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

STUDENTS SUPPORT FLORIDA STRIKERS

(By Carol Thomas)

TALLAHASSEE, FLA.-Student support 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-AFL-CIO), 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 Leagu

in which he expresses the same kind of 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 vacancy— the 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

judge let the vehemence of his personality creep out, that is recent. That is recent, Mr. Chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee, not 22 years ago.

I would like to hear him answer that. I was not satisfied with the press reports I read of his participation in that country club, where he said originally it was to set up some kind of clubhouse, and when he was asked about the golf course he said, well, I guess they were going to do something around the golf course, and where he evasively said, well he was an incorporator or a something or a potentate or something.

I think we owe him the opportunity to come up here to clear the air. I would like to hear some of those answers. I would like to hear the answers to the charges made against this man by civil rights leaders, who have had experience with him.

Fortunately I would say I have not run into this judge. I have run into some other judges probably almost as bad, because we can't have all judges in the United States capable to sit on the Supreme Court bench.

But I think it is imperative, in the light of the testimony that has come out, especially today, Mr. Rosenberger's testimony, and this young man, Mr. Knopf's testimony, that you bring this judge back here. Don't let some clerk come here and say to the best of his knowledge the justice never said anything. Ask him what he said in chambers to that Northern civil rights lawyer who had the temerity to go down South, for no money, and fight for voting rights for people that Judge Carswell thought he was better than.

I hope that the Senate of the United States will not accept the insult handed to it by the executive branch that if you turn me down on a Haynsworth I will find somebody worse, because it can't go too far. We are at the bottom of the barrel now, and if you do it again, if the Senate has the courage to meet its great responsibility and say to the President, this man is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court, then I say to you eventually he will have to come up with an appointment that is suitable to the Senate and to this Nation in this time.

He cannot keep coming up with somebody worse, because Carswell just about rings the gong. Now Haynsworth, however bad he was, you proved a principle there. You cannot make a million dollars wheeling and dealing while you sit on the Federal bench, no matter how conservative you are or how good a Republican you are, you proved that, and then be appointed to the Supreme Court as a reward for it.

Now you can prove another principle. You can't be an undistinguished, dull graduate of the third best law school in the State of Georgia, with an undistinguished judicial record, and a record of hostility to black people, and be appointed to the Supreme Court. I am available for questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you.

Senator Tydings.

Senator TYDINGS. No questions.

Senator HRUSKA. I join the Senator from Maryland in passing.
Senator BURDICK. Senator Griffin.

Senator Cook.

Senator Cook. I am not going to join any of you, because, Mr. Witness, I hate to say this but I don't think you have a humble opinion

about anything the way you have been tearing people apart. I am delighted that you had an opportunity to graduate from the University of Virginia. I didn't And I am sure that there are a great many people that graduated from the same law school that Judge Carswell did that would like to have an opportunity to tell you that they are probably very successful lawyers today, and whether they graduated from a third-rate college or a second-rate college, as you were so prone to make a point of, that they did their best and they did the best they could do with the legal profession that they had assumed that they had been loyal to it.

I graduated from the second best law school in the State of Kentucky. I think it is the best. It is the University of Louisville. However, there are only two in that State, and I would hope that graduates from the law school that Judge Carswell graduated from would take direct offense at what you have said and I would be very frank with

you.

Secondly, you stated that you knew of your own knowledge that Judge Carswell helped write the articles of incorporation for a country club in Tallahassee, Fla. Now do you know of your own knowledge that Judge Carswell helped write these articles of incorporation, because this is what you stated?

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. If I did I misspoke. Based on my readings of this committee's hearings.

Senator Cook. Then you do not know of your own knowledge that he helped write the articles of incorporation?

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Only from what I read in the papers, that he was listed as one of the incorporators.

Senator Cook. If someone listed you as a lawyer, and you have written many articles of incorporation, you know that the incorporators that you listed in those articles didn't help you write the articles of incorporation, didn't you?

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. I probably misspoke, Senator.

Senator Cook. All right, let's take the Ida Phillips v. Martin Marietta case. Do you know that Judge Carswell did not sit on that case?

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Yes, Senator.

Senator Cook. You knew that he voted on an en banc hearing? Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Yes.

Senator Cook. And that of the 13 judges that voted on that en banc, 10 voted against an en banc hearing and three voted for.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. That is right.

Senator Cook. Do you have the same condemnation for the other nine who voted along with Judge Carswell, which vote did not deny the rights of Ida Phillips, but which merely said that the rights of the parties are preserved and that there is no point in taking an en banc hearing and if it wants to be appealed the right of appeal is reserved.

Mr. SCHLOSSBERG. Let me say, Senator, that I do have the same feeling that everybody who voted against an en banc hearing in the Martin Marietta case was wrong and demonstrated it to me in that case, because it was so clear, as it seemed to be to the three judges who dissented in that denial of an en banc hearing, it was so clear that that was a violation of the Equal Opportunity Act title VII, it was so clear