Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Washington, D.C. AMERICAN BAPTIST CONVENTION, GENERAL PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATION, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We would like to call to your attention the enclosed resolution on Civil Rights passed by the American Baptist Convention in annual session, May/1966, at Kansas City, Missouri. We would particularly call your attention to the section on housing as it relates to the Civil Rights Bill now before Congress. Sincerely, ELIZABETH J. MILLER, Executive Director. 1966 AMERICAN BAPTIST CONVENTION RESOLUTION ON CIVIL RIGHTS While we rejoice in the gains made in civil rights in the past few years we recognize that much still remains to be done if equal opportunity is to become a reality for all the citizens of this nation. Particularly crucial are the problems in housing, education, and employment. Discrimination in housing prevents many Americans from exercising their right to acquire private property. It limits the choice of housing available to members of minority groups, forcing them to pay high prices for overcrowded, substandard housing, and contributing to the growth of ghettoes and slums. Therefore, we urge that: (a) Federal funds not be used to perpetuate or extend segregated housing. (b) The President and the Department of Housing and Urban Development use their powers to make certain that the programs currently underway and contemplated, that are shaping our urban areas, be used to bring about truly integrated and open communities. (c) Our churches support national legislation against discrimination in the sale and rental of housing with provisions for the federal administrative enforcement of this legislation. (d) Our churches participate in and support voluntary local and area groups such as Fair Housing Councils which work to insure that all housing in their communities is open to persons of all racial and religious backgrounds. (e) Our church members work to develop and maintain integrated communities of high standards and refuse to participate in panic selling when persons of another race become their neighbors. (f) Our church members, when selling or renting their own homes, make them available to prospective buyers of any racial backgrounds and that they patronize realtors who will observe this policy. Since one of the major problems facing our country is the high rate of unemployment among persons of minority groups, and since an adequate income for recognized useful work is necessary for persons to maintain their own sense of worth and to provide a decent living for their families, we urge our churches to(a) Discover the facts about unemployment among minority groups in their communities and the problems facing them in becoming employed. (b) Support public and private efforts to provide the education and job training necessary to enable them to get and keep jobs. (c) Support and initiate programs with the business community to open more and better jobs to minority group persons and to provide on-the-job training and counseling. Since education is fundamental to the development of the potentiality of youth and adults to enable them to provide for their own future welfare and to make their contributions to society, we urge our churches to (a) Support legislation to enable the Attorney General to bring suit for the desegregation of schools and public facilities. (b) Support quality integrated education. (c) Support the development of programs such as Headstart to give pre-school children from disadvantaged homes the necessary background to be ready for school. (d) Provide or assist programs of tutoring and study halls to help children succeed in school. (e) Support and assist programs of remedial education for adults. Since justice in the courts is a foundation of freedom we urge that our churches support national legislation to insure that juries will be selected without discrimination of any kind. NEW YORK, N.Y., August 4, 1966. Senator SAM ERVIN, Jr., Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, The American Jewish Committee associates itself with the views expressed in the testimony offered by the leadership conference on civil rights in support of passage of proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., EDWIN J. LUKAS. AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Veterans Committee supports the Civil Rights Bill of 1966, as recommended by the President, S. 3296 (H.R. 14765 in the House), but we respectfully urge that your Committee make the following 5 amendments. The first 4 proposed amendments are specifically supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and AVC, as a Cooperating organization of the Leadership Conference, concurs with these proposals. The Leadership Conference has not yet specifically considered the fifth proposal we here urge, but we believe the Conference would support it. In essence, H.R. 14765 is intended to provide legislative tools: (a) to end the discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status, which is still rampant in jury service in Federal and State courts; (b) to eliminate two conditions (that an individual file a written complaint and that local residents are unable to bear the burden of litigation) before the Federal Government may bring suit to end racial discrimination in schools and public facilities. (The Attorney General already has authority, without such restrictions, to initiate suits to end racial discrimination in voting, employment and public accommodations). (c) to declare a national policy against discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of all dwelling places. (d) to protect people against interference, by violence or threats, with the exercise of their constitutional rights in voting, education, housing, employment, jury service, travel, and use of public facilities, public accommodations and federally supported programs. The reasons and the necessity for these measures are cogently set forth in the President's Civil Rights Message of April 28, 1966. AVC believes, and we think that the overwhelming majority of the people of the nation believe, that these legislative measures are needed-that they are just and reasonable and that their enactment by Congress will enhance our nation's democracy, welfare and security. The amendments we urge be included in the bill are as follows: 1. To establish an Indemnification Board authorized to award monetary indemnities for injuries or death inflicted on persons as a result of violence intended to interfere with the exercise of the civil rights guaranteed under the bill. The Board also should be authorized to sue the persons and the governments engaging in such violence. Criminal punishment is only a partial sanction against such violence. Negroes and civil rights workers injured in the effort to give meaning to the civil rights laws must be protected against the personal losses and damages they suffer when racists resort to violence in efforts to interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights. 2. To provide for enforcement of the fair housing provisions of the bill through an administrative agency rather than merely by permitting aggrieved individuals to initiate court litigation. Experience with voting discrimination and school desegregation has clearly proven that to put on individuals the burden of enforcing their constitutional rights through personal litigation would largely undermine the effectiveness of the protection contemplated by the Constitution and the Civil Rights statutes. 3. To include state and local governments under the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which now requires private businesses engaged in interstate commerce to provide equal opportunity in employment. The amendment we here urge would establish a procedure for giving meaning to the Constitutional obligation of state and local governments to refrain from racial discrimination in selecting and employing state and local government employees. We urge, moreover, that this amendment be coordinated with the amendments to Title VII, which the House of Representatives adopted on April 27, 1966 (H.R. 10065) (and which we support), authorizing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the law more effectively through administrative cease-and-desist orders, etc., rather than depending solely on negotiation. 4. To provide automatic standards for sending in jury commissioners (along the lines of the automatic provisions for sending in federal registrars under the 1965 Voting Rights Act) to end discrimination in jury service, rather than relying merely on litigation to enforce the provisions of the bill concerning nondiscrimination in jury service. 5. Our fifth recommendation deals primarily with the inadequate language of the bill in controlling sex discrimination in state jury service. Section 201 of the bill now provides as follows: "SEC. 201. No person or class of persons shall be denied the right to serve on grand and petit juries in any State court on account of race, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status." We urge that it be amended to read as follows: "SEC. 201. It shall be unlawful to make any distinction on account of race color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status, in the qualifications for service, and in the selection of any person to serve on grand or petit juries in any state court." We make this recommendation in order more effectively to deal with the widespread discrimination in jury service, on the basis of sex, which is current in at least some 25 states. The President, in his State of the Union Message of January 12, 1966, promised to "propose legislation to establish unavoidable requirements for nondiscriminatory jury selection in Federal and State courts." When Attorney General Katzenbach testified on the Administration's bill before the House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 5 on May 4, 1966, he told you that Title II of the bill "prohibits discrimination in state jury selection processes on account or race *** sex * * *" However, the present language of sec. 201 is not sufficient to effectuate the President's purpose. It may be adequate to reach efforts to "deny the right to serve" on a state jury such as now is denied on the basis of sex only by the laws of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, partially in Florida, and in some circumstances in Louisiana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Nebraska. But it would not reach the discriminatory jury selection practices based on sex in some 25 other states which discriminate between men and women solely on the basis of sex with respect to excuses or exemptions from jury service. The President's Commission on the Status of Women vigorously urged the ending of these discriminations to assure "equal jury service without distinction as to sex." (See pp. 46-47, American Women, 1963.) So have most of the women Members of Congress (see Congressional Record of March 1, 1966, pp. 4311-4313). We support their views and urge that sec. 201 be amended as set forth above, to effectuate fully the President's promise to have "unavoidable requirements for nondiscriminatory jury selection in Federal and State courts." We believe that this bill and the amendments we propose will strengthen the ideals for which we, as veterans of the armed forces of the United States, fought 65-506-66-pt. 2- 44 and bled to preserve and enhance for ourselves and the future generations of America. We would appreciate having this letter printed in the record of the hearings on the Civil Rights Act of 1966. Sincerely, JOHN S. STILLMAN, Vice Chairman. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS AND Hon. SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr. Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: It is my understanding that your Subcommittee has been conducting hearings on S. 3296, "The Civil Rights Act of 1966". Under this bill and the companion bill H.R. 14765 submitted by the United States Attorney General, Section 201 reads as follows: "SEC. 201. No person or class of persons shall be denied the right to serve on Grand and Petit Juries in any State court on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status." The members of our Federation are extremely interested in the above bills. One of the planks of our National Legislative Platform provides for “Uniform Jury Service for Men and Women." At the present time there are three States in which women are not allowed to serve on juries. In three additional States women may serve only if registered-which registration is not required of men. In sixteen other States, including the District of Columbia, the laws provide that women may be exempt from Jury Duty on the sole ground of being female. In those States which permit women to be excused merely because of sex the above Section 201 would not apply, for these women are not "Denied the Right." On behalf of our members I urge that you have the following clause substituted for Section 201 of the above named bills: "SEC. 201. It shall be unlawful to make any distinction on account of race color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status, in the qualifications for service, and in the selection of any person to serve on Grand or Petit Juries in any State Court." Our Federation now numbers over 176,000 Business and Professional Women throughout the United States as members, all of whom are anxiously awaiting uniform jury service for men and women. Our Federation has worked for Uniform Jury Service for many years. Thanking you for your favorable consideration in this matter, I am, Miss EMMA C. MCGALL, National Legislation Chairman. GENERAL BOARD OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, DIVISION OF HUMAN RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, Re title IV, H.R. 14765. Washington D.C., June 1, 1966. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is to invite you to bring to the attention of the Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives, the official position of The Methodist Church concerning the matter of fair housing. The General Conference of The Methodist Church, which alone speaks officially for the denomination, said in 1964: "The right to choose a home *** should be guaranteed to all regardless of race, culture, national origin, social class, or religion." This statement occurs in a section of The Methodist Social Creed entitled "D. Human Rights.-1. Freedom from Discrimination." The entire paragraph reads as follows: "We stand for equal rights for all racial, cultural, and religious groups, and insist that the principles set forth in this creed apply to all alike. The right to choose a home, enter a school, secure employment, vote, and have access to public accommodations should be guaranteed to all regardless of race, culture, national origin, social class, or religion. Neither should any person be denied political, economic, or legal rights or opportunities because of sex." (See Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1964. Nashville, Tenn. : The Methodist Publishing House. Paragraph 1820.) This same General Conference in 1964 had these further words to say about fair housing: "The minimum requirements for justice in the social order include the recognition of equal rights and opportunities for all races in *** housing * * *" This statement is found in a section of a special resolution entitled "The Methodist Church and Race," which reads as follows: "The fact that Methodist churches and churchmen have often failed to work for racial justice in the past does not relieve us from a present obligation to end racial injustice in society as well as in the Church. The minimum requirements for justice in the social order include the recognition of equal rights and opportunities for all races in voting, law enforcement, education, employment, housing, public accommodations, and cultural advantages. We support the passage and enforcement of laws appropriate to every level of government for the establishment and maintenance of equal rights in each of these areas of our common life." (See Ibid., Paragraph 1824.) In this same resolution, just quoted, The General Conference of The Methodist Church further stated as its official position the following: "Christians must insist that all people have the freedom to reside wherever their economic means and their personal wishes permit. The local church should prepare its members to live in integrated neighborhoods and challenge them to help in creating fully inclusive communities." (See ibid.) In line with these official declarations of The Methodist Church, the social education and action agency of the denomination, the General Board of Christian Social Concerns, meeting in October 1965, adopted the following statement entitled "Fair Housing Legislation": "The harsh facts of racial discrimination in the housing market are notorious in the United States. Many studies and surveys reveal that minority group members are barred from many housing areas and are forced to pay more for less when they can buy or rent. "Without question, racial discrimination in housing represents a fundamental violation of Christian convictions and of domocratic principles. Race discrimination in housing represents a denial of justice and of equal opportunity. It is morally wrong. "Therefore, the General Conference of the Methodist Church has issued strong statements concerning housing discrimination and its cure: "Christians must insist that all people have the freedom to reside wherever their economic means and their personal wishes permit. ""The right to choose a home *** should be guaranteed to all regardless of race, culture, national origin, social class, or religion.' "Note the word 'guaranteed' in the foregoing statement. No rights are guaranteed in a constitutional democracy except by law. "We, therefore, call upon Methodist people in every state and territory to work for the passage of State and Federal laws which will bring an end to racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. The police power of the States, in support of the general welfare, provide broad authority for State fair housing statutes. "It has long been established that private property rights are limited by the larger demands of the general welfare when there is conflict between them. This well-established governmental principle cannot properly be denied application to the housing market. As of June 1965, nineteen states had already made this application. "The Biblical principle of neighbor-love destroys any attempt to absolutize the freedom of the housing seller, for this amounts to destroying the freedom of the |