|
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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)
|
|
|
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
| |