Congressional Report

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. SIDNEY R. YATES

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I am including in my report to my constituents letters on Captain Rickover to point out an important congressional activity. A Congressman does not concern himself only with legislation. He is the advocate and champion of individuals who are caught in the frightening and frustrating maze of the impersonal bureaucracy and endless redtape of big government. He may be called upon to help work out immigration difficulties, veterans needs, social-security adjustments, or he may suddenly be thrust into an almost hopeless case, as I was in the case of a Navy captain named Hyman G. Rickover.

A graduate of the Naval Academy, a Chicagoan, Rickover was the man who envisioned and planned the atomic submarine. His work was described by the Secretary of the Navy as "the most important in the history of the Navy." Yet for reasons unknown and undisclosed, the Navy twice refused to promote him to admiral, an action which Time magazine called "brazen prejudice." As a result he was faced with compulsory retirement at age 53.

I was asked to help Rickover and I agreed to do so. When he received his promotion to admiral, I felt I had made a real contribution.

I am also including in this report the following excerpts from a newsletter to my constituents on the atomic energy bill:

JULY 26, 1954. ATOMIC ENERGY BILL (Newsletter No. 158)

The atomic energy bill had just been called up for consideration in the House. Speaker JOE MARTIN and Majority Leader CHARLIE

HALLECK were determined to bolster the flagging hopes of Republican Senators by driving the bill through the House in 1 day, and this they did. It was a sleepy 3:15 in the morning before we adjourned. Those of us who opposed the bill saw our efforts to correct its worst features defeated by the Republican majority voting solidly.

Perhaps the principal reason underlying

enough to write across his minutes: "On motion of the city hall, the council adJourned." Your friend,

SIDNEY R. YATES, Member of Congress.

the $12 billion investment of the people of the United States in the development of atomic energy was being given away to a few companies whose vast wealth and resources permitted them to qualify to receive licenses. Even with respect to these giant corporations, the probability existed that they would have to be given additional subsidies for some time.

It seemed to me that the Government should not overlook the feasibility of requiring the payment of compensation for the valuable rights it granted, and I offered an amendment which would require the Atomic Energy Commission to take into consideration the payment of a franchise fee as a possible condition in the licenses it granted for the development of atomic energy for commercial purposes. I pointed out to the House that under the terms of the act, licenses could be granted for 40 years. "Certainly within that period of time," I said, "such fantastic progress will be made in the use and application of nuclear energy as will dwarf the pioneering efforts made thus far. ・・・ Should not the people of the United States who have already contributed so much to the development of atomic energy, and who are now asked to license their exclusive ownership to prospective developers, be paid compensation in the nature of royalties just as are the patentees for whose benefit the House has already adopted an amendment?" The amendment was rejected when Congressman COLE, Republican, of New York, who opposed my amendment, argued that the licensees would pay compensation through increased taxes. This caused Congressman ALBERT, Democrat, of Oklahoma, to murmur: "Well, give me a railroad and I'll pay taxes, too."

It's anybody's guess when Congress will adjourn. I hope our adjournment does not depend upon an occurrence similar to that of the city council meeting in California, which was disrupted by an earthquake. The councilmen hastily tumbled out of the building to safety, leaving only the clerk to conclude the meeting. He hesitated just long

Eisenhower

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH

OF WISCONSIN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune has paid a great tribute to President Eisenhower which the American people will applaud. It comes at a time when the Congress is about to adjourn and the President can take pride in the achievements of his 83d Congress.

Included in these remarks is the editorial from the Chicago Tribune:

EISENHOWER'S VISIT

The crowds Eisenhower on his visit to Illinois and the which greeted President warmth of their welcome can leave no doubt that he is a popular President.

Mr. Eisenhower achieved this enviable place in public esteem without recourse to demagogic tricks. He generally talks sensibly. He has little or no gift for the rhetorical flourish and, tho he is fluent, he is not likely to be called eloquent by anyone who knows the meaning of words.

Mr. Eisenhower is not what is sometimes described as an inspired orator and that may be one important reason for his success in his public appearances. The people trust him because he doesn't seem to be acting a role but, on the contrary, conducts himself with the innate dignity and good sense of a competent executive.

The two audiences were about as different as two audiences can be. The one in Springfield was composed largely of partisan politicians and, for the rest, of citizens who had come expecting a partisan political speech. The other in Evanston was com

posed largely of distinguished churchmen from many corners of the world, eager for a word of encouragement in their search for church unity.

Though the two addresses were very different in form and content, it was the same man delivering them, a man of good will who faces the world and his tasks with courage and hope. He could tell the political audience with pride, but without boasting, of the achievements of his administration and of the Congress, then in its closing hours. He could make his attack on Senator PAUL DOUGLAS' gloomy prophecies the more effective for its humor and lack of rancor.

Then in Evanston he could perform the immensely useful service of reminding the leaders of many sects from many countries that the Government .and the people he represents are the best of all evidences that close cooperation among men of varying backgrounds is not a day dream but an actual achievement of the American Nation. There is no divergence among the delegates at Evanston that cannot be matched by a divergence of race or creed in America, but American unity is a reality.

Mr. Eisenhower's popularity springs from the belief that he is a good man, a competent one, and "perfectly safe." He will not set the world ablaze with his eloquence, but the people will trust him, and that may be a good deal more useful to his country and his party.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following remarks made by me before the eighth annual national convention and Air Force reunion of the Air Force Association, held at the Hotel Fontenelle, Omaha, Nebr., August 20, 1954:

To come together with the members of this association would in any case be a real pleasure, and to address them here in the headquarters city of our magnificient Strategic Air Command is a high honor.

My remarks will be brief-they concern the implications of nuclear weapons for our national survival.

More than any other single factor of military strength, it is American air-atomic supremacy which has so far kept the Kremlin from launching an all-out bid for world domination. For this, our country must give heartfelt thanks to the men and women of our atomic energy program, and to all those who serve under Gen. Curtis LeMay. I salute him and all his associates in the Strategic Air Command.

Today, however, intercontinental atomic war can proceed in two directions. Soviet progress, both in the output of nuclear weapons and in the development of high performance delivery vehicles, has been unexpectedly, and appallingly, rapid.

It can nonetheless be contended that the threat of our atomic reprisal will suffice to stay the hand of the Kremlin. All of us fervently hope this will be so. Let us remember, however, that Tojo and Hitler suffered ultimate defeat-but not until they tested our resolve in the crucible of battle. It can be argued that, even if intercontinental atomic war should befall us, the destruc

tion of New York would be answered by the destruction of Moscow and Leningrad. But a gutted building in a Russian city cannot compensate us for a gutted building in an American city.

Do not mistake the import of my words. The ability to answer a nuclear Pearl Harbor with a devastating counterblow must of course remain the military cornerstone of a national program for survival in this atomic age. No sensible person could recommend strengthening our passive defenses at the price of weakening our capacity to strike back against an aggressor. But atomic vengeance, standing by itself, is not enough. Our capacity to retaliate must now be coupled with a continental defense program of such scope and efficiency that our foes will know-in advance that a nuclear attack can never bring this Nation to its knees.

I say this in a spirit of humility, and with a keen awareness of the heavy burdens and solemn responsibilities imposed upon those officials charged with providing for the common defense and security. It is one thing to say to these men: "Our existing continental defenses are inadequate." It is quite another thing to sit in their places and build defenses which are adequate.

The task of creating an effective continental defense may well represent the greatest and most difficult national-security problem ever faced by our country. Soviet airatomic power is increasing at an accelerating rate. To answer its challenge, we need no less than a quantum jump in the effectiveness of our defenses against nuclear attack.

Some maintain that a continental defense system which could inflict large losses on enemy bomber formations is beyond our grasp. They hold that nuclear armaments have irrevocably tipped the

unending

counter

contest between weapon and weapon in favor of the offensive. We cannot dismiss such arguments out of hand. Yet who could foretell, a short 15 years ago, the incredible story of atomic and hydrogen bombs? The art of developing new tools of defense-new electronic detection devices, new interceptors, and new antiaircraft missiles-is now in ferment. May it not therefore be that the continental defense problem-if attacked with all the vigor and boldness at our command-will yield unexpected solutions?

Thanks to the efforts of such distinguished Americans as my fellow guests, Mr. Donald Quarles and Dr. Mervin Kelly, the best scientific minds in our Nation are now being brought to bear on the problem of continental defense. The selection of Gen. Benjamin Chidlaw to head our newly established Continental Defense Command makes it certain that the military direction of this program will be in good hands.

To my way of thinking, the overriding problem we now face in continental defense is that of combining the human and material resources now devoted to this effort into an organizational and administrative structure of maximum efficiency. All three branches of our armed services have indispensable tasks in our program for detecting, intercepting, and destroying enemy bombing formations. In my mind, the logic of this fact has long called for creating, within our Armed Forces, a theater commander for continental defense. I was therefore deeply gratified when such a command was established earlier this month. My only regret is that we waited so long to take this step.

If it is logical to centralize the continental defense operations of the three services under a single commander, it impresses me as equally logical-and equally necessary-to have a single, high-ranking civilian official within the Department of Defense made responsible for the overall supervision of our continental defense effort. At present, no

official has the exclusive responsibility of making sure that our continental defense preparations are moving forward with maximum dispatch. In an attempt to help correct what I deem a dangerous diffusion of responsibility in this field, it was recently my privilege to introduce a bill aimed at establishing a new position within the Department of Defense-an Assistant Secretary for Continental Defense, who-subject only to the direction of the Secretary of Defense would be charged with the task of furnishing leadership and direction to our program for repelling nuclear attack.

Yet the case for a unified continental defense effort does not end here. We need only look at a polar-projection map to realize that, without the cooperation of our Canadian friends, we simply cannot engage in realistic defense preparations. In this era of near-sonic jet bombers, we must have it in our power to detect enemy aerial formations long before they reach the urban centers of North America. In the event of attack, it would be no less urgent to join battle with enemy bombers over the Arctic wastes and far out over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, than to confront our foes with successive barriers of defensive weapcns. Yet neither detection-in-depth or interception-in-depth would be possible without the aid of our northern neighbors.

Today, Canadian-American continental defense cooperation proceeds through the mechanism of numerous advisory committees. But consultation is not the same as real coordination-it cannot substitute for a genuine unification of the continental defense efforts of our two nations.

I therefore again urge that, under the autority of the United Nations Charter, we now seek to enter into a mutual continental defense pact with Canada. Such a treaty would represent the continental defense equivalent of NATO. Under it, we could establish a North American continental defense organization, to which military units from our two nations could be assigned in a manner akin to the forces now reporting to SHAPE headquarters in Paris.

I concede that such a pact would represent a bold departure in defense planning. Yet we must acknowledge the new dimentions to sovereignty brought about by the threat of nuclear warfare.

Permit me to cite but one example of this. I am impressed by the arguments for building a distant early warning line in the far north of Canada, together with seaward extensions of such a line. Now assume for the moment that such an early warning system were actually in existence. Suppose the Sovients thereupon proceeded to test our nerves by repeated aerial feints against such a system. What if massive Soviet bomber formations, capable of carrying hydrogen weapons, were sent over the Atlantic and Pacific in so-called training flights. In the event of actual attack, every minute would be precious-the slightest delay in alerting our civilian population and military forces might make effective defense hopeless. Would we, therefore, evacuate our cities the moment Soviet planes entered our distant early warning net? Would the President immediately order the planes of our Strategic Air Command aloft? Or would we wait until the enemy formations neared our coastlines and our cities before issuing a general alert? I hardly need to spell out the extraordinary dilemma in which we might find ourselves. If we immediately responded to such repeated, largescale feints by evacuating our cities, the Soviets might have it in their power to paralyze our economy and demoralize our population. If we did not instantly respond to approaching formations, however, we might be overwhelmed by an actual attack.

May it not therefore be that the time has arrived when we must consider the possibility of defining anew the concept of armed ag

gression? May it not be that the day is nearing when international law will be forced to take account of the realities of air-atomic power and the ever-present danger of nuclear sneak attack? May it not be that the time is approaching when the mere appearance of significant numbers of unannounced and unauthorized enemy planes within an early warning network would in itself constitute an act of aggression?

It is the nature of the crisis in which the world finds itself as a result of nuclear weapons that now compels me to explore such thoughts, which to me are distasteful but realistic. I need hardly to say that no such redefinitions of international law, even should they some day prove necessary, would bring us any real degree of military security. This is the last audience which needs to be told that military might, even atomic might, cannot by itself bring just and lasting peace to this troubled planet. All recorded history proves again and again that prolonged armament races end in war. Military deterring power can do no more than buy us time, time which must be used to build the only foundations upon which real and enduring peace can rest-a world community of human brotherhood and the respect of man for his fellow man.

Communists Greatest Threat to America Came During Hoover Depression

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

ОР

HON. MELVIN PRICE

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 11, 1954

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I recently read with interest a letter to the editor in the open forum of the Ledger-Dispatch, of Norfolk, Va. The writer, a Mr. B. A. Banks, expressed a view I had frequently expressed in public addresses to the effect that communism posed its greatest threat to America during the administration of Herbert Hoover, when, as Mr. Banks puts it, the banks of the Nation began to topple like tenpins in a bowling alley, and when millions were walking the highways and byways looking for work, which was nowhere visible.

Mr. Banks sees things very clearly. I am certain if the young voters of the country had gone through the Hoover depression they would be a little fearful of the doubletalk and the high-pressure salesmanship the present administration is putting out to the public. I recall the statements of optimism on the part of Herbert Hoover in those days, and some of the things that are happening in high official places today bring back sad recollections of the Hoover depression.

Under leave to extend my remarks, I herewith include Mr. Banks' letter:

THE ENTERING WEDGE

EDITOR, LEDGER-DISPATCH:

According to press reports, former President Herbert Hoover declared in his Iowa address that "the entering wedge in America for the Communists" was due to "Democratic misuse of power" during the 20 years between his administration and the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

From Mr. Hoover's words it would appear that he is still scanning the political horizon for the dies irae, or the day of wrath so

fervently predicted by him in 1932, when he assured the American people that with the election of Mr. Roosevelt grass would grow on the main streets of all our cities. While this prediction did not come true, today the American people know that Mr. Hoover's grass would have grown rank and lush had he been reelected.

Of course Mr. Hoover's charge that communism took hold in America under Democratic administrations is exacuated of all force when one reflects that the nearest the country ever came to seriously considering the possibilities of communism was under his regime, when the banks of the Nation began to topply like tenpins in a bowling alley, and when millions were walking the highways and byways looking for work which was nowhere visible.

When it is considered that communism is born of political inequality and tyranny and exists and germinates only where injustice is found; that it flourishes in the midst of misery and discontent, in the poverty of the masses, in the unemployment of the workers, in breadlines and soup kitchens, there is little doubt that the greatest impetus that Communist movement achieved in this countrytry was imparted to it by the Hoover administration, and the greatest blow it ever received in America was the defeat of Herbert Hoover for a second term by the late Franklin D. Roosevelt.

If this Nation was ever near chaos and communism and anarchy, it was when Mr. Roosevelt stepped into the White House. Rooseveltian democracy, and that alone, saved the Nation from communism and the hell of Hooverism.

By Mr. Roosevelt's recognition of the principle that "government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants," he cured many of the causes of communism, and while it may not be dead in America, it can never attain strength or political potency so long as pure democracy remains in the ascendency in our country.

B. A. BANKS.

Hon. Edward J. Hart

SPEECH

OF

HON. BRENT SPENCE

OF KENTUCKY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with his other colleagues in paying a tribute of affectionate regard and admiration to ED HART.

When he first came to Congress 20 years ago a mutual friend who had served here a long time said to me, "A new Member has come from New Jersey. You will hear from him. He speaks with fluency and eloquence and is a man of great capacity and sincerity." This prediction has been fulfilled for ED HART has grown in the admiration, respect and confidence of his colleagues through the years.

He has served his constituents with fidelity and with intense zeal. He became an outstanding chairman of a great committee. His splendid service to his district, State and Nation entitle him to their eternal gratitude; and with all he is a kindly, modest man who makes friends because he gives friendship. His fine disposition and good will have gained him an enviable place in the Congress of the United States. He is

retiring of his own volition, and we all know that he could stay here as long as he desired.

We hope in his retirement that he may have all things which he desires, that he may have a long life, health, and happiness and may be showered with God's greatest blessings all his days.

Need for Bricker Amendment

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH

OF WISCONSIN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, a distinguished British Cabinet member has recently pointed out that in Britain all important treaties require approval by Parliament.

Under leave to extend my remarks, I shall include an editorial from the Chicago Tribune on this subject. Certainly there can be no good reason for not passing a proper constitutional amendment to safeguard the Nation against secret treaties and executive agreements in the next session of Congress. The editorial follows:

TREATIES IN BRITAIN AND HERE

The American Bar Association has got it straight from the feedbox that Mr. Eisenhower, in opposing the Bricker amendment, wants a far more extensible power to make internal law for the United States through the treaty power than Britons are willing to allow their government. The particular irony of this business is that Britain, though it functions without a written or formal constitution, insists on constitutionality in the treaty process, whereas our Executive, though operating under a Constitution, seeks to use treaties to circumvent it.

British treaty procedure was outlined to the bar by David Maxwell Fyfe, Home Secretary in the British Cabinet. He is a qualified authority on British law who has held numerous official legal posts.

Fyfe said, first, that as Britain lacks a written constitution, there is no prescribed procedure for consummating a treaty. The treatymaking power is vested in the Crown1. e., the Ministers who wield executive

power. Yet, though no formal approval or ratification by Parliament is required, the British Government has become so aware of the desirability of a legislative check that the invariable practice now is to submit all important treaties to Parliament for approval, which takes the form of a statute permitting the treaty to become effective.

So far this does not vary materially from American constitutional procedure. The difference is that a British treaty, when ratified, does not of itself have the force of law. It overrides no existing British domestic law, not even a municipal law. The treaty is binding on the government; it is not binding on the British courts or people.

In the United States, to the contrary, a treaty is, under the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," carrying a form superior to the constitutions and laws of the States. But, by decision of the Supreme Court, a treaty is of much greater force than the Constitution allows it. For the Court has held that a treaty need not be made "in pursuance of the Constitution," but only under "the authority of the United States"— that is, by the President and two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.

Since the American treaty need not be in pursuance of the Constitution, it may therefore be used to fasten upon Americans provisions with force as "the supreme law of the land" which would otherwise not only be unconstitutional but which Congress is specifically enjoined under the Constitution from legislating. Thus the treaty power offers a means by which the powers of the National Government can be enlarged beyond what the Constitution grants.

The Bricker amendment, in its present

form, would protect against this abuse by specifying that a treaty or other international agreement would become effective as internal law only through legislation valid in the absence of a treaty. That is, no unconstitutional extension of domestic law would be possible merely by running it in under sanction of a treaty.

It is this provision which has drawn particular fire from the Eisenhower internationalists. But Mr. Fyfe informs the American bar that this safeguard is of long standing in Britain. There, he says, if a treaty is in conflict with domestic law, the British Government must persuade Parliament to pass legislation modifying existing law or adopting new law so that the treaty may take effect. Otherwise, no British court will give effect to a treaty if its terms conflict with the law of the land.

We suggest that these facts demonstrate the entire unreasonableness of opponents of the Bricker amendment. They insist on the right of the Executive to use treaties to undermine the Constitution. The British, with no written constitution, are far more scrupulous in demanding that no treaty be used to encroach upon the rights of Britons under domestic law. We should delay no longer in placing executive resort to the treaty power under firm constitutional restraint by adopting the Bricker amendment.

The Spirit of Liberty

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. SIDNEY R. YATES

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, the foundation for good democratic government is a well-informed people. "Know the truth and the truth shall make you free" is an American tenet as fundamental as love of liberty. The great American judge, Justice Learned Hand, described the American spirit in a moving and eloquent speech he made in 1944. He said:

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty?

I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and

women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who nearly 2,000 years ago taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten: That there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.

spirit of liberty, America must inevitably Armed with the truth, exalted by the achieve fulfillment of its great democratic ideals.

Federal Government's Stake in Tobacco

Industry

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CARL T. DURHAM

OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include herein the following editorial which appeared in the Durham Morning Herald, Durham, N. C., August 20, 1954, entitled "Federal Government's Stake in Tobacco Industry":

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S STAKE IN TOBACCO

INDUSTRY

Who is the chief beneficiary of the tobacco industry? Statistics recently released by F. M. Parkinson, executive director of the National Tobacco Tax Research Council, show that the Federal Government enjoys a greater income from tobacco than all the farmers who produce the crop or the manufacturers who process it.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, Federal taxes on cigarettes yielded a return to the Federal Treasury of $1,513,740,000. Farmers who produced the tobacco used in cigarettes-flue-cured, burley, Maryland, and aromatic-received $550 million for their crop during the same period. The States which impose cigarette taxes received $494,587,000 from that source, almost as much as the farmers did. And municipal governments which levy cigarette taxes took in an additional $30 million from this tax. For over 30 years the Federal Government has received more income from the tax on cigarettes than the manufacturing companies have received for cigarettes.

Mr. Parkinson's figures on tobacco taxes during the 9 years since the close of World War II are astronomical. The production of cigarettes reached the astounding total of 3,216,491,000,000, and on this more than 3 trillion cigarettes, taxes amounting to $15,184,000,000 were paid to Federal, State, and municipal governments. Approximately 91⁄2 billion pounds of tobacco were required to make these cigarettes, and the farmers received for this tobacco approximately $4,800,000,000. Thus the taxes paid on cigarettes amount to more than three times as much as the farmer receives.

The statistics on tobacco taxes show that the Federal Government makes more money on tobacco than anyone who works in it from its cultivation through its manufacture to its distribution. They suggest that tobacco bears a disproportionate tax burden and support Mr. Parkinson's claim that the decline in cigarette consumption (which was reversed in May) may be attributed in part to consumer protest against high cigarette taxes.

History of H. R. 7304, To Prevent Discrimination by Segregation in Interstate Commerce

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN W. HESELTON

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the events which made it impossible to secure a vote in the House on H. R. 7304. From conversations I have had with many of my colleagues I am convinced that it would have passed the House with a substantial majority. It is a most unfortunate instance of how a majority of the House can be deprived of their clear right to cast their votes on meritorious proposals which they favor.

Because of this and because of the many inquiries I have received as to the possibility of voting on the bill, I feel compelled to make a brief statement as to the facts.

I introduced H. R. 7304 on January 18, 1954. It was referred to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, of which I am a member.

Public hearings were held on May 12, 13, and 14.

The bill, in a slightly amended form, was favorably reported to the House by On a vote of 19 to 7 on July 21, 1954. that date, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Wolverton), chairman of the committee, wrote the following letter: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C., July 21, 1954.

Hon. LEO E. ALLEN,

Chairman, Rules Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am attaching hereto a copy of the bill H. R. 7304-providing relief against certain forms of discrimination in interstate transportation-together with a copy of House Report No. 2480.

The committee is very anxious to have this bill brought up promptly on the floor of the House, and I would appreciate it if you could arrange to set a date for the granting of such rule as promptly as possible. Sincerely yours,

CHARLES A. WOLVERTON,

Chairman.

No hearing was scheduled before the Rules Committee and no rule was granted as requested.

After it was announced on July 30 that suspensions would be in order on August 3, I conferred with Speaker MARTIN and told him I would like to be recognized to call up H. R. 7304. He said he would be very glad to recognize me.

However, under the procedures prevailing in the House in connection with suspensions, it is also necessary to receive the approval of the leadership on both sides. For this portion of the record I now quote certain questions asked of me and the replies I made in the House on August 4:

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in a bill which has been reported out of the Committee on Interstate and For

I

eign Commerce, H. R. 7304. I know many of the members are anxious for that bill to come to a vote. It deals with the prohibition of segregation in interstate travel. wonder if anyone could tell me what the situation is and what the prospects are of that bill coming to a vote.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I happen to be the author of that bill. It was reported out of my committee by a vote of 19 to 7. I am extremely anxious to have it come up for a vote, because I am convinced that an overwhelming majority of the Members of the House would like to vote on that bill. I am doing everything I can to bring that about, but I cannot give the gentleman any assurance at this time that it will be possible to do so. Mr. HOWELL. Is there any chance of getting a rule on that bill? cannot

Mr. HESELTON. I answer that, either. We were told that the Committee on Rules has suspended meetings. I do not know whether that will be changed or not.

Mr. McCARTHY. I understood it was to have been called up under suspension of the rules. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts know whether that plan has been changed or what will be necessary in order to bring it up?

Mr. HESELTON. I understand, in order to do that, it has to receive the approval of the leadership on both sides.

Since that time, with many others interested in this legislation, I consistently sought reconsideration so that either a rule could be granted or arrangements could be made for my recognition for a suspension. But all this was without success. However, again I want to pay a deserved tribute to Speaker MARTIN who did everything possible to assist me in my efforts.

Nevertheless, I believe much has been accomplished toward early enactment of this legislation. I shall refile the bill on January 5 next, when the 84th Congress convenes. Both the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON], and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PRIEST], have assured me that prompt hearing on the bill will be scheduled. In view of the understanding the committee has of the pertinent evidence and of the bill, an early favorable report can be expected. In connection with floor consideration, I recommend strongly that all who are interested in having this bill become law make their wishes known to the members of the Rules Committee and to the House leadership.

The report of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is House Report No. 2480.

assist any such officer, agent, or employee in segregating or attempting to segregate, passengers using any public conveyance or facility of such carrier engaged in interestate or foreign commerce, on account of race, color, religion, or national origin of such passengers. Any such carrier or officer, agent, or employee thereof who unlawfully and willfully segregates or attempts to segregate such passengers on account of race, color, religion, or national origin, or any such other person who aids or assists any such officer, agent, or employee in segregating or attemptting to segregate such passengers on such account, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $1,000 for each offense, and shall also be subject to suit by the injured person in an action of law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for damages or preventive or declaratory or other relief.

H. R. 7304, the Necessity of Congressional Action in Order To Prevent Discrimination by Segregation in Interstate Com

merce

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

.HON. JOHN W. HESELTON

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a widely held impression that discrimination by segregation in interstate commerce has been eliminated. However, testimony before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in favor of H. R. 7304 contradicts any such impression. In connection with those hearings, I want to call attention to a most unfortunate incident of such discrimination as reported in Jet in its issue of August 12. It is stated that the pregnant wife of an Air Force serviceman was beaten unconscious with a night stick by a policeman in a southern State. Apparently, she refused to move from a sidewalk in front of a white bus loading section. The lady charged that the policeman first punched her in the side when she failed to carry out his orders, whereupon she struck him with her pocketbook. She states that the officer began flailing her over the head. As a result of this she was taken to the Air Force base hospital for treatment. It is more than regrettable-it is disgraceful that

Be it enacted, etc., That all persons traveling within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, and privileges of any public conveyance operated by a common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and all the facilities furnished or connected therewith, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons, without discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof, to segregate, or attempt to segregate, or for any other person to aid or

where in the United States. It points up the imperative necessity that Congress should recognize its clear responsibility in the enactment of legislation such as H. R. 7304 to prevent discrimination by segregation in interstate commerce.

In this connection, I want to make available an excellent article which appeared in the March-April issue, 1953, of New South. The title of the article is "Law Versus Practice in Interstate Travel."

While I agree that there is a clear responsibility on the part of both the railroads and the Interstate Commerce Commission to eliminate racial discrimi

nation on interstate trains. I am convinced that the Congress itself has an equal responsibility to legislate in the field over which it has exclusive jurisdiction when the Supreme Court has so clearly held that such discrimination is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The article follows:

LAW VERSUS PRACTICE IN INTERSTATE TRAVEL

To the casual observer, no change in the segregation pattern seems more spectacular than that in interstate railway travel. Not long ago absolute segregation was the rule on all trains traveling through the Southern States. Today, on these same routes it is almost a rarity not to see at least a few Negroes scattered through the once all-white coaches, pullmans, and diners. It is even

more of a rarity to encounter evidence of racial friction among the passengers. The new policies have been accepted by the public as matter-of-factly as the old ones.

But the uninitiated observer may miss a great deal. Seeing Negro and white passengers in the same cars, he may conclude that railway segregation is virtually a thing of the past. It would not likely occur to him to make his way forward to car 1. If he did, he might be astonished to find Negro passengers crowded into a "Jim Crow" coach. in the old tradition. And if he pursued his investigation further, he would discover that a host of discriminatory practices-some open, some subtle and indirect-still plague the Negro traveler.

A carefully documented report of these inequities has recently been issued by Dr. Herman H. Long of the race relations department, American Missionary Association, Congregational Christian Churches, at Fisk University. Entitled "Segregation in Interstate Railway Coach Travel," the report is based on the first-hand experiences and observations of field personnel, white and Negro, who kept careful records of approximately 28,000 miles of rail travel in 1949 and 1950. The result is something different from and more valuable than the usual indictment of segregation. Instead of broad arguments against segregation in general, we are given a detailed dissection of segregation practices in a specific field and their effects in human terms.

PERCENTAGES AND PEOPLE

This approach is especially useful because its puts the main emphasis on what happens to individuals rather than the group as a whole. In rail travel, as in other areas of public life, the practitioners of segregation have pitched their defense on the group basis. They have sought to show that, percentagewise, the Negro group has been allotted a fair share of space and facilities. But increasingly the critics of segregation have succeeded in demonstrating to courts and administrative bodies that the issue is not races and percentages, but discriminations suffered by individuals.

A good example is the Arthur W. Mitchell case, decided in 1941. Congressman Mitchell, a Negro, sued the railroad for denying him Pullman accommodations, although he held a first-class ticket. The company argued that all of the first-class accommodations set aside for Negroes were occupied and that the normal Negro demand was too limited to warrant setting aside more. The Supreme Court held that this defense was not valid, since the right to equal accommodations is a personal one and cannot be made contingent on the number of Negroes seeking it. "The comparative volume of traffic," said the court, "cannot justify the denial of a fundamental right of treatment, a right specifically safeguarded by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act."

FALLEN BARRIERS

This significant decision spelled the beginning of the end for discrimination in