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 a 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 Republican asking the President to use more authority. 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 DOUGLAS. It has been very minor really. 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, political or religious affiliation, economic or social status prohibited. Names obtained from cross section of population under sampling plan prepared in consultation with Director of Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, with advice from Director of Census Bureau. Juries selected from names so obtained by random selection. Requirement of ability to read and write English language repealed. Judge may exclude in cases requiring this ability, except no person with a 6th-grade education can be excluded from service. Attorney General, any citizen of judicial district or litigant may apply to court of appeals if selection procedures are not followed or if records are not kept. Court of appeals may appoint jury commissioners responsible to it. Questionnaires used in jury selection, names on jury lists and in jury wheel, names and race of those serving, date of service, etc., must be kept 4 years. Criminal penalties prescribed for failure to keep records or for destroying or dsmaging them. Same as S. 2923. Names obtained from voting lists. Random Existing requirement of ability to read and Discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status prohibited. Names obtained from voting registration lists; but if judicial council of circuit determines use of voting lists would not be nondiscriminatory, it could prescribe other sources of names. Random selection from voting or other lists. Discrimination on basis of race or color pro- Discrimination on basis of race, color, or sex Also applicable if records are not kept (see below). 1. Suit in district court brought by Attorney 1. Transfer by defendant to Federal court. 2. Initiation of cases in or transfer to Federal Methods of demonstrating discrimina- 1. Any final judgment of Federal or State tion court within 5 years determining that 2. Showing that over a period of 2 years ratio 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 the term "race or color" is used in S. 2923 and H. R. 12807 it includes civil rights workers who are promoting racial equality] Type of case. Basis of Federal jurisdiction. S. 2923, Douglas, Case, and other bypar- H.R. 13323, Mathias (Maryland) and other Any case triable under State or local criminal law. Administration program 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 In all cases subject to the jurisdiction of these proceedings, FBI, U.S. marshals and other U.S. officials may act to prevent or investigate In any instance in which the Attorney General could initiate a suit under these provisions, he may remove a prosecution commenced in 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. If controverted Commission shall consider responses and may revise findings. If still controverted it shall conduct a public hearing, then publish findings. Commission's findings shall constitute evidence in any action brought under this bill, except to extent that person controverting them satisfies the court that they are not correct. |