The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to have these amendments considered en bloc?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the general purpose of these amendments is to place the decision on the defendant as to whether or not to ask for a jury trial and thereby subject himself to greater penalties that could be imposed for criminal contempt than if he declined to ask for a jury trial, and in so doing protect himself from the severe penalties that could be imposed for contempt of court.

These are the amendments that were drafted and sent to the desk by the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] as perfecting amendments to the Talmadge amendment.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Florida without prejudice to his rights or to mine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SMATHERS. Is it not a fact that the amendments are similar to the Dirksen-Mansfield amendment, except that rather than leave discretion in the judge as to whether the defendant should have a trial by jury, they would leave discretion in the mind of the defendant either to ask for a trial by jury or to take his chances and be tried by the judge; in other words, it virtually means a demonstration of confidence in the people in the jury trial system rather than giving absolute authority to the judge to fine the accused or jail him merely on his own authority; is that not correct?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator is correct. That is the general idea of the amendments. I shall explain them in greater detail at a later date. I wish to protect my rights by offering them at this time.

Mr. President, I was somewhat surprised last week by the votes taken on the jury trial amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON]. We who oppose forced racial integration were very much encouraged by the administration's lack of solid strength on this jury-trial test vote. Despite claims to the contrary,

the administration leaders were also very much surprised. This may be the prelude to more things to come. For the sake of our rights of property, privacy, and free enterprise, let us hope so.

The reason behind this trend of opposition in the Senate is, of course, due in direct proportion to the parallel trend of opposition which is evident in the country as a whole. I have stated in previous addresses to the Senate that slowly but surely the national trend of opposition is catching up with this radical bill. My colleagues here in the Senate are practical politicians, and it is my hope that they will react to this trend of opposition toward forced integration.

We have seen resounding defeats of so-called open-housing ordinances in almost every place where the people have been given a chance to vote on the question. The most recent and least publicized, of course, has been the vote in the Rhode Island Legislature where an open housing bill was overwhelmed by a vote of 61 to 32. The people will simply not go along with a proposal merely because some racial extremist has labeled it civil rights. Similarly, there appears to be quite a number of Senators who are no longer willing to go along with anything and everything that has been dumped into this bill. Like the public they represent, these Senators are at last beginning to take an objective look at the bill. What they see in these proposals might not be quite the rosy picture they originally thought was there.

The people are beginning to think far more clearly on this matter than they were doing a month or two ago. This is a good sign in a democracy. At first, the people had not been given both sides of the argument on this bill. For a long while, they were discouraged from engaging in the mental process of differentiating and discriminating between the two, in order to see which was correct. But lately, millions of people have been opening their eyes and their minds to the dangers which lie so cleverly hidden in this bill. Fortunately, too, for the future of the Nation, many Senators who support this bill are not supporting it with their eyes closed. They are struggling very conscientiously with the many pros and cons of this bill. I am confident that in the end these men will come up with intelligent answers to the questions they have been asking themselves. If this is the case, we may be having many more votes which do not produce the re

sults desired by the floor leaders for this bill.

At times it appears that many of the bill's uncompromising supporters have failed to review the constitutional provisions on the question of jury trial now before us. It appears to be a simple case of ignoring those several constitutional provisions which protect our fundamental rights to trial by jury. Proponents seem to ignore the language of article III of the Constitution which states that "all crimes" shall be tried by jury. They also ignore the even broader language of the sixth amendment which states that "all criminal prosecutions" shall be by jury trial if the defendant so desires.

Under this bill, the crimes of "discrimination" and "criminal contempt" would be denied a hearing before a jury. What the people should realize is that, once we deny trial by jury for this particular type of crime, or in this particular type of criminal prosecution, the cancer may then spread to other areas. Other classes of crimes, and other classes of criminal prosecutions, may then be classified as not requiring trial by jury; and in the end, we might well become subject to the worst sort of courtroom tyranny imaginable.

Our Constitution was designed to protect us against just this sort of usurpation of power. The supporters of this bill should wake up to the real fact that what they are suggesting is that we should simply bow to the militant minority groups and abandon our Constitution whenever we talk about racial integration.

This is precisely the sort of thinking which can eventually turn this Government into a dictatorship.

Mr. President, all except one of the amendments which have been offered to the jury trial provisions of this bill have failed to face up to the standards set forth in our Constituion. As it turns out, they ignore, to some degree, the language of the Constitution which requires that "all crimes" and all "criminal prosecutions" shall be tried by jury.

The proponents, by stretching a point to the extreme, contend that a criminal contempt proceeding does not involve the trial of a "crime." They likewise contend that criminal contempt proceedings are not "criminal prosecutions."

Though they may mince words about it, proponents are now contending for a system of government in which the Congress could pass a law on any subject authorizing summary trial of those who

have violated court injunctions issued pursuant to the legislation. In other words, pursuant to the precedent laid down in this bill, Congress could pass a law stating that murder, rape, grand larceny, malfeasance in public office, arson, medical malpractice, and horse betting are all Federal crimes and that persons who defy court injunctions rendered in prohibition of such crimes may be held in contempt and tried without benefit of a jury. A price tag either might or might not be set on defendant's rights to trial by jury. The precedent for placing no price tag whatever on defendant's jury trial rights can be found in titles III, IV and VII of the bill as it passed the House and as it reads today. these titles, defendants would have no right to trial by jury-regardless of the amount of the penalty. This Senator hopes that this outrageous concept will be cut out of all sections of the bill because, if not, we shall be off on an unconstitutional adventure in which undermining and stultifying the Constitution could become the national sport.

In

On the question of jury trial and several other matters covered by this bill, the proponents are not only reading the relative constitutional provisions out of context; they are not reading the Constitution at all. They are thinking only of the situation which they seek to remedy and not at all about the consequences which they would create.

Not the least important among these consequences is the psychological effect which would result in the American people when they realize how little trust and how little respect this bill holds for them. It will be the sad discovery of the American public that its Government has decreed that the people are in many ways not to be trusted in governing themselves. Such a discovery is bound to produce a most unpleasant reaction and a resistance to the particular law which announces this undemocratic edict to the people.

Mr. President, there is no getting away from the fact that this bill proposes that American citizens shall be tried in Federal courts for violations of rules laid down neither by State law nor by Federal iaw, but by some single Federal judgerules which, in all probability, did not originate with that judge, but originated either with the Attorney General of the United States or one of his subordinates, or with a so-called Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, or with the FEPC.

If this bill becomes law, the Attorney General can go into Federal court and file a legal document; and on the basis of that paper the Federal judge would have authority to lay down detailed rules of conduct which will have all the force of law, except that violations of those judge-made rules will be tried, not by a jury, but by the judge who made the rules. Thus, one man will decide what the rule is; he will decide what constitutes a violation of it; and he will decide what the punishment for that violation should be.

In most instances, the rules laid down by some single Federal judge under the provisions of this law would probably parallel State law. Quite possibly the Judge-made rules would be more restrictive. In any event, as soon as the judgemade rules have been issued, they will supersede both State and Federal law. Actions which would otherwise be tried only as violations of applicable Federal or State law will become punishable as contempts of the court. The right of jury trial on the question of whether those alleged actions were in fact performed will have been lost; it will have been taken away by the enactment of this bill.

If the Congress thinks it has the right to tell the people of the South that they are not fit to serve on juries, to tell the men and women of my State and other States that they are to be deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial in connection with certair. offenses, that their State courts are to be deprived of Jurisdiction with respect to such offenses, then the Congress ought, in all honesty, to do this openly and directly, instead of trying to do it indirectly, as this bill does. I do not believe, Mr. President, that a majority of this body wants to insult the people of the South, or deprive them of their right of trial by jury in any instance, or wants to divest State juries of their jurisdiction and deprive State courts of their authority under State law. Mr. President, if that is what Congress wants to do, let us do it honestly and openly, and not through a device such as this bill.

Is it proponents' hope that they can get the bill through the Congress before the public finally realizes what these proposals do to their freedoms?

A significant comment on the influence of jury trials on the national character and political institutions can be

found in Alexis de Tocqueville's excellent book on "Democracy in America."

De Tocqueville warned that a Jury system limited to criminal trials always is in peril because the people see it in operation only at intervals in particular cases. They are accustomed to dispense with it in the ordinary affairs of life and look upon it merely as one means, and not the only means, of obtaining Justice. But this French statesman and writer, a keen observer of our American experiment, who predicted that the two great powers of the world would be Russia and the United States, said that when jury trials embrace civil actions they are constantly before the eyes of the people and affect all their interests. The jury then becomes associated with the very idea of justice.

He said the jury, and especially the civil jury, serves to imbue the minds of the citizens of a country with a part of the qualities and character of a judge, and this is the best way of preparing them for freedom. It spreads among all classes a respect for the decisions of the law; it teaches them the practice of equitable dealing. Each man in judging his neighbor thinks that he may be also judged in his turn. So, said De Tocqueville, the greatest advantage of the jury

is its use as an instrument for the education of people who will govern themselves.

This writer went on to say that the jury also is a political institution of the highest value.

The jury

He wrote

Is emphatically a political institution. The man who judges in criminal cases is, then, really a master of society. The institution of the jury places the people themselves, or at least one class of citizens, upon the seat of the judge. The institution of the jury, then, actually places the direction of society in the hands of the people or of this class.

Mr. President, let us not mistake the fact that what we are being asked to buy in this bill is a future of government by injunction.

Government by injunction is government according to the personal convictions, inclinations, or notions of individual judges rather than government by certain and uniform laws applying alike to all men in like situations.

Senate

6-8-64

p. 12926

AMENDMENT NO. 920

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I also submit an amendment, intended to be proposed by me to amendment No. 513, submitted by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE), to House bill 7152, the so-called civil rights bill, and, as in the case of the other amendments just submitted by me, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as having been read for all purposes of procedure. I ask that the explanation accompanying the amendment be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table; and, without objection, the amendment will be considered as having been read, and the explanation of the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment (No. 920) is as follows:

On page 2, beginning with line 1, strike out all through line 9 on page 3.

On page 3, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

"TITLE XI-CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS; PENALTIES; TRIAL BY JURY"

On page 3, line 10. immediately before "In", strike out the single quote and insert in lieu thereof "Sec. 1101."

On page 3, line 10, beginning with "for willful", strike out all through line 4 on page 4, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "arising under the provisions of this Act, the accused, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both: Provided, however, That in case the accused is a natural person the fine to be paid shall not exceed the sum of $1,000, nor shall im

prisonment exceed the term of six months: Provided further, That in any such proceeding for criminal contempt, at the discretion of the judge, the accused may be tried with or without a jury: Provided further, however, That in the event such proceeding for criminal contempt be tried before a judge without a jury the aggregate fine shall not exceed the sum of $20 nor shall any imprisonment be imposed. If the trial is by a jury, the procedure shall conform as near as may be to that in other criminal cases.".

On page 4, line 5, strike out "1103." and insert in lieu thereof "1102.".

On page 4, line 7, strike out "repealed." and insert in lieu thereof the following: "amended by striking out the third proviso to the first paragraph thereof, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 'Provided further, however, That in the event such proceeding for criminal contempt be tried before a judge without a jury the aggregate fine shall not exceed the sum of $20 nor shall any imprisonment be imposed. If the trial is by a jury, the procedure shall conform as near as may be to that in other criminal cases.'"'

The explanation accompanying Senate amendment 920 is as follows:

This amendment to the Talmadge amendment No. 513 is exactly like the DirksenMansfield amendment No. 516 except that the attached limits the fine that can be imposed for criminal contempt in a proceeding without a jury to $20, and it prohibits a punishment of imprisonment in such cases. The attached amendment provides the same limitation for the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

It is my thought that if the forces advocating trial by jury in all cases of criminal contempt do not prevall, then you can go to the attached amendment in lieu of the Dirksen-Mansfield amendment, which provides that a judge without a jury in criminal contempt proceedings can fine the defendant $300 or imprison him for 30 days. I chose the $20 figure since in the seventh amendment to the Constitution, trial by jury is guaranteed in all suits at common law where the amount in issue exceeds $20.