sell or not to sell his property to whomever he desires without governmental coercion. Unlike any previously introduced Civil Rights measure, Title IV makes possible the granting of an alleged right by trampling on the basic and fundamental rights of others. Your opposition to this legislation will indicate to everyone that you are upholding one of the basic individual rights of all the American people. Respectfully yours, WALTER B. DECKER, President. GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS RESOLUTION Whereas in a message to Congress on April 28, 1966, President Johnson urged enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1966, and Whereas title IV of this Act will take away from us, as owners and/or agents, and the millions of property owners we represent, the basic and fundamental right to sell, rent, lease, or make available a dwelling to the person of our choice, and Whereas said Title IV of this Act will grant one group a right to trample on the rights of others, and Whereas said Title IV of this Act will affect every home owner in the United States, and Whereas in every instance where this issue has been put to referendum, the people have rejected forced housing laws by better than a 2 to 1 majority, and Whereas although we, the members of this Association, are opposed to racial, religious or ethnic discrimination, we do insist, however, that the injection of the element of compulsion, of legal coercion, in the relationship between a property owner and the person with whom he may do business, is not in the public interest, and will be viciously detrimental to the long range interests of members of minority groups, and Whereas we further insist that the solution to the problem of biracial living will come ultimately from the temporizing influence of the church and school and men of good will, and not through the exercise of the police system. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Association, in quarterly session convened, this 30th day of April, 1966, with 237 in attendance, unanimously requests our representatives in the United States Congress and Senate to use every effort and influence at their command to have said Title IV deleted from this Civil Rights Act. W. CLAGGETT GILBERT, Jr., President. MARION C. IVEY, Secretary. GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS RESOLUTION Whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1966 was passed by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives with a so-called watered down version of the Title IV Section, and Whereas we as an Association of Realtors feel that this compromise of Title IV cannot be accepted, and Whereas said "revised" Title IV proposedly exempts the home owner and the owner of a one to four family structure provided he occupies a portion of the structure, and Whereas said "revised" Title IV does not exempt a broker even if he were following the instructions of an "exempt" owner who wanted to exercise his freedom of choice and his freedom of contract, and Whereas this amended version of Title IV represents an attack against (1) the home owner and (2) the real estate broker, and Whereas although we, the members of this Association, are opposed to racial, religious or ethnic discrimination, we do insist, however, that the injection of the element of complusion, of legal coercion, in the relationship between a property owner and the person with whom he may do business, is not in the public interest, and will be viciously detrimental to the long range interests of members of minority groups, and Whereas we further insist that the solution to the problem of biracial living will come ultimately from the temporizing influence of the church and school and men of good will, and not through the exercise of the police system. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Association, in quarterly session convened, this 16th day of July, 1966, with 211 in attendance, unanimously requests our representatives in the United States Congress and Senate to use every effort and influence at their command to have said Title IV in its entirety deleted from these Bills, including the modified version as approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 29, 1966, and any further modifications of said Bills. W. CLAGGETT GILBERT, Jr., President. INDIANA REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, MY DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I, Fredrick R. Hunter, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, President of the Indiana Real Estate Association, Inc., wish to add my statement of opposition to H.R. 14765 and S. 3296, Title IV of the Civil Rights bill. There are 15,000 licensed real estate brokers and salesmen in Indiana who, as agents for owners, will be grossly affected by the passage of this cumbersome legislation. Legislation which denies a home owner the right to exercise "freedom of choice" in contracting for the sale or rental of his property should certainly be rejected and voted down by our congressional leaders. The right to occupy and dispose of property without governmental interference in accordance with the dictates of your conscience is a basic freedom and should not be denied the property owner. Real estate and the buying, selling, and exchanging thereof is based on negotiation. While it is true that consideration plays an important part, it is the freedom of negotiation that eventually accomplishes the end result. "That which is lawful is not always helpful." We believe that progress in race relations will be retarded rather than advanced in this attempt to deny people "freedom of choice." Anyone who wishes to compel, by law, the denial of an owner to exercise his right in the selection of a purchaser and tenant may well in time realize that this loss of freedom is binding upon himself. Are we The home owner is the taxpayer who supports local government. now to tell him that he may acquire real estate, but the right to dispose of it in the manner of his choice will be denied? Indiana has a Civil Rights Commission which has powers over discriminatory practices in housing. This law has been on the books isnce 1965 and to date there have been no prosecutions of record. The cases to date have been based on accusations and denials with little or no facts to back them up. We know of no actual case where anyone truly seeking to upgrade his housing has been turned into the wilderness. There are situations where these pioneers who come under the category of "testers" have met with resistance when they have merely tried to prove a point rather than truly seeking shelter. Reconciliatory methods which at times border on harrassment, in my opinion, have been exploited to accomplish the goals of a few. It is my honest feeling that just as many minority families would have been housed during the same period without our housing law. Housing legislation has the cruel effect of seemingly placing within the reach of many that which is economically impossible for them to accomplish, and serves only to add to their embitterment. In 1965 the Indiana Civil Rights Commission received and investigated 196 complaints of discrimination compared with 138 in 1964. This increase was due primarily to some 30 housing complaints filed after the state housing amendments took effect in July 1965 and to 20 employment complaints filed under the Federal Civil Rights Law which also took effect in July, nine of the complaints involved home owners, and 7 apartments. No proof of violations were found in 11 of these housing complaint cases. I submit to you that with Indiana's population of approximately 4 million, these figures would hardly indicate the need for broading the scope of the law to include Federal legislation. The proposed Federal law, which will allow compensation for damages, pain, humiliation, attorney fees, and a period of 6 months in which to determine whether or not you wish to accuse, is so unwieldy that it could never be properly administered. Those who will be charged with the enforcement of the proposed Federal law and those who now are charged with the enforcement of our State law need one piece of equipment which is not readily available. It would take a crystal ball or one gifted with extrasensory perception to perceive the true reason why in the exercising of one's "freedom of choice" one purchaser is rejected and one is accepted. It was pointed out recently in a talk that in view of our present money market the position in which many of our lenders could be placed. An institution, with say 100 loan applications, might well find itself with sufficient capital to make only 10 loans. Would not then the 90 denied loans be able to cry "discrimination"? Speaking as President of the Indiana Real Estate Association, Inc., and its members, I see nothing "CIVIL OR RIGHT" about Title IV of the pending Federal Civil Rights legislation. I respectfully request that my statements the entered into the record, and further, I stand ready to testify before your Committee if called. Respectfully, FREDRICK R. HUNTER, President. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: On June 23, 1966, G. R. Viele of Wausau, Wisconsin, President of the Wisconsin Realtors Association, appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to offer testimony on Title IV of S. 3296. In his testimony, Mr. Viele referred to Wisconsin's Housing Law and said: "Wisconsin's housing law, in effect since December 19, 1966, has produced six complaints despite a vigorous program of solicitation. Five have been dismissed for lack of evidence. One is still in question." We understand that this testimony will become a permanent record of the Senate, so we feel an obligation to write this letter as a correction to the record. The facts are this: As of June 23, 1966, the date of Mr. Viele's testimony, this Commission had received eight complaints. The current status of the eight complaints is as follows: One was withdrawn by the complainant. In three, probable cause was found to believe discrimination had occurred. Of these three, two were conciliated and one is pending a Commission decision. Three cases are still under investigation. The one remaining was found to be without probable cause. So, out of these eight cases, only one so far has been dismissed for lack of evidence. In addition to correcting Mr. Viele's statement of the number and disposition of cases, this Commission would also like to record its exception to his allegation that we have a "vigorous program of solicitation." Certainly this Commission is aware of its responsibilities to provide the people of Wisconsin with information on what our Housing Law does and does not do. But we attempt in every practical way to discourage frivolous and harassing type complaints. The fact that we have found no probable cause in only one case in the seven months of this law suggests that we have been successful in this attempt. We also suggest that Mr. Viele's statement on the small number of complaints filed and his comment on solicitation are contradictory. We respectfully ask that this letter be added to the record of the Subcommittee. 1 TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We deeply appreciate your kind favor of June 4th In accordance with your request, enclosed are 50 copies of Testimony of the Tennessee Association of Real Estate Boards and we will appreciate your attention in presenting this testimony before the Committee at your earliest convenience and to use your influence in defeating this Bill. Most sincerely yours, DOUGLAS BAILEY, President. STATEMENT OF THE TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS BEFORE The Tennessee Association of Real Estate Boards is a voluntary association composed of substantially all licensed real estate dealers and brokers within Tennessee. Its total membership consists of some 900 real estate companies representing all counties within the state. As such, the Association has a real concern as respects any legislation on a national, state or local level of government which affects or tends to affect the rights of private property owners. This Association is particularly concerned with Title IV of the Bill pending before the Second Session of the 89th Congress of the United States known as S. 3296 (H.R. 14765) and is unanimously opposed to the enactment of the same for the reasons hereinafter set forth. This Association has no racist leanings or tendencies and is in accord that certain sections of the Bill are proper, they being the sections dealing with discrimination in the fields of jury selection and service, public education and public facilities, all of which are part of the public or governmental domain and thereby proper subjects for reasonable governmental interference if exercised in a constitutional manner. Such, however, is not the case with Title IV of the Bill which deals with matters in the private domain. Since the adoption of the Magna Carta, it has been recognized as a fundamental concept of Anglo Saxon government that "a man's home is his castle." As such, it is not subject to governmental control unless it constitutes a public nuisance so as to traverse the rights of the public generally. Since the disruption of the feudal system, the right of the citizens to own, control and traffic in real property according to the whim or fancy of such property owner has been recognized. This has been a Civil Right recognized in all civilized nations of the world. Title IV of the said Bill is diametrically opposed to such historically sanctioned Civil Right under the ill concealed guise of the misleading title "Civil Rights Act of 1966." Each individual regardless of race, color, religion or national origin has the inherent God given right to select his friends, associates and neighbors; but admittedly has no right to impose his will in these respects on others. This too is a "Civil Right" and entitled to the protection of government and not its disruption as proposed in Title IV of said Bill. Even a cursory reading of the Bill reveals that it will: (1) Deny every property owner the right to exercise freedom of choice in contracting for the sale or rental of his or her property. This means that the Federal Government could force a citizen to sell or rent his or her property to a person not of the citizen's own choice, whether such property is one's home. rental housing, a room for rent in one's home or boarding house or land to be used as the site for housing. (2) If a citizen insists on exercising freedom of choice in contracting for the sale or rental of his or her property, a complaint may be filed against such citizen in a Federal District Court or local State Court. This court sitting without a jury may order such citizen to sell or rent to a person not of his own or her choice. It may also assess unlimited damages against the citizen. (3) If the complainant alleges that he cannot afford a lawyer, he will be furnished with counsel free. The property owner, however, will have to pay all because such citizen wants to defend an inherent freedom of choice. (4) If the Attorney General of the United States wants to make an example of a citizen, he can intervene in the case. Then the property owning citizen will have to fight the complainant and his own government, the United Statesall because such citizen wants to defend an inherent freedom of choice. The Tennessee Association of Real Estate Boards is not against open occupancy or equal opportunity to obtain housing. The real issue is whether one person should be given the right to force an unwilling owner to enter into a contract at the expense of the owner's individual, human right. To deny any property owner freedom of choice erodes the rights of all the people. This Association is against any such regulation. Other inequities of the Bill are readily apparent. The complaint may be frivolous or even intentionally baseless for the purpose of harassment and yet the Judge of the State or Federal Court in which the case is brought may furnish an attorney for the plaintiff, whereas the defendant property owner will be forced to employ counsel at his own expense; may authorize the suit without the payment of fees or costs or security for the same; but no such gratuity is extended to the defendant property owner and such property owner is deprived of any means to recover his costs even where the suit is totally without foundation. If the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States, on which this title of the Bill is fallaciously based, means anything, this title of the Bill violates its fundamental tenets. Provision is made for the recovery by the plaintiff of damages for humiliation and mental pain and suffering along with punitive damages and attorney's fees. No such equal opportunity or right is afforded a defendant property owner even though the suit be determined to be precipitated by hatred or ill-will and without any foundation in law or fact. This does not even resemble the constitutional concept of equal protection under the law and even if such rights were tendered an ill-treated defendant under this section of the Bill, they would be meaningless where the plaintiff is authorized to institute suit without any security for costs or attorney's fees and in any event where the plaintiff is financially irresponsible, regardless of the lack of merit in the suit or the malice of the plaintiff in instituting the same. Furthermore, Title IV revolutionizes the time honored rules of damages of Tennessee and of the land by authorizing recovery of damages for humiliation and mental pain and suffering unaccompanied by actual physical assault and battery or character assassination. Such revolutionary changes in established rules of damages are not justified nor is the deviation from the customary rule of no recovery for attorney's fees justified in any particular. Finally, this title of the Bill fails to establish any standards or guides for the citizen property owner while imposing civil sanctions for conduct declared the basis of the same under this title. The credit rating or fiscal responsibility of the plaintiff, the general reputation of such for peace and quietude, honor and integrity, propensity for pets, presence or absence of children, and many other factors may be considered by a property owner or lending agency and yet under this title of the Bill in question, a property owner or lending agency could act only at his, her or its own peril in considering such important factors and without any guide lines, subject reputation, property and the pursuit of happiness to the whim of the tribunal charged with imposing such sanctions. Such constitutes government by man and not government by law. These concepts are contrary to the American way of life, are not consistent with the due process of law or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and do a disservice to men of good will everywhere. For these reasons primarily and many others of equal validity and force, the Tennessee Association of Real Estate Boards is opposed to Title IV of S. 3296 (H.R. 14765) and urge the Tennessee delegation to the Congress of the United States to stand shoulder to shoulder for its defeat. This statement has been adopted in its entirety for the purposes set forth in the caption by the Tennessee Association of Real Estate Boards at its annual convention on June 16, 1966. Attest: DOUGLAS BAILEY, President. JOE MORGAN, Executive Vice President. |