Senator MCGRATH. You wish to offer for the record the statement submitted by Mr. Markle? Mr. EDELSBURG. Yes, sir. That is right. Senator MCGRATH. Very well. It will be printed in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SAMUEL MARKLE, NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH I am presenting the following statement in behalf of the Anti-Defamation 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 Anti-Defamation League was organized in 1913 under the sponsorship of the parent organization in order to cope with racial and religious prejudice in the United States. The program of the league is designed to achieve the following objectives: To eliminate and counteract defamation 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 recognize that any infringement of the civil rights of any group is a threat to the security of all groups. Because of the ADL's dedication to a program of strengthening the observance of our civil rights, we hail the issuance of Executive Order 9808 on December 5, 1946. The Executive order established the 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 with 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, both 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 politics 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. It is not surprising, in view of the foregoing, that our organization supports S. 1725, introduced by the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. This bill goes a long way toward achieving the recommendations listed above, made by us to the President's Committee on Civil Rights. 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 integrity and dignity of the individual. It is this which distinguishes us and our way of life from the totalitarian nations of the world. Hence, in these times, we must be ever vigilant against those forces of both the right and the left here in our own country which undermine that basic concept by denying the complete and full enforcement by all persons of the rights, privi leges, 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. Part 1 of title I of S. 1725 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. It is also directed 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 conmittees 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. This portion of the bill is excellent, as far as it goes. It would seem, however, that to insure the effectiveness of the Commission it would be desirable to add to part 1 of title I language empowering the Commission to hold public bearings, to subpena witnesses and necessary documents, and to administer oaths to the witnesses it calls in such hearings. Part 2 of title I of the bill proposes to meet the widespread demand that there be established in the Department of Justice a Civil Rights Division healed by an Assistant Attorney General. It has all along been the feeling of the ADL that enforcement of Federal civil-rights statutes suffered because such enforcement was entrusted merely to a small unit within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. The head of this unit could not report directly to the Attorney General, but had to deal with the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Divisi. Furthermore, this unit, which was of comparatively recent origin, was severely understated, and was handicapped by being able to operate in prosecutions throngboat the country only through local United States attorneys In many instances especially in those areas where aggressive Federal enforcement of eviler ghts statutes was most needed this unit found itself further handicapped by having to carry on prosecutions through a local United States attorney who was hostile to its purposes. Raising the civil rights enforcing unit of the Department of Justice to division level would go a long way toward overcoming these Lilia It would also result in a reflection within the Department of Justice structure of the true importance of the enforcement of civil-rights legislative Another difficulty experienced by the Department of Justice attirejs deskse sible for the enforcement of the Federal civil-rights laws ance in wazeta with the investigations which laid the groundwork for such enf toment was found that, in many such cases, special training of the investitite was needed to insure the type of investigation which wou'd lead to the plete development of all possible aspects of the evidence necessary : a successful prosecution. It was found, also, that the type of special necessary had not been given to the FBI special agents assigned to gations. Hence, the ADL endorses section 112 of part 2 of title I. w: that the personnel of the FBI shall be increased to the extent carry out effectively the duties of the Bureau with respect to the iz estain of civil-rights cases, and that the Bureau shall include in the training agents special training aimed at insuring the best possible hard ing tions of civil rights ensen. Part 3 of title I embodies another recommendation of the Pres It establishes a Joint Committee on Ca mittee on Civil Right composed of seven Members of the senate and seven Members of leges, 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. Part 1 of title I of S. 1725 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. It is also directed 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. This portion of the bill is excellent, as far as it goes. It would seem, however, that to insure the effectiveness of the Commission it would be desirable to add to part 1 of title I language empowering the Commission to hold public hearings, to subpena witnesses and necessary documents, and to administer oaths to the witnesses it calls in such hearings. Part 2 of title I of the bill proposes to meet the widespread demand that there be established in the Department of Justice a Civil Rights Division headed by an Assistant Attorney General. It has all along been the feeling of the ADL that enforcement of Federal civil-rights statutes suffered because such enforcement was entrusted merely to a small unit within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. The head of this unit could not report directly to the Attorney General, but had to deal with the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. Furthermore, this unit, which was of comparatively recent origin, was severely understaffed, and was handicapped by being able to operate in prosecutions throughout the country only through local United States attorneys. In many instancesespecially in those areas where aggressive Federal enforcement of civil-rights statutes was most needed-this unit found itself further handicapped by having to carry on prosecutions through a local United States attorney who was hostile to its purposes. Raising the civil-rights enforcing unit of the Department of Justice to division level would go a long way toward overcoming these difficulties. It would also result in a reflection within the Department of Justice structure of the true importance of the enforcement of civil-rights legislation. Another difficulty experienced by the Department of Justice attorneys responsible for the enforcement of the Federal civil-rights laws arose in connection with the investigations which laid the groundwork for such enforcement. It was found that, in many such cases, special training of the investigative force was needed to insure the type of investigation which would lead to the complete development of all possible aspects of the evidence necessary to achieve a successful prosecution. It was found, also, that the type of special training necessary had not been given to the FBI special agents assigned to such investigations. Hence, the ADL endorses section 112 of part 2 of title I, which provides that the personnel of the FBI shall be increased to the extent necessary to carry out effectively the duties of the Bureau with respect to the investigation of civil-rights cases, and that the Bureau shall include in the training of its agents special training aimed at insuring the best possible handling of investigations of civil-rights cases. Part 3 of title I embodies another recommendation of the President's Committee on Civil Rights. It establishes a Joint Committee on Civil Rights to be composed of seven Members of the Senate and seven Members of the House of Representatives. This joint committee is directed to "make a continuing study of needs relating to civil rights; to study means of improving responsibility for and enforcement of civil rights; and to advise with the several committees of Congress dealing with legislation relating to civil rights." * * * This newly established joint committee is authorized to hold hearings, to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents by subpena, to administer oaths, and to take testimony. Some question might arise as to the possibility of overlapping of function between the Commission on Civil Rights in the executive department and the Joint Congressional Committee on Civil Rights. Such overlapping could, of course, be avoided by the establishment of a continuous liaison between the congressional committee and the Commission. Furthermore, it would seem that the joint committee would concentrate its interest on problems which might lead to improving civil-rights legislation, while the Commission on Civil Rights would look into instances where existing laws are not adequately enforced or are even blatantly flaunted. The congressional committee would look into the possibility of extending the frontiers of existing constitutional safeguards and legislation, whereas the Commission would concentrate on examination and cooperate with the agencies enforcing Federal and State legislation protecting civil rights. In any case, in an area so important to our country as civil rights— where, in the past, there has been widespread negation of such rights, competition among several arms of the Government to ferret out abuses and to rectify wrongs would seen to us to be highly desirable. Title II of S. 1725 contains a series of provisions intended to strengthen the protection of every individual's right to liberty, security, citizenship, and its privileges. Soon after the Civil War, in 1870, the Congress enacted a series of statutes intended for use against those elements who were seeking to hold the recently freed slaves in continued bondage. One of these statutes is embodied in what is now section 241 of title 18 of the United States Code. The section as it now stands 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, or if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the promises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured, they shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. This statute was enacted as a result of the activity of the KKK. A careful examination of the statute shows a number of substantial limitations. Because it is a conspiracy statute it cannot be violated by one person acting alone. It limits its protection to citizens of the United States and is not applicable to protect the rights of aliens. The purpose of the conspiracy outlawed must be the invasion of rights or privileges "secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Through the years, the Federal courts have interpreted this statute so as to confine the term "rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" to a narrow area. The courts have refused to hold that national citizenship involves all the fundamental rights of citizenship guaranteed by both the State and Federal governments. Thus, in the Cruikshank case (92 U. S. 542), decided in 1875, the Supreme Court held that the statute was not applicable to a group of private individuals who had prevented Negroes from attending meetings. In holding the indictment insufficient, the Court stated that the section would have applied only if the meeting of the Negroes had been an assembly for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government. Since then, the Supreme Court has consistently shown reluctance to expand the applicability of section 241. Part 1 of title II of S. 1725 does what can be constitutionally done to improve and strengthen section 241. It extends the bans contained in section 241 to single persons acting alone. It increases the punishment which may be assessed against violators in cases where the illegal action under the section results in the death or maiming of the victim. It authorizes a civil suit for damages by persons injured as a result of the violation of section 241 directed against the person or persons who were responsible for the violation of the section. Another change made is the extension of the coverage of the act so that it protects the rights not just of citizens of the United States but of "any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or district" of the United States. Finally, in an effort to resolve the ambiguity which now exists as to precisely which rights are rights protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, part 1 of title II lists a series of six specific rights which are covered by section 241. Among the rights listed are the right to be immune from fines or deprivation of property without due process of law; the right to be immune from punishment for crimes except after a fair trial and upon conviction and sentence pursuant to due process of law; |