March 20, 1962 (5)

As I have pointed out, the very men who wrote the Constitution and who urged the confederation of the various States, insisted that the individual States retain the right to establish voting prerequisites and insisted too that the Federal Government be excluded from these rights by the Constitution. Therefore any attempt to take away this right from the States either by constitutional amendment or by this legislative ravishing process would not be extending any freedom to any citizen of our land, but to the contrary would be giving another control over our people by distant, cold Federal regulation.

Another foundation block of our Republic will have been removed and the erosive process conducive to the destruction of our democracy will be stimulated. I earnestly request that each Member of the Senate think hard and long on this question before they decide to vote. I ask them to read and study the pages of history, the court decisions, and the reason which makes it legally prohibitive to take this power away from our States. I urge that the Senate reject all proposals of this nature, because I fear that to enact any of them would be detrimental to our Government in the years to come.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I wish to address myself to the pending business, which is the motion to take up Senate Joint Resolution 58. I shall speak in opposition to the motion. I do not believe the joint resolution should be taken up.

I deplore the proposal to have the Senate consider a measure such as this and allowing it to bottle up all the rest of the Senate's legislative program. Committee meetings have been stopped. The business of the Senate is at a standstill, while we debate whether or not we should consider a joint resolution which would - have the effect of stripping further from the States the powers which our forefathers, who wrote the Constitution, saw fit to give to the States. Not only are these powers which they sought to give the States; they are powers which already existed in many of the Original Colonies.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that the States were most determined in the Constitutional Convention to retain those powers which they already had?

Mr. SPARKMAN. My colleague is absolutely correct. That is why I brought out that point. I said they were given to the States. I said they pre- - viously had been lodged in the Colonies which later became members of the Union.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for another question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER

MusKIE in the chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to his colleague?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.

Mr. HILL. Do not we know from Madison's notes and from other authoritative sources that probably there would not have been a Constitution if these rights had not been left firm and secure in the States?

Mr. SPARKMAN. My colleague is correct; and, Mr. President, several days ago, when my colleague made the opening speech on this question and on its merits, he made . that point in great detail, and made it very .forcibly and forcefully. I am sure he is correct in stating that there would not have been a Constitution if it had not been for the fact tion. that those who agreed to the terms of the Constitution recognized that these rights already belonged to the States, the former Colonies, and certainly should not be taken from them.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for another question?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. HILL. Is it not also a fact that not only do the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia show this very conclusively, but it is also shown very conclusively by the proceedings of the State conventions, which met for the purpose of ratifying the Constitution, that the Constitution itself would not have been ratified if these rights had not been preserved to the States?

Mr. SPARKMAN. That is true, and my colleague made that point in great detail in the course of the speech he made several days ago here on the floor ' of the Senate. In my brief remarks I shall discuss that point, too.

Mr. President, this subject is not a new one. It has been considered on far too many occasions. Fortunately, the Congress has ' not seen fit to adopt such a proposal. To do so, in my judgment, would be to sacrifice the traditional privileges and rights of ' the States, for the sake of an emotional and political issuethat "is, the so-called civil rights issue. And, if this is the case, then the sacrifice of these precious rights would - have been in vain, for the issue is not - civil rights. Instead, the issue is whether the States shall retain the privilege of adopting a reasonable regulation upon the privilege of voting, as many of them do upon the privilege of driving an automobile, operating a business, fishing, hunting, and other such activities which I could easily name.

If it is unreasonable , Mr. P reside nt, for a State through its democratic processes to require the payment of a small tax for the privilege of voting, then why is it reasonable for the State to require the payment of a small tax for the privilege of driving an automobile or hunting or fishing or earning one's livelihood or carrying on a business? · The Congress has a responsibility to determine whether the proposed amendment is in the public interest. This is the issue the Senate is called upon to decide. · The proposed amendment is contrary (Mr. to the public interest. It seeks immediately to usurp the rights of several States-Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia. These are the States which will immediately be _ affected by this · amendment. The truth of the matter, however, is that the proposal would directly affect several other States, and would indirectly affect all States. I am informed by the Library of Congress that if the proposed Constitutional amendment were to become effective, it would nullify certain voting laws in Florida, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

Mr. HO:LLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a ques­

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Alabama has mentioned the State of Florida. I simply wish to ask him if it is a fact that the constitution of the State of Florida permits the State legislature to impose a poll tax or a capitation tax-for the privilege of voting-of not to exceed $1 a year, but is it not also a fact that long ago the Florida Legislature repealed such tax, and no such tax is now operable? Is not that a fact?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not have information on the details in that connection, but I assume that what the Senator from Florida has said is correct. In fact, I intended to ask him what laws in Florida would be affected by the adoption of this amendment. However, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress has informed me that Florida would be affected by this measure.

I am sure that what the Senator from Florida has stated is correct, for he served as Governor of his great State, and he knows the laws of his State.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Assuming the correctness - of the premise I have laid, then it is not correct is it, to state that any Florida State law imposing a poll tax or any other tax or any other qualification on voting would actually be affected by the adoption of this amendment?

Mr. SPARKMAN. No more than the following: I have said it would have an e-ffect. In fact it would nullify . that provision of the Florida Constitution, and therefore it would affect the legislative situation in Florida-not so far as a tax is concerned, but so far as that constitutional provision is concerned.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. So the Senator from Alabama is saying, is he not, that if this amendment were passed by Congress and were adopted by three-fourths of the States, it would render of no effect a permissive provision of the Florida State constitution-which, however, for many years has not been operative, because the legislature has not acted on that provision, but has taken the opposite position?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am certainly willing to accept the statement made by the Senator from Florida, who formerly was a very distinguished Governor of Florida, and has long been a very able lawyer, as well as a very able Senator. I am sure he has correctly stated the case. As I have said, I did not go into that matter in detail.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, at this time I should like to refer to an interesting editorial, published in the Montgomery, Ala., Advertiser, commenting on an article published in the Christian Science Monitor. The editorial reads as follows:

PLACE FOR THE POLL TAX

A correspondent in the Christian Science Monitor drolly requests Congress to make the poll tax illegal in Maine as well as in the Southern States that still retain it.

Maine's poll tax, he writes, is not exacted as a requirement of voting; in fact, it was originally imposed as a church assessment to pay the preachers. Today the poll tax is simply a source of revenue, the same as it is in most of the Southern States that impose But whereas the South attaches it to voting, Maine makes it a prerequisite to buying drivers licenses and getting some hunting and fishing permits. The poll tax applies to males only; women get a drivers license at the regular price.

The poll tax in Alabama contributes several thousand dollars a year to education. Mr. President, at this point let me state that in Alabama the poll tax each year provides a good many thousands of dollars which are very badly needed to support our schools.

The editorial concludes as follows:

Should the proposed anti-poll-tax amendment to the Constitution be ratified, Alabama might at least save the revenue by the Maine method. Driving a car is as much a privilege as voting, but it doesn't have the same box-office appeal to the Constitution tinkerers.

That editorial was published in the Montgomery, Ala., Advertiser of March 6 - 1962. The editorial is based on a news item-published in the Christian Science Monitor-dealing with the poll tax in the State of Maine.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator can see, can he not, from reading the editorial, that the writer apparently was not familiar with the terms of the proposed amendment? It does not deal at all with the right of Alabama or any State to impose a poll tax as a condition for voting in State or local elections, but only in Federal elections.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes; I understand that to be the content of the proposed amendment. I think the writer of the editorial understood that . Of course, he did not bring everything out, but I think we all know that the proposed amendment relates to the subject . of voting for Federal omcers.

The editorial does not deal with any poll tax except that in the State of Maine and the one in the State of Alabama. I must confess that I have not looked up for this occasion some of the provisions I looked up a few years ago when this question was being debated, but I remember that I found then that in one State there was a poll tax, but it was not tied to voting, except that if a person failed to pay the poll tax, he was subject to imprisonment. Of course, if he was imprisoned, he could not vote when election day rolled around. So while it did not admit that the tax was tied to voting, nevertheless, there was that indirect connection. There were a couple of more States that had a poll tax somewhat of that nature.

So it is not merely the five States I have named that have a poll tax that might be affected by the proposed amendment, but other States would be affected as well as the poll tax that they levy, if 'it has the result, whether tied to the right to vote or not, of denying or throwing an impediment in the way of voting.

Should we embark upon the road suggested, why are we to limit ourselves to forbidding the tax on voting? Why not extend the taxes on other privileges, such as is suggested by the writer in the Christian Science Monitor.

Of course, to do any of this is ridiculous. These taxes are a source of revenue for the States involved, and it should be a matter left to their judgment as to whether they shall collect the revenue in this fashion. Some States have decided against a poll tax. Some have not. Some States have decided against an extra tax on the privilege of driving an automobile; some have notas, apparently, is the case in the State of Maine. . In past times, the great majority of the States, if not all of them-at any rate, the older States-had a poll tax, and in earlier days that poll tax was connected with the right to vote. Most of the States have done away with it and, through the decision and action of the Sta~ On their own accord, the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting has been done away with, except in five States. I believe that one State has done away with it so far as Federal elections are concerned, but maintains it so far as local elections are concerned.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question .

Mr. CARLSON. If I may make a short statement on the question of when Kansas repealed its poll tax, it brings back some memories from my youth. We had a poll tax in the State of Kansas for the purpose of highway construction and roadbuilding in the old days, and it was $3 or a day's work for male persons over 21. That tax was repealed in either the 29th or 31st Kansas Legislature, and I voted for the repeal. I well remember when my father would get a notice that on the following day he had to work out his poll tax. He would have to spend the day on the road or pay $3. That time is past, but I remember it. So it is an interesting discussion that the Senator from Alabama has brought type. up this afternoon. ·

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am glad to have that contribution from the Senator from Kansas. As far back as I can remember, my State has had a poll tax connected with voting; but, in addition, the tax was for maintenance of public roads. When I was a boy, we lived in the country, on dirt and county roads. The Senator from Kansas knows something about what was involved in the repair and maintenance of such roads. It involved dynamiting through rocks and cutting the roads through. In those days we did it by shovel and pick and such scoops as we had.

Mr. CARLSON. They used slips.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes. The scoops were pulled by one mule; certainly never more than a team of mules. I can remember later when scoops were enlarged and put on wheels. There has been quite a change from that day to this day of bulldozers and huge scrapers. When I was a boy I used to work on the roads, because a person over 21 could either pay the tax or work. It seems to me that our tax was $6 or the performance of 8 days' work, or we could hire a substitute. So I used to get a great deal of work as a boy substituting for some of the grownup people and working on the road.

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

Mr.SPARKMAN. Yes.

Mr. CARLSON. Getting back to the discussion of the days when the poll tax was used for construction of roads, I had the same kind of experience as the Senator from Alabama had, living in the country. I said our poll tax was $3 for each male person over 21, and one had to either pay $3 or work for 1 full day on the road. I have done some of that work. I do not think we improved our highways to any extent, but we got the poll tax paid.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I agree with the Senator's comment about improving the roads, because we did not have highways that stayed together very long with that kind of handwork. However, there were no trucks then. There were only buggies and wagons. I saw roads in our community · that were virtually impassable in spite of anything we could do, and we worked hard to keep up the roads.

I am glad the Senator from Kansas h a s brought the subject up.

A great many States have repealed the poll tax over the years. It has reached the point where only five States now re q uire a poll tax for voting in n a tion a l elections. However , as I said a m o ment ago, it was the result of action by the States themselves and the people wi t hin the States.

Even in the State of Alabama, my colleague will agree that we have not completely repealed the poll tax, but have whittled it down until it is hardly anything at all but a requirement that everybody between the ages of 21 and 45 pay a poll tax of $1.50 a year. I have never known it to be more than that. I suppose it has been that amount all this time, but everybody paid it except the blind, crippled, and persons of that About 1920 or 1921, after the servicem e n returned from World War I, our State legislature passed a law to exempt from the payment of the poll tax exservicemen returning home. I believe the court held that provision to be unconstitutional, stating that a constitutional amendment would be required; whereupon a constitutional amendment was submitted to the people and was voted into the constitution.

I started voting in 1921. I had brief service in World War I. I paid one poll tax in all my life. That was the first one. I was exempt from that time on. I believe I heard my colleague from Alabama [Mr. HILL] say that he paid perhaps two or three poll taxes, but certainly he did not pay very many.

Since that time additional exemptions have been provided. A later constitutional amendment was passed which took care of the veterans of any and all wars-the Spanish-American War, from which a few were still living; World War I; World War II; and the Korean war. All those persons in our State are exempt, and it is an exemption without reference to race, creed, religion, or anything else. If a person has a discharge from the armed services during any of those periods of conflict, whatever it might be, he shows it and is free from paying poll taxes from then on.

No one pays the tax after the age of 45. No one ever has. In addition, we have provided an exemption for members of the National Guard, and some other groups.

Not many years ago-probably 10 or 15 years ago-we went further and did away with the cumulative feature, except for 1 year. In other words, in our State regardless of how long a person may have failed to pay his poll tax, he has to pay only for 1 back year plus the current year. That again is for people under the age of 45. No one over the age of 45 has to pay the tax.

Perhaps my colleague knows better than I the figures with respect to percentages of voters in Alabama, but I dare say that not more than one-:quartercertainly not more than one-third-of the voters in Alabama pay poll _ taxes. In other words, though we have not gone all the way in repealing the poll tax, the State has acted in such a way as to reduce it to a minimum, and yet to retain a tax for those outside the exempt groups, the money from which is used for school purposes. Every dollar that is collected from the poll tax in the State of Alabama is used in our schools. Goodness knows, we need it badly.

Certainly it is not the function of the Federal Government, whether by legislative fiat or constitutional amendment, to decide for the State whether it shall collect its revenues in these several reasonable ways. It is not for the Federal Government to take action to take this power away from the State. If the State wishes to surrender this power, fine, but it is a matter the State ought to have the privilege of deciding for itself, which has been true in the past.

Before I finish I hope to cite some supreme Court cases which have held that that was right. Those decisions were given in recent years. The Court has held not once, but several times, that the right to determine this question is one which was left to the States.

If I remember correctly, without looking it up, in the Classic case the Court held, directly on a poll tax question, that it was a matter for the State to decide.

As we know so well, the Federal Government has moved steadily into many tax fields. Today little is left for the States. Why should the Federal Government now undertake to limit further those areas still available to the States? There is no good reason, except to respond to the emotional cry for more socalled civil rights legislation.

As I said a few moments ago, that is a misnomer as applied to this question. This is not civil rights legislation.

In Alabama the:. : e is a small poll tax of only $1.50 per year, and no one can be charged more than $3, or 2 years of tax. It is 1 year of back tax plus the tax for the current year. That is the maximum charge as a voting prerequisite. Is this such a terrible burden? Of course not.

The revenue derived from this tax is all applied to the support of the public schools of Alabama. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago: In our State we need every dime we can get for the support of our schools.

The Alabama legislation has been most reasonable in its approach to the poll tax. Many Alabama citizens are exempt from payment of the tax, as I stated before, including the veterans of World War I, of World War n, and of the Korean conflict; and members of the National Guard. In addition, persons over 45 years of age are exempt, as well as the blind, the deaf, and the totally disabled persons owning taxable property not in excess of $500.

I happen to agree with the wisdom of these exemptions. However, whether I agree with the exemptions, or whether any Member of the Senate or of the Con gress agrees with them is completely irrelevant, for these are judgments which are to be made by the people of the State through their elected representatives in the State legislature. It is not the place of those of us in the Congress to dictate to the people of Alabama, of Maine, of New York, of California, or of any other State whether such a tax is appropriate.

I include Texas in that group, also. I note the presence in the Chamber of the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH].

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question only.

Mr . YARBOROUGH. I trust that the distinguished Senator realizes that the Senator from Texas, now present, is a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am fully aware of that.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. While we have a poll tax in my State, I think it has unjustly discriminated against the people of limited means.

The history of the poll tax in my State is not that it was adopted to keep the Negroes from voting. The Negroes were not permitted to vote in the Democratic primaries, anyway. The poll tax was adopted in 1902 to keep the tenant farmers from voting and to keep people of limited means from voting. The property owners feared the tenant farmers would all vote, so they got a poll tax adopted to disfranchise the people of limited means of all races and colors.

I should like to see my State abolish the poll tax entirely. I think we are proceeding with consideration of the proposal in a constitutional manner, by amending the Constitution of the United States, and to make it applicable · only to Federal elections.

I regret that the Senator from . Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] is not present. He was obliged to leave because of illness. I pay tribute to him for proceeding in this constitutional manner. I think this action is long overdue.

This is a tax on the pocketbook, and is an impediment to voting by putting too heavy a burden on people of limited means, which forces them away from the ballot box.

I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama that I have a great deal of regard for the rights of States to prescribe the qualifications of electors, but -this burden has lasted too long, for too many generations. I think we are forced to take some action.

I believe that once we take Federal action the States themselves will see the munificent results of the action and will, of their own volition, abolish the poll tax in regard to their own State elections.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In response to the question of the Senator from Texas, I certainly have no . quarrel with him when he says that he thinks it is time for the State of Texas to get rid of its poll tax. I think it is fine for the State of Texas to do so. My point is that it is a power that was left with the States when the Constitution was adopted. It was one of the conditions upon which the Constitution was adopted, as my colleague from tax. Alabama [Mr. HILL] pointed out a few days ago when he spoke in the Senate, and as he pointed out again today. The Constitution could never have been agreed to if the powers which . the Thirteen Colonies already had had not been , left with them. My colleague brought out the point very clearly in his very fine and illuminating speech last Thursday, I believe. He made the point very clear. He quoted Madison, the Federalist, and the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention to show that those were among the conditions upon which the Constitution was adopted. I do not believe that the Federal Government ought now to renege on the conditions that were laid down at that time.

While the Senator from Texas was temporarily absent from the Chamber a while ago, in an exchange with the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] I brought up the point that a good many years ago most of the States had a poll tax. Though I am not certain, it may well be that all of the older States had a poll tax of one kind or another, but by action of the elected legislators in the individual States themselves the poll tax had been done away with.

I certainly do not condemn such States. I am glad to see any State take such action. Today only five States retain a poll tax as a condition for voting for Federal officers. Texas is one such State, as is Alabama.

A few minutes ago I also brought out the point that Alabama has operated considerably on the poll tax. I do not know whether the Senator was present when I explained that point. When I was a boy, everyone was required to pay a poll tax in order to vote. The poll tax was $1.50 a year. If one failed to pay it one year, he had to pick up the tax the next year. If he failed to pay for 2 years, the third year he would be required to pay a tax for the 3 years. It was cumulative, until a person who had failed to pay from the time he was 21 until he became 45-45 was the cutoff time-he would have to pay $36 back poll tax in order to vote.

That law became rather onerous. If a poor person was not able to pay the tax for one year, 2 years, or 3 years, the effect would be cumulative.

First, our legislature exempted veterans of all wars. In all my life I paid one poll tax, which was the first year that I voted. Then I was exempted because I was a veteran of the First World War. So all veterans of the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean conflict; and all members of the National Guard, all blind, deaf, and totally disabled persons are exempted, until today I should say that not more than one-third, and possibly not more than one-fourth of the voters of our State, pay the poll tax.

Furthermore, we did away with the cumulative feature except for 1 year. In other words, any person who gets behind now can catch up by paying the current year's poll tax of $1.50 plus only 1 year of tax in arrears, and when he reaches the age of 45, he need not pay any. So it is that a relatively low percentage of people in Alabama pay a poll

The Senator referred to the poll tax in Texas as having been employed for the purpose · of keeping poor people from voting: Interestingly enough, only today I read a paper in the Texas Law Review entitled "The Poll Tax and Voter Registration," written by a member of the Travis County Bar of that State named Fagan Dickson. It is a very interesting article. Mr. Dickson made the same point that in the early days a poll tax was provided for the purpose which the Senator stated, and probably had that effect. I do not think that was the purpose for which the poll tax was established in Alabama, though I do not know. That may have been the situation long ago in territorial Alabama-certainly back beyond my day. We had a poll tax, but it was for . the purpose of helping the public schools, and it has been of great help in that respect, regardless of what has been said.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question. I must protect myself on that point.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I only wanted to comment on the article contained in the Texas Law Review.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I hope that the Senator will phrase his comment in the form of a question so that I may protect my right to the floor.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I ask the Senator, since he mentioned the article by Mr. Fagan Dickson, whether or not he knew or has met Mr. Fagan Dickson on his trips to Texas.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not believe so.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Dickson is one of the distinguished Democratic leaders of our State, a very able attorney in Austin, Tex. He is widely known in ment. the public life of . that State. He has been very active in most of the Democratic movements there in the past 18 years. He was formerly the first assistant attorney general of the State under Attorney General Price Daniel, who is now the Governor, and he was a U.S. Senator. Mr. Dickson was top assistant while Senator-now Governor-Daniel was attorney general of the State of Texas. I thought perhaps the distinguished Senator from Alabama knew Mr. Dickson. I merely wished to ask him if he knew him personally. He has attended the National Democratic Conventions.

,M:r. SPARKMAN. I am sure that I · have met him, but I did not recognize his name in cold print.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. He campaigned very actively for the distinguished Senator from Alabama when the Senator from Alabama was the nominee for Vice President on the Democratic ticket. I wondered whether the Senator recalled having met him.

Mr. SPARKI\CAN. hini.

I read his article with a great deal of interest. He brings out many facts, arguments, and points of law. He is the one upon whom I have relied in my citation of Supreme Court cases and other Federal cases dealing with the question of qualifications of voters and the right of a State to determine the qualifications of voters, including whether or not a tax should be paid for the right to vote.

In all fairness to Mr. Dickson—and I would like the Senator from Texas to hear what I am about to say-he has made quite an objective presentation. He does not argue against an amendment to repeal the poll tax. I may speak a little further on this subject later, but now I wish to say that he · argues that the enactment of a statute to deal with the question would probably be unconstitutional.

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Does the distinguished Senator from Alabama know that Mr. Dickson is one of the foremost advocates in Texas of the abolition of the State poll tax?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I am not at all surprised to hear that statement.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. He is a statewide leader.

Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator said in Texas. I think Mr. Dickson would be an advocate for repeal of the poll tax by the Texas Legislature, as I underst and his article.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I think he is advocating the repeal of the poll tax

Mr. SPARKMAN. He said in Texas. I believe that is correct.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I believe he advocates the repeal of the poll tax by constitutional means. I should like to ask the Senator from Alabama whether he contends that the constitutional amendment to be offered would be an unconstitutional constitutional amend­

Mr. SPARKMAN. Oh, no. I certainly would not make that argument. I am merely saying that I believe the States have shown a willingness and a desire to act on the poll tax situation, as befits each individual case, and the matter ought to be left where the Constitutional Convention left it.

There are only five States left which charge such a tax. I brought out, before the Senator came to the floor, that a number of other States have poll taxes. However, they do not tie them directly to the privilege of voting. I remember a few years ago, when this question was before the Senate-and this question has been before the Senate repeatedly over the years-! had a rather detailed study made of all the States which had a head tax of any kind, or a capitation tax or poll tax, or whatever one wishes to call that kind of tax. I was interested to learn about some of them. I remember one of them, for instance. I mentioned it a little while ago, but I believe it was while the Senator was temporarily deI am grateful to tained from the floor.

One State had a poll tax law-and I suppose it still has it today-that did not mention voting at all. It was a very strict tax. It had to be paid. If it was not paid, the person was subject to imprisonment, and he could not get out of prison until he paid it. How could he vote if he were in prison? So there are different ways of doing the same thing.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Did the distinguished Senator state whether or not the statute specified that the man would be impri sone d the day before election and turned out the day after election?

Mr . SPARKMAN. No. He could be im pr isoned at any time he fell into arrears. I do not know about his being imprisoned one day and let out another day. Whenever he was in arrears he co ul d be imprisoned.

I merely wish to show that different States deal with the matter of capitation tax or poll tax or head tax, or what ­ ever kind of tax one w i shes to call it , in different ways. Some States use the money d e rived from the tax for one purpose, and another State uses it for another purpose. In the State of Alabama we have always used it for our schools. That has been of great benefit to the schools in our State. We need all the money for that purpose that we can get. We are having great difficulty-and I presume that is true in most States-in keeping up the schools. I know that there has been no greater friend of schools and education generally in the Senate than the Senator from Texas. Our State is growing in population. We are having a birth increase and the children are growing up, and we do not have a sufficient number of classrooms. In our State we have a law which requires 180 days of school attendance a year for every child. That refers to every child. There is no difference with respect to race, creed, or color.

For perhaps 30 years we have had a law on the statute books which has prescribed a schedule of teachers' salaries, based upon training, length of · service, and experience. It does not matter what a teacher's color or creed is. All the teachers' salaries are set on that basis. Of course this point may be rather irrelevant to the debate at the present time, except that we are talking about education, and I believe the Senator from Texas is interested in this point. There was a consolidated Negro high school in my county. All of the Negro high schools in the county were consolidated into this high school which, by the way, was located directly across the road from a very fine Negro college in my home county. It is the land-grant college for Negroes in my State. Every teacher in that school had a master's degree, and the principal had a Ph. D. degree. I am sure it was the highest paid faculty in the State of Alabama. Perhaps it was one of the highest paid faculties, relatively speaking, in the country. That is because our law places all teachers' salaries on the same basis, if they have had the same training and the same experience.

So I say to the Senator that we need all the money we can get. In spite of what we have been trying to do-and Alabama is one of the States which has made a great effort in behalf of its schools-last year the outlook-and for the present year it is about the samewe entered into what we call · proration. In other words, we reached the point where we did not have enough money with which to pay the teachers and pay for the upkeep and other expenses for 180 days of school attendance. We were faced with the fact that there would have to be a reduction in school attendance for approximately the past 15 days. Most of that burden fell on the local people. It was the burden of raising money to keep their schools going.

That is one of our difficulties. I am sure other States have had similar experiences in raising school money.

Some people might argue that the repeal of the poll tax in Alabama would not be of great importance. Perhaps it would not be, when one considers the total amount of money brought in by the poll tax. Therefore one might say that it is indeed a very small amount of money. However, any small part of our school funds in the State of Alabama is a very important part. I wished to make that point quite clear.

So far as keeping the poor people from voting, as the Senator has mentioned with respect to the State of Texas, I am pretty sure that under the conditions I described a few moments ago there were poor people in my State who were kept from voting. I am from a family of poor people. However, my father always paid his poll tax. He was proud of the right to vote. I know that in our neighbor­ ' hood we used to have a saying that a . person who did not have enough "get up" or spunk to raise the poll tax money and pay the tax was not a good citizen in the community. That was the feeling in our community. I am certain that many poor people were kept from voting. Over the years our State has taken care of the situation. I do not believe there are now any poor people who are kept from voting by reason of a poll tax. The greatest drawback to voting is pure lethargy, '8. lack of interest, lack of initiative, inertia. That is the big problem with voting. I am sorry to see evidences of it all over this country. By the way, it is not in the ranks of the poor people that we find cases of that kind, of people not voting for those reasons. We find the poor people voting in a higher percentage than people in some of the upper brackets. They are the ones who do not show enough interest in their Government to go out to vote. It is not the poll tax. It is not the $1.50 a year that must be paid for a poll tax that keeps the people from voting. It is a lack of interest. It is that interest that we must stir up, to get our people · out to vote. We must get our people interested in Government to the extent that they are willing to help out.

The Constitution clearly provides that voting qualifications are within the jurisdiction of the State, and gives to the several States the right and power to prescribe the qualifications of its electors. I feel certain there is no need of my quoting from the Constitution, but, for the RECORD, I should like to quote article I, section 2, which provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the Pe . People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Mr. President, that provision was included in the Constitution in the beginning, when the Thirteen Colonies were surrendering a certain part of their sovereignty in order to establish a Federal Government. It has remained in the Constitution ever since. It has remained there as the Constitution has been amended.

My colleague from Alabama [Mr. HILL] , in an exchange with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] the other day, brought out quite clearly that the provision with respect to the qualifications of electors in the Federal elections in that day provided for the election of the Members of the House of Representatives. Originally, Senators were chosen by the respective State legislatures. Senators did not represent the people; they represented the State governments and were chosen by the State legislatures. But Members of the House of Representatives have always been elected by the people. It is the one office that cannot be filled in any way except by election by the people. Many people have not kept that in mind. They frequently ask, when a Member of the House of Representatives resigns or dies, "whom will the Governor name?" The Governor cannot name a Member of the House of Representatives. No one can name a Member of the House of Representatives under our form of government, which is a representative democracy, except the people. A Representative is elected by the constituency of the district which he represents. The Constitution provides that the people who vote for him shall be the same people who are qualified to vote for the members of the more numerous body of the State legislature.

When the amendment providing for the election of Senators by direct vote was written into the Constitution-! will ask my colleague from Alabama to prompt me if I am wrong-the same provision was carried forward.

So that provision is old to begin with. That provision ought not to be lightly treated.

In the case of Butler v. Thompson (97 F. Supp. 17, affirmed, 341 U.S. 937), it was held that a poll tax is a valid exercise of the States authority under article I, section 2, of the Constitution. It has also been held that a State statute that imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition to the right to vote does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States which · are protected by the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court in Breedlove v. Suttles (302 U.S. 277, 58 S. Ct. 205, 82 L. Ed. 252) held that a poll tax prescribed by the constitution and statutes of the State of Georgia did not offend the Federal Constitution.

I am not in favor of extending to the Federal Government any further control over the States' authority. It does not matter to me whether it is my State or one from the North, East, or West, I am opposed to it.

I am opposed to having the Federal Government strip the States of the powers given to them by the Constitution, particularly in the manner in which these powers -are given.

Actually, the powers were not given to the States; they are powers which the States retained and never gave to the Federal Government. -They are powers which the colonists had originally. They held them when they entered into the solemn agreement whereby they surrendered certain parts of their sovereignty; but they did not surrender this part. They retained those rights. The Federal Government ought not to strip the States of that power.

Mr. .HILL. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Does not the Senator think that if there had not been all this agitation about the poll tax, largely inspired by political expedience and for political purposes, even those few poll taxes which remain would most probably have been repealed by now?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I think my colleague is correct. I know something about the effect of some of the agitation in our own State of Alabama. Many years ago, some people were working for the repeal by the Federal Government of the poll tax. I remember saying to them-

You ought to be working in the State, at the State level. Get the State to pass on this subject.

In spite of all the agitation in our State, to which my colleague has referred, Alabama has whittled its poll tax down to the point where it has almost disappeared. It might have been abolished completely, except for the fact that the taxes are badly needed for our public schools. The poll tax is one -of those things that perhaps we do not delight in having; but sometimes it is necessary to have taxes we do not like in order to maintain institutions which we feel are absolutely essential.

Mr. President, I believe in our dual system of government and the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government. I believe this is the best way to maintain good government. I want to continue that system. I believe strongly that the approval of the amendment which is proposed to be taken up if the motion which is now . pending before the Senate shall be agreed to will impair the system and will be one further encroachment in an area which has traditionally been reserved to the States. Such a radical departure from our established system is clearly not justified. I certainly am opposed to the proposal itself and to its being taken up. I have discussed briefly some of the reasons why I oppose so strongly the proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax. Senators also know that legislation has also been proposed which would abolish the poll tax by statutory action. Such legislation would be patently unconstitutional. If I · were to proceed further this evening , I would discuss that question, but I see no reason for doing so at this particular time.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

METCALF in the chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Has the Senator Mr. SPARKMAN. from Alabama completed his dissertation?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I have, insofar as the poll tax is concerned.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Does the Senator Mr. HUMPHREY. have additional information which he would like to impart to the Senate?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Well, Mr. Presi­ Mr. SPARKMAN. dent, I will say to the Senator from Minnesota, the acting majority leader, that it will be perfectly agreeable to me to have the session for today conclude at this time, if he wishes to have that done. If that is what he has in mind, in that case I shall be glad to yield the floor.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Let me suggest to purpose? the Senator from Alabama that perhaps he has just a little more information to impart. Is that correct?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes, I have more information; I have a good bit more. But so far as the basic presentation is concerned, I will say to the Senator from Minnesota that I am through with that. So if there is to be a termination point for the session today, this is a good point at which to terminate it.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield further to me?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Do I correctly understand that now the Senator from Alabama has about completed-under the rule-his first speech?

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes, it will be my intention soon to complete my first speech.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield further to me?

Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield for a question.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it the intention of the Senator from Alabama at a later hour-and, I suppose, at a later dateto address himself again to this proposition?

Mr. SPARKMAN. That entirely depends on whether the proposed legislation is considered that long by the Senate.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I hope it will be laid aside, or that a quick disposition will be made of it, so that I shall not be called upon to make a second speech on it. But I have a second speech ready, in the event it becomes necessary.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator from Alabama indicate whether he is informed that any of his colleagues wish to address the Senate at this time, insofar as he knows?

Mr. SPARKMAN. It is my understanding that no Senator wishes to address the Senate this evening. It was generally understood that the Senate would adjourn or would take a recess rather early this evening. For that reason, I think no Senator is now prepared to proceed following my presentation.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, inasmuch as the Senator from Alabama has indicated that he has completed his first speech-- Mr. President, let me say that I so indicated only on a conditional basis; · namely, on the condition that the Senate was about to conclude its session for today. In other words, the Senator from Alabama does not wish to have a quorum call at this time? It would be all right to have a quorum call at this time, provided I do not lose my right to the floor or be charged with having concluded my first speech.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Then, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama yield for that

Mr. SPARKMAN. I do not yield for that purpose, except on the condition that I shall not lose my right to the floor, and that if and when I resume my remarks, following the quorum call, they will we counted as a continuation of my present speech.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Then, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the acting majority leader is ready to have the session for today conclude and to have the Senate take a recess or adjourn--or whatever he may propose to do-until tomorrow.

Mr. HUMPHREY. To take a recess.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes, to take arecess. I am sure.

Therefore, Mr. President, I yield the floor, with the understanding that this is the end of my first speech.