I respectfully submit that those who seek to have public accommodations open to persons of all races should seek to obtain that object by persuasion.

Much has been done by persuasion in this country in that area. In my own State of North Carolina, we have had a great opening of doors in places of public accommodation. Similar action is occurring throughout the United States. That is the way problems of this nature ought to be solved.

We ought to rely solely upon persuasion. But if we are going to rely on law, we ought to rely upon law enacted by the only authority under our constitutional system which can exercise such power, and that is the State legislatures and the councils of municipalities. They have police power which the Federal Government lacks. They have the power to pass laws to regulate public accommodations, if they desire to do so. Their laws would be much more desirable, because they can tailor them to suit local conditions. This cannot be done in legislation on the national level.

Many racial problems arise out of economics, and efforts should be made to assist members of minority groups in obtaining suitable jobs. These efforts should be voluntary, however, rather than coercive. I do not believe that you can promote good racial relations or good economics by the Government going in and grabbing an employer by the throat and saying, "You have to hire this man whether you want to or not." That would be the destruction of another freedom.

I think that people who invest their money in a business have the right to determine whom they shall hire and whom they shall promote, and whom they shall discharge.

Whenever there is a conflict between supposed equality coerced by law and the freedom of the individual, I am going to take my stand for the freedom of the individual. This country was made great by men who were granted freedom to strive and to achievenot by men who were robbed of basic economic, legal, and personal rights through the coercive power of law.

If government robs our people of their economic freedom to manage their own property in their own way, it will be denying in the long run to so-called minorities one of the most precious rights they can ever seek or attain.

If a man wants to drink cool water out of a spring on the top of a mountain, he ought to climb to the top of the mountain to get it. If he is unwilling to do that, he can, if he can bring enough pressure on government, induce the government to pipe that water from the top of the mountain, through governmental pipes, down to the valley where he is. But he will discover when he receives that water at the end of the governmental pipe that it has not only lost its coolness, but it has lost its taste, and become stale and flat, and is no longer desirable. Racial problems are like all human problems. They can be solved in a satisfactory manner only by cooperation, good will, and understanding on the local level where people live.

No men of any race can law or legislate their way to the more abundant life. They must achieve such life by their own exertions and by their own sacrifices. And anybody who maintains the contrary is either fooling himself or trying to fool somebody else.

Racial problems should be solved by voluntary action. Certainly Congress ought not to pass a bill which not only constitutes an attack upon the principle of local self-government, but which constitutes an attack upon some of the basic economic, legal, and personal rights of all Americans.

I thank the committee for its long indulgence. That finishes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to congratulate the Senator. He madethis has been one of the ablest discussions I have ever heard. It certainly put the guts of this thing before the American people.

And the Chair is in full agreement with your views.

Senator Hart.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, Senator Ervin, I feel that I am fortunate to have been able to be present throughout the presentation in a scholarly tone, tempered in expression; by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

This has not characterized some of the hearings I have recently participated in. And I think the record has been benefited enormously. I would make only this one specific comment. Not many minutes ago, Senator Ervin, you said that the theory behind all this administration proposal is that it is evil to want to select one's neighbors, to enjoy one's property.

I just flatly disagree, respectfully disagree, that this is an accurate characterization of the theory behind the administration proposal. It is contained in six or seven titles fully.

You make the point that there are tools in the Department of Justice' hands now that should be acted upon. I have read some of the testimony that was intended to be offered yesterday by the Attorney General that persuades me, and I was persuaded before, that the tools are not adequate. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom to select your neighbor or enjoy your property.

I introduced the identical bill, which is not title I of this bill. Clearly, I am on record as believing it is sound.

The second title, "Public Accommodations." Here again I introduced a bill based upon the commerce clause only some several months ago. I feel that where the public is invited, the public should in fact be admitted-that color is not a legitimate factor for excluding.

And I suppose this is the area where you would insist most strongly that the right of private property is invaded.

I can only reply that Congress many times has regulated private business enterprises so as to remove burdens on the economy.

And then there is the effort to desegregate schools. That is title III. Here I simply feel that the rights that the Supreme Court carved out in the Brown against the School Board case 9 or 10 years ago have been long overdue in delivery. They are present rights that the court in the last month or so reminded us, and this is an effort to make good. The Civil Rights Commission, extension and expansion of authority-you permitted me to testify before your subcommittee in hearings on this. I know that you know that you know my views on it. I introduced this identical bill in February.

I am glad your subcommittee voted to report this section favorably to the full committee a week or so ago. I note that Senator Ervin voted against it.

The sixth title is the nondiscrimination in Federal assistance. I don't see this has to do with inhibiting one's right to select a neighbor or enjoying one's property. It is just an effort to stop the Federal Government subsidizing discrimination. If you would take the money from everbody, but inhibit the use by some, you are just not making sense, as I see it.

And it is not correct. Employment opportunities in Federal Government should be open to all-indeed that should be true of all employment.

This morning, in another committee, we heard the commissioner of baseball and the commissioner of both football leagues describe the basis of employment there--which man can play the game most effectively.

I like to think that is the way each of us is judged, whether it is employment, as good neighbors, or anything else.

Senator ERVIN. If the Senator will pardon me, I would say I agree on that point.

But I think that the power to select the man who is going to play baseball or do anything else should belong to the man who is operating the baseball team, and not to the Government.

That is where the Senator and I would disagree, I think.

Senator HART. I think when you talk about the obligation on the men and women of America to climb to the top of the hill to get fresh water, you have got to recognize opportunities such as equality of employment are essential if that climb is to be made. You cannot ask them to climb the hill if you throw roadblocks on the trip. This is the way I feel about this inhibition of employment opportunity.

So in summary I did enjoy, and I am sure the record benefits by the testimony which you, as I say, was extremely able.

I support fully each of these titles recommended by the administration, and hope that this committee will act promptly on the legislation that has been presented to us.

We must remember we have yet to hear the offerer of the legislation, the Attorney General, who I am sure will make specific response to many of the things that have been raised.

Having done that, I hope the committee will take up the business of voting up or down each of these titles so that Congress may respond to what I think is the most urgent need across the country. This legislation is needed. It moves in areas long overdue. And it does so within the structure of our Constitution, as I see it.

Senator ERVIN. I would say to the Senator from Michigan that I know many members of the Negro race who have climbed to the top of the mountain.

In my State of North Carolina we have many successful businesses carried on by members of that race. These people do not accept the theory that there is some duty on the part of the Government to deprive all of their fellow citizens of their rights as a condition precedent to their succeeding in life.

I am very proud of the North Carolina Mutual Insurance Co. of Durham, N.C., which is owned and controlled by members of the Negro race, and which, I am informed, is the strongest financial institution so owned and operated on the face of the earth.

I am also proud of the fact that in Durham, N.C., we have the Merchants and Farmers Bank, which has a branch bank in Charlotte, N.C. This bank is also owned and operated by members of the Negro

race.

I am also proud to say that in the city of Winston-Salem members of that race enjoy a municipal franchise for the transportation of passengers in that city.

And we have hundreds and hundreds of other very successful men of the Negro race who have made great successes in their lives and their economic endeavors.

I respect very much the Senator from Michigan. I know he and I both share a desire to assist all Americans and particularly those of the minority races in securing a more abundant life. I have a high respect for his sincerity in this field, and the study that he has made in it and his zeal in this activity. I commend him for it. My only regret is that he doesn't share what I conceive to be sound views on this particular subject.

But I appreciate the Senator's comments and his courteous remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Keating?

Senator KEATING. I only have one area of questioning to address to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. He knows that I respect his legal ability and his sincerity completely. And by his loyalties, on what I consider the wrong side of the issue, he has made a fine presentation. He and I are in disagreement fundamentally.

But I would like to ask him to address himself to this questionwhether he feels that any State and local laws which compel segregation should or might require Federal action under the 14th amendment, at least to deal with those specific cases.

Senator ERVIN. I do not think so. State laws which compel segregation have been adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States to be absolutely null and void.

And I do not believe it requires any Federal action to annihilate a nullity.

Senator KEATING. The Senator has complained of the intrusion of the Government into the operation of a man's business as one of the reasons for opposing the public accommodations section of this law. Wouldn't the Senator concede that the intrusion of State government in some instances has been equally great-specificially to cite two or three-in Birmingham, Ala, a city code forbids any restaurant to serve whites and Negroes in the same room unless they are both separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of 7 feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment?

And in Durham, N.C., in the Senator's State, the city code requires separate rooms for Negroes and whites in any public eating place, and says "the partition between such rooms shall be constructed of wood, plaster or brick or like material, and shall reach from the floor to the ceiling," and violations are punishable by $10 for each violation. And in Greenwood, S.C., the city code makes it unlawful for any person operating a cafe, restaurant, or drinking fountain to serve Negroes and white people with the same dishes and glasses.

Now, it impresses me that those are greater intrusions upon a man's method of operating his business than anything which is embodied in this Federal statute.

Would the Senator disagree with that?

Senator ERVIN. From the time of the adoption of the 14th amendment, down to a recent decision of the Supreme Court, to wit, from 1868, until the 17th of May 1954, those statutes, which were enacted, I imagine, before May 17, 1954, were perfectly valid exercises of the constitutional power of the States.

And at noon on the 17th day of May 1954, the Constitution suddenly changed its meaning, not as a result of any action taken by the only bodies that are empowered to change the meaning of the Constitution; namely, the States and the Congress, but by the action of the Supreme Court.

And since that action of the Supreme Court, statutes of that kind, although they were perfectly vaid when enacted, have ceased to be valid. Senator KEATING. In other words, the Senator would concede the invalidity of all of these city ordinances as of today.

Senator ERVIN. I would say that under the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States, starting at noon on the 17th of May 1954, that we would have to accept the fact, that those ordinances and laws of that type are void.

And under the interpretation then placed upon the 14th amendment, they become prohibited State action.

Senator KEATING. I congratulate the Senator on his candor. As a good lawyer, that is the answer I would expect him to give. And my only comment is that the great hue and cry which we now encounter about the public accommodations title, about it being an interference with man's business, was not heard when city and State laws prescribed the color of doors and the height of ceilings and the type of partitions and other very detailed provisions about promotion of segregation. Senator ERVIN. I would accept this as valid-although the Senator from New York may disagree with me, as he would have a perfect right to do.

But there is an editorial in the Ledger Star of Norfolk, Va., of June 12, 1963, which says this:

But can the Nation fulfill its promise of freedom by restricting the freedom of one group in order to enhance the freedom of another group?

It seems to us to be not only a denial of freedom, but a strange and ironic twist to the very philosophy of freedom the Federal Government, through three administrations at least, has tried to follow.

The laws that made it illegal for a hotel or a restaurant or a store to serve Negroes were an exercise of police power that denied the Negro a freedom of choice. But a law that will make it illegal for a hotel or restaurant or store not to serve Negroes is also an exercise of police power that denies the operator a freedom of choice. If one set of laws is immoral because they deny the Negro a right, is not the other law as immoral in denying a right to others?

We see no moral difference whatsoever between a law that forces a person not to serve a man and a law that forces a person to serve a man. If one is a denial of individual freedom, the other is an equal denial of individual freedom. Rights of some citizens cannot be guaranteed by diminishing rights of others. I recognize that these are differences between the Senator and myself in respect to the meaning of the Constitution. I recognize that the States have police power-at least the States which have common law systems and they can regulate matters of this kind. And in my judgment the Federal Government has no power to regulate matters of this kind.

And that is our difference.