« AnteriorContinuar »
Senator DOUGLAS. You have always been fine on this, but if you will get your colleagues to favor a strong Executive when the Democrats are in power, I will advocate the exercise of that authority.
Senator JAVITS. President Kennedy did act and I think President Johnson could and should act.
Senator Douglas. I can imagine what would have happened from other members of your party had he done so.
Senator Javits. I would say with all respect, Senator Douglas that I can imagine what would happen to other members of your party had he done so.
Senator Douglas. I would say that is tit for tat.
Senator ERVIN. If I may interject myself, I am glad that my friend from New York has brought the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Florida to agreement on the proposition that laws ought to be made by the Congress rather than by the President.
Senator Douglas. That is what we are trying to do, embarrassing though it may be.
Senator JAVITS. Senator, just to conclude, obviously the President could not issue an order which enlisted the legislative powers. I believe he has the Executive power.
President Kennedy asserted it, and I believe President Johnson could assert it.
Senator Douglas. The Executive order of President Kennedy still continues, but I think that applied only to public housing and FHA.
Senator JAVITS. It did. Senator Douglas. Guaranteed housing. Senator Javits. It did. It was limited to that. Senator Douglas. This is only a minority of public housing. There are about 700,000 public housing units in the country. Only about 2.5 percent of the housing units. FHA insurance is still å minority. The vast majority of housing is privately owned and privately financed. Let it be said in the books that here you are a very eminent
asking Senator Javits. That is correct, I am, where he has already used it, , and where his authority to expand the existing protection from 23 percent of housing to 80 percent
Senator Douglas. Senator Javits, you and I agree on so many subjects, let's not fall out.
Senator Javits. No. I thank you, Senator Douglas, for your testimony, and I pay tribute again to your tremendous leadership in this field.
I thank the Chair.
Senator Ervin. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee and presenting your views in respect to the proposed legislation in such a genial and such an eloquent fashion. At the same time, let me express my regret that you do not entertain the same sound views on this legislation that I do.
Senator Douglas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I always feel a privilege in appearing before you. You have had so much experience as a lawyer and a judge, and I hope you will forgive any inadequacies which I displayed.
Senator Ervin. Well, you have not displayed anything that requires forgiveness.
Senator Douglas. Thank you very much.
Senator Ervin. And I hope you have a very nice trip out to your State.
Thank you very much. Senator Douglas. I hope to mend some fences. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the record as part of my testimony a fine analysis of the provisions of our bill, principal bills introduced in the House, and the bill prepared by the Administration. While I believe the analysis to be most accurate I should point out that it was drawn up on the basis of reports of the content of the administration's bill rather than on the final wording of the text of that bill. But again I say that the analysis is an especially useful one for comparing my bill with that of the administration.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
Analysis of civil rights protection legislation pending in Congress
(Whenever the term "race or color" is used in S. 2923 and H.R. 12807 it includes civil rights workers who are promoting racial equality]
Discrimination on basis of race, color, sex, Same as S. 2923
Discrimination on basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, or economic status
population under sampling plan prepared selection made from those lists under plan lists; but if judicial council of circuit
not be used again until voting lists are
English language repealed. Judge may write English retained unless person has write English retained.
tion can be excluded from service.
district or litigant may apply to court of conferences. Chief judge of circuit shall selection in criminal and civil cases.
responsible to it.
Repeals existing provisions authorizing
court to select jury from bystanders when jury list is exhausted and to call special juries.
II. STATE JURIES Discrimination prohibited.
Discrimination on basis of race, color, national
Discrimination on basis of race or color pro-Discrimination on basis of race, color, or sex
hibited. But where this is shown, or rec- prohibited.
General, citizen of district, or litigant. Also applicable if records are not kept
and apply Federal standards.
courts (see below).
1. Injunctive action by Attorney General.
It discrimination is found, corrective
Methods of demonstrating discrimina
In cases involving transfer, a showing that
State courts do not follow procedures for
2. Disclosure procedure in cases brought by
Attorney General or private litigant
mines that there exists probable cause that
1. Any final judgment of Federal or State
court within 5 years determining that there has been systematic race or color exclusion from jury unless local officials
prove exclusion no longer exists.
of colored within area to total popula-
change in law affecting juries after Jan. i,
Similar to S. 2923
In suit brought by Attorney General, court
may require recordkeeping as part of relief granted.
Changes in laws relating to juries.
Analysis of civil rights protection legislation pending in Congress-Continued This analysis was made before the introduction of the administration's bill. It is based on advance reports of the bill's contents. Revision and expansion of the sections relating to the administration's program may be necessary when it is introduced.
Whenever trial in Federal court is necessary to assure equal protection of the laws to victim or group to which he belongs.
(2) Certification (nonreviewable) by Attorney General, at or prior to final arraignment, that prosecution in Federal court would fulfil
responsihility of United States to assure equal protection of the laws.
protection for such racial or color groups. Discrimination exists where members of the racial or color group are (1) systematically excluded
In any trial under these laws, the substantive State law relative to the crime shall apply, including that of penalties. Federal rules of
procedure shall govern the trial. Postconviction matters such as custody, parole, probation, etc., shall be under Federal law.
crimes even though the Attorney General has not as yet filed his certificate.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights authorized to conduct investigations of jury discrimination. After investigation, Commission shall submit its findings to responsible State or local authorities. Il controverted Commission shall
(Whenever the term "race or color" is used in S. 2923 and H.R. 12807 it includes civil rights workers who are promoting racial equality)
S. 2923, Douglas, Case, and other bypar
tisan Senators; H.R. 12807, Diggs and other Congressmen
H.R. 13323, Mathias (Maryland) and other
Republican House Members
TRIAL OF STATE CRIMES IN
(In S. 2923 and H.R. 12807 only. No
similar provisions in H.R. 13323 or
Any case triable under State or local criminal law.
ratio of the number of persons of the group registered to vote bears to the total number of persons registered to vote.
State court to Federal court by filing a certificate, provided that jeopardy has not attached.
(In S. 2923 and H.R. 12807 only. No
similar provisions in H.R. 13323 or
consider responses and may revise findings. Il still controverted it shall conduct a public hearing, then publish findings. Commission's findings shall constitute evidence in any action brought under this blli, except to extent that person controverting them
satisfies the court that they are not correct.
Effect of findings