March 14, 1962

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I call the attention of all Members of the Senate to the motion I am about to make. I am going to move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1196, Senate Joint Resolution 29, a joint resolution providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

If the Senate agrees to the motion, it is my understanding that the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] will move the adoption of a substitute amendment involving the payment of poll taxes as a requirement for voting.

I have been given to understand that some Senators desire to debate the motion to take up Calendar No. 1196 Senate Joint Resolution 29. I certainly want to protect their rights to do so.

Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1196, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A joint resolution-Senate Joint Resolution 29- providing for the establishing of the farmer dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I had understood the distinguished majority leader to say that the distinguished senior Senator from Florida CMr. HoLLAND] would offer as a substitute for the proposal embraced in Calendar No. 1196 a proposal submitting an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for ratification by the several States, by the method prescribed in article V of the Constitution.

Yesterday, in discussing the matter with the distinguished majority leader, I understood that a claim bill would be the vehicle for the proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct. I must apologize for not notifying him of the change. I did notify other Senators. I wish to assure the Senator it was an inadvertence on my part, and not a deliberate action, that I did not so notify him.

Mr. RUSSELL. I accept the Senator's statement fully, of course.

I intended, of course, to make the point of order that, while the rules of the Senate with respect to an amendment are very broad and sweeping, they are not broad enough to permit the submission of a constitutional amendment as a substitute for a piece of general legislation.

I believe the same point of order will be good in this case, even though the Senator from Montana has said it will be offered as a substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 29, the joint resolution which would establish the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

We are federalizing at a very rapid rate in this country, · but even at the speed at which we are proceeding I do not believe that even a joint resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton, which is legislative in its nature and which must be submitted to the President of the United States for approval, can be used as a vehicle for submitting to the States a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

All of the machinery for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States is found in article V of the Constitution, which appears at page 518 of the Senate Manual. It reads as follows: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the ,Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to an Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

The article goes on to state that no amendment which may be made prior to 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of the first article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It so happens that the President of the United States does not have any part whatever in amending the Constitution of the United States. He has not a right of veto. He has no right of approval. The Constitution provides for no act or function on the part of the Chief Magistrate of this Republic in amending the Constitution of the United States. That is a matter between the Congress and the several States, and between them alone. Therefore, to submit a proposition of this kind, or to propose an amendment to the Constitution as an amendment to a piece of general legislation, which must be approved by the President before it can be enacted into law, or else approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress in overriding a veto of the President, is completely out · of order . .

I realize that that point of order cannot be made until the distinguished senior Senator from Florida proposes his amendment to the Constitution as an amendment to this proposition. I serve notice here and now that when it is proposed I shall make the point of order against the proposal to amend the Constitution by substituting it for a joint resolution which requires approval by the President of the United States.

I have never been able to understand how poll tax legislation can be called civil rights legislation, or how it ever got into that area at all, because we had poll taxes before we had the right of suffrage. It is the oldest tax known to mankind. However, I realize that a little matter like the Constitution is worthy of very short shrift when we become involved in one of the so-called · civil rights bills.

The Constitution itself specifically prescribes the rules for amending that document. It provides for its amendment in a certain way. It does not provide that an ordinary piece of legislation that has been reported by a committee in the ordinary course of legislative work may be used as a vehicle to amend the Constitution. I believe the specific bill mentioned was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. I do not quarrel with that, because I believe in the very widest power of amendment in the Senate; but I submit that this kind of instrumentality cannot be used to submit to the several States an amendment to the Constitution. _ One might paint a sign as large as the rear of the Senate Chamber and print on it: "This is a cow"; and then put that sign on a camel; but the animal would still be a camel.

The Constitution provides the method for its amendment. It does not provide for any such procedure as that proposed. The rules of the Senate provide ample means, methods, plans, and procedures whereby a proposed amendment to the Constitution can always be brought before this body. It does not provide that the proposal can come before this body by trying to call a cow a camel, or vice versa.

The poll tax amendment is one of the most notable · fantasies that has ever found its place in the history of the Republic. It is a political fantasy which has been pursued vigorously by a number of political paladins on white horses, and carrying shields and spears and swords, since long before I ever came to this body. It has been one of the chief whipping boys in this area of legislation. If ever there has been a scarecrow that has been completely exercised by having been dragged around this Chamber and presented in different forms, by different means, in different ways, by different men, and for different purposes, it is the so-called poll tax legislation. There has been more misrepresentation about this polecat or poll tax amendment than about any other piece of proposed legislation of which I have any knowledge.

Many years ago, when I had not been a Member of this body very long, I actually heard a distinguished colleague on the radio refer to the poll tax as a tax on the poll, where a man goes to cast his vote, and he said it should not be taxed; that the polling place should be free to all citizens. I suppose people were under the illusion that that, perhaps, had something to do with the tax. But "poll tax" derives from one of the oldest Anglo-Saxon words, and is just as old as any of the other four-letter words that have become so popular in today's literature. In this case it means "head"; and the tax is a head tax; it is a capitation tax; it is the oldest of all the taxes that have ever been levied. There was a poll tax even before there was any right to vote.

Yet here we are, in this good year 1962, pushing, hauling, and shoving around the Senate a proposal to abolish the poll tax; and debating whether we shall amend that great document, the Constitution of the United States, so as to get at five States which · still levy a poll tax, and make them conform.

This is a day of conformity. What made this country great was that it was not a country of conformity. It was the fact that the States were compartmentalized and did not have to conform; that there was no great figure of a king or a magistrate, having unlimited power, who could tell the States what to do. Because the States did not conform or have to conform, the Nation grew faster, built a better system of government, and developed the American way of life, a way of life that has been the envy of mankind all over the world. No other people have ever known anything like it. ·

But now, having developed this great country under this system, and having developed the American way of life under it, we are met by the demands of the conformists. These paladins get on their horses, and out they go to kiU this great dragon-not in their own States; oh no; they go out to kill the dragon in somebody else's State, so as to make it conform. Instead of debating some issue that affects the States where they live and run for office, they raise the issue of the poll tax and seek to make five States conform.

I hold no brief for the poll tax. We do not have it in my State; we have not had it for many years. I confess that I consider it to be an outmoded method of raising revenue. I was not opposed to the repeal of the poll tax in my State. But that does not mean that I expect to rush in to assist those who seek to compel other States to conform; who say that a State cannot levy a $1 head tax, to be paid into the school fund, because, forsooth, someone somewhere said that it involves civil rights in some way, or involves the race issue. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The poll tax was levied, and has been from the beginning, on every prospective voter, and in most States whether they voted or not. From the beginning the tax was levied without regard to race, creed, belief, or faith.

Great issues confront us today. The whole world is watching Geneva, trying to decide whether there is any chance for an agreement. The prayers of mankind are ascending to Heaven from every corner of the earth, even from the countries which claim to be atheistic, in the hope that some method will be devised to outlaw the prospect of ah atomic holocaust. Other great issues are pending before us.

But those who, through the years, have capitalized on the poll tax question have now drawn their swords and have said, "The time has come when we must go through the process of conformity and compel these five States to conform." Mr. President, if it did not involve such a great threat to our system of government; if it were not such a great blow at our Federal system of indestructible States-at least I used to hope and pray that they were indestructible States, forming an indissoluble Unionit would be utterly ridiculous for the Senate to be considering this question. There may have been a time when the poll tax discouraged someone from voting. But what is its effect today? The levY is $1 a year on a person; and if he does not pay his poll tax, he is not entitled to vote. At least, that was true in my State under the old system. Mr. President, the tax on a package of cigarettes in some States, when the Federal tax is included, is from 12 to 14 cents. The tax on a few gallons ot - gasoline is more than the amount of the poll tax for a whole year.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I know something about poll taxes in Texas. I made a campaign in behalf of the program of the present administration to allow the Latins to vote. Forty-eight thousand Texas Mexicans could not vote on account of the poll tax. At that time, I said that since that is the law in Texas, it should be obeyed; and I said to my friend, the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH), that all citizens, particularly those elected to government office, should obey the law, whatever it is. Certainly no one is entitled to express an opinion in that connection unless he has actually obeyed the law.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico feels just as I am not here defending the poll tax. It so happens that for many years my State was the only State in the Union which permitted citizens to vote when they had attained the age of 18 years. In 1953, there was submitted in the Congress a proposed constitutional amendment fixing the voting age at 18 years in every State of the Union, and it was proposed that that amendment be made a part of the U.S. Constitution. Although my State was the only one in the Union which then had an 18-year voting age, I stood on this :floor and opposed that proposal to put the other States of the Union into such a straitjacket-by having the Congress tell them they had to have an 18-year voting age. On this floor I said some States may want to permit only citizens who have attained age 19 to vote; others may prefer age 20; others may prefer age 24; and I said that if they desire to have such voting requirements, I will defend their right to have such requirements under the Constitution of the United States, because that is the concept of our Government.

In Georgia, the minimum voting age is 18, and that arrangement has been satisfactory; and if other States wish to provide for 18 years as their minimum voting age, we shall welcome them into the 18-year voting age circle. But I shall not vote to impose or compel, by congressional coercion from Washington, the other States to adopt 18 years as their minimum voting age.

Mr. President, I was very proud when we managed to have that proposed constitutional amendment rejected-the one which would have put all the States into such a straitjacket. That proposal had been presented here pursuant to the mania to force conformity throughout the United States, in the almost fanatic urge to pour all men and all women into the same mold and make all of them alike, although there are differences between the laws of the various States, and although the laws and customs of all sections of the country have enabled us to enjoy the goodly life in these United States.

Mr. President, as I have stated, the pending measure enjoys an impressive and distinguished galaxy of supporters and sponsors.

I am grieved that my good friend, the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND), whose intentions are of the very purest and noblest, is spearheading the fight in favor of the adoption of this amendment. However, I believe that any man who has been a consistent supporter of constitutional government should be entitled to one aberration in the course of a long career of public service ; and I regret that, from my point of view, this is the one period of aberration on the part of my good friend, the Senator from Florida. Certainly I shall not hold it against him, because I know he is proceeding in the very best of faith.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Georgia yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. NEUBERGER in the chair). Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Florida?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that before I submitted this amendment originally, I came to the Senator from Georgia, to obtain his advice and instructions; and he told us that it would be a very good thing for us to offer the amendment, and would put us in an affirmative position?

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, Madam President, some 15 or 16 years ago the Senator from Florida asked whether I thought the offering of this amendment would "take the heat” off other proposed statutes and amendments which then were pending; and I told him I thought it would. He asked whether I would be a cosponsor of it; but I said I could not be. And if the Senator from Florida will look back, he will find that I was among those who would not join in sponsoring his proposal.

However, Madam President, I wish to say that the scene in this country has changed considerably since the time when the Senator from Florida first offered the amendment. I believe that was 14 or 15 years ago.

Does the Senator from Florida recall the first year when he offered the amendment?

Mr. HOLLAND. This is the 14th year. I offered it first in 1949.

Mr. RUSSELL. Very well. Certainly conditions have changed greatly since then. At that time there may even have been a poll tax in Georgia, although I do not remember the exact year when Georgia repealed it. But at that time the statutory poll tax was a great issue which was being marched forward under the so-called civil-rights banner. It was one of two great issues then being pressed; the other was the antilynching bill.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Georgia yield again?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. To correct the Senator's recollection, I wish to remind him that the Georgia poll tax had then been repealed; and his then distinguished colleague, the late Senator George, told me that he felt this was the sound position to take, and he joined me as a cosponsor of this proposal.

I also wish to remind the distinguished Senator from Georgia that not only on that occasion, but also on two or three other occasions, in subsequent Congresses, I also approached the distinguished Senator in the same way, and with the same result.

Mr. RUSSELL. No, Madam President, I do not recall as to that. The Senator discussed it with me first, and once or twice since then; but he has not discussed it with me in all subsequent Congresses; and 2 or 3 years ago I told the Senator-and I told him again this year-that in my opinion if there were any idea that the adoption of such an amendment would appease the so-called champions of the civil-rights program in the United States, he was entirely mistaken, but that, on the contrary, the adoption of this amendment would be like feeding a couple of peanuts to a hungry bear: It would only whet his appetite for more-in this case, for further legislation. And I told him that again this year.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Georgia will remember, of course, that I told him that I was not interested in appeasement in any way. I told him that as recently as 2 or 3 days ago, when we were discussing that point.

In my opinion every citizen should, as a matter of right, be entitled to vote for President, Vice President, and Senators and Representatives; and that is all that is involved in this case.

I do not like to think of the fact that in the part of Alabama just across the boundary line from the State of Florida, for instance, there are citizens who cannot vote for President or Vice President unless they pay this tax, whereas directly across the boundary line, in Florida, the citizens who live there are not limited by such a requirement. I do not like to think of the fact that the citizens in our sister State, which we love so much, are confronted with that necessity.

Likewise, Madam President, I do not like to think that the same situation exists in many other parts of the country.

I have always told the Senator from Georgia, my distinguished friend and collaborator and adviser, whom I always follow, except in connection with this one matter, that I think that, as a matter of right, every citizen of the United States should be entitled to vote for President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives on something like terms of equality with the citizens in every other State in the Union, some of which while they once had voting provisions much more stringent than the poll tax provision, have laid such provisions aside; and I said I thought it was time for us to show some awareness of the fact that that is the national thinking in connection with this matter, and that when it came to electing National Government officials, we would . be standing on higher ground and on sounder ground if we took this position.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam President, that is indeed the Senator's position. But certainly the Senator does not contend that I ever thought any serious onus was imposed by the present tax. I have always taken the position that this tax does rot really prevent anyone from voting; and I am not impressed by the arguments of those who today weep because of "the great burden of this tax" on voting.

Madam President, in my own State this tax was not levied on womenwomen could vote without paying the tax; and it was not levied on veterans or on persons beyond age 55, as I recall. So the tax then applied only to a relatively small group of voters-those supposed to be in the prime of life and capable of earning their livelihood. Furthermore, every dollar received from the poll tax went into the school funds.

It is said that the poll tax is a very onerous burden. However, Madam President, every one of the original States had voting restrictions much more onerous than the $1 poll tax. Every one of the original States had much more onerous restrictions on voting. Indeed, up to the time when there were some 25 or 30 States. there were very rigid property-ownership requirements or restrictions in connection with votingfor instance, that one who wished to vote had to show that he had paid taxes on approximately $500 worth of property-and that was at a time when the dollar was really worth a dollarlong before the great inflation which has occurred since those days.

It was not the quarter dollar that we deal with today. He had to own real estate or be a freeholder before he could vote.

I had occasion to check into it and see just what proportion of the taxes paid ir. the United States today is involved in this horrendous, heavy, burdensome levy on the poor people to keep them from voting. It gets down to where one can hardly write the figure out. It is less than thirty-seven millionths of 1 percent of the total tax bill of the American people. If that is reduced to figures, one must put down a decimal, a 0, a 0, a O, a 0, a 3, and a 7-thirty-seven millionths of 1 percent of the tax bill that the American people pay represents this crushing burden that is denying the people suffrage in the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not want to stir up my very good friend from Georgia, but I should like to ask him if he is opposed to the 19th amendment of the Constitution, which provides that the right of suffrage shall not be denied because of sex. As the Senator knows, that is the amendment which prevents States from denying women the right of suffrage if they so desire.

Mr. RUSSELL. I do not recall that I was very active in politics at the time that amendment was considered. [Laughter.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator favor repealing it?

Mr. RUSSELL. It is rather difficult for me to go back into the past that far and remember just exactly what my attitude was with respect to that amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator in favor of repealing it?

Mr. RUSSELL. No, I am not in favor of repealing it, now that it is in the law; but I am frank to say that, since the States had the power to grant women the right to vote, if I had been a Member of the Senate at the time I might have voted against the amendment. . I think it is unfair to ask my position on something that occurred in this country before I was very active in political life, and I think even before my distinguished friend from Illinois was too ac .. tive in the political life of the country.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think that is true. Am I to understand that the Senator looks with favor or disfavor on the 15th amendment, which provides that a citizen's right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?

Mr. RUSSELL. That amendment was written in the blood of the Civil War, and was inevitable after Appomattox, and the South is reconciled to it. We were not happy about it, but it was written in blood, by the bayonets of the soldiers of our friend from Illinois and other States who overpowered us in the most calamitous and fraticidal strife this Nation has ever seen.

We paid a terrific price for our idea that we could depart in peace or that one Southerner could lick four Yankees. We were not able to show the latter. We found out one could lick three. We were confronted with that fact as a practical proposition. We were faced with that advantage, and I think we have very little to be ashamed of. But the 15th amendment was written in the blood that was so grievously shed in the Civil War and was a natural concomitant of Appomattox.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I take it that the Senator from Georgia is no.t enthusiastic over the fact that the amendment was passed.

Mr. RUSSELL. No, I cannot say, considering the sorrow and the great losses that were inflicted on the people of my blood and of my kin, that we rejoiced in the outcome of the Civil War, but I would not repeal the 15th amendment. I would not deny to a man of color or any other race the right to vote; nor would I deny it if I had the power to do so. But I am not enthusiastic about the amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Then, I take it the Senator is not opposed to section 2 of amendment 15, which says the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is a part of the Constitution, and I was sworn to protect that Constitution. Until the provision is repealed, I will observe it and support it. I have, of course, as a Senator, a right to object to some of the ideas that the Senator from Illinois and his cohorts have of the proper method of c onstruing and enforcing both the 14th and 15th amendments. I disagree very violently with some of the interpretations which have been placed on the amendments. But if the Senator is going to try to get me to apologize for the Civil War at this late date or to get on my knees any further than was necessary at Appomattox, I shall not do it. I am proud of our part in it, though it was one of the greatest tragedies this country was confronted with. I am proud of the record the people of my blood made in it, and men of my clan shed their blood on battlefields from Gettysburg to Brices Cross Roads.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I know something about the Civil War. I may have . Spanish blood in my veins, but I am an American.

Mr. RUSSELL. Absolutely, and a good

Mr. CHAVEZ. And troops came into my State during the Civil War. The Confederates marched into my State. One reason is that some of the gold which paid for the war came from California and Nevada. The Confederates marched up the Rio Grande. The purpose was not a military one, but to stop the flow of gold. They went as far as northern New Mexico, where they were finally defeated. My grandfather and my wife's grandfather were part of the "Damn Yankees."

Mr. RUSSELL. And I am sure they were good soldiers.

Mr. CHAVEZ. They were. My grandfather and others in New Mexico helped defeat the southern soldiers.

We are trying to do what is right. We shall continue to do so. I want the interests of the United States to be first.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator. Madam President, the story of the Civil War is a sad and tragic one, but I have no apologies to make for the South in the Civil War. The southerners were mistaken in a great many instances, but they paid in blood for their mistakes. There is no higher coin in which payments can be made.

· I wish to say further that any man of southern descent has a right to be proud of the record made by those men who wore the gray, and history does not record a more indomitable or longer drawn out fight against overwhelming odds than was made by the Confederacy. Their valor was so great that it is a part of the common heritage of every part of this Union, and every good American should appreciate it as a part of the history of his country.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. First I commend the distinguished Senator for speaking with such fervor about the service and the sacrifice of the men of the South, and it would also be true to say the same of the women. It happens that both my grandfathers and my father bore to their dying day upon their bodies wounds they had suffered in various battles, and all of them on the southern side.

The reason for my rising, however, is to avert wh a t I fear might occur as the result of the questions of my distinguished friend, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS], which might indicate that the 15th amendment was the only field in which the poll tax operated.

Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think the 15th amendment touches the poll tax in any place or in any shape, form or fashion, in my own view.

Mr. HOLLAND. I agree with the Senator. The point I make is that the poll tax amendment I shall offer later, when the appropriate time comes-and I hope the Senator's point of order will not be sustained against it--will operate in favor of colored people and of white people, in favor of people of all colors, religions, and creeds.

It was shown in my own State, when we repealed the poll tax in 1937-and I had a modest part in doing that, as a member of the State senate at the timethat at the next election, in 1940, at which time the colored people were not voting in my State, there was an immense increase in participation in voting by the white people. This resulted from the fact that many people, because of penury or because of carelessness or because of a dislike of what they saw happening in some counties as a result of the poll tax, had not participated in the elections. These people came in to participate. I shall put those figures in the RECORD at a later date.

I wished to make that clear at this time. I think the Senator is correct in stating that the proposal does not come under the ordinary classification of the ordinary civil rights legislation. It applies to majorities, to minorities, and to every person of every color. It attempts to give to people who otherwise qualify the right to cast their votes for elected Federal officials. The Senator well knows that is the case. I merely wished to make the record clear.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam President, I am happy the Senator and I agree that the 15th amendment and the clause read by the Senator from Illinois have nothing to do particularly with the proposal of the Senator from Florida.

The Senator from Florida is at least to be commended for seeking this objective through the process of amendment to the Constitution, instead of a statute. His process is consistent with the constitutional system. I think that the objective is inconsistent with the philosophy of the rights of the States. That is where my friend and I differ.

A great many of those who depend for their election year after year on the votes of minority groups within their States have tried to make it appear there was some question of imposition on colored people, or some question of rights of Negroes as contradistinguished from rights of whites, involved in the question of the poll tax. It has nothing whatever to do with it. The States which require a poll tax today apply this levy equally to all voters and to all prospective voters without regard to race, creed, or color. We all know that if that were not the case, and if the States were not doing so now, the pressure groups would have had the Supreme Court strike down these State poll tax laws a long, long time ago. I think no one would controvert the statement that the Constitution grants to the several States the right to prescribe the qualifications of the electors of those States. The Constitution could not be more emphatic in delegating to the States the right and the authority to fix qualifications for voting for Federal as well as for State and for local officials. I have stated before that this is spelled out not once but twice in the Constitution of the United States. It appears first in section 2, article I. There we find the language creating the House of Representatives, our great sister body, on the other side of the Capitol: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. We should remember that at the time the Federal Constitution was adopted the Members of the House of Representatives were the only Federal officials who were elected directly by the people. Therefore, that was the only office over which the question of voter qualifications possibly could have arisen in the constitutional convention. The Founding Fathers undoubtedly thought they were settling once and forever the rights of the several States to prescribe the qualifications of the voters of those States. We hear much about the differences in the State laws. That is one of the great things about this country of ours. If a man does not like the laws in one State he can move to another State, if he is not able to get the laws changed. If he finds that the majority of the people in the State in which he lives are irrevocably committed to a law or to a system of law in which he does not believe, we have great interstate highways, great railway systems, extensive methods of transportation to enable the man to move to a State in which he does find laws to his liking, if he tires of trying to convince the citizens of the State in which he lives of the correctness of his position.

Madam President, when the 17th amendment, providing for the direct election of U.S. Senators, was ratified in 1912, the question of voting qualifications was again passed upon by the Congress and by the people of the several States, in ratifying that amendment. Again the question of voting qualifications was clearly and specifically delegated to the States. The framers of the 17th amendment used without change of a letter or of punctuation the same language as to qualifications of electors as appears in section 2 of article I of the Constitution, which is:

The electors in each State shall have the qu a lifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

As I stated before, that is the only instance of which I have any knowledge in which the identical language appears in two specific places in our Federal Constitution.

Madam President, as I have said, this campaign, this fight to abolish the poll tax, has been raging in the Congress in one form or another for a great many years. I have little doubt that the five States in which it remains will in due season eliminate the poll tax because, as I have stated, it is outmoded as a method of raising revenue. But it has been seized upon by those who wish to centralize Government in Washington as a means of restricting the States still further and making them conform to the views of a majority here in Washington whose views differ from those of the majority within the several States affected.

In my opinion, this issue should not divert the attention of the Senate in this very critical period of our history. To my knowledge, no issue in the history of Congress has been more magnified out of proportion to its real importance. I am certain that there has not been as much misrepresentation over any one issue in many years. I do not think that a constitutional amendment, standing by itself, if it were the only part of this whole plan or this whole philosophy relating to the power of the Federal Government in Washington, would be so harmful. But I resent efforts from any source to take a way and circumscribe the few rights and powers that the States have left. When we finally destroy the Federal system by making the States impotent and constituting mere g-eographical areas that are designated from Washington by the decrees that shall issue from our National Congress, we shall have destroyed this great system that has made our country what it is.

I am opposed to any capricious or captious amendment to the Constitution of the United States, particularly when its purpose is to coerce a minority of States in a matter as unimportant as the one before us, in which the issue involved has been a part of the life of our people in one form or another since the Republic was founded.

I hope that at the proper time, if Senators are unable to convince their colleagues that we should not proceed t,0 the consideration of · this issue at this time, Senators will listen with open ears to the point of order and will consider it on its merits without :regard to the political implications that are found in this question.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JAVITS. Madam President, will the Senator withhold his suggestion?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, if the Senator from New York wishes to speak, I will withhold my request for a quorum call.

Mr. JAVITS. Madam President, we are putting the situation in focus now. and while there are not many Senators in the Chamber, I am sure that Senators will want to understand , from all interested parties, the situation as it is before us. and as I propose, in company with others of my colleagues, to move to substitute for the constitutional amendment a statutory means for eliminating the poll tax, I think I am an interested party in the debate.

I might point out that the issue is no more new with me than it is something new with the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. I proposed the same course in 1960 when the subject was previously before us.

I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by the choice of the measure . used for this purpose. It happens to be a measure which my colleague [Mr. KEATINGl and I have introduced, and. I might say pardonably, a measure of some patriotic flavor-to save a historical establishment in New York.

I, too, understood that it would be a claims bill affecting one person that the subject would be debated on. Instead we find it attached to a measure to preserve Alexander Hamilton's home in New York City as an historical monument.

I am in a rather fortunate position in that, I might say, I am able to preserve Alexander Hamilton's home and have a. statutory method to eliminate the poll tax, whereas my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], must-and I know it will make him very unhappy-jettison Alexander Hamilton's memorial in order to insert a constitutional amendment as a substitute in this bill.

But we all understand why this is the greatest Chamber on earth. There is a delicacy here which is reflected in the timing and method of the handling of this subject which is really quite unique and embellishes the Senate with its reputation throughout the world.

I have already explained what puzzles me about the measure chosen.

And now, the timing. Why now? We had a literacy bill before the Senate the other day that we all discussed and that . we were going to move on. The bill was sent to committee, and we have assurances-and I know they will be honored-that we will be able to consider the whole question in April. Now, however, we have this question to consider. Why? l do not know the reason, but, being a lawyer, I could suspect that what is a reasonable explanation is probably the explanation. The reasonable explanation is that if the Senate would set the precedent that a matter of this character has to be done by constitutional amendment, the very same argument will be made in April when we call up the literacy question and the same point will be made that it, too, must be · done by constitutional amendment.

I enjoyed very much the colloquy between my two colleagues, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. It had all the freshness of an intimate discussion in a family. I might say that this has really worked pretty well. · I know that the Senator from Florida is very sincere about this matter, but the fact is that we have ambled around here now for 14 years and the poll tax still remains in five States. Nothing has happened about it.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND .. I think the Sena.tor from New York would want to be · set right on that. Since the amendment was presented-and I would hope partly because of it-two additional States in the South that had poll taxes have eliminated them.

Mr. JAVITS. I am grateful to my colleague for that information. l also was here when the amendment passed the Senate and it bogged down in the other body. But the point is that the poll tax still remains as an institution in most of the States which had it before, and though many of us indicated our desire to rid ourselves of this rather obsolescent imbalance, it still hangs around, and I think very largely because we have not taken the statutory route but have chosen heretofore another.

Mr. HOLLAND. · Madam President, will the Senator yield again? ·

Mr. JAVITS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think the Senator would want to be corrected on his latest statement, because most of the S . Southern States which had poll taxes have corrected the situation, six having knocked it out and five still retaining it.

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is more than happy to accept any factual corrections, . whether it is six or seven. The Senator is prepared to concede that material progress has been made. But it seems to me that in this day and age. to have an encumbrance of this character on the right to vote is so anomalous, such a strange development in our na tional life, that we ought to take the first and the earliest opportunity to be rid of it.

Madam President, may I also point out that not only have we, who feel strongly about this matter, not chosen the bill-as is very obvious-but we have also not chosen the · time.

We did not press this thing. This has been brought up by the majority leader, I assume, at long last, as some acknowledgment of the fact that the only way to act in a substantial manner on the question of civil rights and voting is by coming to Congress.

I point out that this marks the administration's redemption, after the election of 1960, of only the second item in a kit of 27, recommended by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

I agree with the Senator from Georgia that this is by no means the most earthshaking of these recommendations; they are very much in a pattern which is pretty well accepted here .

I hazard the guess-and I say this unilaterally-that the most ardent segregationist, if he could settle for these two matters, literacy tests and poll taxes, and know that that is all there would be, would probably support these measures himself. I ask no one to agree with me. I speak unilaterally. That is my opinion. where does that leave us? It seems to me that it leaves us with a duty, and my colleague from New York it leaves with not a light duty. We did not choose this bill. We did not choose the time. However, it seems to me that our duty is clear. At least. my duty is clear.

I feel very deeply, both as a. lawyer and as a Senator, that this rs an anomaly, an encumbrance upon the rights of the citizens, not of any State, · but of the United States. Neither the Senator from Florida nor I are talking about any kind of voting except . voting for Representatives and Senators and President and Vice President.

We have the right and we have the duty, when that question arises, to • take the path which in good conscience will most directly and immediately lead to the desired result. That very clearly is the path of a statute. I will be prepared to argue that that path is entirely constitutional and entirely appropriate under the amendments to the Constitution as well as under the Constitution itself, and also under the decided cases of the United States Supreme Court.

Madam President. if we really want to do something to redeem our pledge in the Republican national platform, and if we want to redeem the pledge contained in the national Democratic platform, both platforms having been adopted in 1960-if we really want to do something, even in this . very limited area that we are talking about-the way to do it is by statutory enactment. · If we do it that way, it will have the very happy eventuality of preserving at one and the same time the memorial to Alexander Hamilton. which is richly deserved and a highly patriotic deed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, I am afraid the Senator .from New York protests too much.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the pleasure of the Senate?