obstain from committing any and all acts which would constitute a violation of any of the laws herein set forth; and I further proclaim and warn all persons who may commit such acts that they will be vigorously prosecuted therefor." Then, there is another statute which, by its terms, appears to be applicable to many of the utterances that we are today hearing, and that is 18 U.S.C.A. 2387, which states in pertinent part: "§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally "(a). Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: "(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or "(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States "Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction." I subscribe to the view that the course of future history may be very much influenced if the condemnation and prosecution of what has happened is firm, persistent and devoid of sympathetic deviations. Sympathy for the Negro race, yes-very much so; sympathy for the actual participants-no! no! no! Believe me to be, Sincerely, EDWIN F. HUNTER, Jr., U.S. District Judge. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Oklahoma City, Okla., July 31, 1967. WESTERN, NORTHERN, AND EASTERN DISTRICTS OF OKLAHOMA, Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: I have your letter of July 26, 1967 directed to Mr. Warren Olney, III, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, together with a copy of HR 421, 90th Congress, 1st Session, an Act relating to "incite a riot”. I am fully and completely in accord with the proposed Act. I would like to suggest that the Act be amended to require that anyone caught or apprehended in the act of "inciting a riot", that the bail bond be in such an amount as to make sure that the accused be confined until such time as the danger of riot has passed in whatever locality the riot may be imminent. I believe that bail bond should be denied in such cases, but I am sure that any such provision would be in violation of the Constitution. Sincerely yours, LUTHER BOHANON. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, Austin, Tex., July 31, 1967. Re: H.R. 421. Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: In response to your letter of July 26, 1967, to Mr. Warren Olney, III, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, requesting the comments of each United States District Judge to your Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act, etc., I would state to the subcommittee that I feel the bill is a good measure as it stands and I endorse and recommend its passage. Accordingly, I have no suggestions at the present time for amendment or improvement of the bill as written. Respectfully yours, JACK ROBERTS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, Dallas, Tex., July 31, 1967. Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Mr. William R. Sweeney, Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, has referred to me as one of the judges for an expression on your letter to Mr. Olney dated July 26, 1967. I note the contents of your letter and have scanned the proposed legislation. I think it is vital and should be passed. We have reached this crisis more or less by stages, otherwise we would be more shocked as a nation than we are. We have many good friends who think that these situations can be met by soft pedalling and milk and cider methods. My experience as a lawyer for 62 years, and 31 years of that on the Federal bench, confirms me in the opinion that men must fear the law to respect it. The Good Book says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the fear of the law is the beginning of good behaviour. In other words, I am in favor of clamping down on these unlawful outbreaks by individuals and certainly by mobs. I congratulate you on your record as a Senator. You and I think much alike about many things. With kindest regards, I am, Most sincerely yours, T. W. DAVIDSON. HOUSTON, TEX., July 31, 1967. Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Strongly endorse the proposal that interstate travel for the purpose of inciting riots be a serious Federal offense. H. B. SHORT, Chief of Police. JACKSON, MIss., July 31, 1967. Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I strongly urge the passage of HB 421 and humbly request that you do all in your power to steer it through. In view of the terrible incidents occurring throughout the country, you can readily see the need for stronger laws along this line to aid the law enforcement agencies in combating the lawless elements that are taking over in cities and towns. W. D. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police. OMAHA, NEBR., July 28, 1967. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.: I want to commend you and your committee for your excellent work resulting in the passage of bill HR 421. I am sure this will do much to prevent riots from occurring in our country. C. HAROLD OSTLER, Chief of Police. NEW YORK, N.Y., July 31, 1967. Hon. J. O. EASTLAND, In behalf of the 150,000 members of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, we most strongly condemn the provisions of the anti-riot law passed yesterday by the House of Representatives. This measure is so dangerously. worded as to pose a threat to every organization in the country. The bill's definitions are so vague, its coverage so broad and its penalties so severe that all our time-honored freedoms are gravely endangered. We urge that you, as a member of the senior assembly of our national legislature, not rush consideration of this vital measure in these days of heated tensions. We urgently request careful study of this bill and all of its ramifications. When you do this we are sure that you will agree that it is ill-advised and badly constructed and should not be made a law of the land. MATTHEW GUINAN, International President. International Secretary-Treasurer. International Executive Vice President. The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else have a statement? STATEMENT BY SENATOR SAM J. ERVIN, JR. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, these hearings begin at a time of national tragedy, a time of burning, looting, and massive, mindless destruction in our cities. We do not know yet all the causes, and until we do we will not find a permanent solution. Although poverty has been a contributing factor in this epidemic of urban riots, the fact remains that the great majority of poorer Americans have remained law-abiding citizens. There are other causes which the committee should examine. For instance, the Nation's permissive attitude toward civil disobedience over the last decade. What can we expect from the general public when some clergymen and some civil rights leaders flout State and Federal laws with impunity? Further, the artificial rules imposed by courts which have turned selfconfessed criminals back on the streets have created contempt for law and order. In part, current disorders are also the product of past civil rights bills which held out the promise that people would be transported to heaven on the wings of Federal laws. When laws were enacted and there came no heaven on earth, people became frustrated. Because civil disobedience succeeded before, it was natural for them to assume massive lawlessness might bring relief. Violence now is an ugly, pervasive national reality, and our duty is to find some way to stop it. This is the purpose of H.R. 421, the so-called antiriot bill. As a manifestation of Congress outrage, this bill is valuable. As a means of stopping riots or punishing rioters, however, the bill in its present form is of doubtful utility because it defines a crime which can hardly be proved by evidence. To obtain a prosecution, the Justice Department would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual crossed a State line or used the mail with intent to "incite a riot, or to organize, promote, encourage, or carry on a riot, or to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot, or to aid and abet any person in inciting a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot." There may never be a conviction under the bill as drafted, for it would be virtually impossible to show beyond a reasonable doubt what existed in the innermost recesses of a man's mind as he crossed a State line, in the absence of other accompanying circumstances. I pledge my best efforts to the committee in amending the bill to make it effective. But Congress could also provide meaningful assistance by acting on the legislation which Senator McClellan, Senator Hruska, and I have sponsored to improve law enforcement and to discourage all criminal activity, whether perpetrated by a rioter or by a common criminal. In the meantime, the most important task facing every level of government is enforcing the laws now on the books. Federal laws having a possible relevancy to the disturbances of this summer are already in existence; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has consistently performed well in using them to maintain surveillance over all threats to our national security, including those posed by rioting. In addition, there are laws in every State and in the District of Columbia prohibiting rioting, arson, burglary, larcency, and murder. The present answer to rioters is clear: swift and vigorous enforcement of existing State and Federal laws now on the books; the end of coddling criminals in our courts; the cessation by the Supreme Court of establishing artificial rules which make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to convict those who break the law; the end of condoning civil disobedience by some of our politicians, civil rights leaders, and clergy; an end to rewards for those who break our laws, whether the rewards be passage of new civil rights laws or the dole of Federal money to those who have burned and looted; and, perhaps, more than anything else we need public support and encouragement for the only person we can look to for safety and a return to law and order-the local policeman. The short of it is that the bill now before us is not sufficient, and the committee should develop strong, effective legislation which will be helpful in investigating riots, and which will enhance rather than diminish the authority of local police. We can do much better than this bill if we will resist the temptation to legislate at gunpoint and inflict another meaningless statute on the most law-ridden society in the history of the world. Mr. Chairman, the following sections of title 18 of the United States Code contain some statutes which U.S. district attorneys might well invoke in the situation which now confronts the country: Section 1073 which covers flight to avoid prosecution or the giving of testimony, section 1074 which covers flight to avoid prosecution for damaging or destroying any building or other real or personal property, section 241 which covers conspiracies against the rights of citizens, section 837 which covers the transportation of explosives, and the use of threats or false information concerning attempts to damage or destroy real or personal property by fire or explosives. The following section of title 10, section 1362, which relates to maliciously injuring or destroying communication lines, stations, or systems. I thank you. STATEMENT BY SENATOR PHILIP A. HART Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement. I would like to make a comment. In that week when Detroit was burning, I made only three points. I would repeat them here. First, I said that the immediate restoration of law and order was essential. The law must be applied effectively, fairly, and firmly. Next I urged the political implications be eliminated from the debate, the discussion, and the appraisal of Detroit. Political implication in that situation was the equivalent of more gasoline on the fire. Then I suggested that notwithstanding the emotional reactions, which I fear continue, the reconstruction of the society obligates each of us to recognize that the hands that threw the rocks and the fingers that pulled the triggers of the snipers' guns were individual arms and hands possessed by some individual man or woman, not a group and not a class and not a race. Each of us wants to be judged as an individual who on his own personal record is good or bad, not as a white northerner or a Scotch Presbyterian, or anything else, and we must discipline ourselves to make judgments of everyone else on that same basis. This third point, I think, will become increasingly important lest this Nation tear itself apart because of its failure to recognize that this is the ingredient that makes a free society tick. Without it we can pass 97 more laws and we won't save ourselves. With respect to this bill, it and 97 like it would not have stopped Detroit, and I hope nobody wants to kid themselves into thinking otherwise. Michigan has laws reaching breach of the peace or rioting. That did not stop those trigger fingers or those arms. This bill won't either. The first time the Senate sits after Detroit, it happens to be scheduled to sit on an antiriot bill, but I know I speak for every Member of the Senate in saying that we know that this is not a response to the basic cause of the riots. I plead with people to recognize that though they may think the Congress is pretty dim witted, nobody is so stupid as to think that this is a response to the cause. It is a response to a problem, one of the many problems that the basic causes produce, and I will do my best to make sure we will not be diverted from moving in those areas that are basic and which require constant attention; the causes which require increased Federal commitment to solve. I do not buy the notion that we can wash our hands by finding some scapegoat from out of town who caused all the trouble. The outside agitator was the alibi for troubles elsewhere in this Nation over a long period of time, and I hope the North does not begin to use it itself. That outside agitator could make the same inflammatory speechif we find speeches incite riots-in Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Point in Michigan, and there wouldn't have been any riot, and this is a lesson we had better recognize. Those cities are but a few miles from center city Detroit; conditions are as different as though they were on different planets. I share Senator Ervin's impression that the burden of proof established by this bill makes it very unlikely that there would ever be a conviction. |