Page images
[blocks in formation]

I reiterate that this amendment does not affect the power of the court in civil contempt proceedings to enforce its judgments. It merely provides that an acquittal or conviction in a proceeding for criminal contempt arising under the provisions of the bill shall bar a subsequent prosecution for a crime based on the same act or omission; and that an acquittal or conviction in a prosecution for a specific crime shall bar a subsequent proceeding for a criminal contempt arising under the provisions of the bill out of the same act or omission. This is a just provision and it brings the law as to criminal contempts and as to crimes

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. ERVIN. The amendment is modified so as to make it clear that it is applicable only to cases of prosecution for crimes under the laws of the United States.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator may recall that yesterday in a private conversation I showed concern lest the amendment would involve both State and Federal law, in which instance there might be, let us say, an acquittal under State law in relation to a certain type of activity, thereby barring prosecution under Federal law.

Mr. ERVIN. The change is made in order to overcome the misgivings of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will agree to the amendment. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his forbearance, understanding and cooperation.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I yield myself one-half minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington for one-half minute.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I am very pleased that the Senator from North Carolina and other Senators involved have changed the wording of the amendment. Yesterday I voted against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina because I did not think it was legally clear enough. But the amendment as now modified is very clear, and I wish to be recorded as in favor of it.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

The amendment has been discussed with me and with other Senators. If we are going to adopt any amendment such as the one proposed, the pending amendment is probably the best we can do. I am the first to make that statement. But I believe the Senate ought to know what it is doing. What the Senate is doing

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, may we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will take their seats.

The Senator may proceed.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the Senate adopts the amendment, it will change not only uniform case law throughout the United States, but also existing Federal statutory law and will treat specially only this particular bill, the civil rights bill. The Clayton Act, title 18, United States Code, section 3285,

now provides exactly to the contrary for all proceedings in Federal courts.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator's time has expired.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think the Chair took most of my time getting the Senate to come to order. I do not think that should be charged to an individual Senator. I make that point to the Chair.

I think the Chair should be indulgent. I should like to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may proceed.

Mr. JAVITS. What the Senator has done by modifying his amendment, is to eliminate the danger of State courts giving quick acquittals in order to defeat contempt proceedings under the act. But we still have the Clayton Act provision and the uniform precedents in the Federal courts, where the time-honored rule has been that the courts may punish for criminal contempt as well as try for the crime, since they are two totally different offenses in terms of law. If the Senate wishes to change that, it should do so only with the full understanding of the fact that it would thereby except this particular bill from the general law. If that is the decision of the Senate, that is it; but at least we ought to know what we are doing.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

I wish to ask a question or two of the Senator from North Carolina.

Let us assume that a defendant is guilty of continuing contempt. Let us assume that, in accordance with the provisions of the measure, he is punished for his contempt and the punishment is exacted, but the defendant continues to be contemptuous of the court; that is to say, there is a series of contemptuous acts based on what he has done and does. Would the Senator's amendment impinge on or restrict the power of the Federal court to continue to enforce its authority by succeeding contempt citations?

Mr. ERVIN. Absolutely not, because after he is judged to be in contempt, he could be guilty of another criminal contempt. In addition, it would not affect the power of the court, by civil contempt, to enforce its judgment. This amendment would not take from the judge the power to hold a defendant in jail for civil contempt until the last lingering echo of Gabriel's horn trembles into silence.

[blocks in formation]


2-10-64 p. 2728


Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DOWDY: Page 84, line 8, strike out sec. 717 and insert in lieu thereof:

"SEC. 717. If any provision of this title shall be held invalid, the remainder of this title shall not be affected thereby."


Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, section 717, as contained in the pending bill is

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]


Title XI: Saving Clause

EDITORS' NOTE: Congressman Dowdy (D., Tex.) introduced an amendment specifying that in the event a particular provision of Title VII was declared invalid by a court, other provisions of the title would be unaffected. The amendment was defeated in a voice vote. A saving clause was included in the Act as adopted as Section 1106 of Title XI.


So Mr. ERVIN's amendments agreed to.


ridiculous. It provides that should a lawsuit be tried involving some provision of the title which the court finds to be invalid, nevertheless, the provision would continue to be valid as to all other persons. What this amounts to, the court would have to hear suits and declare the provision invalid as to each person, individually. This amounts to repealing precedent. My amendment would correct this by providing that once a provision is declared invalid, it will be invalid, but will not affect other provisions of the title.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOWDY].

« PreviousContinue »