|
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 school
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
15.
Wallace Bennett
16.
George Aiken
17.
Ralph
Flanders
18.
Frank
Barrett
|
Part III was
removed by a vote of 52 to 38. If we are to win in the next
session of Congress, we must hold what we got in the first
session and pick up at least eight additional votes.
Between now and the time Congress meets
in January, all who believe in civil rights would do well to
concentrate their energies on helping to get as many of the
above Senators as possible to pledge that they will make a last
ditch, unyielding fight for the new bill which will be
introduced in January. This task can be undertaken now while
most of these Senators are in their home states.
The Jury Trial
Amendment
No one who made the fight to defeat the
jury trial amendment to H.R. 6127 has any need to apologize.
When the O’Mahoney, Kefauver, Church jury trial amendment was
approved by a vote of 51 to 42 on August 2, 1957, the civil
rights leaders on the Senate floor had lost only because they
had been deserted by other Senators who should have stood with
them.
|