March 21, 1962 (3)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the Senator from Montana £Mr. MANsFIELD] to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument. · Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the Senate is now debating a motion to consider a joint resolution to which will be offered an amendment calling for the submission to the States, for ratification, of a constitutional amendment which will prohibit the collection of a poll tax as a requirement for voting in a Federal : election. I approve of the manner in which the able, distinguished, and responsible senior Senator from Florida £Mr. HoLLAND] has approached this problem. He has taken a statesmanlike approach. If, indeed, we are to act to prevent the States from imposing a poll tax, then it should not be by the enactment of a statute; it should be done by constitutional action, because the conduct of elections comes within the peculiar purview of the functions, the rights, and the responsibilities of the States.

But, however much I admire the statesmanlike and sound legal approach of the distinguished Senator from Florida, I am compelled to say that, in my estimation, such an amendment is not necessary. Only :five States currently have the poll tax: my own State of Texas, the State of Virginia, the State of Arkansas, the State of Mississippi, and the State of Alabama. Technically speaking, the poll tax is not a qualification for suffrage. The poll tax is a tax which is levied, in my State in any case, on every individual. Admittedly it is not enforced. But the payment of a poll tax is an evidence of residence; and residence is a generally accepted requirement for suffrage. It is not a qualification. Everyone who is a resident is entitled to pay his tax and to vote. That is his privilege.

I point out, further, that the poll tax does not really operate to prevent people from voting. The amount of the tax is so low that it does not really deter anyone from voting, regardless of his socioeconomic or financial status. In Texas, we have a good record of not only permitting, but actually encouraging, minority ethnic groups to participate in the political process. My State has a number of Negro citizens and citizens of Latin American origin. They vote in substantial numbers, and rio effort is made to prevent them from voting. The poll tax in Texas does not serve to prevent people from voting.

I think the poll tax is a nuisance. I can see not much reason for continuing the poll tax. But, again, the poll tax exists in only 5 States out of the 50. It does not . really serve to prevent people from voting. I cannot understand, then, why we should concern ourselves with a constitutional amendment on the subject. If I were to venture a prognostication, I would predict that, probably by the time such an amendment were ratified, two or three of the States which currently have the poll tax would have abolished it on their own initiative. I can testify that in Texas there is con- . siderable sympathy for the abolition of the poll tax; and I believe that in my State it will be done away with before too long a time.

Evidence of interest in the matter is found in the fact that the Republican State · Executive Committee of T-exas recently had the issue placed on its pri- ­ mary ballot for a referendum as to whether the poll tax should be con- ­ tinued: and I believe that in my State the sentiment for abolition of the poll · tax is so . strong that ultimately it will be abolished, regardless of whether there is any Federal action.

· Madam President (Mrs. NEUBERGER in the chair) since the poll tax is operative in only :five States, let me say at this · point that I wish to emphasize that I believe every citizen should have the right to participate in the political process, through voting, and no citizen should be denied that right. I think it reprehensible that in a few areas of our country some men are denied this constitutional privilege because of their ethnic background, and I make no apology and raise no defense for anyone who would deny an American citizen his right to vote, regardless of the coloration of his skin · or his views.

But, Madam President, why should we attack the poll tax or single out the poll tax, when only :five States have it? In the various States of the United States, there are many different types of qualification for suffrage; but if we are going to impose some arbitrary Federal standard on the five States which have a poll tax, why not go into some of the other little oddities and strange qualifications for suffrage which we :find in many other States, and then establish uniform Fed- · eral standards for suffrage? Believe me, Madam President, I do not favor such a course; but there is more logic in such · a proposal than there is in the proposal that we worry about the poll tax and the literacy tests. I do not think we should adopt · any uniform standard, because I believe ultimately that would mean that we would destroy the State · electoral machinery, and then we would · have to create some Federal electoral machinery.

But now let us consider . er some of the · variations in voter qualifications under various State election laws. For instance, there is quite a wide · range of · requirements as to residence. The length of State residence required in order to vote varies from 6 months to 2 years. The length of county residence required for voting purposes varies from 30 days to 1 year; and the length of resi- · dence in a precinct varies from zero days . to 1 year.

The minimum age required differs in various States. Two States have given the suffrage to 18-year-alds. One State has given the suffrage to 19-year-olds. The remaining 47 States still cling to the old Anglo-Saxon legal concept of majority age, and require one to be 21 years of age before one is qualified to vote.

Madam President, so long as we must establish an arbitrary age for maturity, I believe 21 years is as good as any. But if we are talking about liberalizing the suffrage, why not propose a constitutional amendment which would affect 47 States, and would compel them to lower their voting-age requirement to 18 or 19 years of age-if we are really talking about liberalizing the suffrage.

And, Madam President, what about citizenship requirements? All states re· quire a person to be a citizen if he is to vote; but one State requires such citizen· ship for 1 month before the election is held; and four States require such citizenship for 90 days or 3 months before the election is held; and one State requires U.S. residence for 5 years prior to the election. So we could go on and on into that matter.

Madam President, what about the literacy tests? Twenty-one States have literacy tests. This information might come as a surprise to a great many persons, for probably in these United States there are a great many persons who think that the only States of the Union in which certain minimum requirements or qualifications are imposed on suffrage are the States south of the Mason-Dixon line-States which use such qualifications or requirements, so some think, as a means of preventing a substantial seg- ment of the citizenry from voting. However, Madam President, that is not true. As a matter of fact, the voting requirements in many of the Southern States, in many of the States south of the Mason-Dixon line, are less stringent than are the voting requirements in some of the States in other parts of the country which are supposed to take a more enlightened position in regard to these matters.

Now let us consider the literacy-test problem. Such tests may vary from merely requiring one to be able to sign his name to some very complex ones. Twenty-one States have literacy tests. These States include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington-and these are States which are outside of what we traditionally regard as “the Solid South.”

For example, in Alaska it is required that one be 19 years of age in order to be allowed to vote-a very liberal requirement, insofar as age is concernedand he must also be a citizen of the United States, and must be a resident of Alaska for 1 year, and a resident in the election district for 30 days immediately preceding the election.

What about the literacy aspect? One who wishes to vote there is required to be able to read or speak the English language, unless he is prevented from complying with this requirement because of physical disability only, or unless he had legally voted at the general · election of November 4, 1924.

Madam President, it might be interesting to note who are disqualified from voting: Persons convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, unless their civil rights have been restored judicially; persons who are determined to be of unsound mind. unless such disability has been removed. It seems to be a general tendency in the varioUs States to punish one who has been a convicted fe1on by denying him suffrage and to - punish persons who are declared to be mentally unsound by pretty unsound methods by declaring them to · be · unfit for voting. Perhaps this provision will provide an area of interest to those persons who are desirous of liberalizing suffrage requirements in the various States. ·

Very often the - various requirements are tailored to suit the local conditions extant in the State. Let us take, for example, our newest State, Hawaii. In Hawaii one must be able, except for physical disability; to speak, read, and write the English or Hawaiian language. Of course · , that is a valid requirement for Hawaii, where there is a mu1tilingual situation.

I am aware that in some States literacy tests are used as a mean.S of denying certain persons the vote for considerations other than literacy, and are unfairly administered; perhaps not so much in some States as in some localities. I think we should pin it down further. Again, I do not think that fact makes it urgent or necessary that we provide some sort of uniform standards of literacy to be applied. Again, it would not apply to all States, because not an of them have literacy tests. Twentyone States have literacy tests. Actually, there are adequate -emedies available in the courts for those who a.re deni-ed their constitutional privilege of suffrage.

What are some of the other requirements or qualifications that exist in various States?

Seven States require a loyalty oath. 'Those States are: Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, North Caro- lina, and Vermont. It is easy to see that those States are pretty well spread out geographically. It is a pretty good geographic cross section of the United States. Those various States require a loyalty oath. ·

Looking further for reasons for disqualifying persons from voting, 45 Sta-tes disqualify idiots, the insane, and persons under guardianship. Only five States have no such requirement.

For.ty-four States disqualify voters on the ground of commission of a felony or infamous crime. There is very wide and diverse variation as to what constitutes such a crime. Six States have no such qualifications.

Nine States disqualify paupers: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

I wonder if we should not raiSe the question as to whether it is right to deny the vote to paupers. I would say persons who are paupers are not, for the most part, paupers by choice. · I do not think anyone aspires to be impoverished. Paupers are very often persons who are paupers because of circumstances over which they have no control. I wonder 'if we should not consider a constitutional amendment that . would prohibit the States from denying paupers the right to vote in Federal elections.

I would point out that the poll tax is a mobile. qualification in only five States. Paupers are denied the vote in nine States. If it is desired to liberalize suffrage, why do we not look at the stringent qualifications that exist in the greatest number of States?

Here are some very interesting odds and ends of requirements. In some

· States vagrants and others cannot vote. Aliens ineligible for citizenship cannot -vote. Persons in prison cannot vote nor can persons convicted of election offenses --or persons who have been disfranchised for 10 years.

In Florida, anyone interested in an election wager cannot vote.

Now, I wonder if one should be denied the vote in the great and sovereign State of Florida just because he has made a bet on an election. That is a provision of - Florida.

Chinese and Mongolian descendants not born in the United States cannot vote in Idaho.

So there are a number of different types of requirements. Why do we have to pick the poll tax?

In one State dishonorably discharged .soldiers or those who have been convicted of bribery cannot vote.

An inmate of a charitable institution cannot vote in another state. , Anyone who is guilty of corrupt election practices is disfranchised for 3 years in another State.

In some States Indians are denied the · Tight to vote.

And so it goes. I cannot quite understand why we should single out the poll tax for action at this time. I cannot see - how the poll tax precludes anyone from voting.

As a matter of fact, conceivably, it assures that those persons who are interested in public affairs will vote.

In my State the poll tax is $1.75. Anybody can afford $1.75. That seems to be a pretty small price to pay just to establish one's legal residence in the State, . which is the qualification. It is not the payment of the money, but the establishment of the legal residence in the State that is the qualification, and it is established by payment of the poll tax. If anyone does not think that a vote is worth a dollar and six bits, he probably does not have any intention to vote; any­ _ way.

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

Mr. TOWER. I will yield for a question. ' Mr. RUSSELL. Does the Senator know that it costs more than that to procure a driver's license in -order tO drive an automobile in most of the States?

Mr:TOWER. I was not aware of that. I appreciate the receipt of that infor­ . mation from the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I think perhaps it should be made a little more costly to · get per­ - mission to drive an automobile. · I think a person who exercises his vot­ · ing privilege irresponsibly is perhaps as dangerous a citizen to have in our society as someone who gets out on the highway in an automobile without knowing how to properly operate that autoMadam President, I should like to get some reflections of editorial opinion on this matter into the RECORD. As I say, 1n Texas we are not rabid on this subject. The poll tax is pretty much of a nuisance, and eventually we shall do away with it, but there is a principle involved.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of March 19, 1962, I read the editorial entitled "Complications in Barring Poll Taxes":

The administration seems interested this year in passing only token civil rights legislation in Congress. It has made known that it will press for nothing more than action to eliminate the poll tax as a qualification for voting-a requirement that applies in only five States-plus the abandonment of all literacy tests for would-be voters.

Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, has called for a constitutional amendment to outlaw use of the poll tax in the election of Federal officials. This is a method that certainly is within the purview of the Constitution, and the method that should be followed if it is considered that there is urgent need for Federal action on the subject. There is considerably more doubt about the validity of the Attorney General's view that the same purpose could be accomplished by a simple act of Congress, though past decisions of the courts and the opinions of past attorneys general might have no bearing on what would be held now.

We hold no special brief for the poll tax, Iior do we view it as the thing of iniquity that some contend it is. Doing away with it would have more the appearance than the reality of eliminating a restriction on the right to vote. However, barring the poll tax requirement in voting for Federal officials would cause Texas either to follow suit in all its elections or to maintain a double system of voter qualification. The complications of the latter would make it almost intolerable.

Certainly if Federal action on the matter is to be taken, it · should be by submission to the States of a constitutional amendment. And the time required for that would give Texas-one of the remaining poll tax Statesa chance to decide for itself whether to remove this requirement for voting. If it is done, that is the way it should be done, and Texas may already be moving in that direction.

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

Mr. TOWER. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for a question only.

Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Senator knows, does he not, that the present administration has adopted the ' policy that in the United Nations a state should not vote unless it has paid its dues? In other words, in the United Nations the international policy of the United States is, "If you vote you must pay." Is there any difference between that and the principle of the poll tax?

Mr. TOWER. I cannot see a great question. deal of difference. The poll tax is something which is required of everyone. It is an evidence of residence. It is not a qualification for suffrage, because anybody can pay a poll tax, so it does not become a qualification for suffrage.

Perhaps the fact that the administration is a little bit lax with respect to the paying by some of the member nations of their obligations to the United Nations, and does not seem to be quite &s concerned about that as it should be, is an explanation of why the administration takes a singularly cavalier position toward the idea of a citizen of a State being required to pay a tax to show his legal residence and then to have the right to vote, having met his responsibilities of citizenship.

Mr. EASTLAND. The distinguished Senator knows, does he not, that a poll tax is not onerous and does not mean anything, yet dues to the United Nations could mean something to certain member nations?

Does the Senator know that the President of the United States has taken the position that those nations must pay up before they are entitled to vote; and that representatives of this Government-the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to the United Nations, and other officials of this Government-have taken that same position, that these nations must pay their assessments before they can vote? Is that not an endorsement of the principle of the poll tax?

Mr. TOWER. I appropriate the lucidity of the distinguished Senator's argument. I am moved by it. I concede it would certainly appear to be a position on the part of the administration in favor of having a person pay his obligations before he can exercise his privileges.

Mr. EASTLAND. It means, does it not, that we have an international policy which endorses a poll tax and a domestic policy which is diametrically opposed?

Mr. TOWER. Which, I suppose, demonstrates we should not have a double standard in this matter. We should have a uniform standard.

Mr. EASTLAND. But the administra- tion has a double standard, does it not?

Mr. TOWER. It appears to me that Mr. TOWER. the administration does have a double standard on this particular issue, because it is insisting that individuals not be required to fulfill their responsibilities. I think one of the most serious things which is wrong with the American people is that too many of us tend to think only in terms of our privileges and immunities as citizens and not enough of us think in terms of the responsibilities of citizenship.

Because a State wishes to make sure that an individual citizen is really interested in his vote and because there must be money available in some way to finance the electoral machinery of the State, are we to say that the State is discriminating against an individual?

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

Mr. TOWER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for a

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam President, does not the Senator think, over · and above all the very cogent arguments he has been making, that the great danger in or the great vice of a proposed amendment to the Constitution relating to a matter so small, which has been blown up all out of proportion to its real effect on the people of the States, lies in the fact that it is an effort to use the power of a majority to coerce a minority in respect to the Constitution on a matter of form and not of substance? Does not the Senator know that every one of the Original Thirteen States-up to the time there were 28 States in this Union-had a poll tax or else more rigorous qualifications for voting? Most of the States required the voters to be freeholders and to own land in their own right before they could vote. The Senator, I am sure, observes that we have reached the stage that we are asked tO move all power to the banks of the Potomac, to say, "The Federal system must not endure any longer. We must coerce every State that is not willing . to conform. This must be the day of the conformist."

Does not the Senator believe that what made ours the greatest Nation on earth and the American way of life the envy of the other peoples of the earth was the fact that we did not have a central power to make people conform to a single set of standards and one mold into which all could be poured? The trend toward socialism and centralization results in measures such as the one proposed. They are measures which are not of such vast importance in themselves, but represent blow after blow at our Federal system of a Union of States having their own rights, powers, and responsibilities. The thinking is that the bureaucrat on the banks of the Potomac has more knowledge, is wiser, and can give better advice as to how Georgia or the Senator's hometown in Texas should be operated than can the people who live in those States and communities. That is the great danger of legislation of the kind proposed which is forced into Congress by minority pressure groups in this country. I concur wholeheartedly in what the distinguished Senator from Georgia has said. I thank the distinguished Senator for bringing those points out, because they are points upon which we need to reflect, particularly as concerns the protection of a minority. Thomas Jefferson said that though the will of the majority in all cases is to prevail, that will, to be right, must be reasonable. That the minority have their rights cannot be denied.

Furthermore, what is one of the major functions and purposes of the Senate of the United States? What is one of the major functions of almost unlimited debate? It is to protect the minority against the precipitate and emotional tyranny of the majority. Why are we asked to single out five States that have a poll tax and submit a constitutional amendment to all the States, that would affect those five States? What will come next?

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

Mr. TOWER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that unlimited debate in the Senate is really a part of the checks-and-balances system of our Government?

Mr. TOWER. By all means. When Mr. Jefferson returned from France, after the Constitution had been adopted, he visited George Washington and said to him:

George, why did you establish a bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral legislature?

Mr . . Washington said:

Tom, why are you pouring coffee from your cup into the saucer?

Mr. Jefferson's reply was:

To cool it, sir.

Mr. Washington said:

That is why we established a bicameral legislature. We pour the legislation from one House into another to cool it.

I believe that the proposed action is ill advised. It is one that stems from an emotional approach to a problem as much as anything else. I am inclined to think that perhaps it was intended to be symbolic and not substantive. Nine States deny paupers the right to vote. Why not add to the proposed constitutional amendment . , or submit in another form, a provision that would prohibit States from denying to paupers the right to vote?

I cannot understand why we are merely asked to assault the poll tax. I wish that more Americans would become concerned, not so much about their rights, privileges, and immunities, but about their responsibilities. The distinguished Senator from . Georgia pointed out a while ago that the Government is becoming more and more powerful. More and more power is being concentrated in the hands of the Central Government.

It is not only a question of power being concentrated in the hands of the Central Government. The tendency is even to transfer such power from the Congress into the executive branch. As power begins to concentrate in Washington, the ever decreasing concentric circle will not stop at the city limits. It will continue to bore in. What will happen? We shall leave more and more to the arbitrary rule and discretion of a few individuals.

We may think that we could never have a totalitarian system in this country. But I point out that Mr. Hitler came to power in a free election. It could happen here.

Why has the present trend been allowed to develop? It is because the people have let it develop, because people have very often thought too much in terms of the question, "'What can the Government do for me?" and not ,so much in terms of, "What can I do for my country?" It is because people have arrived at the notion that they can accept the bounty of the Federal Government; that they can accept various wel­ agree? fare benefits; that they can be born in a Federal hospital and be subsidized through life, die, and be buried in a Federal box, and not give up anything. But the people must realize that they are giving up their individual liberty and freedom of choice.

A while ago we noted. that there is no democracy like the democracy of the marketplace. The consumer determines what goods and services will be produced in this country. If the consumer is going to insist on certain federally sponsored benefits, he will have to pay for them. The money must come out -of his pocket. · ·

The more the Government takes from the consumer, the less he has to spend for himself, and the less freedom of choice he has. It is my hope that . t the citizenry of the great Republic will · come to realize that we do not get something for nothing. We must pay for it; and it not _ only costs money, but it costs the right and privilege of making one's decisions.

I still believe that people can and will accomplish for themselves on the local level what is necessary, so long as Uncle Sam does not reduce them to a state of abject dependency upon and subordination to the Central Government.

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

Mr. TOWER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for a question.

Mr. RUSSELL. Does not the Senator from Texas place in that category efforts like the one proposed, which would place the States in a Federal straitjacket and require them to adopt exactly the same policy? The Senate is the last forum of local self-government. If the Senate is to be bemused by such issues as the one before us-as I have said, only five States are involved-and strike blows at local self-government, does not the Senator agree that by eliminating laws in the various States that are different from those of the majority of the States, we could soon have so uniform a system that city law would emanate from Washington, including even parking laws in every community in the land? That is what makes the sort of legislation proposed so vicious . . Does not the Senator agree with me?

It so happened that my State was the first State to adopt an 18-year-old voting age. During the war we provided that those citizens who reached the age of 18 might vote. It has worked out very well in my State. However, when a constitutional amendment was proposed to require the same thing of all other States, I opposed it on the floor as vigorously as I knew how, and I will do so again, because I believe this cult of conformity, to make all conform to the views of the busy beavers who do not have anything else to do but to try toreform everyone else and who sit down and devise theories and philosophies of government, is a greater danger than the dread missiles the Soviets are supposed to possess. Does not the Senator

Mr. TOWER. Yes; I do agree with the distinguished and. able Senator from Georgia, that if we pursue this course to its logical conclusion we will be establishing uniform laws for every State, and we will have destroyed the Federal system and established a unitary system in this country. The Federal system, as it operates in the United States, is the envy <>f all the world.

I am sure that the distinguished Senator from Georgia is aware of the fact that our Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force and effect in this world, and yet we · are one of the younger nations; but ours i · s the second Oldest Government in the world, secona .only to that of Great Britain, currently 'in force and effect.

Why is this so? · what has given our system its durability? Its durability comes from the fact that our system is not rigid and inflexible. It is resilient to change. It is responsive to people wherever they are, and whatever their station in life is, because the Government is close to the people.

If we ever destroy the federal system, if the Government ever moves farther a way from the people and is concentrated in the city of Washington, then this great system which has been so durable because of its resilience and · flexibility will become rigid and will crack from within; and I do not believe it could survive under those circumstances.

It was plainly the intent of the framers of the Constitution to preserve the federal character of this Republic. They created the Senate of the United States, to give every State as a corporate entity equal representation regardless of its size. They insisted that certain powers be retained to the States, and they only surrendered certain of the concomitants -of national sovereignty to be exercised by the Central Government. It must always be thus.

I know we can add any amendment we please to the Constitution. However, is there any point to adding an amendment which tends to be destructive of the federal character of this system? I believe we should maintain the federal system as a model for others to follow. Let us look at the Congo. In the Congo the people are tribally oriented; they are not nationally oriented. Some sort of federal arrangement will have to be set up if they are to create a national government. Is it not wonderful that we have this great working model of federalism here in the United States for others to emulate and to copy? If our system could be successfully copied, it might mean stability in many areas where there is now chaos with an established and strong unitary government rigid by nature and unresponsive to the needs of the people.

Madam President, 1 should like to have printed in the RECORD an editorial published in the Dallas Morning News of March 15, entitled .. Poll Tax 600 Years Old." I believe the editorial accuratelY reflects the opinion on the poll tax and what it does in the way of providing for financing in my State. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial may be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

POLL TAX 600 YEARS OLD

Poll taxes are under 1lre again, as they have been for most of their 600-year history. This time, there's a double-barreled attacka proposal in Congress to submit a constitutional amendment to ban the tax, and a referendum to be held in the Texas primaries on poll-tax abolition.

England initiated :,1011 taxes 1n 1377. The objective was to tax everyone, and the name comes :from the old English word "poll," meaning head. Since this is a per capita tax, it also has been called a capitation levy. Bloody rebellion, led by Wat Tyler, was the peasants' answer to the English poll tax in 1381. But the English continued to use this method to raise revenue, often for wars against the French.

Although designed to tax everyone, Eng­ Beall lish poll taxes usually were graduated according to presumed ability to pay, as our income taxes are. For example, in 1379, the English rate ranged from 1 groat poll tax per peasant upward to 10 marks for John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.

Introduced in · the English colonies here in capehart the 17th century, the poll tax was unpopular in North America. It was one of the primary causes of the 1775 Meckenburg Declaration of Independence, predecessor of the July 4 ; . 1776, action at Philadelphhi.. ,

Very few American States levied a poll tax · Cooper for the period from the Revolution until the War Between -the States.

Texas was among the former Confederate States that levied a poll tax after the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution enfranchised Negroes. Texas ratified a poll tax amendment to its own constitution in 1896 and adopted the present poll-tax amendment in 1902. This was amended again in 1921 and in 1954, but without changing the basic provisions. . In the North and East, the impression 1s widespread that a poll-tax requirement to vote was adopted to keep Negroes away from the polls. In 1902, when the present law became a requirement in Texas, the reason was not racial; it was to prevent mass "buying" of votes by political machines.

Only five States (Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia) . now have . poll taxes. Texas voters on November 8, 1949, rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax. The vote was close, 160,012 to 127,200, and many Observers at the time thought that this amendment was defeated because so many voters opposed an amendment to raise legislative salaries and require annual legislative sessions. · Eight out of ten proposed amendments lost in this election.

· Public schools get most of the poll tax revenue in Texas. The law provide~ for $1.50 tax per person, with counties given an option of levying 25 cents more, so that the total is $1.75 in most counties. Schools get $1, the State's general fund 50 cents, and counties 25 cents for general expenses. . Texas, in the fiscal year ended August 31, 1961, received $2,156,310.56 revenue from poll taxes. This was 0.0018 cent out of each $1 of State revenue.

. About 2 million Texans, or approximately 1 out of 5, usually pay their poll taxes, the figure varying greatly from general election to off years. In 1960, the total was 2,239,189, but . only 1,525,790 in 1959.

Dallas County has 248,749 persons who paid their poll tax or received exemptions qualifying them to vote in 1962. This is 21,554 fewer than the record high reached in the presidential election year of 1960.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER . . The clerk will call the rein.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Madam Presi­ , dent, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STENNIS. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk · will continue the call of the roll. ·

· The Chief Clerk resumed and · concluded the call of the roll, · and the following Senators answered to their names:

[No. 28 Leg.)

Aiken Fulbright Miller Allott Goldwater Monroney Anderson Gore Morse Bartlett Gruening Morton

Hart Moss

Bennett Hartke Mundt Burdick Hayden Murphy · Bush Hickenlooper Muskie · Butler Hickey Neuberger Byrd, Va. Hill Pastore Byrd, w. Va . Holland Pearson Cannon Hruska Pell

Humphrey Proxmire

Carlson Jackson Robertson Carroll Javits Russell Case, N.J. Johnston ' Saltonstall Chavez Keating Scott Church Kefauver Smathers · clark · · Kerr ' rr Smith, Mass. ·

· Kuchel Smith, Maine

· Cotton . Lausche Sparkman Curtis Long, Mo . Stennis · Dirksen Long, Hawaii Symington Dodd Long, La. Talmadge Douglas Magnuson Thurmond Dworshak Mansfield Tower Eastland McCarthy Wiley Ellender McClellan Williams, N.J. Engle McGee Yarborough Ervin McNamara . Young, N.Dak. Fong Metcalf Young, Ohio

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

What is the pleasure of the Senate?