I would like to have your permission to insert your statement in the Congressional Record for myself and Senator Smathers, in order to give it as wide a dissemination in the printed page as possible. Mr. PETRO. Thank you kindly, Senator. Permission granted of course. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10:30 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 5:05 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10:30, Friday, June 10, 1966.) CIVIL RIGHTS FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1966 U. S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, D.C. in room The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a.m., 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Ervin. Also present: George Autry, chief counsel; H. Houston Groome, Lawrence M. Baskir, and Lewis W. Evans, counsel; and John Baker, minority counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Counsel will call the first witness. Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the first witness on the witness list is Senator Sparkman. He has agreed to allow Senator Philip A. Hart, Senator from the State of Michigan and principal sponsor of S. 3296 to be the first witness this morning. Senator ERVIN. Senator, you are welcome before the subcommittee. STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having me. While I shall thank Senator Sparkman when I see him, I should like the record to reflect my appreciation for the courtesy he has shown. As Senator Ervin knows, there are too many subcommittees, and I left the Antitrust Subcommittee to come up to this one. I am doubly grateful to Senator Sparkman. Mr. Chairman, as the primary sponsor of S. 3296 and a cosponsor of S. 2923, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee in support of these bills. Although encouraging progress in civil rights has resulted from the enactment of recent civil rights acts and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, much remains to be done before the democratic ideals upon which our country was founded become a reality for all of our people. The President recognized this fact in his recent message on civil rights when he stated that No civil rights act, however historic, will be final. We would look in vain for one definitive solution to an injustice as old as the Nation itself. The importance of S. 3296 lies in the possibility it offers of further alleviating discrimination in three vital areas: the administration of justice, education, and housing. Who is to say which is more important? All three areas are but parts of this whole complex problem. 65-506-66-pt. 1-20 295 While we may analyze and study one area separately, we must never forget that every advancement reveals the interrelationship of all aspects of civil rights. It is impossible to deal with the employment problems of Negroes without also taking into consideration discrimination in education, training, housing, and personal security. Titles I, II, and V are designed to modify our system of administering justice so as to tighten the protection of physical security of all Americans and assure them of equal justice under the law. In some regions the record of continuing violence against the advancement of equal rights is frightening. The primary purpose of such terror and violence becomes crystal clear when we see its effects extending far beyond the victims and encompassing the entire community. No Negro American failed to understand the intended message carried in the photographs from Mississippi in newspapers of 2 days ago. Every assault, every murder, every bombing which goes unpunished, has encouraged and reinforced efforts to stop the advancement of equal rights through violence and intimidation. Such assaults on the free exercise of constitutional rights constitute a compelling reason for immediate enactment of proposals such as title V which is designed to insure that all who work for and advocate equality are protected from interference and violence. May I interpolate here that there is no one in the Senate, in my judgment, who is more offended by violence of this character, more distressed by it, than the chairman of this subcommittee. Senator ERVIN. I thank the Senator. That is certainly true. Senator HART. Titles I and II are concerned with assuring equal opportunity to participate in jury service by strengthening the constitutional guarantee that accused persons will be judged by impartial juries. It is generally agreed that a jury drawn from people of different backgrounds, races, and religions, a jury from which their peers have not been arbitrarily excluded, would be most likely to adhere to this constitutional mandate. Opponents of this provision argue that we should be very careful about tampering with the jury system, one of our basic institutions. I suggest that the jury system as originally conceived has already been tampered with by the widespread practice of omitting members of certain groups from juries. Because of the variations among our people, it is highly unlikely that a jury system which systematically excludes members of a certain race or group could provide the type of impartiality contemplated in the Constitution. The weaknesses of the administration of justice are dramatically portrayed in the failure of juries to convict killers of dedicated civil rights workers. Without the possibility of conviction in this area, there is encouragement for such crimes to multiply. A strong jury system is essential to deter future violence of this type. The Attorney General, I understand, is reported to have said that at the time of the Meredith shooting on Tuesday at least 15 lawmen were within yards of him. Yet the fact that the presence of these officers did not prevent the shooting is an indication that Congress should tighten the laws relating to administration of justice to the point where no man can mistake that justice of the courts will be prompt, effective, and unwavering. I admit there is one possibility. If a madman is surrounded by 15 police officers, the presence of that deterrent pressure which would operate on the normal mind would not apply. But absent the madman, it seems strange to me that a man in possession of his senses could, when surrounded by 15 policemen, commit another assault, unless he felt that the justice that would result would not be the kind of justice that we preach to the world that we apply here. It was in this spirit that S. 2923 was introduced by Senator Douglas, who testified yesterday, and the cosponsors. In this proposal we have attempted to provide the statutory provisions we believe required to completely handle the breakdown of machinery for the fair administration of justice. This goes beyond the administration's bill, which I introduced. But I believe the events of the past few days underline the reasons why it is important that this subcommittee and the Congress review proposals such as the following: 1. The removal of certain types of prosecutions from State courts to the Federal courts. 2. Provisions for civil indemnification of those killed or injured because they participated in lawful civil rights activities. 3. The removal of defendants from jurisdictions where a breakdown of effective justice has occurred. 4. More direct and automatic methods of reaching the problem. of jury exclusion. Both bills contain provision for broadening the power of the Attorney General to permit him to institute suits for the desegregation of schools and public facilities. The continued slowness of the school desegregation effort speaks more clearly than ever why there should be little disagreement over this long-delayed provision. Finally, S. 3296 contains a provision against discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. This clearly has touched the most sensitive nerve. Most of the opposition to this proposal is based on the argument that it represents an unconstitutional interference with property rights. This argument was also made with respect to the public accommodations provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, experience has shown that this provision was the effective and the constitutional way to accomplish the national goal of equal access to public accommodations. In the metropolitan areas of our country are many independent local jurisdictions. In many such metropolitan complexes there are two or three State jurisdictions. I can think of no greater problem than attempting to coordinate the adoption of local fair housing ordinances or State statutes to cover residential and rental housing in these independent jurisdictions. The opportunity for manipulating real estate markets in a situation where one local jurisdiction has an effective fair housing ordinance. and others do not are obvious. Clearly uniform national action is required. Many of the metropolitan problems-freeway location, downtown renewal, outdated educational facilities are compounded by the open practice of closing new rental and homeownership opportunities to Negro families. It would seem to me the very economics of expanding the potentials for homebuilding and apartment construction to fill the obvious market available for better homes and apartments for these families would mean that the real estate and home construction industry would welcome a uniform and effective national policy. Certainly we will never rebuild the American city to its fullest economic and human potential until we have met squarely this problem of housing discrimination. Here, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we are not talking about a region of the country, a section where history has a long-reaching arm. We are talking about every neighborhood in the country, north and south, east and west, in the middle, in the mountains, everywhere. I know, Mr. Chairman, you and other members have expressed grave doubts concerning the constitutional powers available to the Congress to enact such a statute. I hope that the excellent legal memorandum prepared by the American Law Section of the Library of Congress would be a part of this hearing record, if it has not been introduced to date. It was prepared by Vincent Doyle, and I reviewed Mr. Doyle's discussion of the powers available under the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. Senator ERVIN. Senator, do you have available copies there? Senator ERVIN. If you desire the chairman to do so, I will have that printed in the body of the record as part of the record immediately after the conclusion of your remarks. Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate it. I think a reading of that admittedly not short memorandum fairly establishes that Congress does have a constitutional basis. We had much this same argument 2 years ago in discussing title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court upheld our actions under the commerce clause. I believe this would occur if we enact title IV of the proposed bill. Some weeks ago I asked the Department of Defense to prepare a report for this hearing on the problems faced by Negro enlisted personnel and officers of the armed services in finding adequate housing for their families in off-base housing. Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to have this report printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. I think it describes certainly factually and eloquently the problem we are attempting to meet in title IV. Attorney General Katzenbach referred to a few instances mentioned in this study, and I would like to read an excerpt from it: Adequate, decent off-base housing for Negro personnel in the Armed Forces is the most stubborn and pervasive form of segregation and discrimination affecting Negroes in the Army, Navy (including the Marine Corps) and the Air Force. The problem is nationwide. It is encountered in the North, as well as the South. It is along the Atlantic, as well as the Pacific Coast, and it is also found in the Middle West. Some of the cases described here would shame all but the most insensitive American. The report, by way of general conclusion I think, says: Commanders at 102 Defense installations (43 percent) reported that their men encountered many forms of severe discrimination in seeking either to buy or rent. They were refused rental houses and apartments because of their color. They were required to live at places distant from their duty stations, in inferior dwellings in deteriorated neighborhoods and often charged inordinately high rentals and often when attempting to purchase, the price would be doubled. It was reported that 39 trailer parks situated near the 235 installations refused to accept Negro soldiers, sailors and airmen. |