will deal with it fairly. I think this is true of most brokers, bankers, and others, but it is hard to draft a law that doesn't at least have some possibilities of evasion.

Senator SCOTT. I was raising the questions to point out how difficult it is to establish conspiracy in that case.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, it is.

Senator SCOTT. Section 101 of S. 3296 provides for challenge by criminal defendants but not by the Government of jury selection, if the procedures established in section 101 have not been followed. Why is the Government not permitted to file challenges?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Well, for two reasons, Senator. We considered the possibility of doing it.

I felt that, No. 1, if a jury was challenged by an individual, the Government could presently come in, as we have done in a number of cases, and intervene and thus be in the case, if it was one which was meritorious, So it is not as though we were unable to do anything in that kind of situation.

So far as the importance given to the Federal Government, the express power there, it seems to me that what our job should be would be an effort to reform the jury system within those counties and States and so forth where it wasn't operating propertly, where it was operating in an unconstitutional manner. One of the difficulties, if I can just go on with this

Senator SCOTT. Sure.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. One of the difficulties of the individual challenge in this to a particular jury is that without having some further power, the individual may win his case, and he may continue to have unconstitutional juries in that State. particularly true because of some of the difficulties of discovery on this. Senator Ervin would be familiar with the whole series of cases, in that of the Union County, N.C., where the North Carolina Supreme Court has said that the jury was selected unconstitutionally.

The first of these cases comes in 1958, and the jury system is still operating that way, at least the Supreme Court of North Carolina feels so 8 years later, and I think we need steps, some steps are needed to reform the system, and that was the reason for giving the Government that power.

Senator ERVIN. If I may interject myself at this point, I was very much intrigued by your suggestion that because the North Carolina Supreme Court had enforced the provisions of the 14th amendment as to jurors, that that was argument for conferring power on the Federal Government to take charge of North Carolina's efforts to do so.

I think that is about as logical, if you will pardon me for saying so, as arguing that because the North Carolina courts try a lot of people for murder the Federal Government ought to take charge of murder cases in North Carolina.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. NO. My point was not in any way to criticize the North Carolina Supreme Court. In fact, I think what they did is exactly what they should have done.

My point, in response to what Senator Scott was saying, was to try to show that obviously the Supreme Court of North Carolina hadn't been able to do very much about the jury process in Union County, and that was the difficulty of the case-by-case approach.

I offered it as just one instance, and there are many, of why there was a necessity to have power in the Federal Government to deal with the problem and to reform the jury system, because case-by-case adjudication simply doesn't accomplish it.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Attorney General, S. 2923, in which I joined with several other Senators in introducing, contains an indemnification title which would provide that political subdivisions, that is local governments, are liable as joint tort-feasors for civil rights damages caused by persons acting under color of law.

H.R. 13323 by Representative Mathias of Maryland has a similar provision. Could you tell us why an indemnification provision was not included in S. 3296?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. We studied the possibilities of indemnification. I find the idea of indemnification to be an interesting

one.

My problem with respect to indemnification is, to some extent, why indemnification should be limited in the particular way that it is. In other words, I think there are interesting ideas with respect to indemnifying people who are the victims of illegal acts wherever they may occur, and there are proposals of that kind.

I wasn't sure in my own mind that indemnification should be singled out in this particular area, but if the committee is of the view that some indemnification provisions are essential on this, I don't have great feeling for opposition. I just question to some extent if this particular area should be selected for indemnification, particularly because I would guess that it is going to end up by and large with the Federal Government indemnifying people, and the right over, that is provided, is going to be extremely difficult to put into effect.

Senator SCOTT. S. 2923 also extends the equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to State and local governments. Would you tell me why S. 3296, the bill on which you are testifying, does not do this?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Because the reason for that is sort of a simple procedural reason, really, Senator, and that is that at the time of the introduction of this bill, title 7 had already gone through one House of the Congress and been passed with a number of strengthening amendments not including this particular one, and seeing that that much progress had been made, quite frankly with respect to that bill we shouldn't throw it back into committee for further consideration, in view of the urgency of getting some strengthening amendments enacted to it.

I have no opposition to this. I suspect, Senator, that there would be a good deal of opposition in the Congress to this, based upon my experience with that title in the 1964 act, where it was thoroughly considered, and where a good many Members of each House were reluctant to have the Federal Government overlooking and overseeing the States.

Senator SCOTT. I did suggest in the

Attorney General KATZENBACH. It has problems.

I

Senator SCOTT. It could well be anticipated. I did suggest in the two previous civil rights acts the inclusion of a number of provisions which were not finally recommended until the 1964 act. find that sometimes being ahead of the proceedings is not always the legislatively tenable position, but I did want to explore it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman?

Senator ERVIN. If I may make one observation, this question of reparations is certainly a very effective way of visiting the sins of the guilty upon the innocent.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. It could work out that way, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman?

Senator ERVIN. I recognize Senator Javits. Senator Kennedy waives his seniority on the subcommittee in your favor.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, and I will yield to Senator Kennedy

in a moment.

I think both Senator Kennedy and I have a few questions about this Meredith case which has just come up. This is another in a series of shocks to the country, because Meredith ran right into exactly what he himself predicted, he was going down to try to deal with the Negro's fear of just that kind of violence which was visited on him.

In my judgment, we have had enough martyrs in this area now. I am looking to this bill to strike probably as effective a blow as can be struck to deal with that very Meredith situation.

Now, Mr. Attorney General, I think it is important that we know from you the facts, because you are involved. The newspaper report says that Meredith asked you for help. It quotes him as saying;

Katzenbach said it was not important enough to do anything.

Now that is a pretty important statement if true. Could you tell us whether any request was made for Meredith's protection, and what you did about it?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, I can. Might I say at the outset is that a quote from the Washington Post this morning, may I ask?

Senator JAVITS. Yes.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. May I just say a word about that quote.

Senator JAVITS. Yes.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Because I feel deeply and strongly

about it.

Senator JAVITS. Good. That is why we are here, and I make no implication whatever.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. All right. Let me take it this way. The source of the Post quote was the Huntley-Brinkley program last night, in which Meredith said that a reporter had said to him that I had said this to the reporter. The Washington Post eliminated one of those steps.

The fact of the matter is I did not say it to a reporter. I would not have said it. I did not feel it, and I am really distressed and upset that a great many million people in this country, as a result of that television program and a result of the Washington Post story, would have thought that I would have said what is attributed to me in that statement by that device.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Katzenbach, if it will help you, I believe you. I really don't think you are that kind of a man. I was amazed and shocked, and I am delighted to hear you say what you did.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. The Post did drop it from its later editions.

Senator JAVITS. Now can you give us the basic facts, the suggested facts, and what did happen? What is the situation?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Well, Meredith stated that he was going to make this walk. He wanted to make it more or less alone. Obviously there were I suppose some dangers involved in it. He notified all of the local law enforcement officials along the route, and I don't know what response they made to him.

We were aware of it. I don't believe that he asked us for protection. I can't, at least I am not familiar with it whether he did or not. It makes very little difference really whether he did or not, because we wanted to keep the situation under observation, and take what steps could be taken to prevent this kind of incident or at least to deter it.

As you know, a lot of discussions with me in the past, it is not possible for the Federal Government, in the present circumstances, to absolutely guarantee the safety of anyone doing anything. It is impossible.

We get a lot of requests from civil rights workers saying, "Send marshals to protect us." I don't believe that one can effectively accompany around every civil rights worker, and that even if this is done, it is not necessarily going to protect them from violence when you have nuts and people of that kind.

And in this instance what we did was to notify all of the local sheriffs, to notify the Mississippi Highway Patrol. I can say that Governor Johnson was and always has been very strongly opposed to violence in these kinds of situations. And then beyond that, we kept an observation with respect to Meredith with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the vicinity, and I think you will find all the newspaper reports will so state.

At the time that the shooting occurred, there were at least 15 law enforcement officials, Federal, State and local, within yards of Meredith, and as a result of that, the person, a person was arrested within a matter of minutes. That immediately both State, local and Federal law enforcement officials were after the person who had fired the shots on this occasion.

One always looks back on this kind of situation and wonders whether this sort of sniping is something that could have been avoided. The man was concealed. Nobody knew that he was there. He apparently had been concealed for some time.

As you know I am sure, within the State of Mississippi there is a great deal of rural area. Much of it is covered, close to the road, and I think it is difficult to absolutely guarantee safety in those situations. At least the person who allegedly did this was promptly apprehended, was put in jail, will be charged. I take the position that it is probably a Federal offense as well. Assault with intent to kill would be the charges that I imagine would be made.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel, concerning this bill, that the history of acquittals and hung juries in civil rights cases such as the Medgar Evers and other cases, has a bearing upon the continuance of this kind of violence in Mississippi, and that therefore this bill is necessary in order to deal with some of these attitudes?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, I think it is absolutely essential, Senator. I think that is true normally of title V, but also of the jury provisions as well. I think that really the way in which you can give people protection in these situations is really twofold.

One, what we are proposing in this bill is to assure the Federal Government can try people with effective penalties on this, to insure the integrity of the jury system.

I think beyond that, you never really can make this effective with just that, unless the people of Mississippi, and I am sure it is the overwhelming majority of the people of Mississippi, themselves, won't tolerate this kind of violence.

I really believe that to be true today. I don't think that it meansthere are nut people in Mississippi, in North Carolina, probably in New York, who have strong feelings that they can commit acts of violence against somebody who they think is a civil rights worker, just against a Negro. I think the case of Colonel Penn is an example of that. He was a colonel returning from Reserve duty, driving along the highway early in the morning, and somebody comes out and just shoots him.

Senator JAVITS. This was Georgia, of course, and

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, but my point is that I don't know any way in the world one could have predicted Colonel Penn was going to be shot in that way. It seems to me the only effective way you can deal with this is to try to deter.

I would have thought that with the visibility of police officials, with respect to Meredith, with their presence, that this ordinarily, in most situations, would have been effective to deter anybody from attempting violence against him.

The very fact of immediate apprehension would tend to confirm that. I don't know anything at this moment about the background of the person apprehended or why he did what he did.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel-—

Attorney General KATZENBACH. But my point is that it is so absolutely, oh, I think I will probably just use a word. I don't know what word to use. I don't know if I should say absolutely insane in the literal sense, but sort of absolutely unpredictable that anybody, with police officials all around, would suddenly get up with a gun and shoot somebody. It has happened before, it has happened in many places, I guess, unconnected with civil rights activities.

Senator JAVITS. It is said that there was an FBI car parked at the side of the road.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. The car was parked while the shooting continued. Are you satisfied that the FBI really moves into a situation like this, or is it inhibited by the fact that it is in the presence of local police and only they can move and stop a man?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. That situation, from all of the information I have, they moved immediately into that situation. At least, my information is that the FBI agents as well as local and State officials, police officers, moved immediately into that situation to apprehend the person who had done it.

Senator JAVITS. I have just one other thing that I wanted to cover, and I would like to yield to Senator Kennedy, who is gracious in allowing me to proceed. This is primary day in Mississippi, is it not?