Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. And I understand you have poll watchers in 14 of the 82 counties.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel under the circumstances that that is adequate?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. After all, this fear of violence which is now so vivid because there is violence. Don't you think that it is necessary really to cover the State?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Well, let me take that up seriatim. Senator JAVITS. Yes.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. I think in the first place, the poll watchers themselves are not designed to prevent violence. These are civil service people who are at the polling place to insure that Negroes and others are permitted to vote, that the votes are accurately counted, that illiterates are getting assistance, this kind of thing. They are not designed, nor equipped, nor trained, to prevent incidents of violence. This is handled in another and different way.

Senator JAVITS. Yes, but they encourage confidence if they are there, and the Negro wants to vote. There is a certain amount-it detracts from the Negro's fear if he sees a friendly face in authority. That is all I mean.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, it could have that effect, in the knowledge that they were there. My point is that we take other steps to try to deter and prevent violence. This is not the function of the poll watcher.

The second point that I would make on this is that under the law, I can send poll watchers into the counties where you have designated examiners, so that I have to designate every county in Mississippi to have poll watchers in 82 counties, and actually 24 counties, counting some, oh, two-thirds of the Negro population of the State have at this point been designated.

I can also take the position, if I have reason to believe that there is going to be some denial of the right of Negroes to vote in a county where I haven't put examiners, that that in and of itself, if I had reasonable grounds to believe, this would justify me in designating that county for examiners, so that I could put in poll watchers.

What our practice has been and was in Alabama and is in Mississippi, is to deal with this on a county-by-county and, then, even box-by-box basis. What we have been trying to do, Senator, is to encourage the local officials to make it clear that Negroes will be permitted to vote, that they can do this by various ways, by public statements that they make, by the appointment of the official observers there, by helping illiterates with the voting, and so forth.

In other words, I think the objective here is and should be to encourage them to take responsibility for the conduct of these elections. I don't think that we should try to make Federal responsibility have the conduct of all State elections. Where they have done this, and they have, where they have made these efforts themselves and the steps themselves, absent from difficulty on election day, some complaints, we have not initially assigned civil service personnel to those counties where, after discussions with Negro leaders, after discussions with residents of the area, after discussions

with the probate judge, after discussions with the Democratic and Republican chairmen, we are satisfied that they are making real efforts themselves to encourage this, to make it clear that Negroes

can vote.

I think also it has some relevance to the fact that in not very many counties of Mississippi, in this particular primary, that are not voting for local officials as they were in Alabama. There is mostly the absence of any very serious contest in most of these counties.

I would suppose for that reason one could assume, except in certain counties, where there has been a good deal of activity, there will not be particularly heavy turnout of either whites or Negroes in this particular election.

Senator JAVITS. Do you have watchers or examiners in this county in which Meredith was shot?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, we do. We decided that before Meredith was shot, Senator.

Senator JAVITS. Do you feel this incident requires some accelertion or intensification of your activities in Mississippi-activities as examiner, poll watcher, and protector against violence?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. As to the latter, conceivably, yes. As to the former, I would think not.

Now, long before anything happened to Meredith, I believe that except in certain counties there was likely to be a fairly light turnout in Mississippi, in contrast to Alabama, because of the nature of the election. I suppose that if there is a light turnout there will be some speculation that this is directly related to the Meredith incident.

I think it is very difficult to know whether the effect of that would be to have more people turn out or less people turn out, but I suppose we will see when it comes along. It is not a very exciting election, basically.

Senator JAVITS. You are going to look into this as you would any Federal crime, that is, either committed by those who assaulted Meredith or even by the State officials?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. State officials who might have stood by or known about it?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Yes, but I would like to just make clear at this point that I have absolutely no information that would indicate that the State or local officials were doing anything but upholding the law in these circumstances. If I got such information, I would act on it, but I wouldn't want to leave the impression here, at this point, that I have any suspicions at all in that regard.

I think they acted probably-and from what I have been able to judge, this was true of State officials as well as the county sheriff's office as well as the Federal officials. I wouldn't want to leave that implication.

Senator JAVITS. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I have any either. I just wanted your answer to the question. Mr. Chairman, I have more questions, but I am so grateful to Senator Kennedy I would like to just yield to him.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Javits of New York has covered many of the points that are of interest to me. I also want to express my appreciation to the Attorney General for his responsive

ness and for his answers. I have a brief comment that I would like to include in the record.

We in the Congress are now considering the third Civil Rights Act in 3 years. There are those who say that further civil rights legislation is not needed or desirable-that we have done all that we can do through law, that we can afford to rest on our oars, proud of the progress we have made.

Yesterday's ambush shooting of James Meredith was a product of race hatred a hatred which has flourished in this country for a hundred years, because of our neglect, our intolerance and our failure as a nation to live up to the principles of justice and equal opportunity which we so proudly proclaim as the birthright of all Americans. The shooting of Mr. Meredith was an isolated act but it reminded us nonetheless of how far we still have to go before the American Negro can claim his rights of full citizenship.

So long as crimes of racial violence such as this one continue to go unpunished, so long as jury discrimination continues to make the administration of justice only the white man's justice, so long as the Negro lives in ghettoes and attends segregated schools, contempt for the law and contempt for the rights of our Negro Americans will continue to plague our society.

James Meredith was fired on while seeking to show Negro citizens of Mississippi that they did not have to be afraid to register to votebut his shooting vividly demonstrates that fear and intimidation are still a part of these Negroes' everyday life-a life described yesterday by the Attorney General as one of "segregation enforced by lawless

ness.

Just as Reverend Reeb, Jonathan Daniels, Medgar Evers, Mrs. Viola Liuzzo, Chaney and Goodman and Schwerner and the long list of others before him, James Meredith risked his life to secure the rights of others.

In almost every case in the last 5 years, the assailants of these victims of racial violence have gone unpunished. I do not know what the fate of the assailant in this case will be. I believe the shooting of Meredith was a violation of his Federal rights under the Voting Rights Act and punishable before the Federal bar of justice.

But if Mr. Meredith's march had been directed toward encouraging the desegregation of schools or the equal right to public accommodation, or some other Federal right equally deserving of protection, then effective Federal criminal legislation would be lacking to prosecute and punish his attacker. That is the reason for title V of the administration bill which would specifically provide for Federal prosecution for violation of Federal rights.

The events of yesterday confirm the need for passage of this legislation, and the need for it now. To that end, I pledge my full support. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions on the bill itself, as I know a number of my colleagues do. I would like to determine when we will have an opportunity to examine the bill or how the Chair expects to proceed.

Senator ERVIN. I was undertaking, myself, to talk to the Attorney General here about title V. I assure the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New York if they have any questions directed to title V or any other provisions, they can ask them at this time.

I do think it would help to discuss it title by title. I took title V, because of the unfortunate Meredith episode. I certainly deplore that episode, myself, for two reasons.

First, I think it is wrong to use violence toward any man. It is an offense against society as well as the individual. Second, it is an offense against people like myself, who think these bills offend the Constitution. It makes it much more difficult for us to protect against unconstitutional and unwise legislation when the public becomes concerned by such an outrageous act, to the extent that they lose their vision of the Constitution and the necessity of having a Constitution to protect everybody under all circumstances.

I greatly deplore it.

You may proceed to ask any questions on title V. I wouldn't undertake to restrict any member of the subcommittee on any question whatever on any other title.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, if Senator Kennedy will yield to me, I have just one other question on this Meredith incident."

I do agree with the Chair that it would be much more orderly if we went into these things on the legal side on a title-by-title basis. Personally, I would just like to ask this one other question and then yield my time.

Senator ERVIN. I think this is directly relevant to title V.

Senator JAVITS. I agree with that. I would like to identify myself with the very fine statement made by Senator Kennedy, particularly concerning the point that the most eloquent protest we can make is by solidarity of action which we can make on this measure which, in rather strange way, so directly zeroed in on the very situation which we face in the Meredith case, both as to identification of the miscreant and the punishment.

Mr. Attorney General, apparently Meredith was given treatment in one Memphis hospital and then moved to another. Did that have anything to do with segregation?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. No.

Senator JAVITS. In either of the hospitals?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. It was the same hospital, actually, Senator. It was a hospital complex, and it is a very fine hospital. And the movement, in fact, it was the hospital that he requested in the ambulance to go to. The reason for the movement from the one to the other was simply from the emergency room to a room. The hospital is desegregated, and in fact, in the emergency room to which Mr. Meredith was taken, there were both Negroes and whites.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much. I think that is an important point to clarify.

I do hope, Mr. Attorney General, that you will move into this situation even with the law as it is now. There are lots of relevant aspects to the law now. I feel very outraged, as Senator Kennedy obviously does and as our chairman does, and I hope very much that you will utilize all of the power of your office to move into this situation with the vigor it deserves.

Attorney General KATZENBACH. I certainly intend to, Senator. I think the State authorities intend to, equally.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points that have been mentioned by the Senator from New York. I think that

all of us agree that we should not, neither the committee nor the Congress, be considering the legislation solely on the question of being outraged. I support the point mentioned by our distinguished chairman and the Attorney General that what we are interested in is orderly procedure. I think that the Attorney General this morning has really given a brilliant definition of the basis for the authority of title V, and I think it has been extremely helpful to the members of the committee.

I would like to yield to the Chair for the continuation on title V. With the permission of the Chair, I would also like to ask questions as they come up, not in any way to interfere with the Chair.

Senator ERVIN. I believe it would be easier if each one of us continue without interruption.

Senator KENNEDY. Fine. I will yield back the Chair and pursue an opportunity later.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Attorney General, that is the vote signal, I am informed, and so we will have to go to the Senate floor. We will take a recess now, because by the time we get over there and vote and call the roll, it will be pretty near adjournment time. What time will it suit you to come back this afternoon?

Attorney General KATZENBACH. Whenever you wish, Mr. Chair

man.

Senator ERVIN. What about 2:30? Will that be all right?
Attorney General KATZENBACH. 2:30? Yes, sir.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID SLAWSON AND ALAN MARER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Resumed

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Attorney General, I want to invite your attention to the case of the United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629.

In this case there was indictment in the Federal court under section 5519 of the revised statutes, which was the forerunner of the statute involved in the Guest case, and which made conspiracies to deprive persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, a criminal offense.

The validity of the indictment was challenged upon the ground that the 14th amendment only authorized Congress to reach State action, whereas the indictment alleged only private action. The Supreme Court said this on pages 638, 639, and 640:

The purpose and effect of the two sections of the 14th amendment, above quoted, were clearly defined by Mr. Justice Bradley in the case of the United States v. Cruikshanks, 1 Woods 308, as follows:

Quoting from that case:

It is the guarantee of protection against the acts of the State government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and the legislature of the State, not a guarantee against the commission of individual offenses and the power of Congress, whether express

« AnteriorContinuar »