for this request is that three of the hotels, which are holding a small number of rooms, will not hold them beyond February 20 without specific commitments on occupancy.

 

The Director has submitted to the Secretary recommendations on composition of the delegations that come to Washington.

 

School Construction Bill

 

After a number of false reports on the prospect for immediate action, the School Construction Bill, H.R. 7535, is still stalled in the House Rules Committee. There was a rumor that the bill would be reported out with a closed rule which would prohibit amendments on the floor. There now seems to be no possibility that the bill will come out of committee with a closed rule. The Rules Committee is deliberately delaying action on the bill and, at the time this report is written, there is no certainty on when H.R. 7535 will be reported out.

 

The Director and Congressman Powell have cooperated in documenting the position of the Executive Branches of Government on the matter of giving Federal Funds to segregated schools. At this time, we have the Comptroller General, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on record saying that Federal funds for education will not be withheld from segregated schools unless there is a specific Court test on the issue.

 

On February 2, 1956, Congressman Powell called upon the President to state whether he had a legal opinion from the Attorney General that the Executive Branch had authority to withhold such funds. Mr. Powell also asked the President to state himself, or through the Attorney General, that funds made available by pending legislation would be withheld from states that defy the United States Supreme Court decision on the matter of school segregation.

 

At this time, President Eisenhower and former Governor Adlai Stevenson are both on record in opposition to the Powell Amendment. Former President Truman stated in Minneapolis that he supports the amendment.

 

Passage of H.R. 5649, re Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus

 

The House of Representatives has passed a bill to restrict the use of Writs of Habeas Corpus. This is highly technical legislation that has the support of the Judicial Conference. We are continuing our opposition to the bill now that it is in the Senate. The Director has been advised by a key member of the Senate that U.S. Judge John Parker is exerting a considerable amount of pressure to get this bill passed.

 

Federal Communications Commission

 

In previous reports, the Bureau pointed out that we have complained to the Federal Communications Commission about a newspaper story which quoted Fred Beard of Station WJDX in Jackson, Mississippi, as boasting that he had cut off a program on civil rights. According to the story, Mr. Beard told a meeting of the White Citizens Council that when he cut off the program he put up a sign saying “sorry cable trouble.”

 

We now have a report from FCC on this matter in which Mr. Beard insists that he was misquoted in the newspaper and that he did not have a contract to carry the program in question. The license to operate the station expires on June 1. Any protests against continued operation of it by the present owners will be heard by FCC.

 

Post Office Department

 

The Post Office has denied that its station at Elloree, South Carolina, withdrew the use of a box from Mr. L. A. Blackman because of his civil rights activities. During the investigation, the Post Office Department said that it interviewed one of Mr. Blackman’s witnesses who denied any knowledge of the matter. It is the Bureau’s opinion that Mr. Blackman was denied the use of the box but, in view of the collapse of one of his witnesses and because of other technical details, it may be impossible to prove this.

 

Atomic Energy Commission

 

The Atomic Energy Commission has agreed to investigate complaints against its Savannah River Works in South Carolina. It is alleged that segregation has been introduced in organized recreation. Under AEC regulations, segregation is forbidden at the Savannah River Works.

 

Anti-Civil Rights Measures

 

S. 2844 (Thurmond, South Carolina) and H.R. 8160 (Riley, South Carolina) are identical bills which would deny tax exemption to any organization that engages in litigation to which it is not a party.

 

H.R. 8906 (Matthews, Florida) would withdraw jurisdiction from all Federal courts and agencies to hear cases involving the administration of State educational systems.

 

H.J. Res. 495 (Vinson, Georgia) proposes a Constitutional amendment giving the States “the right to manage their own internal affairs with respect to any matter not expressly forbidden by the Constitution.”

 

S.J. Res. 127 (Eastland, Georgia) proposes a Constitutional amendment prohibiting interference with “the power of any State to regulate health, morals, education, marriage, and good order in the State.”

 

S. J. Res. 137 (Robertson, Virginia) would provide that a State could meet its obligations under the 14th Amendment by providing either desegregated or “separate but equal” public scho

 

MS:

[i]

 

 

September 6, 1957

 

Cliches and defeatism about civil rights legislation bowed to determined effort and hard work in the 85th Congress.

 

In spite of funeral predictions that the bill would die in the Eastland dominated Judiciary Committee, in spite of the longest and silliest filibuster speech in the Senate’s history, and in the face of numerous tricky obstructions, a right to vote bill was passed on August 29, 1957.

 

In due time, this legislation will make the Congress itself a more realistic reflection of the American scene because it will guarantee that future southern delegations in the Nation’s highest legislative body will include qualified colored men and women.

 

When this legislation is enforced, there will be no more flummery about how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap when colored citizens seek the right to register. After the stern restraint of a Federal injunction has been applied, those who used force, economic restrictions, and deception to keep the voting lists lily white will realize that the vote must be given to all without regard to race.

 

We who assisted at the birth of this legislation and have worked without many of the tools that we needed for success understand that we now have a new weapon against jim crow. We shall see to it that the race issue is blasted from southern politics.

 

This legislation started out as a four part bill. Each part was designed to perform an important task in the civil rights field.

 

Part I establishes a commission to get the facts and pave the way for additional Federal legislation.

 

Part II removes the civil rights function from the broom closet in the U.S. Department of Justice and makes it a vital division headed by an assistant attorney general.

 

Part IV of the bill gives new protection to the right to vote in time for the Congressional elections of 1958.

 

All of these are now safely through the Congress.

 

One of the parts of the bill, which in the opinion of the director is no more or less vital than Part IV, did not get through in this session.[1]

 

Significance of Part III

 

Getting some of the friends of civil rights to see the importance of Part III was one of the difficult jobs confronting the bureau when this bill was introduced in the 84th Congress.

 

Representative Kenneth Keating (R., N.Y.) issued a press release dated September 4, 1957, in which he said of the school crisis at Little Rock, Arkansas:

 

“The Governor’s action in this case, if it proves unjustified, will point up the necessity for further legislation to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens . . . Part III . . . would have fulfilled that need by enabling the Federal Government to act in the first instance on behalf of citizens . . . Had the Attorney General been authorized to act from the beginning in the situation in Arkansas, all of this trouble could have been avoided.”

 

When we were enlisting support for the civil rights bill, there were so many people who professed not to see the advantages of Part III that on April 16, 1957, J. Francis Pohlhaus, Washington Bureau Counsel, expanded previous memoranda he had written on this subject into a comprehensive statement.[2] This statement and the legislative history of Part III were given wide distribution by the bureau after Senator Richard Russell (D., Ga.) pretended to find some hidden deception in Part III.

 

We have never underestimated the potential good in Part III. The director is happy to report that Representative Emanuel Celler (D., N.Y.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Keating, who is the ranking member for the minority Party, are both pledged to resume the fight to get Part III enacted into law when the next session of Congress begins.

 

Now that it is clear that a meaningful civil rights bill can pass the Congress, the director hopes that all of the civil rights forces in the country will keep their fire centered on the main target, which is the Congress of the United States.

 

It is hoped that those who fell by the wayside when many thought our fight was hopeless will now unite with the NAACP in a determined drive to change the following votes in the United States Senate.

 

Senators Who Voted to Remove Part III

From H.R. 6127 in the 85th Congress

 

Democrats (16)

 

State

 

Republicans (18)

 

1.          Carl Hayden

 

2.          J. Allen Frear

 

3.          Frank Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.          Mike Mansfield

 

5.          James Murray

 

 

 

6.          Alan Bible

 

 

 

 

 

7.          Clinton Anderson

 

8.          Dennis Chavez

 

 

 

 

 

9.          Robert Kerr

 

10.      Mike Monroney

 

11.      Theodore Green

 

 

 

 

 

12.      Albert Gore

13.      Estes Kefauver

 

14.      Lyndon Johnson

 

15.      Yarborough

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.      Joseph O’Mahoney

 

Arizona

 

Delaware

 

Idaho

 

Iowa

 

Maryland

 

Massachusetts

 

Montana

 

Montana

 

Nebraska

 

Nevada

 

New Hampshire

 

New Jersey

 

New Mexico

 

New Mexico

 

North Dakota

 

Ohio

 

Oklahoma

 

Oklahoma

 

Rhode Island

 

South Dakota

 

South Dakota

 

Tennessee

Tennessee

 

Texas

 

Texas

 

Utah

 

Vermont

 

 

Wyoming

 

 

1.          Barry Goldwater

 

2.          John Williams

 

3.          Henry Dworshak

 

4.          H. B. Hickenlooper

 

5.          John Butler

 

6.          L. Saltonstall

 

 

 

 

 

7.          Carl Curtis

 

8.          George Malone

 

9.          Norris Cotton

 

10.      H. Alexander Smith

 

 

 

 

 

11.      Milton Young

 

12.      John Bricker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.      Francis Case

 

14.      Karl Mundt