Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

now.

in this age in which we live, that we are seeing the same sad and dreary thing all over again, only this time much worse. I say much worse because it seems to me that the President of the United States and the Attorney General have in effect said to the Senate, and through the Senate to the people of the United States, especially to the minority groups in the United States, you did it to me once and I am going to do it to

you This is an insult. This appointment is an insult in terms of professionalism and in terms of commitment to the Senate of the United States, to the people of the United States, to the Negroes of the United States and to the whites of the United States.

It is an insult to the white southeners that I grew up with in Roanoke, Va., and people like them throughout the whole South, because it is not necessary to be indecent and to be a bigot to have a political career in the South, and certainly it wasn't necessary in the 1940's.

I graduated from high school in Roanoke, Va. in 1938, and the leaders of the established community in Roanoke did not feel it necessary to use the kinds of words that Judge Carswell felt it necessary to use some years later, to swear allegiance to white supremacy. The very idea that a man who did that and who has lived a judicial and official career tied in with the U.S. Government that has not given the lie to those words, that that man now stands as the nominee before the U.S. Senate for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Predictably Judge Walsh and his blue ribbon panel have stamped their approval on this undistinguished nominee. This nominee. The only things I know he has written: I know he has written a segregationist speech 22 years ago, one of the worst I have ever heard. I know he has written some very pedestrian court opinions, because I have read them. I know he helped to write an application for a club, for a country club which would subvert the bill of rights of the U.S. Constitution. He has not written a law review article. He has not written a book. He may have written some checks. I know he wrote a loan application once in which he borrowed, he and his wife, some $48,000 on her $75,000 worth of stock in a plant called the Elberta Crate and Box Co., and I will get to that Elberta Crate and Box Co. in a moment.

This man, who graduated from the third best law school in Georgia, I believe there are four, has not grown. To read his opinions is not to read opinions by a scholar, by a jurist, or by one who loves the law and follows the law. It is to read the opinions of a pedestrian man, and a pedestrian man not only in his opinions but in his action on the bench that has shown itself undivorced from those racist sentiments expressed some 22 years ago.

The UAW does not oppose him because he is an antilabor judge. We are not that parochial in our opposition to judges. We believe that this union as other institutions in this great country of ours have an obligation to do something about the quality of life, and that means more than just rhetoric. When we stand as this country does at a crossroads between brotherhood and fratricide, it seems to me that when a man stands for confirmation by this great body, by the Senate of the United States, and his civil rights, his human rights record is not only questionable but tarnished, that man cannot be allowed to assume his seat, at least without objection by those who value the quality of this democracy in this country in which we live.

That is why we are here.

I do not mean to imply that we do not have labor arguments against this man. I read to you now the text of a wire sent by Mrs. Caroline Davis, who is the director of the UAW Women's Department, to the President, to President Nixon. She said:

"Along with numerous other women's groups and organizations I want to add most vehement protest to your appointment of Judge Carswell to the Supreme Court. Judge Carswell showed no concern for women or the welfare of children of working mothers when he ruled last fall in the Ida Phillips v. Martin Marietta case. His ruling was that women with preschool children could be denied employment. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

“One can guess how Judge Carswell will decide. I doubt he can view this case objectively in view of his earlier decision in the Phillips case.

"His decision flies in the face of your proposed program for the employment of women on public assistance. There are 5 million women working who are widowed or divorsed and are the sole support of families. The majority of these women have small children. This decision of Judge Carswell's is rank discrimination against women, since men with preschool children are not denied employment.

“On behalf of the 200,000 UAW women members, I strongly urge you to reconsider your appointment of Judge Carswell for the Supreme Court. Based on his past performance on segregation and this Pħillips case, he is not the caliber to sit on the Supreme Court.”

Turning now to the Elberta Crate and Box Co., I call to your attention an article with the byline of one Carol Thomas, from a paper called the Southern Patriot and I gather that that is the publication of the Southern Conferences Educational Fund.

Date line Tallahassee, Fla., and it says, the lead is:

Student support for 300 striking workers at the Elberta Crate and Box Co. helped the workers stay out for 42 days.

That is the lead. Now I want to read down a little bit.

The strikers, almost all black, walked out September 23. Support from about 200 white students at Florida State University was immediate. They joined in several marches from the university to the box company, and then set up picket lines of their own, supporting the workers' picket lines. Several students were arrested.

Skipping now

Black workers never made more than the minimum wage, no matter how long they were employed by the company_but whites made up to 50 cents more an hour than their black coworkers.

A black women reported that her boss said he "wouldn't pay niggers" because “niggers stink".

There was no sick leave, sick pay, or retirement pay. “I quit April 15, 1968 after working since 1949," one man said, “I feel that they owe me some retirement retirement pay. I've made a lot of money for this company * * * I had to get another job when I quit because there was no retirement program.” Another man, who retired after 45 years with the company, was refused enough work to keep his company insurance alive.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit the full text of this clipping from the newspaper with respect to the Elberta Freight and Box Co.

Senator BURDICK. Without objection it is so ordered. (The article referred to follows:)

STUDENTS SUPPORT FLORIDA STRIKERS

(By Carol Thomas)

TALLAHASSEE, FLA.–Student upport for 300 striking workers at the Elberta Crate and Box Co. helped workers stay out for 42 days. It was the first strike in the company's 70-year history.

The strikers, almost all black, walked out September 23. Support from about 200 white students at Florida State University was immediate. They joined in several marches from the university to the box company, and then set up picket lines of their own, supporting the workers' picket lines. Several students were arrested.

The workers, who are represented by the International Woodworkers of America (IWA-AFLCIO), said the students brought food and money to the union hall almost daily while the strike went on.

The company hired poor white people to replace the black strikers. When the students appealed to them to stay out of the factory, the company filed suit seeking a restraining order to prevent strikers and their supporters from "cursing, abusing, threatening, coercing, or otherwise intimidating" non-striking employees. Union and student leaders were named in the suit.

Local president Nero Pender charged that the company was trying to break the strike and "burst the relationship between strikers and students."

WORKING CONDITIONS

Black workers never made more than the minimum wage, no matter how long they were employed by the company--but whites made up to 50 cents more an hour than their black co-workers.

Discrimination takes other forms, as well. “The black workers have to keep on doing something every minute," Flay Rolling said. “The white mechanics stand around and drink cokes when the machines stop. The white mechanics can take a break anytime. Those white mechanics are workers, just like us, but they don't work. They are paid higher than us."

A black woman reported that her boss said he “wouldn't pay niggers," because "niggers stink.”

There was no sick leave, sick pay, or retirement pay. “I quit April 15, 1968, after working since 1949," one man said. “I feel that they owe me retirement pay. I've made a lot of money for this company .. I had to get another job when I quit because there was no retirement program. Another man, who retired after 45 years with the company, was refused enough work to keep his company insurance alive.

Workers got only three holidays a year (Thanksgiving, Christmas and July 4)—and then had to work on Saturdays to make up. They got one-week paid vacations until they had worked for the company for seven years.

The kiln crew got 12 minutes for lunch. Other workers got half an hour, without pay. There is no place to eat at the factory and during lunch, workers were not allowed to talk to each other.

Each worker was entitled to two six-minute toilet breaks.
Physical conditions were uncomfortable

and dangerous. There was no heat in the plant. The workers installed some heaters themselves, but it didn't make much difference because of drafts from broken windows and holes in the floor.

"They want some of us to work in the rain-of course, the machines are protected from the weather," one man said. Saws have no shields. Many workers have lost feet and fingers. One worker had his head cut off.

THE SETTLEMENT

The strikers went back to work after winning a partial victory

-an 11-cent pay increase in two years, instead of the three cents that the company had offered them, and the promise of improved working conditions.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I call attention now, Mr. Chairman, to a clipping that appeared in today's paper, the Washington Daily News, an article by Whitney Young, the distinguished president of the Urban Leagpin which he expresses the same kind oi concern I do, in which he finds this appointment to be an insult not only to the black citizens of America but to the white citizens and especially the white southerners of America. He says:

The second large group of Americans who have been insulted are white southerners. For too long, white people in the South have been burdened by leaders who make no bones about their racism, men whose avowed purpose is to keep the South in the chains of the past.

But growing numbers of white southerners, especially younger people and better educated citizens, are coming to resent such false leadership. They know that the siren calls of last-ditch segregationists lead only to dead-ends. So it is insulting to such people when national leaders reach into their ranks for someone to “represent” the South, and come up with shopworn segregationists.

With your permission again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the full text of the Whitney Young article from today's Washington Daily News

Senator BURDICK. Without objection. (The article referred to follows:)

CARSWELL

(By Whitney M. Young) Let's suppose-just suppose that a president of the United States appoints a black militant to the Supreme Court.

Let's suppose that this new appointee had a record of belief in black supremacy. Let's further suppose that back in 1948, he made an election speech in which he stated :

“I believe that segregation of the races is proper and the only practical and correct way of life in our states. I have always so believed and I shall always so act ... I yield to no man in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of black supremacy, and I shall always be so governed."

Pretty strong stuff, isn't it? Well, let's continue on our imaginary tale. Let's assume that all this became public. What would the reaction be?

You guessed it. Howls of indigation would sweep the country. Headlines would blare: "Racist Appointed to Court.” Protests would be mounted. Undoubtedly, the President would have to withdraw the nomination.

Now let's leave the land of make believe. Let's consider reality-what really happened last week. The President nominated for the Supreme Court vacancythe very one to have been filled by Clement Haynsworth—a southern judge.

It was revealed shortly that this judge had, during a Georgia election campaign in 1948, made exactly the racist statements above, except of course, he declared his belief is white supremacy, not black supremacy. He was not an immature child. He was almost 30 years of age.

What was the reaction?
The judge said he no longer thinks that way.

The Attorney-General says it all happened so long ago, anyway. The President is silent. Some Senators say they'll vote to confirm anyway because, after all, it was only a political speech.

Such a nomination is an insult to at least two large groups of Americans.

First, it is an insult to black citizens, who increasingly took to the courts for equal protection of the laws. They expect to find capable men on the bench, men consistently and publicly devoted to justice and equality. Black people were especially looking for the nomination of a jurist whose appointment would symbolize continued federal concern with equal rights.

The second large group of Americans who have been insulted are white southerners. For too long, white people in the South have been burdened by leaders who make no bones about their racism, men whose avowed purpose is to keep the South in the chains of the past.

But growing numbers of white Southerners, especially younger people and better educated citizens, are coming to resent such false leadership. They know that the siren calls of last-ditch segregationists lead only to dead-ends. So it is insulting to such people when national leaders reach into their ranks for someone to "represent" the South, and come up with shopworn segregationists.

There are plenty of judges in the South who have served with distinction. There are plenty of federal judges there who have upheld the rights of black citizens under the law; judges whose devotion to duty outweighs sectional considerations or narrow personal bias.

At a time when black people are continually being told they must achieve more, that standards can't be lowered, it is especially important that standards for federal judges be maintained, and not lowered to satisfy political considerations.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I read you now a telegram which each of you received, I take it, since it was sent to each of you by the president of our union, by Walter Reuther. I would like to have it put into the record and so I will read it into the record since it is relatively brief.

On behalf of the UAW I urge you to oppose the nomination of Judge Carswell to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The President's choice is all the more unfortunate, for in this time of testing in the hisory of American democracy, when every American is obligated to make his maximum contribution toward achieving brotherhood and understanding, it is imperative that those who sit on the highest tribunal of the land symbolize the concept of one nation and one people. It is essential that one who ascends to the highest court must have an unquestioned record of commitment to the cause of human rights.

It would be a tragic signal to the American people if the first Southern appointment to the Supreme Court since the Brown decision in 1954 should go to Carswell, whose personal credentials in the crucial and sensitive area of human rights are questionable.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, in my own humble opinion, that there are at least a thousand men in the United States qualified to be Justices of the Supreme Court, qualified in terms of professionalism and in terms of commitment to the values that this country has always sworn allegiance to. There are men in this room who are qualified to be members of the Supreme Court. I have been struck sitting here this morning by the quality of questioning of witnesses by the Senate Judiciary Committee, extreme advocacy and extreme capability. When I think that the President has to go so far, to reach so far down, to find such a nonentity, the only things that recommend him are, No. 1., that he has been on the court of appeals so short a time that we can't muster the number of decisions to reinforce what is perfectly obvious, his racism and his narrow view toward human rights and toward people, because these people who hate blacks also hate people. You can't just hate black people and go through life that way thinking you are better than them. You find that you are also better than working people and that you become not only a white supremacist but a male supremacist and it fits together. It is all the piece.

His only achievements are that he has written so few opinions on the court of appeals, and because most of the speeches he made in Georgia and Florida have not been reported by the newspapers and picked up, but I know we might find one anyway. It may turn out tomorrow that we might find another speech by Judge Carswell of more recent vintage. And in that respect, Mr. Chairman, let me urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to get Judge Carswell back here so you can clear the air.

I think when that young man from the Justice Department stood here, with no axe in the world to grind, as Senator Hruska said trying to earn a living, working for the very Justice Department that found this man, when he stood here and said that he felt the hostility in the air, in chambers, when he as a young law student stood beside a civil rights lawyer who had volunteered his time in the South and the

« AnteriorContinuar »