danger. I feel sure that in time widespread opposition would result far and wide from all parts of the nation, and undoubtedly many additional reasons over and above those set forth in this memorandum would be advanced. Certainly the views of the American Bar Association should be obtained. At all events hasty action should be avoided.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the next witnesses will appear together. They are Rev. John F. Cronin of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Rabbi Richard Hirsch, Synagogue Council of America, and Dr. Benjamin Payton, National Council of Churches.

Senator ERVIN. Gentlemen, I welcome you to the committee and express the thanks of the committee to you for being willing to come and express your views and those of the organizations you represent in respect of this proposed legislation.

STATEMENTS OF REV. JOHN F. CRONIN, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE; RABBI RICHARD HIRSCH, SYNAGOGUE COUNCIL OF AMERICA; AND DR. BENJAMIN PAYTON, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Dr. PAYTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On my left is Rabbi Richard Hirsch of the Synagogue Council of America. To my right is the Reverend John Cronin of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. I am Benjamin Payton of the Commission on Religion and Race of the National Council of Churches.

In addition, we have listed in the appendix to this testimony constituent or member agencies of these national bodies and related religious organizations which wish to associate themselves with our testimony.

This is only the third time that representatives of the major religious faiths of the United States have presented joint testimony before Congress. The other two instances were in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our unified action on each occasion manifests our profound commitment to the eradication of every vestige of racial discrimination from American society. We view such discrimination as corrosive of public morality and as a grievous impediment to the fullfillment of our national aspirations. We therefore come before you with the simple conviction that legislation such as that before this committee is morally right. It is an act of justice, aiming more fully to implement our democratic ideal that all men are equal before the law and our religious conviction that we are all children of one Eternal Father.

Justice demands that law safeguard the person and property of all citizens. It is a sad fact that some State and local officials do not protect the rights of many Negro citizens and many workers in the civil rights field, nor is any serious effort made in these areas to apprehend and convict those guilty of crimes against person and property of Negroes and civil rights workers. Unpunished assault against a defenseless minority, and those seeking to vindicate their rights, is an assault against the principles of American democracy. In default of local responsible enforcement of law, it is necessary to seek justice from a higher source, the Federal Government.

For this reason, we must perfect and extend present Federal laws which give limited protection for the victims of injustice. In our

judgment, the detailed provisions of title V of S. 3296 do in fact offer a substantial remedy for the evils which distress all fair-minded Americans.

Since title V was submitted to this committee there have been two developments which we feel call for our comments and suggestions. A recent (June 20, 1966) Supreme Court decision narrowly limited the right of civil rights complainants to secure removal of certain cases from States to Federal courts. And the House Judiciary Committtee amended title V to afford its protection only to civil rights workers "lawfully" pursuing their activities.

It is with extreme reluctance that we propose any changes which would affect our traditional system of State-Federal judicial relations. However, realism compels us to face the fact that many arrests of civil rights workers have been for purposes of harassment. Appeals through local courts are both costly and time consuming. Accordingly we suggest that the language of S. 2923, sections 401402, be considered as an appropriate remedy for this problem.

We also feel that the limitation of title V to actions "lawfully" pursued would drastically limit the usefulness of this title. For example, a person seeking to use public accommodations or public facilities might be assaulted or even killed. Yet a charge that he was trespassing or disorderly-misdemeanors at most-would remove such gross assaults from the protection of Federal law.

Senator ERVIN. Why is that so?

Dr. PAYTON. I would like to answer that, Mr. Chairman, by inserting a section from the New York Times of July 24, 1966.

It says:

The second critical test on this bill concerns the Judiciary Committees' insertion of the seemingly innocent and honorable world "lawfully" into title V. This section of the bill is designed to punish acts of violence against civil rights workers and Negroes which occur when these persons are persisting their constitutional rights. Insertion of the word "lawfully" in this context tears a great gaping hole in the bill. Over and over again civil rights demonstrators in southern towns have been arrested for loitering, jaywalking, trespassing, or parading without a permit. Because a man is jaywalking, should he be teargassed? Because a man is trespassing on public property, should he be beaten with night sticks or set upon by police dogs?

Senator ERVIN. You would amend the statute to protect civil rights workers whenever they are acting unlawfully as well as lawfully? Dr. PAYTON. We want it amended so that the force of this bill would not be destroyed by legal technicalities which use misdemeanors as an excuse for denying people basic rights. This is our position.

Senator ERVIN. You object to the fact that this only applies where the civil rights workers are acting in a lawful manner. Do you think that it ought to be amended so they can be protected when they are acting unlawfully?

Dr. PAYTON. No, that is not what we said, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Then I cannot understand the English language very well.

Dr. PAYTON. We make a distinction between the law as applied fairly to all persons and legal technicalities which blow up misdemeanors into major crimes.

Senator ERVIN. If the court is going to have to inquire as to how the law is applied to all people, the court will never finish its work.

Dr. PAYTON. This is part of the work of the courts, sir.

Senator ERVIN. What you are asking, in effect, is to strike out the word "lawfully"?

Dr. PAYTON. Yes.

Senator ERVIN. The only objective in striking out the word "lawfully" would be to let it cover both lawful and unlawful conduct. Dr. PAYTON. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. If that is not the purpose, why do you want the word "lawfully" striken out?

Dr. PAYTON. We want it stricken because of the way it tends to be used in certain sections of our country, as a technicality that would deny persons basic rights.

Senator FONG. You are afraid that once the word "lawfully" is in the bill, they will be haggling over the word "lawfully" and then you will be subjected to all these harassments and

Dr. PAYTON. Consider, for example, in certain sections of the country where civil rights workers might be trying to engage in a quite legitimate voter registration drive. Suppose such a drive were to take place at some point near a courthouse lawn. And suppose, in the course of organizing the drive, someone, either unintentionally, or even intentionally, stepped on the lawn of the courthouse when there is a sign saying, "Please do not walk on the grass." It is quite possibleindeed, we have even worse examples that because of stepping on the grass, such a person could be denied, or the whole group could be denied, the right of organizing peaceably in order to register persons to

vote.

Senator ERVIN. Under the amendment you propose, if a man were attempting to vote who was not qualified to vote or was unlawfully trying to stuff a ballot in a ballot box and the election official had prevented him by force from doing so, the election official would be guilty of a Federal crime?

Dr. PAYTON. I do not believe so, Mr. Chairman. I think that, in that instance, it would be a clear and gross violation. We are not asking simply that people be allowed to make assertions or to act any way that they please. But we are acting against the background of experience in this country, whereby legal technicalities have been used to deny people basic rights.

Senator ERVIN. Well, I do not believe that the difference between lawful and unlawful is a legal technicality. You will pardon the interruption, and you may proceed.

Dr. PAYTON. As inserted here, we believe it does.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, if a man assaults a civil rights worker while the civil rights worker is engaged in unlawful conduct, you want to have the Federal court try the man for the assault he commits on the civil rights worker, but nobody else and deny that power to the State court.

Dr. PAYTON. No, Mr. Chairman.

Rabbi HIRSCH. May I comment on that?

It seems to me that there already are sufficient laws to deal with the problems of people who act unlawfully. I am no constitutional lawyer, but it is pretty clear that there have been means without this legislation to take care of the types of situations that you have described. This legislation, however, is directed to a specific purpose. The purpose is that local law officials have, under the guise of local legislation, been

preventing the right of civil rights workers to get others to vote and to secure their proper civil rights.

Now, what we are opposed to is the use of law to prevent the lawful acquisition of rights. It seems to me that it is unfair and inappropriate to equate the type of law which refers to jaywalking or treading on grass with another type of law which refers to a bodily assault, teargassing and other means of physical maltreatment.

Senator ERVIN. Well, if Congress should strike out the word "lawfully" it would make an election official guilty of a Federal crime, and subject him to imprisonment for a year or a fine of $10,000, or both, if he interferes with a person because of his race or religion or national origin while he is unlawfully engaging or unlawfully seeking to engage in voting.

Rabbi HIRSCH. May I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator ERVIN. Yes, sir.

Rabbi HIRSCH. Supposing this word "lawfully" were not in. And supposing this entire provision were not in, would that mean that the types of activities with which you are now concerned would not fall under the law?

Senator ERVIN. Yes, exactly. In other words, if a man is unlawfully seeking to vote and his effort to vote unlawfully was interfered with by a force or threat of force on account of his race, religion, or national origin, then the man that interfered with him would be guilty of a Federal crime and could be sent to jail for a year or fined $10.000 or both. I do not think the proposed amendment would be wise because it would protect a man in unlawful conduct as distinguished from lawful. I think the word "lawfully" was put there to protect a man in the exercise of his lawful right and not while he is engaged in unlawful conduct.

Well, that is enough on that point, unless you gentlemen want to say something further.

Dr. PAYTON. We regret very much that you do not see the distinction we make, because we are certainly not advocating unlawful conduct. We are, though, very much concerned, as Rabbi Hirsch said, about the tendency in many sections of our country to use legal technicalities to prevent persons from pursuing fundamental and basic rights. I think that. in cases of such conflicts, the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution should take precedence over such a sign as "Do not jaywalk."

Senator ERVIN. If a man is trying to exericse his constitutional right, his conduct would be lawful.

Dr. PAYTON. Agreed, and this is exactly what we are arguing for. Senator ERVIN. Although you are trying to protect a man because he is treading on the grass, you would also protect a man committing a felony. You could have a State official prosecuted in a Federal court because he attempted to prevent unlawful conduct, if you strike "lawfully" out.

Dr. PAYTON. You will of course recall that you used the word “unlawful" and not we.

Senator ERVIN. The statute uses the word "lawfully" and the word "lawful" is the antithesis of the word "unlawful." The statute uses the word, and that is what we are talking about.

Dr. PAYTON. You are quite right. I should like to continue.

Equally important in the administration of justice is the jury system. There is no need to remind this distinguished committee of the cardinal place of jury trials in our jurisprudence. When the jury system is seriously weakened, we run the risk of substituting force and violence for law, and thus turning our backs upon an essential feature of civilized life.

We believe that the systematic exclusion of Negroes from Federal and State juries in some parts of our Nation does weaken and corrupt the jury system. A member of a minority group can scarcely feel that he will secure justice, if his peers are regularly denied the right to jury service. The bill before this committee represents a serious and sound effort to correct this evil.

We have a suggestion to perfect titles I and II of this bill. As presently written, the proposed law would burden the Attorney General with tedious and lengthy judicial procedures in each individual case. We feel that the administration of the act would be simplified if certain standards for fair selection of juries were to be established, as was done for voting in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Where a jurisdiction falls below these standards, the remedies proposed in this bill would then automatically go into effect.

The law of our land, based on both court decisions and statutes, forbids racial discrimination in tax-supported schools and other public facilities. Titles III and IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outline procedures for the enforcement of these rights. Experience has shown that these procedures are limited in that the aggrieved parties often do not know how to make the necessary complaints. They are at times subject to intimidation and even violence if they seek to secure compliance with the act. Moreover, the requirement that the Attorney General, in each case, may take action only if the litigants cannot themselves bear the burden of prosecuting their case is time-consuming and difficult. In order to make such public facilities truly available to all citizens, more effective procedures are needed. In our judgment, the remedies offered in title II of the instant bill, and the criminal penalties contained in title V of the same, would lead to more effective procedures.

At the same time, we call to the attention of Congress that one of the most serious problems of school segregation, the de facto segregation that exists as a result of racial concentration in housing, is not clearly covered by this law. Unless adequate remedies are found for the inferior type of education that prevails in many inner-city schools, our goal of equal opportunity for all will remain an empty phrase for hundreds of thousands of children from minority groups. Hence we regret that the House Judiciary Committee bill, section 601, lines 17 to 19, amends and explicitly excludes such de facto segregation from the powers given to the Attorney General.

Next, we come to title IV, the housing provision of this bill. There have been statements in the public press that this section poses serious political and legislative difficulties. Undoubtedly this is so, since all of our religious bodies can testify from experience that it has been far from easy to promote successfully either voluntary programs for fair housing or State or local legislation in this area. We mention these facts, not in any way to weaken our support for title IV, but rather to indicate that we do not approach this problem lightly nor do we lack awareness of the problems that it entails.