same year as yours, 1885. I was told in yesterday's hearing by a lawyer from Detroit, that this Federal statute that we are now considering should not be enacted because I would not be reelected if I voted for it.

I told them I got the message, but we had to do as our consciences suggested. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we can argue about which region has achieved a higher degree of perfection, but perfection has been achieved by no region. And none of us is so foolish to think that the enactment of this statute will change the hearts of men, but it will advance us along the road that we better be on lest real disaster overtake us and it will permit in all regions that which is now permitted in the North. It will permit each individual to do that which he regards as right without the kind of economic and social pressure that so many witnesses have described inhibits them from opening their properties to all of the public without imposing a racial bar.

And, again, I am sure one of the reasons that the southern spokesman finds it difficult to accept the sincerity of the northerner is that in the North, it is within the power of each individual to do that which this law would require and it is within the power of each individual to treat equally every other individual because the law requires it.

Public policy in the North is such that where there is discrimination, the fault is the individuals, not the public authority. And one of the truisms we always assign to America is that here is where you judge a man not from the side of the railroad tracks he may come or where he went to school or where he goes to church or where his parents were born or what his color is, but as an individual.

And, when we get this statute on the books, that is the way in fact an individual will be required to be judged as he walks up to get a room or a cup of coffee. It is a national problem, and this is just one small segment of the civil rights program that is aimed to meet it, and we are very grateful that as we close these hearings, you would voice the notes you have.

May I explain that I normally do not extend my comments this way, but is happens that this is the last day, and I think in fairness, this note of, in a sense an admission, should be voiced by some of us who have been aggressive in our insistence that this bill should be passed.

Governor ROLVAAG. Yes, sir.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Scott?

Senator SCOTT. Governor, I welcome you here, and I am glad that you have followed a line which I have been trying to develop in questioning and that is the right of innkeepers under the common law to hold out equally to the public their accommodations and the quotations are most useful as a part of this record.

So, I repeat again what appears in your statement, that the ancient common law never recognized any property right of hotel keepers and similar persons following public callings to discriminate.

The question has been asked you-you and I both support this billthe question has been asked you whether you are aware that the Federal law is not founded upon the common law, and you have answered that you are aware of this, but is it not also true that the State laws of most States are founded upon the common law and that the Federal laws apply to State laws where applicable or possible?

Governor RoLVAAG. That is correct.

Senator SCOTT. That is correct. So that we are justified, I think, in pointing out the operation of the common law. Now, by the way, when did you request the opportunity to testify?

Governor ROLVAAG. Pardon?

Senator SCOTT. When was request made to testify?

Governor ROLVAAG. We first made a request to testify in the middle of July sometime.

Senator SCOTT. When?

Governor ROLVAAG. In the middle of July. I might say, Senator Scott, I should say we received in my office, on July 1, the letter from Senator Magnuson inviting Elmer L. Anderson, Governor of the State of Minnesota, to testify. [Laughter.]

Senator SCOTT. We are not always up to date down here, Governor. Governor ROLVAAG. I think, sir, there is something to be left to your recordkeeping.

Senator SCOTT. I want to then repeat, although I asked in open hearing that all of the Governors be asked to testify, my request was made long after the 1st of July, after the 15th. Now, I take you back to the Governors' conference.

Senator PASTORE. Before the Senator gets off on that, will he yield? Senator SCOTT. I yield.

Senator PASTORE. Naturally, the conduct of these hearings is the responsibility of the chairman of the committee. I am not the chairman of the committee, but I have been acting chairman of the committee since the illness of the distinguished chairman.

But, I know it is a matter or practice, very, very religiously followed, that what is known about the proceedings by any member of this committee is welcome information for all. Now, the list of the witnesses has been prepared. And sometimes through the recommendations made by members of the committee, Mr. Thurmond has already recommended several witnesses whom we have heard over the past several days. These are names that were suggested by him.

The representatives that came here from South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia

Senator HART. And Michigan.

Senator PASTORE. Those were the names that were suggested by Mr. Thurmond. Certainly he made no secret of it. He gave the names to our staff, and these people were officially notified of these hearings and asked if they would come, and they did come. Now, of course, in all likelihood, we wouldn't know unless we ask.

All I want to do in order to make this very clear on the record is, that if the Senator from Pennsylvania had asked me or any member of the staff, certainly he could have found out the witnesses that are to appear, including the distinguished Governor from Minnesota.

I don't say this in any criticism of him, merely in clarification of the record. There is no secret here about who is going to testify on what. As a matter of fact, I don't meet these witnesses until they actually appear before me on the morning that they do testify. And that has been the procedure here. I have attended every single day from the time we started these hearings. I think most of the members of the committee have. There has been no secrecy involved. There has been complete disclosure, and I remember the incident that the

Senator brought up of reference to the fracas that occurred at the Governors' conference that involved his friend from New York, the Governor of New York, and a few other people down there.

I hold no breech for one side or the other side, butSenator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have, as you know, the greatest respect and affection for you, the fairness with which you have conducted these proceedings has been obvious to all. Your patience has been endless and your good will has been evident. But the fact does remain that in open hearing, on one occasion, and the record shows it, that I asked why Governors had not appeared, and said I thought it would be desirable if they did. I was following a press release from the Governor of Minnesota in that request. I was not told on the record at that time that any Governor would appear, and I was told by a staff member at the time the session adjourned or recessed for the day, that several southern Governors were expected to appear and perhaps the Governor of California.

I welcomed Governor Rolvaag, and I was merely proceeding to ask certain questions, which I am sure he will not mind in the least my asking him. If I may proceed.

Governor, may I go back to the Governors' conference?
Governor ROLVAAG. Yes, sir.

Senator SCOTT. Actually, there did appear here four Governors from Southern States, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Until today, no Governor outside of the South has appeared. I understand we have but one witness to go before the session will be closed. Therefore, there have been five Governors who appeared, four against the bill and one in favor of the bill. So, the presentation at this moment, is four Governors against and one Governor for.

Now, at the Governors' conference, you issued an invitation, using, I may say, the same kind of strong language, perhaps with the same kind of political overtones that I myself might have used in your place and your situation.

Nevertheless, your press releases called on all the Republican Governors of the Union to have the courage to come up here and testify before the committee, and you said they had not even asked to appear. Now, have you made any effort, following your press release, to secure the attendance of any other Governor of either political party at these hearings?

Governor ROLVAAG. No, sir: I do not interfere in the affairs of other Governors. I presume that Governor Rockefeller and your own Governor, Governor Scranton, would, if they felt moved by this question, come to testify.

Senator SCOTT. Governor. I notice a remarkable similarity in the press releases of each of the Governors, all of whom voted to abolish the resolutions committee, and I have the press releases on the desk here, in which all of them proceeded to attack Republican Governors or singled out a Republican Governor, and I am also aware that there were more persons at the conference from the White House or connected with the White House than there were Governors. And, would you mind

Governor ROLVAAG. You have more knowledge, sir, than I do. Senator SCOTT. Scripps-Howard Press were there and they reported and one of my representatives was there, and he reported it,

and I am sad it was a fact-not all from the actual physical environs of one building, but from that source; and I would like to ask whether or not there was consultation among the Democratic Governors in regard to the issuance of these press releases, that they bear such a remarkable similarity, one to the other.

Governor ROLVAAG. Not to my knowledge. I consulted with no one on my release.

Senator SCOTT. You have testified quite positively on this civil rights bill here. I believe you were one of the Governors who voted to abolish the resolutions committee so that the matter could not be heard at the Governors' conference; isn't that correct?

Senator PASTORE. I don't think this Governor ought to answer that question if he doesn't want to.

Senator SCOTT. It is a matter of record.
Governor ROLVAAG. I have no objections.

Senator PASTORE. I think we have gone far afield. This man is invited here as the chief executive of his State to testify on this bill. Now, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to make an issue of this, I don't think this is the proper place. If the Governor wants to answer the question, he is privileged to do so, but he is not compelled to answer the question because I consider the question improper. Senator SCOTT. The Governor has shown no reluctance to testify whatever. This is a matter of record.

The Governor has been instructed by the chairman, he may not answer the question if he does not wish to, and I now repeat it.

Did you, Governor, vote to abolish the resolutions committee in order to avoid discussions of civil rights at the Governors' conference? Governor ROLVAAG. Sir, I voted for the motion to abolish the resolutions committee at the Governors' conference, but not for the purpose that you impugn to it.

As a matter of fact, we spent a whole afternoon in free open discussion on the question of civil rights, every Governor having the opportunity to speak, time permitting. It so happened that I was the junior Governor of the 54 there, and I did not get my time.

But there was full and free open discussion. There was no gagging of any man at the Governors' conference.

I must agree with Senator Pastore, that this discussion carriers a little far afield from Senate Bill S. 1732.

Senator SCOTT. You see, it has gotten involved in my civil rights and that is why I am a little concerned.

Governor ROLVAAG. I would like to protect your civil rights.

Senator SCOTT. I would like to protect my civil rights and I will do the best I can to protect them.

But Governor, after the discussion of civil rights, there was an attempt by at least one of the Governors to have these acted upon formally by the Governors' conference and a motion to table was offered and did you not vote to table the motion to have the civil rights action which you have supported? Did you not join in a motion to table the resolution and the attempt to have it made a formal part of the Governors' conference?

Governor ROLVAAG. The executive committee of the Governors' conference was directed by the Governors present by a vote of 38 to 3, sir, to take up the matter of civil rights and make a thorough study of

it and report back to the Governors' conference. The Governors' conference is not a legislating body. It was my position that the Governors should go to their local States and take up the matter of civil rights and come as the chief executive of their States to this body to represent the point of view of their State.

Senator Scorr. So it was deferred for study until the next Governors' conference a year from now, isn't that right?

Governor ROLVAAG. That is right.

Senator SCOTT. I take it you would not want this Congress to consider the deferring for further study of the bill now before this committee, would you?

Governor ROLVAAG. No, sir.

Senator SCOTT. That is all.

Senator PASTORE. Governor, you have a public accommodations law in Minnesota ?

Governor ROLVAAG. That is correct.

Senator PASTORE. Are you familiar with whether your law is stronger in Minnesota than it is in Pennsylvania?

Governor ROLVAAG. I have no knowledge of what the public accommodations law may be in Pennsylvania. Governor Scranton was not at the Governors' conference. I had no opportunity to discuss it with him or with any other Pennsylvanian.

Senator PASTORE. Do you mean to tell me that Governor Scranton was not at the Governors' conference?

Governor ROLVAAG. Yes, sir.

Senator PASTORE. That is all.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, Governor Scranton was in the last week of the legislature. The chairman of the committee has been a Governor of his own State.

Senator PASTORE. That was a good place for him to be.

Senator SCOTT. I agree, that the Governor of Pennsylvania was pursuing not only the wise course, but his constitutional responsibility in remaining with his legislature during the last days of that legislature, during a period where anything can happen, and I submit further, that the subsequent events of the Governors' conference where I said that so many Governors managed to cut, run, and scatter, further emphasizes the wisdom of the Governor of Pennsylvania in being the only Governor who did not go to the conference but attended to the business of the Government of his State.

Senator PASTORE. I want to conclude that one of the most courageous men who has testified before this committee is the distinguished Governor of Minnesota, who has made an excellent statement, who is a firm believer in civil rights not only in word, but in deed, who has endorsed the law of accommodations in his own State, who has pointed out that tourist employment in his State amounts to $350 million a year, that the law is vigorously endorsed in his State and he has the courage, fortitude, and vim to come to this committee and say so. I compliment you.

Governor ROLVAAG. Thank you.

Senator SCOTT. I want to add, the Governor's statement was excellent, forceful, very much to the point, and contributes to our knowledge and understanding.