March 16, 1962

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 former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, if there are no other matters in the morning hour, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. NEUBERGER in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. ·

The · question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana to proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 29. Under the order previously entered, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] nized.

Mr. EASTLAND. Madam President, the Senator from Mississippi does not believe in meddling in the affairs of the sovereign States. I think it is wrong. I think the States have the power and the right, and it is their duty, to handle their own affairs.

However, if the Senate is determined to meddle in the affairs of my State and other States on the question of the poll tax, it is my judgment that we should go into all phases of that question. If the Senate is determined to adopt such an amendment, then at the proper time the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] and I shall offer an amendment to the joint resolution which would prohibit the requirement of the payment of a poll tax to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.

I think the people of the great States of Maine and Vermont should be rescued from such a condition, if Congress proposes to meddle in the affairs of the States.

Today, under the statutes of Maine / and the statutes of Vermont, before a person can secure a license to . operate a motor vehicle, he must pay a poll tax. Our plan is much more pertinent to those States, because in Maine and Vermont the U.S. Government contributes up to 90 percent of the cost of the construction of highways. Those highways are open to everyone. They are for public use. Yet those States provide that a motor vehicle may not be operated unless the driver has paid a poll tax.

Madam President, at this time I shall read from one of the statutes of the State of Maine-from chapter 91, section 2, entitled "Poll Tax":

SEc. 2. Poll tax.-A poll ta x of $3 shall be assessed upon every male resident of the State between the ages of 21 and 70 years, whether a citizen of the United States or an alien, in the place where he resides on the first day of each April, unless he is exempted therefrom by this chapter. No person shall be considered a resident of a place merely on account of being present there as a student in an educational institut i on ( 1955 , ch. 399, sec. 1. 1961, ch. 59, sec. 1).

In the same chapter, section 61 of the code of the State of Maine, provides:

SEc. 61. Licenses issued when poll tax paid.-No person required by law to pay a poll tax in this State shall be granted a license to operate a motor vehicle until he shall present a receipt or certificate that he has paid his poll tax in the town where he resided or written evidence from the taxing authority of that town that he was legally exempted therefrom or that the tax has been abated. Licenses issued from January 1 through August 31 shall require evidence of the payment of the previous year's poll And, Madam President , that is the same thing that was brought out yesterday about the State of Alabama— n d licenses issued from September 1 through December 31 shall require evidence of the payment of the current year's poll tax (R.S. ch. 19, sec. 49, 1957, ch . 121, sec. 2, 1959 , ch. 84).

Madam President, I read now from one of the statutes of the great State of Vermont-from title 32, subchapter 1, secis recog­ tion 3601, which provides:

SEc. 3601. . Pells.-Except as provided in section 3801 of this title, listers shall set the polls of all inhabitants of the State, citizens and aliens, over 21 and under 70 years of age, in the grand list of the town wherein such inhabitants reside on April 1 in each year, at $1 each. The provisions of this section shall control in all cases and any provisions in a city charter providing otherwise are hereby repealed.

And in section 604 we find the following:

SEc. 604. Suspensior . of license for nonpayment of poll ta . xes.-No person shall be eligible to obtain a license to operate motor vehicles until certification is made on the application for such license that all taxes assessed as poll taxes, for which he is liable have been paid.

That means, Madam President, that they . can make a person pay his back poll taxes, extending back for years, before he will be allcwed to operate a motor vehicle on e. public highway in that State. For instance, a workingman or a farmer, whose only recreation is to take his family for a ride in his car on a Sunday afternoon, is told by the State that he cannot do that unless he pays his poll tax, even though the Federal Government puts up 90 percent of the cost of the Federal-aid highways in that State. Madam President, I hate to meddle in the affairs of other States; but if the Senate is determined to pass this measure, then I think the amendment which will be offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] and the senior Senator from Mississippi is certainly pertinent, and there is more ground for collecting a poll tax within a State, as a requirement for voting, than there is to collect a poll tax in connection with a public highway which has been built largely with the use of funds provided by the U.S. Government.

Mr. HILL. Madam President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield.

Mr. HILL. As the distinguished Senator from Mississippi well knows, on yesterday I occupied the floor of the Senate for some hours, and during that time expressed my unalterable opposition to having the Federal Government interfere with or in any way meddle with the affairs of the States in connection with the matter of the poll tax or any other matter of domestic concern to the people of the States. But surely, as the Senator from Mississippi has said, if the Federal Government is to interfere with and meddle with and use its powers of coercion with reference to the poll taxes in Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Arkansas, and Texas, then it is logical, is it not, and opens the door, does it not, and invites the same interference in these matters in the States of Maine and Vermont?

Mr. EASTLAND. Of course it does. In fact, it is even more so, because the United States puts up most of the money for the construction of · the principal highways.

Mr. HILL. Is it not also true that in connection with interstate highways going through the States of . Maine and Vermont, the · U.S. Government puts up 90 percent of the cost of those highways?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. And, as the Senator from Mississippi has pointed out in connection with the Maine . statute and the Vermont statute, if a citizen of one of those States does not pay his poll tax, he not only cannot drive his automobile, but he cannot even drive his car if he wishes to leave the State , if he sees fit to leave it. Is that correct?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. One who does not pay his poll tax can move out of Alabama or out of Mississippi; but one who does not pay his poll tax cannot even move out of either Maine or Vermont with his family.

Mr. HILL. So , so far as Maine and Vermont are concerned, such a person is absolutely a captive there; he cannot drive in his car out of either of those States, if he does not pay his poll tax, and if he is a citizen of one of those States. Is that correct?

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, the Senator from Alabama is entirely correct, as he usually is.

Mr. - HILL. And if such a person remains in either the State of Maine or the State of Vermont, he cannot drive his car to business or to church or to take his children to school or to seek recreation or to visit his friends or to go to the hospital. Is that correct?

Mr. EASTLAND. It certainly is correct.

Madam President, what is the principal recreation of the average farmer? It is to take his family for an automobile ride on the public highways on Sunday, is it not?

Mr. HILL. That is correct. Furthermore, most of those of whom the Senator from Mississippi is speaking are Godfearing people who on Sunday wish to go with their families to church.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. But unless such a person has paid his poll tax, if he lives in Vermont or Maine he cannot drive his family to church.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. In fact, if a resident of one of those States found that his wife was dying, he could not take her in his automobile to a hospital, unless he had previously paid his poll tax.

So, Madam President, if Senators wish to meddle in the affairs of other States, I think they should go all the way in this connection.

Mr. HILL. And if Senators wish to meddle in the affairs of other States, it follows logically that the Federal Government will take from these States these rights, which they have enjoyed since long before they entered the Federal Union.

Mr. EASTLAND. Of course the Senator from Alabama is eminently correct; and that is a field in which legislation will lie, because a limitation on an appropriation bill could force a State which received such Federal funds to repeal the poll tax; and in those instances it would not be necessary to amend the Constitution.

Mr. HILL. Yes, the 90 percent of the cost of the Federal highways in those States, which today is being paid by the Federal Government, could be entirelY cut off, and no longer would -those funds go to those States from the . Federal Treasury. Is that correct?

Mr. EASTLAND. It certainly is.

Madam President, I should like to read further from the Vermont statute: Such certiflca tion . shall · be made under the penalties provided in section 202 of this title. The collector of taxes of any municipality, school district or fire district may, after such taxes become delinquent, submit to the commissioner a typewritten list containing the full name in alphabetical order of surnames and the address of delinquent taxpayers with a request to inser-f; opposite each name on .such list the operator's number, if any appears on record. Upon return of such list each such collector of taxes shall, if an operator's license appears of record, submit on forms to be furnished by the commissioner, a request for the suspension of the operator's license of a delinquent taxpayer, furnishing such commissioner with the full name, address and operator license number of the person to be suspended and the reason for the request. The commissioner shall, provided such tax collector certifies in writing that to the best of his knowledge and belief such taxes are unpaid and that a demand for such taxes has been made in person or in writing and that the taxpayer or person liable for payment of the tax neglects and refuses to pay same, suspend the operator's license of such person and shall not reinstate or reissue another license to such person until notified in writing by the collector that such person is no longer delinquent in the payment of such taxes. A collector of taxes shall immediately notify the commissioner, in writing, when payment of such delinquent taxes has been made.

That means they could go back 20 years or 30 years. It means that persons can be disqualified from using the public highways of those two great States. I do not believe in meddling in the affairs of the great States of Maine and Vermont, but if we are going into this question we should certainly rescue their people and give them adequate access to the highways for which the Federal Government puts up most of the money to maintain.

The distinguished Senator from Alabama and I, if the Senate is so determined, give notice that, at the proper time, we will offer an amendment to this measure.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to : · ield certain time to the distinguished senior Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] and the distinguished Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], with the understanding that I do not lose my right to the floor, and with the further understanding that I shall regain the floor at the conclusion of their remarks, and that it not be counted as two speeches or as -another speech on this question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ·

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, with the approval of the Senator from Mississippi, whom I will endeavor to protect in every way on this question, I yield to the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], because his remarks are shorter than mine.

Mr. KEATING. Madam President, I shall be brief, but I want to speak oh the subject we are discussing, even though it is not the pending business. I remind the Senate that the pending business is the motion to take up for consideration the resolution to make the Alexander Hamilton home in New York City a national memorial. That motion is the business before the Senate, but we have, for reasons which are apparent gotten into a discussion of the constitutional amendment proposed to be offered by the distinguished Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND].

Madam President, poll tax legislation has been passed five times in the other body but has never been approved by the Senate. On the other hand, the Senate has approved a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax, but this has never been approved in the House. Obviously there is overwhelming sentiment in Congress against requiring any American to pay a fee before he can vote. But a difference of views as to the appropriate procedure has prevented final action.

In my opinion it is more important that we break this deadlock than that we continue to wrangle over procedure. I do not believe that a poll tax amendment will set any precedent for dealing with other civil rights problems by constitutional amendment, as some of my colleagues fear. :t!!ach issue has its own setting, and I would never concede that those who vote for a poll tax amendment are barred from supporting solutions to other civil rights problems by simple legislation.

To be specific, I would reject any suggestion that because we adopt an amendment to abolish poll taxes we must also adopt an amendment to abolish unreasonable literacy tests. On the basis of the record made by the Commission on Civil Rights, it is evident that literacy tests are being administered in a discriminatory manner to prevent large numbers of Negro citizens from voting. In this setting, it can be argued convincingly that adoption of legislation establishing an objective test of literacy, such as 6 years of schooling, is essential to implement the 15th amendment. The abolition of all literacy tests might raise a more difficult question. A ban on arbitrary literacy tests by statute, however, is not only proper but essential to carry out the guaranty of the 15th amendment against racial discrimination in voting ~

In my opinion, we can deal with the poll tax problem either by statute or constitutional amendment. I favor the statutory approach · because it is more likely to win House approval than a constitutional amendment and because a statute will not be subjected to the complicated and uncertain ratification process.

I also believe that the sta . statutory approach is constitutional. The poll tax persists in only five States: Alabama, Arkansas, Mi-ssissippi, Texas, and Virginia. Whatever may have been its purpose in the · early years of our Republic, it is a fact of history that it was instituted in these five States as a method of preventing Negroes from voting. In recent years, the poll tax has become as much an obstacle for voting b:t· poor white citizens as Negroes, and those States which retain the poll tax have among the lowest percentages of voting participation in the Nation. It is clear from the reports of the Commission on Civil Rights that much more effective techniques have been devised to disenfranchise Negro voters, but we do not have to close our eyes to the history of the remaining poll tax provisions in determining the most appropriate method for their abolition.

The argument that the poll tax is a "qualification" for voting under article I, section 2 of the Constitution and therefore beyond control by Federal legislation is too broad. Not all qualifications for voting are lawful. A qualification which is designed to deny the right to vote on racial grounds can no more stand against the 15th amendment than a qualification designed to deny the right to vote to women could stand against the 19th amendment. Moreover, .a property qualification for voting, in my opinion, is an arbitrary qualification which is no more entitled to recog· nition under article I, section 2, that 1 would be a State law that redheaded people could not vote, or those with one arm, or vegetarians.

For these reasons, I will support the substitute proposed to be offered by my colleague from New York and hope that this position will prevail. If we fail to secure a majority vote for this legislation, however, I shall support the constitutional amendment as a feasible alternative for finally resolving this issue. And I express the hope now that the leadership in the other body will not be adamant in its approach and will approve whatever course is necessary to avoid a stalemate and to give the American people results.

Before concluding, let me emphasize that this is only one of the many issues with which we must cope in order to bring our electoral processes up to date. It will affect a relatively small - number of Americans compared to the number denied the right to vote by discriminatory literacy tests, by arbitrary . residence requirements, and by other obstacles to the exercise of the franchise. Whatever we accomplish today will be only a small beginning in overcoming the myriad of unreasonable impediments to voting which now prevent millions of Americans from going to the polls on election day.

I have asked the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to broaden the scheduled hearings on literacy tests to include all the voting bills before the subcommittee and other civil rights measures on which action is long overdue. There is no possible justification for limiting our subcommittee's hearings, which begin next Tuesday, to literacy tests or to limit Senate action to poll taxes when so many other related problems also demand our attention. As I have already indicated, it is my intention to offer comprehensive civil rights amendments to the literacy bill when it is before us, amendments based on the specific recommendations of the Commission on Civil Rights. Certainly the members of this outstanding and dedicated Commission should have an opportunity to appear before our Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to present their views and findings. We should not insult their efforts by ignoring the vital work they have accomplished. And we cannot do so without breaking faith with the millions of Americans who had every reason to expect meaningful civil rights legislation from this Congress.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, the time of the debate up to now, w:th the single exception of that just occupied quite briefly by my distinguished friend from New York [Mr. KEATING] has been, I believe, entirely used by those who are opposed to the motion to consider the joint resolution, in order that it may be made a vehicle for the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting for elective Federal officials; that is, for electors for President and Vice President, for Senators, and for Members of the House of Representatives. I shall speak on this subject at some length later, but I wish the RECORD to show now I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the measure.

This is the 14th year I have offered the proposal in the Senate. I have tried not to be discouraged from Congress to Congress. I have had very courteous treatment from members of the Committee on the Judiciary. On five occasions full hearings have been held on the proposed constitutional amendment. On three occasions subcommittees have reported the measure favorably to the full committee. I regret to say that our distinguished friends on the full committee have never been given the opportunity to report the measure. I think there never has been a time when it was not clear that a majority of the membership of the full committee was in favor of reporting favorably the proposed constitutional amendment.

I st.all make no further comment on that, except tO say I am grateful for the fact that the leadership on both sides of the aisle is now supporting the bringing up of the vehicle measure, in order to see if it may be adapted to the purpose which I have just expressed; that is, that it may become a proposed constitutional amendment of the sort I have described.

I have been edified by the speeches g made by my distinguished friends in opposition to taking up the measure and, as they put it, in opposition to the constitutional amendment itself, but I have been particularly edified by the speech made by the distingUished Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] because he spent nine-tenths of his time in establishing historically something I probably would have had to establish in the event he had not helped me so kindly; namely, that this is a constitutional · question, · requiring a constitutional amendment, and that all the first States of the Nation either had · a poll tax or much more onerous pro­ . visions limiting · and restricting the exercise of the voting privilege. I believe the Senator · from Alabama went into that subject in detail with respect to all 14 of the States which were in the Union at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; that is, the Original Thirteen States plus the good State of Vermont. I think he went into the question even more fully in discussing what has been done in other States.

Suffice it to say at this time that the last State to knock out a really onerous burden in this field was the great Keystone State of Pennsylvania, which eliminated a taxpaying requirement or a property-ownership requirement only a relatively few years ago; my recollection is, about 1933.

It appeared to me quite clear that the distinguished Senator from Alabama had little confidence in the validity of the point - of order which he mentioned, which he said would be brought up when my amendment is offered, because if he had much confidence in it he would have allowed us to make the joint resolution the pending business, and would have allowed the point of order to come up for early disposition. I would think, after listening to his learned and scholarly discussion of 4 or 5 hours yesterday, that he lacks confidence altogether in the validity of any point of order as to the procedure which we are following, and I certainly agree with him in that conclusion if he has reached it.

I also note that my distinguished friend from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND] who now has the floor and who has been gracious enough to yield to me, apparently also has little confidence in that point of order, because he has outlined an amendment to the constitutional amendment which he says he will propose in due time, having to do with the good States of Maine and of Vermont and with the fact that they levy a poll tax which has no connection whatever with the voting privilege but is connected with the right of the citizens and residents to get automobile licenses for the operation of cars in those States. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that there is little confidence to be placed in the point of order, and I think we shall note that that is the case a little later in the course of the debate.

May I say also that we are getting in Florida so many good people from Maine and Vermont, and even more good people from Alabama and Mississippi, in the course of our great growth, that it may possibly be that some of the people from the New England States are attracted to us because we have no such condition as that about the issuance of drivers' licenses, which, of course, has no relation at all to the subject of the debate. I am very sure that we are getting many good people from Alabama and Mississippi because they resent the imposition of the poll tax and they resent the political climate that has resulted in some areas of those two grand States because of the poll tax imposition. I note in passing · that whereas each of those good States lost one Representative under the census of 1960, the State of Florida · gained four. I am quite willing to say that some · of that gain; particularly in connection with the good people of Alabama and Mississippi, who have joined us and who have been very welcome, must have been due to the fact that people . were trying tO escape from the political aura that surrounds the poll tax.

Yesterday the distinguished junior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MoRTON] addressed an inquiry to the Senate which I shall try to meet at this time, as I told him yesterday I would. He inquired as to the position of the administration on the measure, and said that he hoped that that position would be made clear in the course of the debate. For the information of all concerned, I wish to make it perfectly clear that the position of the administration has been made amply clear during the hearings in this body, during the hearings yesterday in the House of Representatives, and likewise by direct communication from · the President himself. I should like to make those points matters of record at this time.

In the hearings of the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Department of Justice was represented by a learned Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Katzenbach, who appeared and, I thought, made completely clear not only the position of his Department, but also the position of the President of the United States on this subject. First, in the printed hearings on this subject, at page 368, will be found the statement:

T.he Justice Department supports the proposed amendment as a realistic technique which . seeks the early demise of the poll tax. There is more at that point, and all Senators may read · it if they desire.

Later in his appearance the learned Assistant Attorney General had the following to say:

I a.m speaking for the President on one point, sir.

The Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] asked him-and I am glad the distinguished Senator from New York is present in the Chamber:

Have you reached it yet?

Mr. KATZENBACH. No, not yet.

Then Senator KEFAUVER, the chairman of the subcommittee, said:

You mean, except for the pOint you mentioned, you are speaking for the Attorney General?

The answer was in the affirmative.

A little later in the hearing, at page 387, the witness came to the point, and the point was the constitutional amendment sponsored by the Senator from Florida-and now by 67 cosponsorswhich is the subject matter indirectly of this debate.

I think it would be well to read the entire statement of Mr. Katzenbach, because while he agrees with the Senator from New York that it may be possible to handle the problem by statute, I think it clearly shows that not only do he and the Department of Justice prefer the amendment method, but at the last of his statement he has made very - clear that he is · speaking directly for the · President . . I should like to read his entire statement as it appears on pages 387 and 388 of the hearingsr

We feel that there is little doubt that Congress may under the Constitution enact legislation to outlaw the poll tax as a condition for voting in elections for U : S. Senators and Representatives.

I call that point particularly to the attention of the distinguished senator from New York.

However, whether Congress may enact laws to abolish the poll tax as a condition for election of Presidential electors presents a more diffi.cult question. While we think from the recent trend in decisions that the courts would ultimately uphold such a statute, the matter is not free from doubt. In any event, as a practical matter and in view of the widespread support offered by the many sponsors of Senate Joint ResolutiOn 58, the poll tax may possibly be laid forever to rest faster by constitutional amendment than by attempt to enact and litigate the validity of a statute. All of us know that long delays are inherent in litigations generally, and this is particularly true when important constitutional issues are at stake. Accordingly, the Justice Department supports the proposed amendment as a realistic technique which · seeks the early demise of the poll tax.

There may have been some justification RECORD. for the poll tax earlier in American history. :You will recall that it was originally imposed not to burden but to liberalize suffrage requirements, because in the 18th and 1 9th centuries a poll tax was easier to meet than general taxpaying or property qualifications. At that time a serious attempt was made to recognize the qualifications of the voter rather than the property he · owned. The purpose of the poll tax, however, was changed in the late 19th century in order to block and discourage the citizen's participation at the polls. Today it operates unduly to restrict the rights of national citizenship by disenfranchising thousands of white and Negro voters. It is an arbitrary condition · which bears no reasonable relation to a citizen's fitness to vote. It tends to discredit us abroad. -

The President is unequivocally opposed to the poll tax. He earnestly hopes that early action will be taken by the congress on this measure, and that it will be ratified by the States without delay.

. Senator KEFAUVER. I believe President Kennedy when a Senator voted for the constitutional amendment in the 86th Congress to eliminate the poll tax.

Mr. KATzENBAcH. I believe that is correct. Mr. EASTLAND. Senator KEFAUVER. I am quite sure of that. In fact, I believe he was a cosponsor.

Mr. KaTZENBACH. I am authorized on this to speak for the administration and for the President.

Madam President, it could not have been made clearer that last year when the hearings were held before the committee, on June 27, 28, and 29, 1961, the President went on record as favoring the abolition of the poll tax, and by the use of the particular method proposed. I am sure that the Senator from New York will recognize the fact that the question of doubt spelled out by the learned witness, Mr. Katzenbach, is in a different situation from the mere matter of the election of Senators and Representatives, though I disagree entirely that as to them, they could be handled in the States that now have a poll tax · without a constitutional amendment being submitted and passed.

Mr. KEATING. will the Senator yield? Would it interfere with the continuity of his statement?

Mr. HOLLAND. Not at all. I am glad by statute. to yield.

Mr. KEATING. I think it is a fair inference from Mr . Katzenbach's testimony to say that a constitutional amendment was preferred by the President. Yesterday, in appearing before the Judiciary Committee of the House, however, the Attorney General indicated f f th t t to a pre erence or e s a u ry approach, although he said the method was a question for Congress to decide as a matter of policy.

Certainly, he gave the impression that he supported the statutory approach, as well as the constitutional amendment, and regarded the statutory method as constitutional.

Mr. HOLLAND. reply I would like to say that the Attorney General did state that he thought the statutory approach could be used. However, he very clearly stated his preference and his approval of the constit t· 1 d t h · th u wna amen men approach m next to the last paragraph of his statement, which I shall now read into the This statement was furnished to me this morning by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. It is on the stationery of the Department of Justice. I am told by the clerk of the committee in the House that this is the statement made by the Attorney General yesterday, as it purports to be. I read these words as follows: First I should say i freely admit that the Attorney General had earlier said that, so far as he was concerned, he thought t t t ld be d th h h h d a s a u cou e use • though e a somewhat the same doubts as Mr. Katzenbach, because he mentioned the fact that, as has already been mentioned by the Senator from New York, that antipoll-tax bills were .passed by the House five times but that It had not been poss1 ble to have them approved m the 1 Senate. Mr. EASTLAND. will the Senator from Florida permit me to ask a question of the Senator from New York?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am · happy to do so. New York knows that the Attorney General on yesterday endorsed the bill to repeal literacy tests.

Mr. KEATING. In the House hear-

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. -

Mr. KEATING. I understood that he of the Union. endorsed the bill to establish an objective test of literacy.

Mr. EASTLAND. What is the difference as to that qualification and the poll tax? _

Mr. KEATING. He indicated, as I understood his testimony, that he believed it was constitutionally possible to eliminate the poll tax as well as discriminatory literacy tests by statute.

Mr. EASTLAND. But he advocated the elimination of the literacy test by legislation, by bill, not by constitutional amendment. Would not the same reasoning apply to the poll tax?

Mr. KEATING. No, I do not believe Madam President, -it necessarily would--

Mr. EASTLAND. Why?

Mr. KEATING. Although I believe his position was that both could be done

Mr. EASTLAND. That is right. He took the position that both could be done by statute; that is right. That is all I said.

Mr. KEATING. That is my understanding of his testimony.

Mr. EASTLAND. That the Attorney General approved.

Mr. KEATING. The Attorney General's testimony also indicated that he approved of the constitutional amendment to deal with the poll tax.

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, but he felt that the proper method to apply to the literacy test was the legislative method. If that is the proper method there why would it not be the proper method in conMadam President, in nection with the poll tax?

Mr. KEATING. There is a distinction between the two situations. I favor the statutory method with regard to the poll tax, but I believe a stronger case can be made for the statutory method with e regard to discriminatory literacy tests, because of the findings which have been made by the Commission on Civil Rights that literacy tests are being arbitrarily used as a means of denying the right to vote on the grounds of race in violation of the fifteenth amendment.

Mr. EASTLAND. I know of no instance. Can the Senator state an instance where the literacy test has been used to disqualify a person from voting? Can he name any person who has been so disqualified?

Mr. KEATING. The Attorney General-- -

Mr. EASTLAND. I am talking about the Senator's knowledge. Does he know of any? Does he know what he is talking about?

Mr. KEATING. Yes, I believe I do.

Mr. EASTLAND. Very well. What? - • Mr. KEATING. There are plenty of instances cited in the reports of the Madam President, c om~msswn · · on c· IVI ·1 R. 1g ht s. ?

Mr. EASTLAND. Who are they .

Mr. KEATING. I would respectfully refer the Senator to the reports filed by the c:ommission which we established to The Senator from look mto these problems.

Mr. EASTLAND. I ask the Senator to name them.

Mr. KEATING. The Commission's reports make it abundantly clear that literacy tests are being used to deny the right to vote to Negroes in certain States

Mr. EASTLAND. Name one.

Mr . . KEATING. The Civil Rights Commission has volumes of evidence on - that, but it is entirely beside the point here.

Mr. EASTLAND. Why? A man who sits on the floor of the Senate-­

Mr. KEATING. I do not propose to engage in unnecessary debate upon a subject which has no pertinency to the proposed amendment which relates to the poll tax. The Senator from Florida very kindly yielded to me, but I did not ask him to yield to me for the purpose of engaging in an extended discussion with the Senator from Mississippi about information readily available in the reports of the Commission on Civil Rights. , Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Senator from New York is a very intel ligent man. This is the world ! s greatest job: deliberative · body. · When a Senator makes a statement on the floor of the Senate he should be prepared to back it up. On this question I ask the Senator to name one living human being whom a literacy test has prevented from voting. He cannot do it. That shows what is behind this whole thing-noth­

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I certainly could not agree with my distinguished friend from Mississippi that there is nothing behind this. As one who has lived in a former poll tax State, who is familiar with the conditions which prevailed there under the poll tax, which were less onerous than those now existing in Mississippi, I know that many of our citizens were prec . precluded from voting. I have seen at the polls good ladies come in, expecting to vote, and finding that either their husbands had forgotten to pay their poll taxes, or that they themselves had forgotten to pay them.

I have seen _ literally dozens of people turned away from the voting booth . in the precinct where my wife and I vote in those far-away · days prior to 1937, when we abolished the poll tax. I do not pretend to be able to name the persons to whom this experience has accrued in the State of Mississippi, because I do not have the pleasure of knowing many people there.

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. Or in Alabama. However, I am quite prepared to say that when courts have found in some cases that that has been done, and when I know that that was the experience in my State, to such a degree that it impressed itself on our legislature to where I joined, as a member of the State Senate at that time, in outlawing the poll tax, because I thought it was operating in an extremely offensive and unwise way, I could not agree that I do not know anyone who was barred from voting by the poll tax.

Mr. EASTLAND. I deny that. The Senator has described horrible conditions that he says existed in the State of Florida. I deny categorically that any . such thing has hap;~ened in the State of Mississippi. I defy anyone on the ' floor of the Senate to name anyone to · whom it has happened. Now the Senator says the courts have so found. No court in Mississippi has so found.

Mr. HOLLAND. Courts in Louisiana have so found.

Mr. EASTLAND. · Louisiana has no poll tax.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am referring to the literacy test. That is the subject to which the Senator was addressing himself.

Now, Madam President, if I may, I will proceed to read into the RECORD this quotation, which is the closing endorsement by the Attorney General yesterday, when he testified before the similar committee in the House of Representatives to that which is headed so ably by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi in the Senate. Here are the words of the Attorney General, after having stated that he thought a statute could do the Nevertheless, a constitutional amendment is a realistic and commendable path to the same goal. There should be little - doubt of the speedy ratification of such an · amendment, since 45 of our 50 States already do not have such useless legislation. I therefore endorse this method of eliminating the poll tax as a condition for voting in elections for Federal offices.

I do not see how anyone hearing these words, or seeing them in the printed record can doubt what the opinion of the Attorney General is and what he has endorsed, because he is endorsing the constitutional method, which we are intending to use here.

Mr. EASTLAND. He has endorsed the constitutional method. The point we have made here is that his reasoning would apply also . to a bill. . Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator may read that into the statement of the Attorney General, if he wishes. I could not find any endorsement in there at all of the statutory method, though I did find a strong statement to the effect that he thought that that could have been used, but he .. endorses the constitutional method approach.

Let us see what the President of the United States himself thinks about this matter.

On · March 6 of this year, I received from the President of the United States the following letter, which was delivered to me by one of his assistants:

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, D.C., March 6, 1962.

Hon. SPESSARD HOLLAND,

· U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: I share your conviction that the right to vote in Fed,eral elections should not be denied or abridged because Of failure to pay a poll tax or to meet a property qualification. As you know, I was one of those who joined with you in cosponsoring a proposal in the 86th Congress to eliminate such restrictions.

I interpolate to say that I was very proud and happy to have the then Senator Kennedy, from the great State of Massachusetts, join with me as one of the cosponsors. I continue to read from President Kennedy's letter:

In the current Congress, I notice that you have introduced this proposal again. I assure you of my continued support for the principles set forth in that legislation.

Adoption of this proposal would constitute an important contribution to good government. It would encourage wider voter participation in the elections for President, Vice President, Members of the U.S . Senate, and Members of the House of Representatives. Participation is inevitably accompanied by a strengthened sense of civic responsibility. I recall your having said many times that the abolition of poll taxes in Florida contributed to sound government in your State. It was a source of regret that, although this measure passed the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 70 to 18 early in 1960, it failed to be enacted. I understand that the failure of the House to act was due largely to complicated factors unconnected with the merits of , the proposal. This year, a new opportunity to enact this amendment is presented.

@ ~ hope it will . be considered and approved ~Y the . Congress during this session and - submitted · to the - states ' for ratification.

" Sincerely ;

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

. . Mad.am President · , I do not see how the President could _ have more completely stated . his approval of this method Qf approach . and his approval of this particular amendment, of which he had been a cosponsor, and I am honored that he recited that fact in his letter.

I do not think the President of the United States has - .the · right, nor do I think he has tried, to . tell any Senator or Member of the House . how he should vote; but I think the President has the right, and it is his duty constitutionally, on matters of grave import, to advise Congress on the state of the Nation; as to how he believes the Nation may be better served . under our laws. He has certainly done that in the course of this letter, and I am very happy · that he has seen fit to do so.

One word more about the speech of the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], who is now in the Chamber. In his earlier absence, I complimented him as highly as I could compliment anyone for the scholarly way in which he dealt with the subject of the constitutional history of the States of the Nation in his long and exceedingly interesting and enjoyable address yesterday. He saved me the necessity of going into that subject . • because certainly a part of our case on the constitutional amendment is to show the history that lies back of it. I compliment him again on the thoroughness of his research. I comment. however, that nine-tenths of his speech, · c~. or perhaps more, was spent on that feature of this question which has nothing at all to do with this case, except that he firmly established what I would have otherwise had to . establish, namely, that this is a constitutional question and that it can be dealt with properly only by a constitutional amendment. So I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for that.

The Senator from Alabama related at some length the limitations and restrictions which existed in the first 14 States-that is, the Original Thirteen and also Vermont, which had come into the Union before the approval of the Constitution; but he did not see fit to say, which he could truthfully have said, that every one of those restrictions and limitations has long since been removed by the States themselves; and that this is also true of their restrictions and limitations on the right of suffrage, which have appeared not only in the constitutions of tlie States admitted shortly after the formation of our country, but oftentimes in the constitutions or laws of the States which are relatively new in their existence.

The point I am making is this: I listened in vain to hear, although I had hoped to hear it from the eloquent lips .. of the distinguished Senator from Ala­ • b!loma, who speaks with greater eloquence · and command of . our common tongue than I, that all the other 45 States, except those 5 in which the poll tax now exists, have long . since done away with those restrictions and limitations upon the right of suffrage. The poll tax did not exist originally in the grand old Commonwealth of Virginia. The only one of the original States that had the poll tax as a condition for voting was New Hampshire, which repealed it a long time ago; but Virginia is the only State of the original group which still has a poll tax that has anything to do with voting, and that tax was approved by the grand old Commonwealth not then, but in relatively modern times.

I should like to dwell for a minuteand I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Mississippi in yielding to me-upon the reason why I think it is unsound for these two distinguished Senators to say that ' the Senator from Florida or, for that matter, the other 67 cosponsors of the amendment are meddling with the affairs of the great States of Mississippi and Alabama, both of which I love-and I do not have to tell that to the Senators . from those states. I love-their Senators also.

I think that when one looks at the record, one must see that a national question is involved. Why? Because the electors who name the President; the Senators; and the Members of the House-but I dwell particularly on the electors-are elected under that system by such scanty percentages of the people of their States as to give rise · to the question what would have happened had there been actual participation in the fair. election by a much greater number of voters.

Let us consider this question for a moment. I have before me not only the list appearing in the records of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary, at page 475, but also the statistics of the presidential and congressional election of November 8, 1960, published, apparently, as a House document. At least, it was prepared under the direction of Ralph R. Roberts, Clerk of the House of Representatives; I assume it is a House document. It is a public print. Clearly those two records show what happened in that particular election.

First, it is shown that the two fine States of Alabama and Mississippi-! make no attack upon them; I am simply talking about something which I believe is of concern, and proper concern, to all the people of the United Statesappear at the very end of the list of 50 States, from the standpoint of the percentage of their civilian population of voting age who participated in that election.

The State of Mississippi is shown by these data to have participated in the election to the extent of 25.63 percent of the qualified electors or those who were of qualified age, or just a tiny bit over one-fourth of them.

The good State of Alabama, according to this list, is right at the 31-percent mark. The list shows 30.9 percent, but my able assistant, who has figured it, reports to me that it really should be 31 percent-but there is not enough difference to comment on it-of the citizens of qualified age in the good State of Alabama who participated in that election. What happened in that election? In the case of the 1960 Democratic primary in the State of Mississippi-and I may say, before I go further, that the Senators from Alabama and Mississippi were both mistaken in their statements on the floor yesterday that the primary is the place where the larger participation in voting takes place in their States. I am sure they were thinking of earlier years, as to which their statements would have been true.

Many times that has been true, but in neither State was it true in 1960.

Mr. · EASTLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Florida yield for a question?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Of · course the Senator from Florida knows that many voters do not turn out for a primary election when the candidates in the primary election do not have opposition. Is -that not true?

Mr. HOLLAND. They do not turn out to the same degree. I have noticed that in Alabama there was very strong opposition in various races-for instance, in the election for the chairmanship of the public utilities commission.

Mr. EASTLAND. But to be fair-and I know the Senator from Florida wants to be fair--

Mr. HOLLAND. I certainly will be

Mr. EASTLAND. I know the Senator from Florida will be fair; and the Senator from Florida knows, does he not, that it takes the election of county officials to get out large numbers of voters in Alabama, Mississippi, and other States.

Mr. HOLLAND. That certainly promotes a larger turnout.

Mr. EASTLAND. Of course it does.