March 15, 1962 (3)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the farmer dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. IDLL. Mr. President, yesterday the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ addressed himself to the proposal to substitute for the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida an amendment which proposes to amend the Constitution of the United States, to provide for the elimination of poll taxes in any States that might have such poll taxes.

I think the Senator was most thoughtful. He spoke about the fact that it is indeed most unusual and almost unprecedented to attempt to proceed in the fashion that is now proposed.

We have on the calendar of the Senate, Calendar No. 1196, Senate Joint Resolution 29, reported to the Senate by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The joint resolution provides for the establishment of the farmer dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

It . authorizes appropriations out of the Treasury. Of course, under the Constitution of the United States and the rules of the two Houses of Congress, the resolution would have to be passed by the Senate, then it would have to be passed by the House, and then it would have to be signed by the President of the United States.

As I have said, in his very able and thoughtful address yesterday the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ called attention to what an unusual and extraordinary and almost unprecedented and I might say, preposterous proposal it was to take a joint resolution which provides for the establishment of the former dwelling home of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument and seek to use it as a vehicle to submit an amendment to change the Constitution of the United States.

As we know, the joint resolution for a memorial to Alexander Hamilton would have to be passed by the Senate, then it would have to be passed by the House, and then it would have to be signed by the President; whereas a proposal for amending the Constitution does not go to the President at all. If that proposal is passed by the Senate by a two-thirds vote and is likewise passed by the House by a two-thirds vote, it goes directly to the legislatures of the several States. It does not go to the President. So, as I have said, it is indeed a most unusual and extraordinary and, I think, unprecedented and preposterous course we are asked to follow in such a procedure as is now suggested.

This is an attempt to amend the Constitution, to take away from the States the rights which they have enjoyed from the very day the Constitution was written and became effective. It is an attempt to take away their rights to fix the qualifications of their electors. We oppose it because we are deeply moved by our concern and desire and our willingness to fight for the preservation of the cherished rights of our States to prescribe the qualifications of their electors.

I may say that these are rights which the Founding Fathers specifically preserved and secured to our States in the original Constitution.

They are rights which in the past have received great honor and respect.

Anyone who will read Mr. Madison's notes to the Constitutional Convention, the Convention which wrote the Constitution, and who will read the notes of the State conventions which ratified the Constitution, cannot escape the very definite and positive conclusion that if the provision of leaving to the States the power to prescribe the qualifications of their electors had not been written into the Federal Constitution, there would not have been any Federal Constitution and there would not have been any Federal Union.

Mr. Madison's notes of the Philadelphia Convention, where the Constitution was written, and the notes of the several State conventions where the Constitution was ratified, show how jealous the States were of this right-the right which insured to them the fixing of the qualifications of the electors in the several States. These notes confirm absolutely that there would have been no Constitution if that right had not been clearly, specifically, and absolutely preserved to the several States.

Mr. President, as we know, the poll tax is a diminishing phenomenon. Today it is levied in only 5 of the 50 States. The rates are extremely moderate. They range from $1 to $1.50. The influence of the tax on the size .of the electorate is too insignificant for anyone even to attempt to measure.

I interpolate to say that the poll tax in my State of Alabama is only $1.50 a year, and it is not retroactive for more than 1 year. In other words, it would not be possible for anyone to owe more than $3; but the rate is $1.50 a year. Also, all persons who are 45 years of age or over are exempt from the payment of the poll tax. All war veterans-the veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean war-are exempt from the poll tax. · I emphasize further, based on a declaration by Judge Cooley, one of the greatest authorities on the Constitution in the whole history of our country, that there are certain prerequisites to voting. As we know, in some States registration is not permanent. In my State, once a person registers to vote, he does not have to reregister unless he sees fit to move out of the county in which he has been living. If he moves into another county, he must, in order to vote, reregister in the new county. But if he remains in the county in which he first registered, he need never reregister again.

I have registered once in my life, and that was when I became 21 years of age. I have never had to go to the trouble or to take any time to register again.

However, some States have different periods when the voters must register or reregister. We also know that to register, a person must go to a particular place where the registration is held. Persons do not register in their own homes; they must go to the courthouse or to some other place designated for that purpose.

Furthermore, in order to vote, a citizen must go to the polling place. He must transport himself to that place. When he gets there, sometimes he must stand in line before he may vote. It may . take some time out of a very busy day for him to stand and wait his turn to exercise his right to the ballot and to vote. So, as Judge Cooley makes clear, there are certain prerequisites to voting, and this little tax is one of them.

Every dollar received from the poll tax in Alabama is devoted to educational purposes. It goes for the education of our youth. In Alabama, every dollar goes to the public schools of our State. Surely there is no Member of this body who does not experience the constant cry for more funds for the schools.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator know whether the poll tax in Alabama disqualifies anybody from voting?

Mr. HILL. I do not think the poll tax in Alabama disqualifies anybody from voting. I do not know of anyone in Alabama who does not have a dollar and a half that he cannot contribute to the education of the youth in Alabama in order to vote.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Senator think that that is true in all the States which have the poll . tax?

Mr. HILL. I think that is true in all those States. I think the Senator would say the same thing about his own State of Mississippi.

Mr. EASTLAND. Surely.

Mr. HILL. The poll tax does not pre­ -vent anyone from voting, Can it be that a citizen of a State does not have enough interest in the welfare and progress of his State to make the little contribution of · a dollar or a dollar and a half to the education of the youth of his State, so that the citizen may vote?

Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Senator from Alabama think that this is a very legitimate way to help to finance the school system of the State?

Mr. HILL. It has certainly proved to be that way in my State of Alabama.

Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Senator from Alabama knows, does he not, that our great Democratic President of the United States has taken the position with respect to the United Nations that any country which is a member of that organization and does not pay its dues should not be permitted to vote in that body?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. In fact, the representatives of the Department of State and of the other agencies of the U.S. Government who appeared before the committees of Congress took the same position. Is there any difference between that position and the requirement that a person must pay a nominal sum in order to vote in the primary and general elections of his State?

Mr. HILL. So far as the principle is concerned, they are absolutely on a par. The only difference is that the payment of which we are speaking, the poll tax, is such a minimal sum. It is not possible to pay any less than $1 or $1.50. However, so far as the principle is concerned, it is absolutely the same as the Senator from Mississippi has suggested. Furthermore, I do not know of any organization or association in which a person who participates does not pay his dues in order to help carry his part of the expense, so to speak.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Does not the distinguished Senator from Alabama think that when the U.S. Government took that position with respect to the United Nations, it thereby endorsed the principle of the poll tax?

Mr. HILL. It certainly endorsed the principle; and the Senator from Missis .. sippi, Just as I do, strongly believes in that principle.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. For how many years must a citizen in Alabama pay the poll tax in order to be qualified to vote? After a citizen becomes eligible to vote when he becomes 21 years of age?

Mr. HILL. He pays $1.50 a year; but no matter how many years he may have failed to pay his poll tax, he cannot be required to pay any more than $3. Three dollars is the maximum amount he would have to pay. In other words, if for 15 years a person has not paid a single cent poll tax, he must pay $1.50 for the current year and $1.50 for the past 15 years. The maximum amount anyone would have to pay would be $3.

Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator will permit me to go further with my ques .. tion, is it not true that a citizen between the ages of 22 and 45 must pay $3 or 2 years' poll tax in order to be qualified to vote?

Mr. HILL. If a person lets a year or more go by, or, as I said, if he lets as many as 15 years go by, or if he lets as many as 20 years go by, he ne.ver has to pay more than $3.

Mr. HOLLAND. But he does have to pay $3?

Mr. HILL. If he has not kept up his poll tax, the little tax of $1.50-every cent of which, as I have said, is devoted to the public schools of Alabama-if he has not kept that tax current and paid each year, the most he would have to pay would be $3.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I should like to complete my thought.

Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. HOLLAND. Then I am happy to yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Senator think that the $3 that a person must pay is quite puny and does not discommode anyone?

Mr. HILL. I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Mississippi. Certainly it does not discommode anybody. After all, what citizen is there, who has a proper interest in his State, who is concerned with the welfare, the progress, and the economic strength of his State, who is not perfectly willing to pay this small amount of $1.50?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr, HILL. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. In other words, a man and his wife would have to pay $6 in order for both of them to be qualified to vote in a primary election or in a general election in Alabama, generally speaking, would they not?

Mr. HILL. No. The only time when they would have to pay $6 would be when they were in def a ult. If they were current in the payment of that tax, they would have to pay only $1.50 a piece.

Mr. EASTLAND. The answer to the question of the Senator from Florida is tha.t in the vast majority of cases he is wrong, is he not?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. EASTLAND. In 99 percent of the cases he is wrong, is he not?

Mr. HILL. Yes. He is undertaking to cite the most extreme case. He must be thinking about the people of his own State, not the people of Alabama.

Mr. HOLLAND. So far as the people of Florida are concerned, they have not had to pay a poll tax since 1937-which I think is a sound thing.

My second question is this: Does not the Senator from Alabama know that the amendment which I and 66 other Senators propose does not prohibit the imposition of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in State and local elections, but relates only to the election of President, Vice President, and Members of Congress?

Mr. HILL. Yes. But can the Senator from Florida think of anything which would be more confusing or would require more bookkeeping, redtape, and all that sort of thing, than to require the payment of a poll tax in order to make this contribution for the support of our schools, for the education of our youth, if one wishes to vote in elections for State and local officers, but then say, "But so far as national elections are concerned, the payment of a poll tax will not be required." I cannot think of anything that would be more divisive or confusing or would come nearer to undermining the system of obtaining, by means of the payment of this small amount of money, funds to be used for the education of our youth.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield further?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Then the Senator from Alabama thinks, does he, that citizens generally would not be willing to pay that small amount of money in order to qualify to vote in elections for their State, local, and county officials?

Mr. HILL. I think they are willing to pay now. Of course it is within their power to remove the poll tax. But to require the payment of a poll tax in order to vote for one set of officials, but not to require the payment of a poll tax in order to vote for another set of officials, would simply invite division and confusion.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again to

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Why should not a man pay a poll tax in order to be able to vote in an election for Members of Congress?

Mr. HILL. I know of no reason why he should not.

Mr. EASTLAND. What is the difference between paying a poll tax in order to be able to vote in an election for Members of Congress and paying a poll tax in order to be able to vote in an election for the Governor of the State?

Mr. HILL. There is no difference; and certainly there is no reason why a poll tax should not be paid in order to qualify to vote in all elections.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alabama will yield again to me, let me say in regard to the sug .. gestion of the distinguished Senator that confusion would result, that I should like to ask him if it is not true that on the present registration rolls in the State of Alabama, places have to be left for exemptions for those who are veterans and for exemptions for those who are over a certain age, and for exemptions for other reasons; and is it not true that it has not proven to be difficult at all to have little stamped showings of exemptions appear on the same registration roll? That was the case in our State before the poll tax was knocked out.

Mr. HILL. · But there has been no trouble at all about that.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Senator from Alabama think the distinguished Senator from Florida has just now destroyed his own argument? In Alabama, one who is 45 years of age is exempt, is he not?

· Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. And veterans are also exempt, are they not?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. When the Senator from Florida refers to a requirement to pay $3, he is picking out a few, little, puny cases here and there, is he not?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. EASTLAND. The requirement to pay $3 itself does not disenfranchise anyone, does it?

Mr. HILL. That is correct; there are only a few, little, puny cases.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does not the Senator from Alabama know that a considable number of States levy a poll tax, but do not require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting, and obtain substantial amounts of revenue from that source, and find no difficulty in collecting it?

Mr. HILL. The truth is that the poll tax goes back to the very beginning of ments. our Government, beginning with the very early days. In fact, in the early days some States not only required the payment of a poll tax, but also required that in order to be eligible to vote, one had to be a freeholder and had to pay other kinds of taxes; and one of the reasons why the States used the poll tax was in order to get away from the other little taxes, because the $1 or $1.50 poll tax could not be a burden on anyone.

Mr. HOLLAND. But does not the Senator from Alabama know that a number of States do levy and success­ Union? fully collect poll taxes, but do not have any legal requirement that the payment of a poll tax is a prerequisite to voting or has anything to do with the right to vote?

Mr. HILL. There are some States in which that is the case; but if the people of Alabama and the people of Mississippi and the people of other States want to collect a poll tax in this way, that is their right, and it is guaranteed to them in the Constitution of the United States, to me? and it is their right to get the funds for their schools in this way.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield

Mr. EASTLAND. And it is no business of the State of Florida, is it?

Mr. HILL. I agree 100 percent with the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again tome?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that every State which formerly imposed not only a poll tax-as was done by many States as a condition or requirement in order to be able to vote-but also property taxes and had property-ownership requirements of various kinds, have canceled those restrictions and limitations on the right to vote, except in the case of the five States which now have a poll

Mr. HILL. In a few minutes I shall review the requirements of the various States at the time of the beginning of our Government. Some definite changes have been made; but I point out that those who are opposing this proposed constitutional amendment are fighting for the right of their States to make their own decision as to whether they want this small, minimal poll tax. That is our right; it is our right under the Constitution of the United States, and we are standing here and fighting to protect that right against the aggression of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again tome?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I recognized the fact that this is a constitutional matter; and for that reason I am proposing a constitutional amendment, rather than a statutory proposal, such as those which have been offered by a great many persons who, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, do not properly recognize the constitutional requireI ask my friend, the Senator from Alabama, whether the Constitution has provided, since the day when it was adopted, that the regular way to go about changing fundamental law in any State or in all States is to proceed by way of the submission of a constitutional amendment, which requires the approval of three-fourths of the States before it can become operative; and is it not also true that that right existed long before Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, or any of the later admitted States came into the

Mr. HILL. There is no question that that procedure is provided by the Constitution of the United States. But that procedure does not mean that it is an invitation to try to take away from the States the rights which have been guaranteed to them since the time when the Constitution of the United States was first written.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does the Senator from Alabama recall that when women's suffrage had been tried in quite a number of States and had been found to be wholesome and sound, then a constitutional amendment was proposed, and was adopted by three-fourths of the States, and since that time the good women have participated in voting in all elections in our Government, and their participation has been wholesome; and does not the Senator realize that exactly the same procedure which was followed then is being followed now?

Mr. HILL. Of course.

Mr. HOLLAND. And, in fact, it had to be followed in order to require States which had not taken that action to allow their women to vote. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. HILL. Of course whenever the Constitution is amended, that is the procedure which is followed, and it is prescribed by the Constitution-except I point out that insofar as concerns the Position which we fight to preserve, today, I point out that when the Constitution was amended in 1913, so as to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators, rather than to have them elected by the State legislatures, as had theretofore been done, we reiterated, reestablished, reaffirmed , and ratified once again this right, which to day we fight to preserve.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Alabama recognizes, does he not, that _ the other 45 States, which have considerable interest in the election of the President, the Vice President, and the Members of Congress, also have some rights, including the complete privilege and right, under the Constitution, to ask that this matter be submitted to the conscience of all 50 States? They have that right, do they not?

Mr. HILL. I would say that any American citizen has a right to ask for any change he may see fit to request. But the fact that he has a right to request such a change does not mean that the change he proposes is wise and should be made or is justified by any existing condition or any particular situation.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield again to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Senator from Alabama knows that in connection with the Federal highway system, the vast amount of money is contributed by the Federal Government, is it not?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator from Alabama recall the exact percent­

Mr. HILL. I think it goes as high as perhaps 90 percent.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is for the benefit of everyone; every American citizen has a right to use those highways, do . es he not?

Mr. HILL. That is correct; he does, indeed. It is interstate commerce.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator from Alabama know that the State of Maine collects a poll tax, and that a resident of Maine cannot obtain a driver's license until he pays that poll tax, and cannot drive on the Federal highways in the State of Maine until he pays that poll tax?

Mr. HILL. Yes. In other words, the payment of that poll tax is a prerequisite to driving on the Federal highways.

Mr. EASTLAND. Is not that situation similar to the one now confronting

Mr. HILL. Certainly, because the Federal Government has a very large, direct, and immediate pecuniary interest in that matter, having put up 90 percent of the funds for the construction of those highways.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is right.

Why does not the distinguished Senator from Florida try to correct that condition, instead of picking on several of his neighboring States in the South?

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. If I may be allowed to answer, in a patient way, the question that was raised by the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from Florida hates to see people ri.ght across the line in Alabama, exactly like people in Florida, who can vote and do vote, deprived of their right of voting because they have either forgotten to pay the poll tax, or because they did not have the $6 to pay it, or they did not like the politics prevailing in the county.

The Senator from Florida has also regretted to see that the two great :and friendly States represented by the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Mississippi show the smallest participation in elections of the qualified citizens of their States of any State in the Union. The Senator from Florida does not think that is a smmd situation. He feels he has a complete right to move toward a sounder participation of all citizens, and makes no apology to anybody. He has stood arm in arm with his distinguished friends in opposition to other measures, but the Senator from Florida cannot for his life see how anybody can oppose something which is so basically American as to have this submission to the jury of States, which has been a part of our Constitution since it was founded.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator has said that the people have been deprived of the privilege of voting. I defy him to name one human being who has been denied the right to vote because of the poll tax. I defy him to :find one. The Senator well knows that in our States the real test is in the primary elections, and not in the general elections, and we do have full participation in the primaries.

Mr. HILL. After the matter is settled in the primaries, the people know the result in the primaries is going to be the result in the general elections.

Mr. EASTLAND. To get back to the primary question, there is no proof that any more people will vote if the poll tax is removed. Does the poll tax disqualify them from voting?

Mr. HILL. It does not in Alabama. They do not vote in the general elections because the primary is the determining election. Whoever is nominated in the primaries, everyone knows, is going to be elected in the general elections.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. I have had some experience in this question. In my State, as soon as the Poll tax was removed, at first the white people, and later the colored people, after the court threw out the white primaries, voted in greater numbers. I call attention to the list of States shown at page 475 of the printed hearings, which shows the following facts:

In Mississippi the number participat­

Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator ing to do. state the authorities? He said the printed hearings. Who said that?

Mr. HOLLAND. The information is furnished by the American Heritage Foundation, the same figures were also found in the report of the Civil Rights Commission.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is going the Senator yield'/ very far when he takes the report of the Civil Rights Commission. If there ever was something loaded against decent people of this country, it is the Civil Rights Commission.

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

Mr. HILL. I have the floor. I did not think the Senator would deny us our rights based on such a report. The Senator from Florida has now become a working ally of the Civil Rights Commission.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida has taken the same position with respect to the creation of the Civil Rights Commission as the Senators from Alabama and Mississippi.

Mr. EASTLAND. We have not-­

Mr. HOLLAND. Has the Senator yielded to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. HOLLAND . I know the Senators do not want these facts in the RECORD.

Mr. EASTLAND. We are going to let the Senator put them in the RECORD, but we - want the foundation for them.

Mr. HILL. We want the RECORD to be a true RECORD.

Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Mr. HOLLAND. Senator has opposed the creation of that Commission. He has been against it. I would say the facts alleged by this Commission are absolutely unreliable, and I do not believe my friend woul<! say they are reliable.

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

Mt. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I stated these figures came originally from the American Heritage Foundation, but they were the same facts as set forth by the Civil Rights Commission.

If the Senators will take time to read page 475 of the hearings, they will see the sources are stated to be the American Heritage Foundation, the State election officials, and the U.S. Census Bureau. I do not know where the committee could have gone for more authoritative information than those three sources.

Mr. EASTLAND. But the Senator stated people were disqualified from vot­

Mr. HILL. There is nothing in there to show that people have been disqualified from voting because of the poll tax.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida thinks the people of Alabama and Mississippi are just as patriotic as are any other people. He thinks they would vote if there were not something in their way. When he sees these two great States, whose people are friendly to ours and ours are friendly to them, stand at the very bottom of the list of voter participation, the Senator from Florida regrets it and wishes to correct that condition. That is what he is try­

Mr. HILL. We do not need any help from the Senator from Florida. Now that he is a working ally of the Civil Rights Commission, I would say the people of Alabama would certainly wish no help from the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I think the Senator has not heard the Senator from Florida state that the three sources for this information, as compiled and reported by the committee which is headed by my distinguished friend, the Senator from Mississippi, are the American Heritage Foundation, the State election officials, and the U.S. Census B'ureau--

Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute. Let us be fair--

Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from Florida is trying to impute that the Senator from Mississippi had something to do with these figures. It was testimony before the subcommittee. Why does not the Senator give the facts about it?

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida is trying to.

Mr. EASTLAND. No. The Senator is trying to impute that the chairman of the committee had something to do with the authenticity of those figures.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield for a question. I was going to ask if the Senator will yield for a statement, without losing his right to the floor.

Mr. HILL. If it will be a brief statement.

Mr. HOLLAND. I know perfectly well the Senator from Mississippi had nothing to do with those figures. I know that for 14 years I have been trying to get this amendment out of the committee which has been headed, at least for the last 6 or 8 years, by the Senator from Mississippi. I know we have been able to get it out of the subcommittee. I think I know why we have not been able to get it out of the full committee. I certainly will not ascribe to my friend from Mississippi any interest in the production of this list or the production of these figures. I want the RECORD to show that.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, since the Senator from Florida has proposed his amendment so far as the recollection of the Senator from Alabama serves him, the Senator from Alabama has never had one single word, not one single line, not one single communication, by word of mouth or otherwise, about the proposal of the Senator from Florida. Knowing the people of Alabama and their desire to maintain their rights without outside interference, I know there is not one of them who today would wish the Senator from Florida to deny him his rights, which rights the people have had since the day the Constitution was founded.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will he Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi. ·

Mr. EASTLAND. If the distinguished citizens of the State of Alabama thought there was the great problem which the proponents of these measures claim, would not the Senator from Alabama have received many communications from his own State?

Mr. HILL. Certainly.

Mr. EASTLAND. From people being hurt by the tax?

Mr. HILL. A Senator always knows that if people are hurting he will hear from them.

So far as the Senator from Alabama c2n recall, in all of the years during which the Senator from Florida has been proposing his amendment, the Senator from Alabama has not received one word, by word of mouth, by line, or by communication in any shape, fashion, or form from a single Alabaman on behalf of the proposed amendment.

On the other hand, knowing the people of Alabama as I do, I know they are against the proposed amendment. I would say they even resent the proposed amendment.

Mr. EASTLAND. I say the same thing for the State of Mississippi. I have not received a single protest about the tax. In fact, every piece of mail I have received from Mississippi in this regard has been in opposition to this proposal.

Mr. HILL. I have received many communications and many letters, as the Senator from Mississippi has stated, in opposition to the proposal, but not a single one in favor of it.

Mr. President, as I said, the funds raised from this minimal, innocuous tax all go for educational purposes, yet at this most crucial time in the history of America and the free world we are asked to take the time of the Senate to consider proposals to deal with this so-called issue, which all the facts show is far more imaginary than real.

At this time poll taxes are so rare and so innocuous that it requires considerable imagination to claim that they serve as any barrier to the exercise of the franchise by anyone.

It will be recalled that in the early days, and for many years in the history of our country, many of our States required the payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting. Practically all the States had some such qualifications. Some of the States had a much more stringent and burdensome qualification, namely, the ownership or the holding of property.

The poll tax came into being not to restrict suffrage, but as a measure to increase the number of eligible voters by substituting the poll tax for other onerous taxes and stringent requirements.

At the time the Constitution was being written in 1787, most of the State~at least 9 of the 13-had spoken, and had fixed, by their own constitutions, the qualifications of those who should vote for the members of · their own legislatures.

What were those qualifications? I should like to sum up, briefly, the qualifications which the original States, which brought . the Constitution into being, had themselves prescribed for their voting.

First let us look at the small but great State of New Hampshire, from which some of the minutemen, some of our bravest men in the War of the Revolution, came in the early days, the State which gave us Daniel Webster. Before this debate is concluded, I perhaps shall refer to some of Mr. Webster's great speeches on the Constitution.

The men from New Hampshire fought the battles of the Revolution in order that the Constitution might be born, that the rights of the States might be safeguarded, and most of all that the power might reside in the hands of the people, and not in a central, arbitrary government. This indeed, is what the minutemen died for-the brave and gallant boys from the hills and mountains of New Hampshire.

What were the qualifications in New Hampshire? A voter had to be a freeholder. He had to own property; he had to own real estate. But the qualifications in New Hampshire did not stop there. They went further. And what do Senators suppose a voter had to . do? He had to pay a poll tax, the very tax we are discussing now. Voters in New Hampshire had to pay a poll tax at the time the Constitution of the United States was being written.

The next State in the list is the State of the granite hills, the beautiful little State of Vermont, a State whose sons also played a heroic part in the War of the Revolution. When the Constitution of the United States was being drafted, in order to vote in Vermont a man otherwise eligible to vote-in order to meet the prerequisite, had to be a freeholder. He had to own property.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. on the premise that our Government, under the Constitution of the United States, regards voting as a privilege and not a right, and a privilege which can be restricted or denied?

Mr. HILL. Time and again emphasis is given to the fact that voting is a privilege.

I quoted a few moments ago from Judge Cooley, who I think is recognized as perhaps the greatest authority-certainly one of the greatest authorities-on the Constitution of the United States this country has ever known. He emphasized that very statement, that voting is a privilege. It is a privilege.

Mr. EASTLAND. The only limitation on it, of course, is the woman's suffrage amendment.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. And the provision that no one shall be denied the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. The poll tax applies to black and to white alike.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct. Whether a person is black, is white, is yellow, or is brown-whatever the color of the person may be-the poll tax applies to everyone on the same footing, on the same level, on the same basis.

Mr. President, if I may, I wish to advert now to the State of the distinguished Senator who is now the Presiding Officer of this body (Mr. SMITH of Massachusetts in the chair), a Senator whom we all greatly esteem and appreciate, for whom we have the greatest possible admiration. I, of course, now speak of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Dr. Warren, and other great heroes of the Revolution. In order to vote in Massachusetts the requirement was that one must own a freehold with an annual income of 3 pounds, or an estate of 60 pounds. One had to be . a property owner in order to vote in Massachusetts. That State did not let one off with paying a poll tax of a dollar or a dollar and a half; a voter had to be a property owner.

In the great empire of the State of New York the voter had to be a freeholder of 20 pounds, paying rent of 40 · shillings. He had to have a freehold of 100 pounds in order to vote for State senator. They seemed to prescribe a greater prerequisite for voting for State senator than for members of the most numerous branch of the legislature, which meant they prescribed a greater prerequisite for voting for State senator than was required for voting for a Member of the Federal Congress, because of course the qualification for voting for a Member of the Federal Congress was the qualification for voting for a Member of the most numerous branch of the legislature.

In New Jersey one had to own an estate of 50 pounds; he had to be · a property owner.

In Pennsylvania the voter had to be a Is that not all based State or county taxpayer.

In Delaware the citizen in order to exercise the right to vote also had to be a State or county taxpayer.

In Maryland the voter had to be a freeholder of 50 acres, or have property worth 30 pounds.

In North Carolina the voter had to ­ own a freehold of 50 acres in a county, and must have owned it for 6 months before the election. It was also a requirement that the voter had paid his public taxes. If the citizen had not paid his public taxes he could not vote. In other words, he not only had to own the property, but he had to pay all the taxes on the property, and if he was in any way delinquent in the paying of his taxes he could not vote.

In South Carolina the voter had to be a freeholder of 50 acres or a town lot, or he had to pay taxes equal to the tax on 50 acres. That is, if the voter did not own 50 acres, he must, as a requirement for voting, have paid a tax equal to the tax on 50 acres.

In . Georgia the voter had to own property in an amount of 10 pounds, or have a trade as a mechanic, or be a taxpayer. I am sure the trade of a mechanic would interest the distinguished Presiding Officer CMr. SMITH of Massachusetts] as much as it does the Senator from Alabama.

At that time we had not moved into the scientific, mechanical; and technological age in which we live today, for even back in that time, in order to be a voter in Georgia, as I have said, one either had to own property in the amount of 10 pounds or have a trade as a mechanic. If one had a trade as a mechanic, he would qualify. The third alternative was to be a taxpayer in some other way.

The State of Kentucky was not one of the Thirteen Original States. It was one of the first States to be admitted into the Union, however, after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It came into the Union in 1792, only 3 years after the formation of the Federal Government. In order to be a voter in Kentucky, a citizen had to be a taxpayer.

In Tennessee, which was admitted shortly thereafter, a voter had to be a freeholder.

Mr. President, these were the qualifications of electors when Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted into the Union shortly after the adoption of the Constitution.

These were the qualifications the States prescribed respecting their electors when the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, when the delegates from the States were busy writing that document at the Constitutional Convention.

Thus, in the debates at the Constitutional Convention, as reported by Elliott, which, as we know, is the authoritative work on the subject, we find James Madison, who had such a major part in writing the Constitution that we commonly refer to him as the father of the Constitution, suggesting that there be a definite statement of qualifications placed in the Constitution, and expressing the opinion that the freeholders of the country-landowners--would be the safest depository of republican liberty.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew what the States, qualifications were, and therefore when they wrote into the Constitution that the qualifications for electors for Members of the House of Representatives should be the qualifications for the electors for the most numerous branch of the State legislatures, they knew exactly what they were doing.

They knew what those qualifications were in the Thirteen States. As we recall under the original Constitution Senators were elected by the members of the State legislatures. We also recall that when we provided in the 17th amendment, which was adopted in 1913, for the direct election of Senators, rather than their election by the State legislatures, there was written into the 17th amendment the same provision, namely, that the qualifications for electors for U.S. Senators should be the qualifications prescribed by the States for electors for the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

We must recall that in 1787 when the Constitution was written the States were absolute sovereigns. They had joined in the Declaration of Independence. They had proclaimed their independence of the British Crown. They had fought through eight long, terrible, and bloody years to win their independence, and they stood absolutely independent and free from any other sovereignty on this earth. Their own sovereignty was full, complete, and absolute.

So they gathered in Philadelphia in their sovereign capacities, through their delegates, to write the Constitution of the United States. The question was, How much of their sovereignty would they yield to the Federal Government? The Federal Government was not in being; it had no existence; it had no sovereignty. The only sovereignty the Federal Government could have would be such sovereignty as was granted it by the sovereign States of that time.

Anyone who is at an familiar with the history of the writing of the Constitution, anyone who has taken the time to read Mr. Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention and what transpired in that Convention when the Constitution was being written, knows how jealous were the several States of their sovereignty and how reluctant they were to yield much of that sovereignty to any federal government.

Mindful of their sovereignty, zestful and determined, insofar as possible to keep within their own hands as much of their sovereignty as they possibly could, and still have a federal government to meet the problems which had to be met by a central federal government, what did they do? They provided that every State should have two Senators-two Members in this bodyno matter how large or how small the State might be, no matter what its industrial development might be, no matter what its financial development or its agricultural development might be. No. matter what might be the status of a State in its power, its influence, its ability to influence other States and other persons in other States, every State in the United States should have equal representation in the Senate, it should have two Senators-its own two senators. Then, as wm be recalled, the delegates to the Convention went one further step, and provided that no State should have its representation in this: body reduced or taken away from it without its consent. This meant that no matter how small a State might be, how weak, how ineffective, how uninfluential i:t might be, it would have equal representation in this body; it would have two Senators along with the two Senators of the most powerful, the wealthiest, and the greatest State of the Union.

It was in this spirit of jealous regard for their rights and determination to secure the primary authority of the States in the Government, that the question of qualifications of electors was considered and debated.

When we consult Madison's notes we find that there were three schools of thought in the Constitutional Convention with reference to the matter of qualifications of electors to vote for Members of Congress.

One school of thought felt that the qualifications should be prescribed in the Constitution itself.

The second school of thought felt that the qualifications should be left to Congress; that the Constitution should provide that the Congress should have the power to prescribe the qualifications. The third school of thought, which, as we know so well, prevailed in the Constitutional Convention, was that the qualifications for the electors should be those fixed by the States for the most numerous branch of the State legislature. That provision, as we know, is section 2, article I, of the Constitution of the United States.

We find in Mr. Madison's notes, as compiled by Mr. Jonathan Elliott, and published by J. B. Lippincott in Philadelphia in 1907, in volume V, page 385: Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out the last member of the section, beginning with the words "qualifications of electors," in order that some other provision might be substituted which would restrain the right of su:ffrage to freeholders.

In other words, Gouverneur Morris not only wanted the Constitution to fix the qualifications for the electors but he wanted at least one of those qualifications to be that the elector should be a freeholder, that he should own property. So Gouverneur Morris moved to amend the proposal to write in the qualifications of freeholders.

Mr. Fitzsimons seconded the motion. Mr. Williamson was opposed to the motion.

Mr. Wilson, who was also, incidentally, from the State of Pennsylvania, and was one of the ablest men, as we know, in the Convention, and one of the ablest of the Founding Fathers, then rose to speak. Before I read what the different delegates said, I should like to call the attention of the Senate to the committee which proposed the provision in section 2, article I of the Constitution-the section to which I have just referredwhich is the section dealing with the qualifications of voters. The committee was termed, in the language of the Constitutional Convention, "the committee of detail."

The committee of detail was composed of Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina; Edmund Randolph, of Virginia; Nathaniel Gorham, of Massachusetts, who was Chairman of the Committee of the Whole; Oliver Ellsworth and James Wilson, of Pennsylvania. John Rutledge, as we recall, was offered a place on the first U.S. Supreme Court, and was afterward appointed Chief Justice of the United States. Edmund Randolph, we recall, was George Washington's first Attorney General. Later Oliver Ellsworth was Chief Justice of the United States, and James Wilson was a member of the President's Cabinet.

Where could there have been found at that time in all the world, or where could there be found today or at any other time in all the word, a committee of abler or more distinguished lawYers and students of government, or more capable political draftsmen than the men who constituted the committee which wrote section 2 of article I? Where could a more brilliant galaxy of stars in the field of statesmanship be found than these great lawYers, students of the philosophy of government, students of human nature, men of commonsense and wisdom, who constituted the committee which wrote section 2 of article I?

As I have stated Gouverneur Morris moved to amend the committee provision leaving to the States the fixing of the qualifications for electors of Members of Congress, so as to require that the electors be freeholders, or so as to make sure that they were property owners before they could vote for Members of the House, Mr. Fitzsimons seconded the motion. Mr. Williamson opposed it. Then Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, one of the ablest men who sat in that convention, rose and made this observation, according to Madison's notes:

This part of the report was well considered. by the committee, and he [Mr. Wilson] did not think it could be changed for the better. It was difficult to form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the States. Unnecessary innovations, he thought, too, should be avoided.

When I quote that language about unnecessary innovations, I come back to my statement of a few minutes ago; namely, that Mr. Wilson and the other delegates who had gathered to write the Constitution knew exactly what qualifications were fixed by their own State constitutions. So when Mr. Wilson was speaking about no innovations, he was, impliedly, at least, making a plea for the qualifications fixed in his own State of Pennsylvania and fixed by the constitutions of the other Original States. Mr. Wilson went on to say:

It would be very hard and disagreeable for the same persons, at the same time, to vote for representatives in the State legislature and to be excluded. from a vote for those in the National Legislature.