Senator ERVIN. Now, Governor, notwithstanding the fact that you have the open occupancy law in Rhode Island, would you say there has been any substantial change in residential segregation in Rhode Island since the law became operative?

Governor CHAFEE. We have had the law now just for a year. I cannot say there has been a substantial change, no. I think in anticipation, we did not think that there would be a substantial change. But the leaders, those who are able to afford such housing, who are cognizant of the right that exists for them under this legislation, are able to move on and get such housing, and this act as an incentive to the others. Senator ERVIN. Now, you state that you confined your statement largely to title IV, although you stated you were in favor of the other provisions of the bill.

Do you favor the provision of title II, under which Congress would prescribe the rules of procedure to govern State courts in investigations of composition of juries?

Governor CHAFEE. Well, as I said in the statement, I really confined my attention to title IV. This title II, which you have just gone into, and I heard your prior discussion with the Senator, would work no hardship with us in our section of the country.

Senator ERVIN. Now, you state that none of the provisions of the bill would have much impact on Rhode Island?

Governor CHAFEE. That is correct.

Senator ERVIN. I think you are a man who has stood to some considerable degree for local State government and States rights. Do you think it is a good policy for Congress to prescribe rules of procedure for State courts in determining questions of fact?

Governor CHAFEE. I think when we have had problems arise, as it is my understanding in certain sections of the country, which the States have been unwilling or unable to wrestle with, that is the reason that such national legislation has come into being,

On your specific question, as far as this particular provision goes, it does not disturb me, no.

Senator ERVIN. I notice that under the Rhode Island General Laws, section 9-9-11, that with reference to the service of women on juries, it provides that where the jury commissioner certifies that there are sufficient accommodations to take care of women jurors, they shall have women jurors; otherwise, women are excused from service.

Then there is another provision which I would say is somewhat similar to our law in North Carolina: any woman can get herself excused from jury service by notifying the jury commissioner that she does not desire to serve.

Now, do you not think that title II would nullify that law?

Governor CHAFEE. I do not think so. The important thing is that the women are given the opportunity to serve, and if they so excuse themselves, in the subsequent drawings they do not come up with a woman on the jury, that is quite all right. I do not think that this law requires that every jury have one poor person, one rich person, or anything like that. As I get the law, they have to be included within the jury wheel or the jury box.

Senator ERVIN. Yes, but it says it has to be a representative cross section-the Attorney General's testimony was to the effect that it was designed to get a representative cross section of the population.

And certainly if the women were permitted to excuse themselves from service, there would be great danger that you would not get a cross section of the feminine population of a given area.

Governor CHAFEE. I do not think-it does not really present a problem, because we find that the women do not avail themselves of this.

Senator ERVIN. That is what we found in North Carolina.
Governor CHAFEE. They seem to like to serve on juries.

Senator ERVIN. We found that they do not like to serve on juries. Governor CHAFEE. Oh, I do not know what the difference is between the women in North Carolina and the women in Rhode Island, but we seem to have a very substantial percentage of women on our juries. Senator ERVIN. Most of ours prefer to stay at home and manage the home and look after children, I might say.

Governor CHAFEE. I am not interpreting that as meaning that the women of Rhode Island want to leave their children in homes.

Senator ERVIN. I am just expressing my opinion that maybe North Carolina and I am not familiar with the women of Rhode Island, but I would surmise that they are very charming human beings.

Governor CHAFEE. They would have to be extremely charming to compete with the women of North Carolina.

Senator ERVIN. Senator, I have a luncheon engagement. I wonder if you could take over for me?

Senator JAVITS. Certainly.

Senator ERVIN. Governor, I want to thank you on behalf of the subcommittee for your willingness to appear here today and give us the benefit of your views.

Governor CHAFEE. Thank you.

One moment, Senator. Could we submit with the written record a statement by our commission against discrimination?

Senator ERVIN. Yes, sir; we would be glad to have it, and to have it printed in the record.

The document referred to follows:)

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, Providence, June 21, 1966.

Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

Chairman, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: In testimony before your Honorable Committee on June 14, 1966, Dennis M. Lynch, President of the Rhode Island Realtors Association, called the Rhode Island housing law a failure. I concede that the law enacted was much weaker than we desired but this was due largely to strong opposition led by Mr. Lynch and his fellow members of the Rhode Island Board of Realtors. I would be one of the first to agree that the law is weak, and that it should be much stronger. Recommendations have already been made to strengthen it but the Legislature took no action, saying that a little more time should be allowed to test its effectiveness. However, I do strongly disagree with the testimony of Mr. Lynch that the law is a sham or a failure. The fact that a number of Negroes, though small, have been able to buy and rent properties of their choice through the use of the law is the best evidence to prove this particular point.

In further testimony, Mr. Lynch stated that the Rhode Island law has not improved the housing rights of minorities. This statement is in direct contradiction to the opinions of the leaders and members of minority groups. As an example, during the past month a non-white professional couple purchased a home which had been denied to them solely on the basis of color through the

65-506-66-pt. 1- -55

use of the law. It would appear to me that the strongest opponents of the legislation are in no position to say that the Rhode Island Fair Housing Law had turned out to be a "sham" and a disappointment to those who thought it would help them, as stated by Mr. Lynch. As a Negro, as the Executive Secretary of this Rhode Island Commission Against Discrimination which administers the law, and as the Pastor of Hood Memorial A. M. E. Zion Church, I feel fully qualified to speak to this point. Based on my personal feelings, on the reports coming to me as the Executive Official of this state agency, and on opinions of the membership of my congregation, I assure your Honorable Committee that nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, minority group members regard the law as a step forward toward securing their right in the housing market even though they realize full well that, like all initial statutes, this law needs to be strengthened. I am enclosing a copy of the report to Governor John H. Chafee on the first nine months of this Commission's administration of the law; and an editorial from one of our newspapers, the Providence Journal, for review by you, Senator Ervin, as the Chairman, and by all the Members of your Honorable Committee.

Respectfully,

Rev. ARTHUR L. HARDGE,
Executive Secretary.

To: His Excellency, Gov. John H. Chaffee; the Honorable Members of the Senate; and the Honorable Members of the House of Representatives. From: Rhode Island Commission Against Discrimination.

Subject: Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act.

It has been approximately nine months since the passage of the Fair Housing Practices Act. The Commission Against Discrimination believes that it owes the Governor, the Legislature, and the general public a report on the Commission's administration of the Act.

Between the middle of April, 1965, when the Fair Housing Bill became law, and the middle of January, 1966, twenty-six housing complaints were brought to the Commission. Of these, twenty involved rentals; only two involved sale of real estate. Four were miscellaneous complaints involving such matters as alleged discrimination in advertising.

In fifteen of the twenty-six cases, the Commission determined that probable cause existed for believing that unlawful housing practices had taken place or were taking place. Fourteen of these fifteen cases have been conciliated.

Of the fourteen conciliated cases three ended when the respondent decided to sell or rent to the complainant (2 sales, 1 rental). In a fourth the respondent agreed to make available to the complainant a rental unit other than the one originally in question, which the complainant, however, decided he did not want. In seven of the fourteen conciliated cases the rental unit in question was rented to a party other than the complainant before the Commission's efforts to conciliate were completed. In four of these cases the Commission required affidavits of future compliance.

The Commission dismissed seven cases when it was unable to find sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Three cases involved housing accommodations which are excluded from coverage by the law. One complainant requested that his complaint be withdrawn before the Commission made any determination.

One of the cases in which the Commission found probable cause remains active. The rental unit involved has already been rented to a person other than the complainant. Since, however, the complainant wishes to pursue the case in order that a cease and desist order (if the facts warrant such issuance) may prevent the respondent from continuing his practices in the future, the Commission intends to carry the complaint to a formal hearing as soon as practicable.

Commission members and staff have appeared and made presentations at meetings of many organizations interested in the problems of discrimination in housing (civil rights organizations, groups of realtors and home builders, neighborhood councils, as well as such general organizations as Rotary Clubs). These efforts, together with changes in the Commission's staff and procedures, have, the Commission believes, improved public confidence in the agency. There is some reason to believe that, as a result, a higher proportion of instances of discrimination are now being brought to the Commission for action, whereas

formerly these incidents tended to remain as quietly festering sores in the community. The leaders of the non-white community in particular have had opportunities to meet and talk with the Commission and seem to have more faith that the Commission is "in business," ready and willing to act vigorously when complaints are brought to its attention.

There is no evidence, on the other hand, that either the number of cases or the Commission's procedures reflect the kinds of abuses which were once predicted. To the best of the Commission's knowledge every complaint has been made in good faith-even though subsequent investigation may have demonstrated that a failure in communication rather than outright discrimination had occurred.

Doubt remains, however, as to whether the housing law is sufficient for the Commission to be able to assure the public that it can be effective in as high a proportion of cases as good public order requires.

It is worth underlining that the Commission has received many more complaints of discrimination in rentals than in sales. This proportion was anticipated. Nevertheless, the facts raise a question as to whether the complaints would be even more numerous if the housing law were extended to cover apartment units in owner-occupied, two and three family houses. The Commission's only direct experience in this area is three cases in which complainants did not realize that the owners lived in the buildings in which they were offering apartments for rent and where therefore it remained for the Commission to discover that the units in question fell outside of its jurisdiction.

The Commission has had more direct experience, as already indicated in the statistics cited above, with the need for an injunction provision. The purpose of the injunctive power would be to make it possible for the Commission to go to court and request an order which would prevent a landlord from renting to a person other than a complainant during the period of investigation and conciliation. The Commission has had seven cases in which apartments were rented while a complaint of discrimination was still being discussed. In two of these cases the apartment in question had already been rented by the time Commission investigators first appeared on the scene (within twenty-four hours after receipt of the complaint in both instances). The injunctive power would not have helped in those cases. In five of the cases, however, injunctive power would have been an important factor in the Commission's ability to fulfill the purposes of the housing law. Given the history of Rhode Island's law against discrimination in employment and public accommodation, five cases is a significant number. In addition, it represents approximately one quarter of all the housing complaints received during the nine months being reported on. It should be noted, further, that not all of these cases involve deliberate efforts by respondents to evade the law. The respondent in at least one case was ignorant of the housing law. He had always rented exclusively to members of one particular ethnic group. The Commission encountered difficulty in establishing communication with the lawful owner in addition to his son who was acting as his agent. The case was particularly heartbreaking because the respondent would cheerfully have complied with the law if he had known about it and, indeed, he promised to seek out the complainant the next time an apartment unit became available. Nevertheless, the fact is that the Commission's lack of injunctive power meant ineffectuality in its handling of the case: the apartment unit in question was in fact rented to another party during the course of the Commission's efforts to investigate and conciliate. The Commission believes that the injunctive power would make impossible evasion of the law and would reduce deliberate delays.

In this connection, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the Commission's housing cases have been disposed of in a week's time or less. Three cases have required two weeks of work, three cases required three weeks; only one case required as much as a month.

It is evident that finding adequate housing continues to be a source of frustration for the non-white minority. Negroes in our state continue to be relegated to the several ghettoes that have been perpetuated for too long. At the same time, the Commission is convinced that passage of the Fair Housing Practices Act has served and is serving an important function in reducing the level of racial tension in the state. Increased faith in the Commission is serving the same function. Even in those cases in which the Commission has found that discrimination did not occur, the Commission believes it has served an important purpose in determining what the facts were and making these facts evident to

all parties. Misunderstanding is sometimes an important factor contributing to racial tension. Nevertheless, the Commission firmly believes that it will not be fully effective until it has the statutory authority to see injunctions. It needs this power in order to handle cases properly. It needs it also in order to continue the development of public confidence in the agency.

New York and Connecticut laws today contain new injunctive provisions which permit recompense for damages in the event that a respondent against whom a restraining order has been granted is ultimately found to be innocent of discriminatory housing practices. The commission stands ready to give information and advice about these and other developments in the field of fair housing legislation if the Legislature desires them.

Finally, let it be noted that, in addition to processing complaints, the commission is trying to stimulate and encourage programs of "affirmative action," similar to those which exist, for example, in the field of fair employment practices. It is cooperating in the development of "Operation Metropolis," a part of the Federalmunicipal antipoverty program in the city of Providence. It is also exploring program ideas with certain nongovernmental groups in the community. Although the housing law emphasizes the establishment of procedures for adjudicating individual complaints, the complex problems associated with the nonwhite ghettos of the State will not be solved on a case-by-case basis. The commission pledges, therefore, to work with all interested parties in order to exercise leadership in the continuing problem of trying to make American democratic principles a living reality.

RHODE ISLAND COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION,
Dr. BARRY A. MARKS, Chairman,

JOHN A. DALuz, Jr.,

DANIEL E. HEALY,

R. FRANKLIN WELLER,

ALLEN J. WHITE,

ARTHUR L. HARDGE, Executive Secretary.

[From the Providence (R.I.) Journal, June 21, 1966]

FAIR HOUSING LAW FOES REPEAT THE FAMILIAR THEMES

Some of the Rhode Islanders who tried to block fair housing in this state trav. eled to Washington, D.C., recently to argue against the proposed federal ban on discrimination in housing.

Dennis M. Lynch, president of the Rhode Island Realtors Association, called the administration plan "nothing but a phony, high-sounding effort that unfairly offers pie in the sky to the people who need help."

He then called the Rhode Island fair housing law a failure.

Mr. Lynch neglected to tell the Senate subcommittee on constitutional rights that the efforts of his group helped make it impossible to get a more effective law passed by the state General Assembly.

As weak as it is, the Rhode Island law is less than a sham to the small number of Negroes who have been able to buy or rent property of their choice because it exists.

Mr. Lynch proceeded to set up in Washington the straw men he used to try to defeat fair housing locally. People will begin to wonder, he said, if a new federal law in the future "will restrict their mobility and ability to move from place to place."

This is sheer nonsense! The issue, as it was with respect to the state fair housing law, is whether people should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy property solely because of their race, religion or national origin.

The arguments of Mr. Lynch and the rest of the party ought to be set aside by a majority of Congress as they were by a majority of the Rhode Island General Assembly.

Senator JAVITS (presiding). Governor Chafee, first let me thank you very much for appearing here. You are one of our distinguished and enlightened Governors, and a friend of mine. It is a great pleasure to welcome you.

I have noted your statement with great interest. What I was not here to hear you testify to, I have read.