Mr. LEVY. Well, of course, there is no objection to having that State law, but on the other hand, there is equally no objection to having a Federal law, and it certainly will strengthen the civil rights.

For instance, if you have a political meeting which is broken up, a meeting where they are discussing national issues, and force and violence is used, the people who have been attacked have a right to sue for assault and battery under State law. However, they also have a Federal right, and the action for assault and battery does not do anything to vindicate that Federal right. If you have a Federal rightand I think there is no doubt but that you do have a Federal right in this particular case of lynching-I see no reason why that Federal right must be vindicated through State law.

This country has a National Government as well as State governments, and a Federal right granted by the United States Constitution, by the entire people of this country, must, I think, be enforced by the Federal Government as well as by the State government.

Mr. DENTON. I take it you would not be in favor of that provision? Mr. LEVY. No. I am very much afraid, moreover, that the practical result of that would be that the laws would be on the statute books of the States for several years and nothing would be done under them. Indeed, little has been done in almost all of the Southern States, and we would find that civil rights would be very flagrantly violated, even though there were apparently statutes dealing with them. We have had enough difficulty in enforcing the present Federal law. I think it is naive to believe that if the Federal Government is having difficulty in enforcing the law that the Southern States will have an easier time and would be more willing to do so. Of course, they never would be. You have an unwilling enforcement agency. Highly unrealistic, I would say.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. Levy, just one question.

Mr. LEVY. Surely.

Mr. FRAZIER. You spoke of the Attorney General's list. The American Civil Liberties Union is not on the list; is it?

Mr. LEVY. Most certainly not.

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not think so, but you referred to that.

Mr. LEVY. We certainly are not on that list. Even the Dies com

mittee said we were perfectly American.

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not think you were on the list. (The following was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HERBERT M. LEVY ON CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1949

JUNE 22, 1949.

1 My name is Herbert M. Levy. I am staff counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, and I am appearing here on its behalf, in support of H. R. 4682, the omnibus proposed Civil Rights Act of 1949.

The passage of this bill would be the strongest possible blow that Congress could strike against communism, for the most effective propaganda of the Communists is that while this country prates about freedom and civil liberties, it does nothing about them. Communists at home and abroad, who are cynically in favor of civil liberties for themselves and no one else, would be rudely shaken by a congressional act to strengthen the civil liberties of all. It is time for America to prove that she believes in freedom and that she will do something about it.

After the listing of certain sound findings, the bill, in its effort to strengthen the civil rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution and the United

Nations Charter, provides, in title I, the machinery for such strengthening. Part 1 of title I would create a permanent Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government, whose function it would be to gather information on civil liberties, appraise governmental and private action in connection therewith and annually report its findings and recommendations. The importance of such a Commission cannot be overemphasized. The American Civil Liberties Union feels that last year's Presidentially appointed ad hoc Committee on Civil Rights, both through its study of civil liberties problems and the tremendous educational value of its findings and recommendations, contributed invaluably toward the strengthening of our constitutional guaranties of freedom. There can be little doubt of the urgent desirability of having such a Commission on a permanent basis.

Part 2 of title I provides for the reorganization and strengthening of the civil-rights activities of the Department of Justice. The need for such a reorganization is patent to anyone with knowledge of the Department's past activities. Handicapped by insufficient funds and a scarcity of personnel, the Department has rarely ever been able to initiate civil-rights prosecutions. The strengthening of that Department is long overdue.

Part 3 of title I wisely supplements the Commission's activities by providing for a congressional Joint Committee on Civil Rights to study the field with a view toward legislating to improve respect for an enforcement of civil rights. The committee is given subpena powers. The establishment of such a committee to investigate ways to further our freedoms of speech, religion, and press is a necessary counterbalance to the House Un-American Activities Committee, whose inevitable tendency has been to restrict those very same freedoms.

The substantive provisions of the bill are to be found in title II. Part 1 thereof consists of amendments and supplements to existing civil-rights statutes found in the Criminal Code (title 18). Section 241 (a) of that code now provides that "if two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same," such conduct is criminal.

Section 201 of the proposed act would change the word "citizen" to "inhabitant of any State, Territory, or district," and thus desirably extend the classes of persons protected and make the language of this section coincide with that of section 242.1

The last part of the present section 241 (a) is left unchanged. It renders criminal the going of two or more persons in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured.

The bill then would add two valuable new subsections to section 241. Subsection (b) would make an individual guilty of criminal conduct if he performed alone the acts already criminal under subsection (a) if he had performed them in concert with another. This remedies an obvious defect in the existing law, since acts when criminal when performed by two should not be considered innocent because performed by one.

Subsection (c) is most valuable, as it gives the person whose civil rights have been violated a private right to a civil action for damage or other relief. There is a need for this law. Only recently it was held in Hardyman v. Collins (80 F. Supp. 501), that those who were threatened with beatings by many because of their attempt to run an orderly political meeting, had no right to sue their assailants for a violation of the civil-rights law. Much obscurity surrounds the present aspect of their rule, as a reading of the opinion makes obvious. Subsection (c) would dispel the clouds. It should also be added that the congressional power to enact the rule of subsection (c) was reaffirmed in that very case.

1 While the desirability of such an extension is obvious, it would be unfortunate if this attempt to widen the applicability of the bill resulted in some cases in its narrowing. Thus, it is conceivable that one who is a citizen but not an inhabitant of any State, Territory, or district might be deprived of his rights, and the bill would unfortunately remove his protection. This can be remedied by changing lines 17 and 18 of p. 10 to "any citizen or inhabitant of any State, Territory, or district."

2 The substitution in the bill of the word "of" for the word "or" of the present law is obviously a misprint. This error occurs at line 24, p. 10, of H. R. 4682.

3

Section 202 of the bill would amend the present section 242 of the Criminal Code to increase the punishment of one who deprives another under color of law of his rights, privileges, or immunities, or subjects an inhabitant to different punishments because of his race, color, or being an alien, when such conduct results in death or maiming.

Section 203 of the bill would add a new section 242A, defining six of the rights, privileges, and immunities referred to in section 242, thus adding much clarity to the bill.

Section 204 of the bill would add to title 18, United States Code, section 1583, dealing with involuntary servitude, a provision that whoever "holds" a person in involuntary servitude is guilty of a crime, and outlaws all transportation for involuntary servitude not merely by vessel, as the law now reads. Other language therein is merely clarifying.*

Part 2 of title II strengthens the Federal protection of the right to political participation. Section 211 thereof clarifies section 594 of the Criminal Code by expressly making criminal interference with voting, not only at general elections, but at special and primary elections as well. Section 212 of the bill makes the right to qualify to vote and to vote a right protected by section 242 of the Criminal Code, as discussed above, and adds that equal opportunity to vote shall be given without distinction, direct or indirect, based on religion or national origin, as well as on the already prohibited basis of race or color. Distinction on the basis of previous condition of servitude is omitted, since no such distinctions can exist any more.

Section 213 of the bill gives a right of civil action to one aggrieved by a violation of section 211, and provides that sections 211 and 212 shall also be enforceable by the Attorney General, thus giving two practical remedies for the deprivations of these civil rights. The prohibited conduct will be much less likely to occur if these remedies, easily pursued, are added to the alreadyexistent but seldom-enforced criminal penalties.

Part 3 of title II prohibits discrimination or segregation in interstate transportation. While the Supreme Court has ruled that a State law imposing segregation is unconstitutional as an undue burden on interstate commerce, Morgan v. Virginia (328 U. S. 373 (1946)), it is not clear whether or not a self-imposed carrier regulation imposing segregation is unconstitutional. The States themselves probably cannot outlaw these regulations, since that too would be an undue burden on interstate commerce, Hall v. DeCuir (95 U. S. 485 (1877)). No cry can possibly be raised of States' rights, for, as was said in the Hall case, "If the public good requires such legislation, it must come from Congress and not from the States" (id. at 490).

There can be no doubt that the public good requires the end of segregation. This degrading process must be stopped, not only to stop the inroads of Communist propaganda, but also to restore dignity to all men, be they white or black. Mr. BYRNE. The next witness is Mr. Markle. You may proceed, Mr. Markle.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL MARKLE, NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, ANTIDEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH

Mr. MARKLE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am presenting the following statement in behalf of the Antidefamation League of B'nai B'rith. B'nai B'rith, founded in 1843, is the oldest civic organization of American Jews. It has a membership of over 300,000 men and women. The Antidefamation League was organized in 1913 under the sponsorship of the parent organization in order to cope with racial

3 See footnote 2, supra.

The substitution of the word "and" for the word "or" on line 13, p. 12, would seem to be a printing error.

A further language change should be made in this and other sections if they are to be entirely clear. Thus, the bill would make liable anyone who "causes to be subjected" another to the prohibited conduct of section 242. The present 242 omitted these quoted four words, the revisers feeling that the language was unnecessary because the definition of a "principal" in section 2 of the Criminal Code rendered criminally liable a person who caused another to commit this crime. The words "causes to be subjected" were also omitted by the revisers from the present section 1583. But if this act adds the words to section 242 and does not add them to section 1583, it might afterward be argued that 1583 does not apply to a person who causes the crime to be committed.

and religious prejudice in the United States. The program of the league is designed to achieve the following objectives: To eliminate and counteract dafamation and discrimination among the various racial, religious, and ethnic groups which comprise our American people; to counteract un-American and antidemocratic activities; to advance good will and mutual understanding among American groups; and to encourage and translate into greater effectiveness the ideals of American democracy. In other words, the ADL is an organization dedicated to putting into complete practice the basic principles of our American democracy. It is our feeling that our American system "can tolerate no restrictions upon the individual which depend upon irrelevant factors such as his race, his color, his religion, or the social position to which he is born." (Report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights, p. 4.) We believe that the well-being and security of all racial and religious groups in America depend upon the preservation of our basic constitutional guaranties. We have long recognized that any infringement of the civil rights of any group is a threat to the security of all our American people.

Because of the ADL's dedication to a program of strengthening the observance of our civil rights, we hailed the issuance of Executive Order 9808 on December 5, 1946. The Executive order established a Presidential Committee to be known as the President's Committee on Civil Rights. The same order authorized the Committee "to inquire into and to determine whether and in what respect current law-enforcement measures and the authority and means possessed by Federal, State, and local governments may be strengthened and improved to safeguard the civil rights of the people." The ADL was one of the organizations invited by the President's Committee on Civil Rights to appear and present to the Committee its suggestions as to how the civil rights embodied in our fundamental documents could best be implemented and protected. We appeared and gave testimony which included suggestions that there be established a permanent Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government; that the Civil Rights Section of the Department of Justice be reorganized as a fully staffed Division of that Department, headed by an Assistant Attorney General, and with field offices and an assurance of adequate investigative assistance; that existing Federal legislation protecting civil rights be strengthened through amendment and supplementation; and that, wherever possible, legislation be enacted to bar discrimination based on race or religion, in interstate commerce and in all other major areas of the community economic and social life. We also pointed out that the right of every citizen to take part in the operations of the body politic on a basis of equality without discrimination based on race and religion was fundamental to our American way of life; and that, insofar as this fundamental right was being violated, our American democracy was being endangered. Every one of the foregoing recommendations was incorporated in the Report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights.

It is not surprising, therefore, that our organization supports H. R. 4682, introduced by the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. This bill would put into effect the recommendations listed above. In these times, when democracy is engaged in a world-wide

ideological struggle with the concept of totalitarianism, the enactment of a bill such as H. R. 4682 would greatly strengthen the democratic forces. Our Nation was, as this bill says, founded upon the recognition of the need to safeguard the integrity and dignity of the individual. It is this which distinguishes us and our way of life from totalitarianism. Hence, in these times, we must be ever vigilant against those forces here in our own country which seek to undermine that basic concept by denying the complete and full enjoyment by all persons of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by our Constitution and laws, and which would destroy our existing form of Government through usurping the duties of our law-enforcement officers.

Before discussing the specific provisions of the bill itself, I would like, on behalf of the Antidefamation League, to commend the authors of this bill on the findings of fact and declaration of Federal policy which they embodied in its first portion. The preamble of this bill is worthy to stand alongside of our Declaration of Independence and the preamble to our Constitution. Its endorsement of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its affirmation of the basic role in our democracy of the integrity and dignity of the individual are thunderous declarations of our devotion to the betterment of humanity. The formulation in this statute of a Federal policy to protect the right of every individual to be free from discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin is a step toward guaranteeing to all our people the freedom from want and fear for which we fought the last war. It is well that this bill is promulgated under such auspicious doctrines.

Part 1 of title I of H. R. 4682 establishes a Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government. It provides that this Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. These members are to serve on a per diem basis, receiving $50 a day in payment for each day spent for work on the Commission. It is the duty and function of the Commission to gather information concerning social and legal developments affecting the civil rights of individuals under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The bill also directs the Commission to appraise the policies, practices, and enforcement program of the Federal Government with respect to civil rights, and to appraise the activities of Federal, State, and local governments and of private individuals and groups in order to determine what activities adversely affect civil rights. The Commission is also required to make an annual report to the President, containing its findings and recommendations, and is empowered to make additional reports to the President either when it deems such reports appropriate or when such reports are requested by the President. The Commission is also authorized to set up advisory committees and to consult with State and local governments and private organizations. It is directed to utilize the services of other Government agencies and private research agencies to the fullest extent possible, and all Federal agencies are directed to cooperate fully with the Commission. A full-time staff director and other necessary personnel are made available by the act to the Commission.

The need for a permanent Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government arises out of the need of every democ