thereof. The complaint and notice shall be served on the party complained against at least five days before the date of the hearing. C. If, upon investigation, the commission determines that no discriminatory practice or act has occurred, it shall immediately notify the complaining party who shall thereafter have thirty days within which to file a complaint with the justice of the peace of the precinct where the alleged discrimination occurred, as prescribed by the provisions of section 22-311. D. The commission shall within fifteen days from the date the hearing is concluded enter an order setting forth its findings of fact and serve a copy of such findings on all parties. E. If the commission finds that an unlawful discriminatory practice or act has occurred, it shall direct a member or the complaining party to file a complaint with the justice of the peace of the precinct where the discriminatory practice or act is alleged to have occurred, as prescribed by the provisions of section 22-311. F. If the commission finds that no unlawful discriminatory practice or act has occurred, the complaining party may, within thirty days thereafter, file a complaint with the justice of the peace of the precinct where the alleged discriminatory practice or act occurred, as prescribed by the provisions of section 22-311. G. If the commission fails to enter an order setting forth its findings within fifteen days from the date of the hearing, the complaining party may, within thirty days thereafter, file a complaint with the justice of the peace of the precinct where the discriminatory practice or act is alleged to have occurred, as prescribed by the provisions of section 22-311. 41-1483. PROCEDURE. No complaint, under the provisions of section 22-311 shall be filed by a complaining party without first following and complying with the provisions of this article. 41-1484. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION A. Any duly enacted ordinance or resolution of any city, town, county or other political subdivision not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter is hereby approved, authorized and given concurrent jurisdiction with the provisions of this chapter. B. Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit the filing of a complaint for an alleged discriminatory practice or act if a complaint regarding the same discriminatory practice or act has previously been filed under the provisions of a duly enacted ordinance or resolution of any city, town, county or other political subdivision. 41-1485. VIOLATION; PENALTY Any person found guilty of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be punished by a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars. Sec. 4. REPEAL Sections 23-371, 23-372, 23-374 and 23-375, Arizona Revised Statutes, are repealed. Sec. 5. APPROPRIATION; PURPOSE; EXEMPTION A. There is appropriated to the civil rights commission the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars for the purpose of paying salaries, subsistence and travel expenses of the commission and its employees, and such other additional expenses as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter. B. The appropriation made by subsection A is exempt from the provisions of sections 35-173 and 35-190, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to quarterly allotments and lapsing of appropriations. Approved by the Governor-April 1, 1965. Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State-April 1, 1965. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 14, 1966. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This acknowledges receipt of your letter of May 6, 1966 concerning the Administration's proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 (S. 3296). I appreciate your kind invitation to appear as a witness at your sub-committee's hearings on the bill or to submit a written statement for the record of the hearings. Since I will not be able to attend the hearings, I am setting forth my thoughts in this letter. Your letter states that you are especially anxious to hear our views concerning the provisions on nondiscrimination on the sale and rental of housing, as embodied in Title IV. It is my understanding that Title IV in essence would make unlawful, discrimination against a person because of his race, color, religion or national origin with respect to the sale, rental or leasing of a dwelling or the making of mortgage or other home loans. Such legislation places on the legislator the difficult burden of balancing the cherished rights of property, on the one hand, and the right of an American not to suffer discrimination solely on account of race or religion in a matter as basic as obtaining a dwelling and a decent living environment, on the other. It is my understanding that the bill would not force a landowner, for example, to sell or rent a dwelling to any applicant of a particular race or religion. The landowner may still refuse to sell or rent to such a person if on grounds other than race or religion, he determines that the person would not be a fit purchaser or tenant. In effect it rejects the stereotyping of all individuals of a racial or religious group as being, per se, undesirable purchasers or tenants. It recog nizes that any such group is composed of good, bad or indiffernt individuals, and that they should accordingly be judged as individuals. In some States, the problem may well be handled by State legislation. On the other hand in a number of States discrimination in housing is a serious problem and persons of certain races are foreclosed access to better housing and there is no prospect of remedial State legislation. This has the effect of forcing segregation and the resultant debilitating ghettoizing of the educational, economic and political life of a significant portion of the nation. In this regard, there is a national interest in providing a remedy. Considering all factors, I believe that the long-range interests of the nation and right of citizens to fair treatment in a matter as vital as housing outweigh the rights of property that would be restricted by the bill. The bill takes a bold step forward and, if enacted, undoubtedly will give rise to constitutional challenge which the Supreme Court will eventually have to determine. As a matter of policy, nonetheless, I am in favor of the purpose of the bill and respectfully urge your subcommittee's favorable action thereon. Warmest personal regards. May the Almighty be with you and yours always. Sincerely, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr. JOHN A. BURNS, Governor. STATE OF MINNESOTA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, St. Paul, Minn., June 13, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for your invitation to testify on the Administration's proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966, S. 3296. I am gratified to have this opportunity and though I cannot attend the hearings in person, I hope that you will make my statement a part of the record. It follows: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1966 The Civil Rights Act of 1966 has a unique value in that for the first time it would establish a national policy against discrimination in the sale or rental of all housing. The civil remedies are a great step forward in establishing a method whereby these rights of the individual may be protected. Minnesota has positive statutes that protect the rights of all citizens in the areas of employment and public accommodations; however, the provisions against discrimination in housing exempt owner-occupied privately financed housing and owner-occupied duplexes and boarding houses. Thus, an estimated 72 percent of housing in Minnesota is not covered by antidiscrimination legislation. This broader federal legislation will supplement and enhance the already existing program in Minnesota, and I strongly urge favorable action by your committee. While it is clear that the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee equal protection of the laws for minority groups, practical experinence has demonstrated the crying need for explicit public policy and well defined procedures for redress in matters of discrimination. In Minnesota I feel that we have made real progress in providing equal opportunity to all the citizens regardless of race or color, but the gap is still one of major proportions. All evidence points to the continued widespread pattern of discrimination against Negroes in this state and in America. As is true in many states, Minnesota has used the commission approach to antidiscrimination law enforcement. In 1955, the State Legislature enacted a Fair Employment Practices Law to be administered by a State Fair Employment Practices Commission. The fair housing legislation was enacted in 1961 at which time the name of the commission was changed to the Minnesota State Commission Against Discrimination. In 1965, at my urging, responsibility for enforcing the Public Accommodations Law, which had been on the statute books for more than 70 years, was also assigned to the commission, and the Fair Employment Law was strengthened to include all employers. It had previously excluded from coverage those employing less than 8 persons. The main purpose in presenting this statement to your committee, however, is to review Minnesota's experience in assuring equal opportunity in housing to each citizen in the state. Since the date when Minnesota's Fair Housing Act became effective, December 31, 1962, the State Commission Against Discrimination has received more than 270 formal complaints alleging unfair discriminatory practices in the rental, lease, or sale of housing accommodations or real property. In all but one of these cases, elimination of the unfair discriminatory practices was effected without resorting to the feature within the legislation which allows for a public hearing by the commission with a cease and desist order reviewable in district court. I cannot maintain, however, that housing discrimination has been eliminated. Much remains to be done. The effectiveness of conciliation and the emergence of human relations councils in various communities in the state indicate that significant changes have been brought about by the passage of this law. But it is my view that we need more comprehensive coverage and improved enforcement procedures and I intend to seek these amendments during the coming legislative sessions. At the same time, our state would find great encouragement and assistance if the proposed fair housing legislation now under consideration by your committee becomes the nation-wide policy. On behalf of my fellow Minnesotans and as their Governor, I urge the Congress to enact promptly this essential civil rights proposal, S. 3296. Thank you for having given me this opportunity to present my views. Yours very truly, KARL F. ROLVAAG, Governor. STATEMENT BY PAUL B. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO S. 3296, 89TH CONGRESS THE PROPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1966 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I sincerely appreciate the invitation of your Chairman to appear personally before this Committee and express my views upon S. 3296, which I understand generally, is the Administration bill; and six similar bills. I deeply regret that pressing executive matters here in Mississippi beyond my control, have prevented my personal appearance before this Committee to present this statement, as I would have much preferred to do. Therefore, I submit this statement for your consideration. I oppose the overall provisions of S. 3296 and its companion bills pending before this Committee, together with the terms, ideas and theories as literally and impliedly expressed thereby. I assert these bills are not necessary, are untimely, and do not promote the best public interest of this Nation. They should be rejected by this Committee and the Congress. Volumes have been written, acts and words have been spoken, and are now being done and spoken which sustain my positions upon S. 3296. To give a detailed analysis of S. 3296 and fully state and document all my contentions and objections thereto would be an unreasonably voluminous document. I readily recognize that the members of this Committee, other members of the Senate, and the members of the House of Representatives are heavily burdened with many intricate, serious and complex problems which involve not only the Congress, but the Nation as a whole. In my judgment, there are many matters of National concern which deserve and are of a much higher priority and importance to the Nation than is S. 3296. I deplore the annual increase and existence of serious crimes reported in the United States. I further deplore the assaults upon persons and the destruction of property, of both non-participants and participants, in the recent riots, unrest and disturbances in various parts of this Nation; and the looting of property in the course and wake of such riots. I condemn those responsible therefor and trust that they have been and will be promptly apprehended by the many states, counties and municipalities through their law enforcement officers and that they will receive the penalties which should be imposed upon them. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation News Release issued upon its 1965 Uniform Crime Reports, the serious crimes in the United States increased in 1965, 6% over what is was in 1964. According to said News Release, since 1960 the total volume of serious crimes reported in this nation has risen 46%. This should make every member of Congress stop, look and listen, and every citizen of this nation stop, look and listen to exert direct, strenuous and immediate efforts to reduce, curb and end such criminal actions in this nation. The law enforcement officers, including the National Guard of the respective states which have been called into service to assist the local and state authori ties, are to be commended for their efforts in the face of appalling resistance, obstacles and evidently inadequate support. If the members of this Committee and every member of Congress have not read the Federal Bureau of Investigation Crime Reports and News Release issued thereon covering the year 1965, I highly recommend it to your immediate reading and attention. In this statement as a part hereof, I will present certain questions upon particular matters involved in S. 3296 which are equally posed to every other member of Congress. Immediately following this page of this statement, I attach in the following order, as a part hereof, certain documents which I commend to you for your careful and considered examination-they are: 1. A one page letter from J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation printed in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin dated June 1, 1966! 2. A letter entitled "Message from the Director," dated July 1, 1966, by J. Edgar Hoover Director of the FBI, printed in the July, 1966, issue of said Bulletin; 3. An article entitled "A Search for Truth or Error" written by Honorable Walter J. Fourt, Associate Justice, District Court of Appeal, Los Angeles, California, printed in the June, 1966, issue of said FBI Bulletin ; 4. A reprint from the July issue of the Reader's Digest entitled "Behind Those 'Police Brutality' Charges" written by Honorable Fred E. Inbau, a professor of law at Northwestern University and a member of the Chicago Crime Commission. This is a copyrighted article, and I have secured permission from Reader's Digest to include this document. In view of the above and recognizing the heavy burden upon the members of this Committee, the other Senators and the Representatives, I will try to limit this statement to where it will not impose upon your time and patience. MESSAGES FROM THE DIRECTOR Law enforcement today is being degraded, purposely in many instances, by the widespread and indiscriminate use of the term "police brutality." This practice is called a guilt-by-language process by some individuals. may be right. For example, the word "juvenile" has been associated with They T |