CIVIL RIGHTS-1959

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1959

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 3 p.m. in room 312, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston, acting chairman, presiding.

Present: Senators Johnston and Wiley.

Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff di

rector.

Senator JOHNSTON. The committee will come to order.

I want to announce that Senator Hennings of Missouri, chairman of this subcommittee, has been detained by other duties and has asked me to chair the hearing in his absence.

I have a statement from Lt. Gov. Burnet R. Maybank, of South Carolina, in connection with the proposed civil rights legislation before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate and also before the House of Representatives at this time. I will read his statement into the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. BURNET R. MAYBANK, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AS READ BY SENATOR OLIN D. JOHNSTON

I am grateful for the opportunity to express my views and opinions on the proposed civil rights legislation before this committee. You have heard, or read, the statements from my fellow South Carolinians and from our southern neighbors. I heartily endorse their statements and share their belief that the legislation now proposed is entirely unnecessary.

I will not bore you with the details of the individual bills in question. I know that you have heard them discussed in detail many, many times.

We do not need this legislation; there are ample laws in existence today in America for the protection of the civil rights of all of our people-white or black.

There is little or no evidence of any violation of civil rights in America. Certainly in my State of South Carolina there has been no deprivation of civil rights, regardless of any race, color or creed. Negroes vote, serve on juries, and offer for public office in South Carolina.

The races live in peace, despite the efforts of some persons seemingly bent on fanning the fires of racial unrest and civil discord.

We do not have gang wars in our State. We need no one to patro. the corriders of our schools to prevent violence and riots. Both races live in harmony and peace, due in large measure to the custom of segregation. We do not condone violence. Neither the government nor the people in South Carolina will tolerate violence and we have the necessary laws to uphold this intolerance of violence.

The legislation you now propose would circumvent or completely stall the normal flow of progress which has been made in all of the Southern States. You cannot force good will and respect by legislation.

I know that you are are aware of the principles on which our country was founded. For that reason, I will refrain from a discussion of them at this time. I would like to state, however, that we in South Carolina adhere to these principles and beliefs.

The position taken by some persons, that the South, given time. will adjust to the Supreme Court's order to integrate forthwith, is not the position of the State of South Carolina. South Carolina has followed the long line of separate by equal facilities as set forth by Plessy v. Ferguson, and we will never submit to the ill-conceived and unconstitutional ruling of 1954.

The argument is often advanced that the position of the South is based upon the desire to continue forever the separation of two races. That is correct and there is nothing peculiar about it for it is founded upon sound reasoning that such a position promotes peace, harmony and progress for both races.

As a matter of fact, the South is not alone in this position, as is shown by the attempts throughout the United States to avoid the effects of the Supreme Court's unconstitutional integration decision which, after all, is based on illegal legislative assumptions and misguided notions of actual conditions.

The South Carolina position does not call for delay in order for time to adjust, but rather is based upon the theory that the Supreme Court decision and the proposed civil rights legislation are unconsti tutional and a usurpation of the powers of the individual States to control their internal affairs. The 10th amendment, when added to the U.S. Constitution was a concession to the States to entice them into entering the Federal system. It is well to recall that this provision was not put into the Federal Constitution at the insistence of the Southern States alone. It was a protective measure intended as a guarantee of the sovereignty of all of the States.

South Carolina recognizes the encroachment of the Federal Gov ernment in the civil rights areas as just another in the broad field of Federal usurpation of the power of the States.

The Supreme Court decision and the proposed civil rights legisla tion have been such a blow to the dignity and pride of the Sout! that the people now stand united in opposition to the encroachment in this area. The present administration of the State of South Caro lina was overwhelmingly approved in its election after basing it stand on our present position of noncompilance with the integratio decision of the Supreme Court.

I am here to represent the State of South Carolina, but I would like to speak to you as a fellow American, and I contend that this pro posed civil rights legislation would have far-reaching effects--not en

irely confined to the Southern States, but all over the country. It vould do irrevocable harm to the united front we need to present to he Communist powers in our struggle for the preservation of demoracy throughout the world.

Rather than stir up and foment the trouble in our country through he passage of these proposed bills, our primary need is to be reintated under a government by law rather than by judicial decree. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we preserve the law and hwart all attempts to subvert, distort or change our fundamental onstitutional system by imposition of such unnecessary and harsh egislation.

Senator JOHNSTON. I notice the next witness is Representative Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Greensboro, Ala. We are glad to have ou with us. You may proceed just as you see fit.

TATEMENT OF HON. ARMISTEAD I. SELDEN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opporinity of appearing before the committee. I would, with your perission, like to make a few general observations as a prologue to everal specific reasons for my opposition to civil rights legislation ow under consideration by this committee.

Although these observations are general and in some cases personal, am confident that they are shared by the vast majority of those who ave lived their entire lives, as I have, in a Southern State and who ave been interested in the welfare of both the white and the Negro

aces.

The most important and perhaps the most shocking observation that the friendly relations that have existed in Alabama and roughout the entire South between the white and Negro races have een severely strained in recent years primarily through the interrence of persons and organizations from other parts of our Nation. t is obvious to those of us who live in the South that each new upreme Court decision affecting race relations, each new NAACP tack, and each new civil rights law further agitate the members of oth races.

In Alabama, as in other sections of the South, we have always perated under a segregated system. Under that system, the Negro ice has made great progress-perhaps greater progress than any race ywhere at any time in history. That progress has been made with e help and the encouragement of the southern white people and, cause of the good working relationships between the two races, cial strife and hatred in the South certainly during my lifetime. as been negligible.

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision of May 17, 1954, and e events that have followed, we are now confronted with a situation Alabama and the South that is not easily understood by those who ve in other parts of the country. Many fail to realize that in the outh we are dealing with large masses of the Negro race rather than ith the relatively small Negro population found in other sections of e United States.

Under the separate but equal doctrine, promulgated by the Supreme Court more than 60 years ago and reaffirmed several times since, school facilities for Negro students had improved steadily. During the 20-year period between 1936 and 1956 the number of accredited public Negro high schools in the State of Alabama increased by more than 1,000 percent.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is true but if you take the colored population where they are segregated who are paying taxes, you will find that they are paying probably about one-fourth as much taxes as

the white.

Mr. SELDEN. I think that is correct, sir.

In 1937 there were 1,459 Negro high school seniors enrolled in Alabama. Just 20 years later in 1957 the number of seniors had multiplied to a total of 7,971.

There are approximately 105 Negro colleges in the United States. Of this number 95 are located in the South. Tuskegee Institute is an example.

Although there is no record of a Negro student receiving the mas ter's degree in an institution of higher learning in Alabama in 1937, 76 earned this degree in 1957 in the State. In addition, there were 739 Negroes graduating from colleges in Alabama in 1957 as compared with only 72 college graduates some 20 years earlier.

Negro teachers are employed to teach in the Negro schools in Alabama and their salaries are on a par with the white teachers of the State.

The majority of the members of the Negro race recognize and ap preciate the progress that is being made in the field of education and in other areas as well. While I am certain many feel such progres should be accelerated, they are aware of certain economic difficulties that must be surmounted. As a matter of fact, some members of the Negro race have spoken out both individually and collectively against integration of the public schools.

Yet, despite indisputable advancements, the South today is being treated as the step-child of our Nation and its Negro population uses as a political football.

Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, we find ourselves less than 2 years later faced with a barrage of bills purportedl designed to strengthen civil rights in all areas. Mr. Chairman, I ur the members of this committee, regardless of the section of the cour try from which you come, to look carefully beneath the veil of "civ: rights", which is used to shroud so many of the far-reaching bills now pending, and examine the real substance of the legislation.

Let me refer first to the measure introduced by Senator Douglas and others, S. 810, and similar measures. In title II of S. 810, there is a section which provides for "technical assistance" by the Secretar of Health, Education, and Welfare to municipalities, school districtand other local governmental units. The phraseology of this part of the proposed legislation is most unusual, as the words "technical sistance" are normally applied to the help given by the world's 26vanced nations to underdeveloped areas. But since the propose legislation envisages the bringing to bear of the Federal Gover ment's vast propaganda potential on the South, I doubt that the s called "technical assistance" would be well received.

Any student of history knows that deepseated local problems canot be solved by verbiage that is shipped prefrozen from distant laces. The authors of the civil rights bill seem to share my doubts, t least to a degree, since they propose to equip the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare with powers beyond those of friendly ersuasion. They include an annual authorization of $2,500,000 to e used by the Secretary to hire specialists, to hold conferences, and > publish propaganda.

Title III of the legislation provides grants to areas where deegregation in public education is being carried out. As far as I have een able to ascertain, there is no limit placed on the amount of funds hich can be requested for this purpose. If these provisions conitute an effort to pay Southern States to integrate their schools, I m quite certain they would prove of little value.

Should such tactics prove unsuccessful, as I am confident they ould, the Secretary is then authorized to take administrative action nder title IV to enforce school integration and, of course, here gain he can request the appropriation of funds for this purpose. If all else fails, the Secretary under title V then reports to the ttorney General who is authorized to institute a civil action against e noncomplying State or local officials.

Should the enactment of these provisions result in forced integraon of the schools, it could only mean in my State of Alabama the nd of the public school system as we know it today. Alabama's istinguished Governor, the Honorable John Patterson, stated unquivocally to the committee several weeks ago that the people of labama, and I use his words, "will scrap their public school system ather than submit to the integration of the races."

Title VI of S. 810 is one of the most sweeping and dangerous proosals ever to come before the Congress of the United States. It ould infringe on the States' police powers, threaten free speech, ibject citizens to a crossfire of loosely worded laws, and smash the arriers between Federal and State governments.

Section 601 of title VI empowers the Attorney General to bring suits behalf of persons who say they are being deprived of or threatened ith the loss of equal protection of the laws because of race, religion, ›lor, or national origin. It would be quite possible, I think, for a aranoiac to trigger any number of court actions at the expense of le U.S. Government, just because he happens to belong to a minority ice or a minority religion. This provision would open the door f every courtroom in the country to all sorts of malicious mischief. itigation would be endless. And at the same time, it would defame le majesty of the law to the point where popular respect for judicial ecisions would be seriously undermined.

Section 602 of the same title puts the bulldozer of Federal power ght into every State's backyard by arming the Attorney General ith powers to "protect" State and local officials in civil rights actions. his puts State officials in the unique position of being caught in tug-of-war between State and Federal power. It is very probable, think, for instance, that a State official might be able to comply ith a Federal directive only by defying his State's laws. Thus, s compliance may lead to his dismissal or to his recall. It is quite ossible, then, that such a provision might eventually result in bring