to all on a nondiscriminatory basis regardless of the manner or amount of interstate business it does. There is another matter which substantially affects commerce which we would like to bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman of this committee. Fair employment practices should be a part of the civil rights package which we hope the Congress will enact this year. We recognize that there may be a question of jurisdiction of Senate committees. A Senate subcommittee under the able chairmanship of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clark, recently concluded hearings on S. 773, a fair employment practices bill. Because of the salutary effect which fair employment practices would have on interstate commerce we would recommend that the provisions of S. 773 be added as an additional title to S. 1732. The American Veterans Committee appreciates the opportunity to present its views to the distinguished members of this committee. Thank you. PAUL COOKE, National Chairman. MANCHESTER, N.H., August 6, 1963. COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, GENTLEMEN: My sense of duty, both as a citizen and as a white retired infantry officer, compels me to go on record in favor of the civil rights public accommodations bill. This statement will not concern itself with the equal rights guaranteed under the Federal and various State Constitutions which, I am certain, have been thoroughly covered in the committee hearings by persons much more eminent than I. This statement will cover my personal experiences with Negro troops which I commanded in Korea in 1951, and my strong belief that the fact these Negroes knew they were second-class citizens directly affected the combat effectiveness of my platoon and of the battalion itself. I served as infantry rifle platoon leader in K Company, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2d Division, in Korea from March 1951 until June 2, 1951 when I was wounded. The battalion was composed entirely of Negroes except for a few white officers and replacements. From the moment I arrived until the moment I left, I could sense, and feel and see the results of the resentment of the men that they were frontline troops. After having spent many days on the line with them, during and after the Communist spring offensive in April of 1951, I had an opportunity to discuss this acute problem with them. I was deeply concerned because we had had our share of men absent without leave, deserters, and self-inflicted wounds. On talking with these men, which included my platoon sergeant, Sgt. Cyrus Predow, Sergeant Coutee, and Corporal Hemphill, and asking them why the morale of the men was so low, why the men had to be prodded with a bayonet to keep them moving in an attack, the answers were the same. The men simply did not feel that they should be frontline infantrymen since they were considered second-class citizens at home. Predow said, and I remember it vividly: "What I am fighting for, to get my tail kicked to the back of the bus when I get home because I'm a nigger?" Others told me that, because they were Negroes, they couldn't attend certain events, couldn't shop where they wanted, had to go hungry because restaurants wouldn't serve them, and couldn't urinate for hours because there were no facilities for Negroes. Others told me they were knocked insensible in some cities because they happened to walk on the sidewalk. I personally have seen Negroes, combat infantry veterans, forced to leave post exchanges because of the rank, foul discrimination that exists in the South. All this is not to say that the combat record of our outfit was not good. It was good, as evidenced by the Distinguished Unit Citation awarded for breaking the back of the Chinese offensive in April of 1951. However, there is no doubt in my mind that our combat effectiveness as a unit was seriously impaired by the fact that the Negroes knew they were relegated to the status of second-class citizens at home who were denied rights others enjoyed but still had to fight on the battlefield for the very persons who were denying them those rights. I strongly feel that unless the Negro in this country is afforded the same rights as other citizens, the same accommodations, then he should not be asked to perform the duties required of a citizen who enjoys those same rights. As I led my men in the attacks and counterattacks in Korea through the decisive months of 1951 and saw them get hit by mortar fire, by 50 calibers, by burp-gun fire, by heavy artillery, and saw their red blood flow over their black skin, I could not help but feel an overwhelming sympathy for these men who, for a brief interval, served with me in our country's just cause. In closing, I should like to quote parts of a letter sent to me by 1st Lt. Palmer K. Holk, who was my company commander. This letter was written after I was wounded in the attempt to secure a hill north of Inje, North Korea. It reads, in part: "We didn't secure the hill. Two days later we were relieved by the R.O.K.S. That day, 5 killed in action, 39 wounded in action. It got a little rough. Couldn't get any artillery fire and couldn't get the F. O. (forward observer) to move forward." I quote Lieutenant Holk's letter to show the casualties suffered by this Negro company in one engagement. I would not be true to the memory of the men in my platoon who fought and died in those remote hills of Korea if I did not. at this time, make an earnest plea that the public accommodations bill be passed. The passage of such a bill would, in my humble opinion, strengthen our country internally, and at the same time would act as a fitting testimonial to those Negro war dead. My sincere thanks to Senator John O. Pastore, and to the Committee on Commerce for allowing me to express my thoughts on this important legislation. Very truly yours, Senator WARREN MAGNUSON, NICHOLAS G. COPADIS. METROPOLITAN DETROIT COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This letter is to inform you that the churches of Michigan are deeply interested in obtaining civil rights for all Americans now. The Michigan Council of Churches, the Detroit Council of Churches and their constituent denominations have repeatedly urged legislation to provide full civil rights for all men regardless of racial distinction. It is the profound conviction of the churches that this is a matter of serious moral concern. It should be upon the conscience of every sincere Christian and. indeed, every loyal American. As you may know, the National Council of Churches, including more than 30 affiliated Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations, has launched an emergency campaign in the interest of civil rights. There is a deeper commitment than ever in regard to this issue and we urge your committee to give pending legislation for civil rights your wholehearted support. You may be interested to know that Michigan does have an equal accommodations law which has proved to be valuable legislation. Many of us feel that there is still much to be done in the interest of full implementation yet we are glad to have this useful law. We are delighted to discover that the three major faiths in our State are in agreement on the importance of civil rights legislation and their representatives are working together heartily in this field. Best wishes to you as you continue to carry on in distinguished public service. Most sincerely, G. MERRILL LENOX, Executive Director, Detroit and Michigan Councils of Churches, [From the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, Pa.), July 24, 1963] THE RIGHT TO BE NASTY (By Laurence H. Eldredge) (Mr. Eldredge is the reporter for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, former chairman of the board of governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and former professor of law in the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the Temple University School of Law. He has been invited by the Senate Judiciary Committee to present his views at the current hearings on the proposed civil rights legislation.) I am completely sympathetic to the efforts which the members of the Negro race are making to eliminate in our public life the gross injustices which they have suffered in the past. Much of what has happened to them, and is still happening, both in the North and in the South, flagrantly violates our fundamental ideas of equal justice and equal rights for all citizens. Nonetheless, the proposal for the Congress to enact a statute of nationwide application which would compel all persons who engage in providing services or selling goods to serve all prospective customers without any discrimination, under penalty of criminal sanctions, disturbs me greatly. In the first place, every thoughtful student of legal history knows that there are some things which cannot be accomplished by law. Our laws do and must undergo change, and they reflect the felt necessities of the times. However, with his customary acuity, Justice Holmes warned us long ago: "It cannot be helped, it is as it should be, that the law is behind the times. I told a labor leader once that what they asked was favor, and if a decision was against them they called it wicked. The same might be said of their opponents. It means that the law is growing. As law embodies beliefs that have triumphed in the battle of ideas and then have translated themselves into action, while there still is doubt, while opposite convictions still keep a battlefront against each other, the time for law has not come; the notion destined to prevail is not yet entitled to the field. It is a misfortune if a judge reads his conscious or unconscious sympathy with one side or the other prematurely into the law, and forgets that what seem to him to be first principles are believed by half his fellow men to be wrong." It is essential for the enforcement of any law that it have at least the approval of a majority of the decent people in the community. A law which does not have such community support cannot be enforced. A striking example of it in our own history, which is well known to you and me if not to the younger generation, is the history of the prohibition amendment. All the power of the U.S. Government, with the aid of the Coast Guard and of State enforcement agencies, could not compel obedience to the law, which was violently opposed by large numbers of responsible citizens in various parts of the country. The Congress of the United States cannot, by statute, compel the people on a nationwide scale to measure up to a standard of what a portion of the population believes to be fair and decent and good morals. Deep-seated prejudices widely held can be eradicated only by education and persuasion. CAN'T SET STANDARDS It has always been a fundamental part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of law that private citizens have a right to lead their own lives as they see fit, to make utter fools of themselves and incur community condemnation, and to be eccentric, unreasonable, bigoted, and nasty, if they choose to lead that kind of a life. Of course there are limits to this, and when an eccentricity expands to shooting one's neighbor because he is cross-eyed, that requires community sanction. To me a shocking thing about the pending Senate bill is that it is based upon the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. This is intellectual dishonesty. The only rational basis for such legislation would be the 14th amendment. The very fact that the Attorney General has not based the power of Congress to enact such legislation upon that amendment emphasizes the distinction which has always existed between the power to control State action and the lack of power to control the conduct of private citizens. When I taught the law of torts, I thought it was a fundamental concept of property law that one of the most important attributes of ownership of real estate is the right to exclusive possession of that real estate, and that anybod who enters without my permission is a trespasser, unless he has a law-given privilege to enter. I may stand at the door of my shop and tell a man who wants to enter. "Keep out. I just saw you kick a dog and I don't like you." I may also keep him on upon less rational grounds, such as the fact that I do not like the color of his necktie. In other words, it has always been a part of my rights as a citizen owning property to be mean, ornery, cantankerous, and wholly unreasonable in living my life. This carries over into my disposition of my property after my death. and citizens may make strange dispositions of their property by will. What is done with property during life, and even after death may incur community condemnation because it does not fit in with the community thinking, and yet. except in extreme instances, no laws are violated. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Getting back to the power of Government to regulate business, I realize that even the early English common law imposed special duties upon the innkeeper and the common carrier, and a few others, upon the ground that such businesses were of peculiar public interest. There were strong reasons why the weary traveler who knocked at the door of the inn late in the afternoon should not have the door slammed in his face, with the only other accommodations a day's journey distant. It is also true that our concept of what businesses are affected with a public interest, and hence subject to special regulation, has undergone change and expansion to reflect "the felt necessities of the time." Nonetheless, the fundamental distinction has always been preserved between "private business" and "public business" or public utilities. Up to the present "private business" has been in the large majority. It is of course possible, subject to constitutional limitations, for Congress to say that in the year 1963 every person who engages in business or offers services, and hopes the public will come to his premises to buy his wares or partake of his services, is operating a public utility and the Government can tell him how he must conduct himself in accepting or rejecting customers. I suppose this could even apply to doctors and lawyers and dentists. REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE However, if this change takes place in our law, it will mark a revolutionary change in what has been a fundamental concept of the rights of private citizens engaging in what has heretofore been considered "private" business to conduct such business as ineptly as they choose, even though it results in bankruptcy. This is the "big brother" concept with a vengeance. The Congress will set up a nationwide standard which is, in large part, a standard of morality and human decency as to how the businessman must treat customers and prospective customers. I doubt that it is the function of law to impose such standards even where 75 percent of the Nation strongly approves of the standard and its imposition. Unless we come to a welfare state, the other 25 percent have the right to remain free to be unreasonable and nasty if they can withstand the community condemnation which results. I doubt that the standard presently being considered by the Senate is now approved by a large majority of our population. The question is one of intense dispute among decent people in many States in all geographical parts of this vast Nation. As Holmes put it, the "opposite convictions still keep a battlefront against each other." A legislator, as well as a judge, should not forget "that what seems to him to be first principles are believed by half his fellow men to be wrong." To Whom It May Concern: STATE OF NEW YORK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ERIE COUNTY, I hereby certify, that at a session of the Board of Supervisors of Erie County. held in the county hall, in the city of Buffalo, on the 2d day of July A.D. 1963, a resolution was adopted, of which the following is a true copy (Reference: Item 45, p. 492 of the journal): "Resolved, That this board of supervisors record itself and hereby does record itself in favor of the spirit, purposes and goals of the civil rights bill as presented by President Kennedy and supports the implementation of the principle of identical rights, privileges, and opportunities for all citizens." Attest: WALTER A. HOLZ, Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Erie County. AUGUST 1, 1963. Hon. S. THURMOND, DEAR SENATOR: We, the undersigned, operators of small motels in the southern Indiana and Louisville, Ky., area wish to call to your attention that we are bitterly opposed to the Kennedy proposed civil rights legislation in all of its phases. The public accomodations clause that will take away the property rights of millions of small business owners, take away their freedom of choice as to who they care to associate with, and cause them to live under constant threat that the Federal Government may at any time haul them into court, fine or jail them upon the say-so of an undesirable Negro hollering discrimination is opposed by this group. We feel that the Federal Government should stay out of private business, that Senators and Congressmen should vote to stop this power grab of J.F.K. and his little brother Bobby, and remind them that their job is not to legislate law but to uphold it and the Constitution. It is history that Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., lost their freedom little by little and did not wake up until the big guns and tanks were rolling in and the bayonets were at their throats, but too late. Many of our freedoms have already been lost. One can hardly do anything today without first going to a bureau or commission to obtain their permission and pay a license or permit fee. Please vote to stop the march of Federal power in this country before it is too late to stop a rebellion against Washington and Federal democracy. We have been reading in the daily newspapers about Kennedy's rubberstamp men appearing before the commission and using every device possible to encourage the passing of this civil rights legislation. Franklin Delano, Jr., says, "that the businessmen of the country will welcome the passage of this proposed legislation." Nothing could be further from the truth. How could he possibly give the views of the millions of businesses throughout the country, since he has never been anything but a leech on the taxpayer since his father's regime. Rusk, before the committee, said "the racial situation gives a bad image of America to the foreigners where we are trying to sell democracy." We wonder if Khrushchev and Castro give a "tinker's damn" about what we in America think of all their political enemies being shot. Why not quit worrying about what the foreigners think of us or our image and protect our own freedoms which our Constitution guarantees. The undersigned operate a so-called Ma and Pa motel. This refers to motels operated by a man and wife. We live with the operation approximately 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, doing most of the work ourselves. We operate the registering of guests and are in very close association with them. The families live in the residence part of the motel and also are in close association with the guests. We have all many, many times turned away white people that we do not consider suitable for various reasons, and do not relish a law that would make us take undesirable tenants, white or black. We can alibi and turn away an undesirable white person, but a colored would holler discrimination and involve us in a court action with possibly a fine or jailing under the proposed public accomodations legislation. Governor Welsh, of Indiana (more taxes Matt as he is known here) and Governor Combs, of Kentucky, both came home and immediately passed their civil right proclamation after flying to Washington and talking with J.F.K. They used as their excuse that any business that is licensed by the State and this, of course, took in all businesses, as the State gets a license revenue from all of them in one way or another for passing the proclamation. It would be interesting to investigate and learn what persuasion was used by J.F.K. to get these men to give up their political futures by passing these proclamations. Surely they will turn up in Washington with some high-paying appointed job. |