It would be a nice assumption to go on. In some of the cases, they speak of how desirable it would be if there could be a partnership between the State courts and the Federal courts in the observance of the constitutional defenses. But you do not have that partnership on the basis of proved cases. That is why I say that you need this for those courts who do not do it.

Of course, it is only only the court, Senator, it is also the district. attorney, it is the chief of police who makes the arrest; that is, the criminal prosecution frequently should be taken over to the Federal court before it gets to the State court. So it is more than the State courts being fair, it is a matter of the whole administrative machinery of the State being fair.

Senator ERVIN. What are they going to do in these cases when the court refuses to remand them and then has a trial on the merits, and the court finds the allegations true that he has been denied, for racial motives, a right under the equal protection clause? What is the Federal court going to do with the case then?

Judge RIVERS. If the Federal court finds that he was exercising a Federal right and he had been arrested for that, they dismiss. Senator IRVIN. Yes. Suppose they find to the contrary!

Judge RIVERS. They find that he was not? Then they remand it to the State.

Senator ERVIN. Then it goes back to the State court and is tried for a third time. The remand motion, then to the Federal court, then back to the State court to be tried for the third time.

Judge RIVERS. I might say that we ran into a lot of mechanics on this and it is pretty hard to cut down. You could have this thing of having a hearing before you allow removal. That might cut down a step. It does have a whole lot of problems that are harsh for the Negro defendant who might not be able to travel those hundred miles or something. But that is something I would think for Congress to

consider.

The big thing I am concerned about and the bar association is concerned about is that we not let the removal section stay as it was written and as recognized in Peacock, it is the same statute that was written in 1866 to enforce the 13th amendment when the thing they were concerned about was these black codes and vagrancy statutes and the arrest of Federal officers who were down there trying to arrest persons. That is what it was written for. But now we have a whole panoply of civil rights laws where we need remedial measures to protect them. That is why I think Congress needs to rewrite this removal statute here, and it seems to me that the association of the bar has proposed certainly minimal treatment by way of removal for these exercising civil rights where they are attacked with a State criminal prosecution.

Senator ERVIN. I have interrupted you so much, I do not know whether you have completed the original statement you wanted to make. I think you have covered the statement pretty well. If there is anything you wish to add before Senator Javits' questions, go right ahead.

Senator JAVITS. I think the witness must be pretty hungry by now. I know I am.

Judge RIVERS. I think I have made a conclusion and a peroration. I should add this to the record: I hope very much it meets with your favor, Senator, and I hope we can get this passed, because 3 years of work goes down the drain if we do not get something out of this.

Senator JAVITS. I have just one question if the Chair will allow, Judge. That is, is this study and recommendation of the bar association in response to the historic demonstration of the fact that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, State court procedures have been used in certain American communities to vitiate the civil rights of the individuals notwithstanding clear and patent unconstitutionality or other fault in the authority by which that State court acted?

Judge RIVERS. The bar association had that in mind. In fact, when you had the Birmingham disorders in 1963 and they were making great appeal to the Federal Government to do something about it, the President stated that under the law, the Federal Government could not help them until after the State courts had finished processing the cases. And the bar association in recognition of that felt that the Federal Government and Federal courts ought to be able to do something to help in this kind of paralysis, if you will, of the State courts. Senator JAVITS. And the detail which you specified in the pages you have submitted for the record is intended to be a factual basis for these findings?

Judge RIVERS. That is right, Senator.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Judge RIVERS. And I might say, Senator, that if it were felt that they wanted more documentation, we would be very happy to furnish that.

Senator JAVITS. Well, you have submitted your case. If there is anything else you wish to submit, I am sure the chairman will accede. Judge RIVERS. That is right.

I should say, Senator, I want to thank you very much for this intensive consideration. I asked at the beginning the privilege of asking for a continuance. I shall not ask for the continuance. I am willing to conclude our case right here. I am much obliged to you.

Senator ERVIN. Judge, we want to thank you again on behalf of the subcommittee for your appearance here and for your presenting your own views so well and those of the organization in whose behalf you speak. I am sorry we kept you so late.

We have one other witness and I see Congressman Kornegay is here to present him. I will let the Congressman present him and then I think we shall take a recess.

STATEMENT OF HON. HORACE R. KORNEGAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Senator Jordan wanted to be present and also speak a word in behalf of Mr. Clendenin, but he was unable to be here because of attendance at another committee.

Congressman Kornegay, we are delighted to have you here.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Senator, and I want to thank you and the subcommittee for permitting me to have the honor of

introducing the next witness. This witness is a constituent and good personal friend of mine. I say that he is one of the most outstanding young men in the State of North Carolina. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina. After his graduation from college, he entered into the real estate business in his hometown of Greensboro. He has continued to climb in ability and prestige since that day, and now serves as president of the North Carolina Association of Realtors.

I might add he is one of the youngest men ever to serve in that very important capacity, so it is a pleasure for me to present to you as chairman and to the subcommittee Mr. Kemp Clendenin of Greensboro, who, as I have said, is an outstanding young man of the State of North Carolina. I am pleased and privileged to have him as a

constituent.

Senator ERVIN. I am delighted to welcome you to the subcommittee, Mr. Clendenin.

Thank you for coming and giving us the benefits of your views and those of the organization you represent. Your statement appears to be comparatively short. Unless you feel you would rather wait until this afternoon, I think you may as well proceed.

STATEMENT OF KEMP C. CLENDENIN, JR., PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., GREENSBORO, N.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BISCHELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.

Mr. CLENDENIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might, I would like to introduce my companion, Jim Bischell. Jim is the executive vice president of the North Carolina Association of Realtors.

My name is Kemp C. Clendenin, Jr., and I am serving this year as president of the North Carolina Association of Realtors. My home is Greensboro, N.C., where I have been in the real estate business some 10 years. Our real estate firm is over 50 years old and was organized

by my grandfather.

My sole purpose for being here today is to express to you the concern of all realtors in my State for title IV of the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. I am not here pretending to be an expert on our U.S. Constitution; nevertheless, I feel sure that many parts of title IV must be unconstitutional. If they are not, then they certainly should be, for to eliminate the right of the individual to select a tenant or purchaser in the sale or rental of his dwelling is the beginning of the elimination of private property ownership in this country.

The proponents of title IV contend that title IV does not eliminate the right of selection by the individual; only when there is discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the subcommittee must be aware as we are that should this legislation be enacted as now written, and should a person be turned down by an owner or agent in the rental or purchase of a dwelling, this person is almost certain to allege discrimination and seek relief through the courts. He doesn't have to be black, yellow, or red; Negro, Oriental, or Indian. In almost every case, he can base his complaint on religion or national origin, or a combination of any of the four. Who wants to be confronted with the possibility of this every time he rejects an

applicant? Would it not be easier to accept everyone and anyone just to avoid all of the difficulties and expense that could come up? For all intents and purposes the property owners' right of selection will be virtually eliminated.

Our objections to title IV are not motivated by the problems that it would cause the property owner or realtor. Our objections are motivated by the fact that every citizen would lose the right, inherent in the ownership of property in this country, to make a choice when selecting a buyer or tenant. This right is much older than this country, and is one of the foundations of our society. Being so close to this right in the business of real estate, the realtors of this country feel an obligation to attempt to preserve it for all citizens, and to oppose title IV with every ounce of energy available to them.

It is my understanding that the proponents of title IV contend that it is constitutional and can be enforced through the commerce clause of our Constitution. The explanation being given is that since the nails are made in Tennessee, and the lumber was cut and processed in Georgia; and since they both cross State lines to arrive at their final destination and are parts of the finished home, then the rental or sale of this home is involved in interstate commerce. Surely those taking this position must have "tongue in cheek," for this idea twists the commerce clause to such a degree that it is almost unrecognizable. I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Chairman, what the authors of our Constitution would say to those who see fit to read this kind of nonsense into our most precious Constitution.

I would like to comment on one provision of title IV that would be most detrimental to the realtor profession. The provision that I am referring to is subsection (e) of section 403 of title IV. This section deals with discrimination in the participation in multiple-listing services or other services or facilities related to the business of selling or renting dwellings. You may be aware that most multiple-listing services are a function of a local community's board of realtors. The services may be separate corporations; nevertheless, they are usually formed, regulated, and administered by the local board, and to be a member, you must first be a member of the board. After understanding this, then it should be clear that we are talking about admittance to the local board of realtors, and not just multiple listing.

It should be noted here that realtors are extremely conscious of the prestige and other advantages that go along with being one of the professions. For this reason, realtors are doing everything within their power to make their business more professional, and to be recognized as such by the public. Many things contribute to the making of a profession: education, ethics, fidelity to client, standardization of procedures, and public confidence are some of these things. One of the means that we have found that will strengthen a board of realtors and make its individual members more proficient and professional is the careful screening of applicants for membership in the board. The emphasis is placed on quality rather than quantity. Should title IV be enacted, the old cry of discrimination will be heard time and time again when an applicant for board membership is rejected, no matter what the reason for rejection is. Most boards are, for all intents and purposes, non-profit-making organizations and cannot afford to engage

in lawsuits. Therefore, many years of work toward improving the ability and public image of the realtor is poured down the drain by being forced by Government coercion to throw the doors open to any and all. Not only will my profession suffer, the general public will suffer, for they must depend on the advice and counsel of the professional realtor in the purchase or rental of real estate.

It is not easy for us to see that under the disguise of liberty for those being discriminated against, the so-called minority groups, this legislation would deny every citizen in this country the traditional freedom of contract-the right of the individual to choose without coercion from his government? The minority groups are extremely conscious of their rights or lack of them. This leads me to believe that they have not looked at this bill objectively. If they had, they would have recognized that their right in this area is in the same jeopardy as the majority's.

Everyone recognizes that there does exist a serious problem in this country. The problem stems from the simple fact that people of similar characteristics and culture desire to live, work, and play together to the exclusion of others. I believe that this largely holds true for the minority groups as well as the majority. The problem arises when one of the minority wishes to live with the majority. We are convinced that Government coercion, through forced housing law such as the one proposed in title IV, is no solution to this social problem. To compel people to accept one another is to eliminate whatever hope exists for the true attainment of Christian brotherhood and love for all by all.

Let us not be blinded by our conscientious desire to solve this problem to the point that we are unable to see that we are damaging the social relationship of all people, and at the same time are denying every citizen a cherished and inherent right. This to me is the real sorrow of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to study the revised version of title IV recently approved by the House Judiciary Committee, and I am convinced that it is at least as oppressive and as destructive of individual freedom as the original version. This is supposed to be a watered down version of title IV; I shudder to think of what that committee would have done had it set out to strengthen the bill. This so-called watered down version of title IV would create a Federal Fair Housing Board with power of subpena and power to issue cease-and-desist orders. Investigative powers would be vested in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also with power of subpena. These two agencies will visit upon the property owners of this country thousands of a new breed of civil servants whose motive will be to determine the basis of any subjective decision by a property owner that may involve a refusal to rent or sell a dwelling to another. Even the homeowner will not be spared this plague. For example, the real estate broker is apparently exempt under this House committee version, if his alleged acts of discrimination are at the behest of the

owner.

Mr. Chairman, I prepared this statement before I received a copy of the new version of title IV, and from newspapers and other publications, it appeared to me that the real estate agent would be exempt if his orders or discrimination were at the behest of the owner.