While it is not so stated in the bill, I think I can presume that this additional Attorney General would be in charge of a civil-rights division in the Department of Justice. Judging from the caseload that is handled by the present civilrights section of the Department of Justice—and I understand that it is a very light caseload this proposal would appear at first glance to be based on the fallacy that there is some necessity and advantage in creating more Government jobs. However, the majority report that was presented last year in connection with this legislation made it crystal clear that part II is designed so that the Federal Government can invade all of the States and subdivisions in matters relating to integration, the field of education and even interstate and intrastate matters including primary elections. Such authority would constitute a constant threat not only to all State and local governments but virtually to every officer and agent of those governments. Part III of H. R. 1151 is entitled "to strengthen the civil-rights statutes, and for other purposes" while part IV is "to provide means of further securing and protecting the right to vote." First let me point to the similarity of these two provisions. They both provide that the Attorney General may institute civil proceedings on behalf of the real party in interest, and that the district courts shall have jurisdiction regardless of whether or not the aggrieved party has exhausted the State judicial or administrative remedy. Mr. Chairman, it is rather difficult for me to believe that the great office of Attorney General of the United States should be used to provide free legal services to any one party in a civil suit, or that it should be used to secure for private individuals judgments for damages. The Attorney General is already authorized to institute criminal proceedings for violations of the Civil Rights Acts, and, if crimes are committed, the guilty can be punished. But let us not use the legal officers of the United States in order to aid private parties in a civil suit. If a man is wronged he can hire an attorney and he can bring suit. Let us not create a privileged class for whom the Attorney General will act as a private attorney. Under the terms of this legislation the Attorney General is given broad authority to delve into the internal affairs of the States. Combined with the exemption from the requirement of exhausting State remedies, this bill is a lethal blow at the traditional American doctrine of States rights. Part III of H. R. 1151 deals with the civil-rights acts that protect a citizen against deprivation of his rights by other citizens. This is not a matter, in my opinion, for the Federal Government. There is a long line of cases decided in the Supreme Court which hold that the Federal jurisdiction extends only to deprivation of rights through State action. The acts of private individuals are the concern of the criminal laws of the individual States. The same is true of the right to vote. The Constitution restricts the grounds for which a State may deny the right to vote, and it also provides that the qualifications for voting in congressional elections shall be the same as those for voting for the most numerous branch of the State legislature. As far as I know, there is no other Federal right to vote. The franchise is a matter of State legislation except for the few specific prohibitions in the Constitution. The legislation that you are now considering is based on the unfounded premise that the franchise is a Federal matter. You know, Mr. Chairman, that when our forefathers framed a constitution for this country they instituted two important safeguards for the rights of the individuals. The first consisted of specific prohibitions against certain kinds of governmental action. The second was a diffusion of powers between the Federal Government and the governments of the individual States. Guaranties against government and the checking of power by other powers have been the traditional safeguards of our liberties. The Bill of Rights denies powers to the Federal Government. But this legislation vests the Federal Government with new powers with which it can oppress the individual citizen. The very foundation of our Government is the division of authority between the Federal and State Governments, each vested with powers over certain subjects, and each sovereign within its own field of competence. Yet this legislation would give to the Federal Government the power to supervise the States in matters traditionally within the field of State authority. Thus, passage of a measure such as H. R. 1151 would, in my opinion, strike a major blow against the traditional power and independence of the States. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to urge the members of this committee to prayerfully consider the implications any legislation of this nature will have in all parts of this great Nation. In my opinion, the passage of H. R. 1151, or any similar legislation, would be extremely unwise. Thank you very much, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Selden. Any other data you care to submit for the record will be received. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have received a telegram from Mr. Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP, reading as follows: Yesterday the attorney general of Louisiana asserted that all displaced colored voters had been restored at Ouachita Parish, following telegram received from S. Elmo Johnson, attorney at law, Monroe, La., which is located in Ouachita Parish: "Hon. Jack Gremillion is in error when he states that all Negroes purged from the registration rolls in Ouachita Parish have been restored. Prior to the purge there were more than 5,000 Negroes registered in Ouachita Parish. Today their number is no more than 1,000." Respectfully urge that you include this in the hearing record. Mr. Chairman, I think, in compliance with his request, that this should be made a part of the record. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will make that a part of the record. But I want to state I have already received a wire to place in the record from S. Elmo Johnson, attorney at law, 3001 Desiard, Monroe, La., saying that today their number is no more than 2,000. Mr. KEATING. That says 2,000 are there now, and after I got this wire a phone call came and I frankly don't know who the phone call was from, but they said that that was a mistake. I thought it was the Western Union, but it may not have been, saying that that should be 1,000. I don't know for sure what the facts are. The CHAIRMAN. We will put them both in the record. (The telegrams referred to follow :) Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, MONROE, LA., February 13, 1957. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Hon. Jack Gremillion is in error when he states that all Negroes purged from the registration rolls in Ouachita Parish have been restored. Prior to the purge there were more than 5,000 Negroes registered in Ouachita Parish. Today their number is no more than 2,000. S. ELMO JOHNSON, Hon. KENNETH KEATING, House Office Building: WASHINGTON, D. C., February 14, 1957. Yesterday, attorney general of Louisiana asserted that all displaced colored voters had been restored at Ouachita Parish. Following telegram received from S. Elmo Johnson, attorney at law, Monroe, La., which is located in Ouachita Parish: "Honorable Jack Gremillion is in error when he states that all Negroes purged from the registration rolls in Quachita Parish have been restored. Prior to the purge there were more than 5,000 Negroes registered in Ouachita Parish. Today their number is no more than 1,000." Respectfully urge that you include this in the hearing record. CLARENCE MITCHELL, NAACP. The CHAIRMAN. The hearings will close for today, and we will resume and I say this with reluctance February 25 and 26, which will absolutely be the last days for the hearings. And I wish to state that even the archangel Michael would not make me change my mind, no matter who makes the suggestion. On those days we shall hear from Governor Daniel, Senator Talmadge, the attorney general from Arkansas, Senator Thurmond, the attorney general from Virginia, and five Members of the Congress. I have instructed the counsel to start printing the record so that there will be no loss of time, and frames in the Government Printing Office are being held open merely for recording the testimony of those witnesses who will appear on that day. I have ordered a meeting of the subcommittee No. 5 on the 27th to start considering a bill so that there will be no loss of time. And I think there will be no loss of time because I am quite sure that if and when the committee adopts a bill and it is approved by the full committee that the House Rules Committee will let us through. Mr. KEATING. It has come to me by indirection, not by direct contact, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the Rules Committee has requested this delay in order to hear the attorney general of Virginia, and I can only say that I trust, since the committee has granted that, that we will have a little reciprocity from the chairman of the Rules Committee in expediting the proceeding before that committee, if, and when, a bill is presented to them for approval. The CHAIRMAN. I can assure the gentleman from New York that I have had conversations along those lines with the chairman of the Rules Committee, and a very distinguished gentleman of the House, whose name I need not mention, has most urgently asked that we set one of those days apart to hear Governor Daniel of Texas. At midnight on February 26 will be the last minute for the filing of any statements or data for the record, and the record will be absolutely closed. Unless there is something else to come before the committee, we will adjourn. But I want to announce, before that, that there will be a meeting of the full Judiciary Committee on Tuesday next, and this committee will meet on Wednesday next to consider 5 or 6 bills. (Whereupon, at 3:50 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 10 a. m., February 25, 1957.) CIVIL RIGHTS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1957 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 346, House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Celler, Rogers, Keating, McCulloch, and Miller. Also present: William R. Foley, general counsel. Our first witness this morning is our distinguished colleague from Georgia, Mr. James C. Davis. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am glad to have the opportunity to appear before you and the members of this subcommittee in opposition to this group of bills you are now considering. There are so many valid objections to this legislation that one individual can deal with only a small percentage. There are many able Members of the House and the Senate who want to present arguments both factual and legal against these bills. I felt when the announcement was first made that hearings on this legislation would be confined to 4 days at such an early stage of this session, that that was a grave and serious mistake. Your subcommittee has now extended the hearings, I believe, until tomorrow, February 26. I do not believe hearings on such far-reaching and revolutionary legislation should be closed until ample opportunity has been offered for full hearings for those desiring to be heard. I sincerely hope that you gentlemen will not close these hearings until that opportunity has been afforded. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, Mr. Davis, all who have sought to be heard have been given an opportunity, and will be given the opportunity. Mr. DAVIS. As I just stated, Mr. Chairman, legislation which is so far reaching and revolutionary as this ought not to have hearings closed until everyone who wants to be heard has had that opportunity. I am opposed to this legislation, first, because it is unconstitutional. Second, it is absurd and ridiculous, and third, it is unnecessary. Advocates of this type of legislation have tried to create sectional prejudices. Some have promoted the false theory that the South, my section |