March 23, 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. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I submit a parliamentary inquiry.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arkansas will state it.

Mr. McCLELLAN. What is the pending business or pending motion?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 29, providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do not know whether the following is a proper parliamentary inquiry, but I should like to submit it, in seeking a little guidance for my remarks: Am I correct in understanding that the program-or, at least, in my understanding of what is proposed-is to offer Senate Joint Resolution 58 as a substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 29? Am I correct in that understanding, or is that a proper parliamentary inquiry?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that some statement of that type was made on the floor. However, that is not a parliamentary inquiry, inasmuch as the question before the Senate is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr . MANSFIELD] that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 29, providing for the establi s hing of the former dwelling hou s e of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument. However, the Chair thinks the RECORD discloses that the Senator from Montana has made some such announcement as to his intenti-on.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I had heard a rumor to that effect, Mr. President, and I did not know whether it was official or whether it was still in the rumor stage. Mr. President, I have a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 29 before me. If it could be stripped of these rumors and I would not say threats, but those things which are generally assumed are to be used as draperies around, over, above, under, or substituted for Senate Joint Resolution 29, I think it would hardly be worth debating.

I do not know whether our fiscal situation would warrant the expenditure that Senate Joint Resolution 29 would incur, but I think that would be the only issue or question that would be worthy of consideration insofar as Senate Joint Resolution 29 is concerned.

Certainly, nobody would object to the restoration of the former dwelling house of Alexander :;:Iamilton. There may have be e n some persons, some years ago, and there may be a few today, who disagree with his philosophy of govern-­ ment; but I am sure they would not carry it to the point of objecting to the restoration of the house he lived in.

So , Mr. President , that is not the real issue, but it is the rumors that have disturbed us. If someone would just clear them up and satisfy us that they are not true, that there is no justification for them, that no violence would be done to the fundamentals of our Government, to the basic rights of individuals and of the sovereign States, by reason of Senate Joint Resolution 29 being proposed to be taken up and considered-if someone would just remove those distressing rumors and allay our fears of such measures or attempts to abuse and disuse . what is ordinarily proper legislative procedure in order to accomplish something that is very obnoxious to many good citizens of this country and to some sovereign States of this Nation, why, then we could very well proceed with the orderly business of the Senate. We could . move to important matters that await legislative consideration. We could consider and deliberate upon issues which are vital to the economic stability of our country, to our economic strength and welfare, and, even more vital, to imperative issues and problems that are international in scope, that involve issues and dangers which might threaten the very existence of our Nation and, going further, even imperil the freedom of mankind throughout the world.

Tragically, however, sometimes the frivolous prevails over the serious and the important, and I am most apprehensive and concerned at the moment that that is what has happened here in this great, august body, the Senate of the United States. But these things happen, and when they do we have no alternative but to take our position and to support it, maintain it, defend it, and promote it. Mr. President, I put the emphasis in my remarks today on promoting. I do not want to appear to be in the attitude of defending. I do not have to defend that in which I believe. I support, advocate, and promote that in which I believe. In this instance I do not think it is any of . the business of the Senate of the United States or of the Federal Government to try to force sovereign States to do things which some think they should do, but which come, in my opinion, in the category of not being particularly any of their business.

So, once again, the Senate is faced with and has under debate a proposal that, in my opinion, is far beneath its dignity and away beyond the appropriate scope of important matters with which this great deliberative body should be concerned.

Yes, Mr. President, when I say it is beneath the dignity of the Senate, I really think that is true, in view of the important issues the Senate should be conSidering, in view of the fact that, assuming everything said about the poll tax as being obnoxious, unreasonable, improper, or any other adjective or adverb one could apply to it were true, again it is rather trivial for the Senate of the United States to take as much time as has been occupied here, and evidently will be occupied before the Senate can resolve anything about it.

We have before us that perennially favorite subject of so · many Members of the Senate, so-called civil rights legislation. This is a phase of it. It is in that category.

I think when I first came to the Congress, in 1935, there were so-called antipoll-tax bills pending or were introduced in that session of the Congress. At that time there were more States that had the poll tax requirement, as a part of the eligibility for the right of suffrage, than today.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves that subject, will he yield to me for a brief question?

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I should like to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. McCLELLAN. So long as I yield solely for the purpose of a question, does the Chair protect me in so yielding under those conditions? Have I a right to expect the Presiding Officer to protect my right to the floor when I yield under a legitimate condition as prescribed by the rules of the Senate?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the rules the Senator can yield only for a question, and if the Senator to whom he has yielded is not asking a question I assume the Senator would wish to direct the Senator's attention to that fact. If the Chair is called upon to rule as to whether or not it is a question, he would be glad to do so.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not wish to · Mr. McCLELLAN. incur the risk of having the Presiding Officer rule against me. Therefore, I should like to be protected. The Presiding Officer may be able to do it. I am not sure I can always ascertain whether a question is being asked. I do not know at what point in the conversation I could determine whether what my colleague was saying would wind up be- . ing a question or whether it would wind up being a speech. I do not know how to protect myself. Can the Presiding Officer protect me?

The VICE PRESIDENT. After conferring with the Parliamentarian, the Chair is informed it is up to the Senator to do the best he can to protect himself. Mr. McCLELLAN. Well, I yield for a question. I do not mind if the question is a long question, but I want it to be a question every step of the way. I yield for the purpose of the Senator asking me a question only.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arkansas yields to the Senator from Mississippi for a question only.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. I fully understand that he yields for a question only.

I ask the Senator from Arkansas if this is his position--

Mr. McCLELLAN. If it is my position?

Mr. STENNIS. If it is the position of the Senator from Arkansas now, with reference to his opening remarks.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Very well.

Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator from Arkansas consider this to be a serious matter from the viewpoint of · the Senate? Does the Senator consider . the matter of trying to attach a proposed constitutional amendment on any sub- · ject to a small bill to create a memorial to a patriot, that being the type of pro- · posed legislation which does not have ' to go to the President of the United States, a serious matter? Does not the Senator think that is a most serious matter from the standpoint of the Sen- 1 ate in regard to its integrity and its own operations?

Mr. McCLELLAN. I would say it is a serious breach of the integrity of proper procedure, and I do not think it adds anything to the dignity of this body to make an approach in that manner.

Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator think it detracts from the integrity and dignity of or diminishes the integrity or dignity of this body as a legislative organization?

Mr. McCLELLAN. I would answer the Senator by saying I do not know which is the stronger word, "detracts" or "diminishes." Whichever is the stronger would be my answer.

Mr. STENNIS. Is it not further true that so far as can be observed there is no emergency, no real cause, no pressing question which is causing this to be done? Is it not more or less a casual thing to bring this subject up, to stop progress with other measures or the calendar of the Senate and the other business of the Senate? Does the Senator see any emergency or any cause for resorting to such procedure?

No; I see no emergency. I see no cause for doing this. I find no justification for doing it.

I find every objection to it being done. I can understand and I applaud the resentment, the sense of impropriety felt by many of my colleagues, who have already preceded me in this discussion and who have so expressed themselves. It is not in keeping with the best tradition. In my opinion, it violates the spirit of propriety in legislative procedure.

I remind my colleague that a few days ago, not very long ago-I shall not try to count the days, but 2 or 3 weeks ago or a month ago-another procedure was attempted. The Senator recalls that. In my judgment, that would have tainted the dignity of the Senate, its conscience and its sense of fair play, as well as its propriety of procedure. The Senate rejected that.

Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator refer--

Mr. McCLELLAN. I refer to the attempted discharge of the committee which was faithfully undertaking to discharge its duties and its responsibilities under the rules of the U.S. Senate. The committee, without any dilatory tactics, without any delay, in good faith and good conscience, was trying to be of aid, trying as an arm of the Senate to be of service, to help the Senate perform its function, to strengthen this body in its intellectual system and in the information it needed and the enlightenment it needed to help it resolve the issue involved, with judgment.

But here, according to the rumorsaccording to the rumors; I cannot get anything official on it-it is proposed to offer as a substitute a resolution now pending before a committee of the U.S. Senate.

It is a resolution the committee has not acted on. It is a resolution which does not seek to remedy any emergency. If there were an emergency, as my colleague points out; if someone were suffering; if there were distress; if there were an issue of corruption or an issue of a clear denying of constitutional rights, of citizenship rights, of the rights of an individual to his liberty-if such principles were involved one might find under some circumstances justification for a procedure such as is here proposed and was attempted recently, but only under such circumstances.

If we are to maintain the integrity of this body-if this is to be a Chamber of integrity, of dignity, of high purpose, of high resolve, of patriotic spirit, serving this country and fulfilling its mission in this great Republic-we had better stop resorting to these little maneuvers . which would bypass and circumvent that which is right and proper. We do violence to this body when we do that.

The country will survive, but it might not long survive if there were not those who would stand on this floor even at the expense, sometimes, of discomfort, and even at the cost of physical exertion and pain, to uphold and to defend that which is essential and vital to the preservation of this, the greatest country in the world.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator for yielding to me and for his remarks.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank my distinguished friend. I probably would not have said what I have said had the Senator not prompted me by the questions he asked.

I feel about the situation, as I have stated, Mr. President. I do not know when, but some day I think I may pause and reflect upon those days when I had the honor of representing one of the great sovereign States of our Nation, the honor of representing her people in this august body. I shall reflect with some satisfaction that, notwithstanding the pressures of expediency, political and otherwise, somehow from some source I drew the strength and the courage to stand here and oppose such tactics and some of the proposals that would be enacted into law if it were not for the resolute purpose of some of us who are trying to keep America as the America we love and honor. I do not know how to stress the point any more forcefully. Yes, Mr. President, this year the emphasis and attention is centered on the poll tax. The time and study of 100 busy Senators has already been occupied for an extended period of more than a week. I think we are now in our eighth day of debate. This time-consuming subject will continue to occupy for several more days, I assume, the attention of the Members of this body.

I repeat that what is proposed to be done is a very picayune and petty matter. It is a question of comparative importance which, assuming that it has any merit at all, ranks at the very lowest rung of the legislative ladder. There is hardly a bill of any merit at all on the Senate Calendar or pending before a committee of this body that is not more important than what we are now considering.

I suggest to Senators who may be responsible for the rumor we have heard about the procedure that will be attempted here that they do not follow it. Let us proceed to restore the old home of Alexander Hamilton, even if we must go a little more in debt to do so. That would not be as big an offense against the security and welfare of our country as what is proposed to be done with the poll tax measure.

What I have said is true despite the fact that today only 10 Senators have the honor-and it is an honor-to represent States whose laws provide for a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. Before I conclude my remarks, I shall have more to say on that subject.

I have some ideas about qualities of citizenship that place upon citizens some responsibilities as well as grants of privileges and benefits. I think it would be of interest for us to meditate upon the corresponding obligations of citizenship as we deliberate upon the proposed legi s lation. Only 10 Senators, 2 from each of the 5 States, should ever be confronted with the responsibility of making up their minds as to how they stand on the question of the poll tax. What good on earth would it do for a Senator from New York, Pennsylvania, California, or Kalamazoo to impose his will and judgment about a poll tax situation in Arkansas, Texas, Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi?

I think he would receive only a kind of vain satisfaction after it was done. We are the ones to be concerned about the question. We are the people who live in those States. We represent those people. Our States have had a poll tax requirement for a great many years, some of them since they entered the Un­ also? ion, I believe. Why should a Senator from another State far away that has a different system impose his will?

We are told that in some States one cannot obtain a license to drive a car unless he pays the poll tax. Who am I, a Senator from a Southern State, to say that such a law would mistreat the citizens in the State having such a law? I could argue, "The citizen of that State ought to have a right to drive a car because he must go to work. You deprive him of the right to work and the right to earn a living."

The man will not work because he refuses to pay a $1 or $2 poll tax. Is not that situation silly? And I would feel silly. I think I would blush with shame if I were to stand on the floor of the Senate and argue that it is my business, as a Senator from Arkansas, to tell a Senator from that State that his State is wrong and that the Senate ought to repeal his old poll tax so that citizens of his State could obtain a license to drive their cars to work. I am not going to do it.

We have heard the argument, "Well, you are denying the right of suffrage." We are not doing any such thing, and I . shall prove it. At least we are not in my State. We are not denying anyone. Only three out of four people who pay the poll tax vote in Arkansas anyhow. .A. number of people pay the tax for other patriotic reasons. It is not compulsory But if one wants to establish that he is a good citizen, interested in government, , and he ought to have a right to vote and would like to prove that he deserves the privilege of voting and having - a voice in the government, in Arkansas the cost is $1. How does he demonstrate his in- · terest? He contributes $1 to support the public schools in the county in which he lives and where the $1 poll tax 1 is paid. That is a token requirement of good citizenship that would entitle one to vote. Is it not a shameful and terrible thing, when we think about it, that what I have stated is what we are fighting about in the Senate?

We are told, "We are going to make you do it this way or that way." I shall have more to say on that subject before I conclude.

Realizing that I might need to speak at some length, I thought I had better try to prepare some material for my remarks, but I concluded that one hardly needs any if he stops and thinks about what is involved in this issue. One hardly needs any. Will we have better government in America if we say everyone can vote, if we say we do not care whether a person is against everything and against every liberty, and we do not care whether he helps to educate the children, and can do anything he wants to do, and pay no tax at all, but that nevertheless he may walk up to the ballot box and cancel out the votes of the fathers and mothers of this country who are toiling and who are under a heavy tax burden by paying their dollar to help make sure that not only their child goes to school and gets an education, but also that the child of the other man, who pays nothing, may have an opportunity to have his child educated Condemn us? I say, Mr. President, “Condemn us if you will. Place this imposition on us if you will. Single us out. Condemn the good citizens of this country, if that is your purpose. Make that record, if you will. I will stand on this side of the issue."

Mr. President, we will have better government when we have more intelligentcitizenship. How do we get it? By causing a citizen to realize that he is not only the beneficiary of the greatest blessings ever dispensed by mankind by any organized government in society, but also by instilling into him a sense of duty and obligation to help support, protect, and defend that government.

Yes, Mr. President, I will take the citizen on my side who says, "I am not of:o fended in my State by its constitution and by its laws which provide that, as a token of good citizenship, I must place a dollar in the fund to educate little children." We ask him to do that and then to come and vote with us.

Who condemns it? Well, let him who condemns it stand up and tell the reason .. When weighed in the light of intellectual judgment, it will not stand the test. Deny the right to vote? No citizen is . denied the right to vote. There are · some ' people who pay the tax and vote but pos- . sibly do not always measure up to the finest qualities of citizenship. At least . they have made a token declaration of good citizenship by taking $1 out of their pocket, in my State, and saying, "I will help support the schools in · the county for the white, the black, and the yellow children-all-to give them · an equal chance for an education."

Yet some of our colleagues and some organizations condemn that attitude. The very ones who condemn it in most instances would have the Federal Government provide school aid and charge it to the national debt. As between the two the one who wants to pay the poll tax 'so he will have the right to vote, and the man who would rather have the Federal Government pay it and add it to the national debt, as a test of citizenship, I will take the one who is willing to pay the dollar in poll tax to help support the schools.

Mr. President, I do not believe I need any notes to talk on this subject. All , one needs to do is open the window and let the light of reason and judgment come in, and then talk about it.

Regretfully, it is not unusual that the Senate should concern itself with such a matter as this. At least once a session in the past 20 years, in 10 Congressesthat may not be accurate, but at least that many times-have we been confronted on the floor of the Senate with some issue comparable to this one coming within the category of civil rights.

There is an honest difference of opinion, just as there are honest differences of opinion with respect to religion and with respect to any earthly matters, and since we have sovereign States, or since sovereign States are what composed the Republic at the time it was established-! admit that the sovereignty has been impaired-there are some of us who are still old fashioned enough to believe in the wisdom of that sovereignty, and who undertake to preserve it. ·

I would suspect, without having specifically confirmed it, that following the War Between the States, the Congress has spent more hours debating issues that come within the so-called civil rights category, of which the proposal we are discussing is just one phase, than it has in debating any other subject, and I believe one can say it has spent more time on that than in debating any other two or three issues.

As we all know, and as I said a moment · ago, there are five States, and only five which now require the payment of a poll tax, or the showing of the payment of a poll tax, before an individual may vote. I do not remember how many, but there , are quite a number of States which require that a poll tax be paid for various purposes. I do not know whether I · named the State to which I alluded a moment ago. I believe there are two States which require the payment of a poll tax before a person can obtain a license to drive an automobile or before he can have his car licensed.

Other States have a poll tax for different purposes. The States which re- • quire a poll tax for voting are Mississippi, 4 Alabama, Texas, Virginia, and Arkansas-my State. The laws in those States vary. Indeed, they may be for different · purposes or in addition to the requirement for voting. In my State, one of the purposes of a poll tax, but not the only purpose, is to establish a voting list. In Arkansas the poll tax list actually · takes the place of a registration list. Suppose a law were passed requiring __.... everyone to register and to pay $1 for · registration, and that dollar went to the cost of holding elections in the State. __.. Would that be an offensive way to help ..,., to pay the cost of voting in elections? Perhaps that is how the money should be applied. But in Arkansas the people think it well to apply the revenue to the school fund, to help to educate their children. They feel that the property taxes of the State should pay the cost of holding elections. After all, property owners have an interest in good government. In Arkansas, the people thought that since the poll tax was a direct tax, it should go into the school fund, from which everyone benefits.

In Arkansas, there must be a showing that the poll tax has been paid before a person can vote. Arkansas requires no registration, as such, for voting; therefore, the poll tax list takes the place of a registration list. So the only record used to determine the eligibility of a voter is by reference to whether or not he has paid his $1 poll tax, a tax which goes into the public school fund of the county in which he lives.

It might be well to have a little review or history of the poll tax as such, since the States which still have it and use it as a test of eligibility for voting are regarded in some quarters as discriminating against their citizens, as imposing harsh conditions on the people before permitting them to vote. But is the payment of $1 for the benefit of a public school fund a harsh condition to comply with?

I think it would be well at this point to reflect upon the history of the poll tax. From the little research I have made, I find that the poll tax is considered actually to be a head tax; and unless graduated according to wealth, it is equally assessed on all persons subject to the As a means of gaining revenue, it has been used in many nations and at many periods of history. It has even been designated as a capitation tax. That would be true in my State, where it is also used for revenue purposes. More than 576,000 persons in Arkansas paid poll taxes at the last taxpaying time. That resulted in revenue of $576,000, in round numbers. That represents approximately one citizen out of three of the total population.

So the poll tax in Arkansas provides effective revenue, revenue that can hardly be dispensed with without considerable inconvenience and detriment to the public school system. It is used not only as a registration for voting, as would be a voting list or a voting right; it is used also for revenue purposes, to secure funds for a most worthwhile purpose; namely, the education of children. In 36 States of the Union, the poll tax is even assessable for highway or school revenues. That figure is based on 1952 statistics. The figure may have changed slightly since then.

The poll tax as such has an interesting history. It is not something new. It is not something which is just now beginning to be imposed. It has been a tax for many years. Most States have had the poll tax in some form. But as a suffrage qualification it remains now in only a handful of States-Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.

Many textbook writers tell the story of the poll tax for suffrage purposes in terms of late 19th century origin. But Dr. A. E. McKinley has shown that by an act of 1715 the poll tax was practically the only form of tax in North Carolina, where every adult male who had paid the tax was eligible to vote. So in this country the history of the poll tax can be traced back that far-as far back as 1715.

The poll tax was in Tennessee's constitution of 1870. An amendment to the Virginia constitution was adopted · in 1876 to require that the capitation or poll tax should be paid before election day. Interestingly enough, the Virginia constitutional convention inserted the poll tax requirement on a cumulative 3- year basis in the constitution of 1902.

This tax was authorized in the Florida constitution of 1885 and was followed by legislative enactment in 1889.

Other States to follow were Mississippi in 1890, Arkansas in 1893-it dates back in my State to the last century-South Carolina in 1895, Louisiana in 1898, North Carolina in 1900, Alabama in 1901, Texas in 1902, and Georgia in 1908.

From 1920 to 1950, five States repealed the poll tax as a requisite for voting purposes. Mr. President, I criticize none of them in conducting their affairs with respect to their revenue programs or with respect to their voting eligibility requirements. They acted according to their judgment, their wisdom. They decided that their State governments in the administration of public affairs should handle the matter in some other way. Nobody criticized them for that. I would not want to try to make them do something different. They were the judges, and they acted according to their judgment, which is all anyone asks.

It may be that had there not been agitation from others, who really had no business meddling in these affairs, the people of the States which still have the poll tax might have found ways to accomplish their purposes and to have changed their constitutions of their own volition, as many other States have done. But this attitude of "We are going to make you do it," builds up resentment that does not lead to a wholesome situation. If we are wrong, educate us and show us that our judgment is in error, and then we will change. But do not say, "We are going to make you old ignoramuses do it; we know what is best for you and we are going to force it on you." Mr. President, that is not the way to proceed in connection with this matter, particularly in view of its history. I remember-and I know that you, Mr. President, also recall-that in our country it was once decided that everyone would have to stop indulging in a little use of alcoholic beverages-that they would be made to stop it. Well, Mr. President, there were many who perhaps did not indulge in the use of alcoholic beverages, or, at least, certainly did not indulge in excess; and many good people throughout the country resented that new law, and it did not work.

I am not predicting any such dire consequences from whatever action may be taken in this case-not at all; but I do point out that it is not American to let someone make you do something. We cherish our liberty; we believe in individual liberty; and many of us-at least, in the Southern States-still believe in the sovereignty of the States, and think there is a proper line of demarcation between the power of the Federal Government and the rights reserved to the States.

Mr. President, I was referring to the States which have repealed the poll tax. I said that from 1920 to 1950, certain States repealed the poll tax for voting purposes. Those States were North Carolina, in 1920; Louisiana, in 1934; Florida, in 1937; Georgia, in 1945; and South Carolina, in 1950. In 1949, Tennessee repealed the poll tax requirement for the statewide primary, and also added women and World War veterans to the list of those exempted from this tax for participation in the general elections. While the State supreme court had ruled in the case of Biggs v. Beeler, 173 S.W. 2d 144 (1943), the 1943 · repeal enactment unconstitutional, the process in Tennessee has been to eliminate the tax by degrees. An amendment to the Arkansas constitution provided for . showing the poll tax receipt when voting. This feature was generally included in the poll tax legislation throughout the South. The amount of the tax varies from $1 in Arkansas to $2 in Mississippi, with sometimes a cumulative requirement for a period of years.

However, Mr. President, the poll tax is not cumulative in Arkansas. Actually, in Arkansas one can pay the poll tax once each 4 years, if he pays it at the right time, and then can vote in the presidential elections; or he can pay it once each 2 years, if he pays the $1 at the right time-and then can vote for his representatives in the National Congress and for all his State officials and all his county officials. So even if one were to consider the poll tax a kind of penalty · imposed on voting, in Arkansas it is necessary to pay the poll tax only once each 2 years in order to be able to vote for all State officials, and to pay it only once each 4 years in order to vote for President of the United States, and to pay it only once every 6 years in order to vote for a Senator of the United States. .

In Virginia, the annual $1.50 poll tax must have been paid for 3 years preceding the election; and a similar sum in Alabama is assessable for the whole period of the voter's life after the age of 21. The tax must have been paid-6 months, in Virginia-before the election. But there is the deadline date of February 1 in Mississippi and Texas, and of October 1 in Arkansas and Alabama. During and for a few years after World War II, the poll tax States generally exempted persons in the armed services from payment of the poll tax. Such an . exemption also applied in Texas and Virginia to veterans, during the first year after their separation from military service.

So, Mr. President, the history of the poll tax supports the dignity and the virtue of it, and even the necessity of it as a revenue measure; and certainly it clearly sustains the dignity of using it as a registration means for eligible voters.

Of course, I speak primarily for my State; and in deference to the issue pending here, I should like to clarify the record in regard to the law in Arkansas and how it operates. Amendment No. 8 of the Arkansas constitution was submitted by the legislature in 1919, and was voted on at the general election in 1920. The proposed constitutional amendment received a majority of · the votes cast on the question of the adoption of that amendment, but did notreceive a majority of the total number of votes cast in the general election. Therefore, the speaker of the house declared the amendment defeated. That decision was reversed by an opinion of the Arkansas attorney general in 1926, at which time the amendment was declared to be in force."

Mr. President, in that case the issue which had to be resolved was whether that amendment submitted to the Arkansas constitution had received a majority of all the votes cast in the general election or only a majority of the votes cast on the question of the adoption of that amendment: There was controversy over that issue, and it was finally resolved in 1926. So since 1926, amendment No. 8 of the constitution of Arkansas has been in full force and effect.

So, Mr. President, in order that those who may read this RECORD will know that it is not the policy or the law of Arkansas, nor does the constitution of Arkansas require, that there be an imposition upon its citizens or a discrimination with respect to its citizens in any way regarding their eligibility to vote in elections in our State, I think it well that I now submit for · the RECORD amendment No.8 of the constitution of Arkansas, together with statutes that have been enacted which pertain to the question of the poll tax as a requirement to the right to vote:

AMENDMENT No. 8. QUALIFICATIONS OF ELEC• TORs--EQUAL SUFFRAGE--POLL TAX

SECTION 1. Every citizen of the United States of the age of 21 years, who has resided in the State 12 months, in the county 6 months, and in the precinct, town, or ward 1 month, next preceding any election at which they may propose to vote, except such persons as may for the commission of some felony be deprived of the right to vote by law passed by the general assembly, and who shall exhibit a poll tax receipt or other evidence that they have paid their poll tax at the time of collecting taxes next preceding such election, shall be allowed to vote at any election in the State of Arkansas.

It is interesting to note that the people of Arkansas in their wisdom, in adopting a constitutional amendment, set out fully the requirement of eligibility with respect to citizenship and eligibility that entitled people to vote in elections in our State, and also included in that requirement the payment of a poll tax.

I read further from the amendment this proviso:

Provided, That persons who make satisfactory proof that they have attained the age of 21 years since the time of assessing taxes next preceding said election and possess the other necessary qualifications, shall be permitted to vote-

Those who become of age after the taxpaying time and before election may vote.

It provides further: And, provided further, That the said tax receipt shall be so marked by dated stamp or written endorsement by the. judges of election to whom it may be first presented as to prevent the holder thereof from voting more than once at any election.

Our people undertook to write into the constitution proper and effective safeguards to insure the integrity of the ballot and the integrity of the voter who was to participate in our elections.

I quote further:

It is declared to be the purpose of this amendment to deny the right o~uffrage to aliens a.nd it is declared to be e purpose of this amendment to confer su rageListen, Mr. Presidentto confer suffrage equally upon both men and women, without regard to sex: Provided, That women shall not be compelled to serve on juries.

I often think about this provision in connection with insisting on a constitutional amendment to provide equal rights for women. I do not think it is wrong. I think it is a proper mark of respect and esteem for womanhood that, insofar as we can, as we sometimes can, we undertake to lighten their burdens. However, I do not see how we could very well draw a constitutional amendment declaring equal rights for women without saying they shall bear equal responsibilities.

I have often wondered what a constitutional amendment would do to provisions like this. This is just one provision of many in my State which were designed to protect women and to lighten their burdens, and possibly not to exact from them as much contribution to government as we expect of the socalled stronger sex.

We followed up that constitutional amendment in Arkansas by appropriate legislation to implement it; and, among other acts, in 1949 we passed in Arkansas an act of the legislature carrying into law the procedures and the rights of citizens under that constitutional amendment.

Among other provisions of law enacted was section 3-104.1: "Payment of poll tax to county collector-certain relatives authorized to pay.”

Again we were trying to insure the integrity of the ballot. With respect to poll taxes, we had found that . theretofore there had been abuses and misuses, and in some few instances some corruption had resulted because of those abuses. So we included also a provision to remedy them. This statute provides for payment of poll tax to the county collector, and that certain relatives are authorized to pay. I read the provision:

SEC. 3-104.1. Payment of poll tax to county collector-Certain relatives authorized to pay: Payment of the poll tax must be made to the county collector, or his authorized deputy, by the person named in the receipt, or by the husband, wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, father, or mother of such person. Payment of the poll tax may be made by remitting the payment to the county collector by U.S. mail.

One of the purposes of that provision was to prevent somebody from taking a list of names to the collector and saying, "Issue poll tax receipts for all these." Some of them might be names of actual human beings, but the list might be a false list of names without relation to living persons. Therefore, we undertook to stop the possibility of that oc- . currence by requiring the person to pay the poll tax himself or by mailing the dollar fee, or by using a very close relative to make the payment.

The next section of that act is 3-104.2, "Payment of poll tax as prerequisite to voting.” I read that section:

SEc. 3-104.2. Payment of poll tax as prerequisite to voting: It shall be unlawful for any person to cast a ballot in any election unless such person shall have previously paid a poll tax as herein provided.

In 1947 Arkansas passed a law providing in part, "assessment for poll tax unnecessary as qualification to vote."

Prior to that time, Mr. President, it was necessary to assess for a poll tax exactly like one would assess for other property. In order to make it easier for people to pay poll taxes Arkansas passed the statute which removed the necessity for assessment. This provides:

Assessment for poll tax unnecessary as qualification to vote: All laws and parts of laws, provid in g for the assessment of a poll tax to qualify as an elector, are hereby repealed. Hereafter; any person who pays a poll tax within the time prescribed by law shall be eligible to cast a ballot in any election in this State if such person is, in all other respects, qualified to vote in said election under the laws of the State of Arkansas; or in the case of a primary election, under the laws of Arkansas and under the rules of the political party of which such person may be a member.

Mr. President, I emphasize again that assessment of a poll tax is not necessary. One can pay the tax at the time he pays his other taxes if he elects to do so.

Again I emphasize that a poll tax is not mandatory in Arkansas. One can pay it. ( One may have a million dollars worth of property, and may pay his tax on that property and yet refuse to pay the $1 poll tax which goes into the school fund. If a fellow does not wish to pay into the school fund, if he resents doing so, the only penalty is, “If you resent paying $1 into the school fund to educate the children in the county where you live probably you ought not to have the right to vote.”

I agree. That is the least a good citizen can do. That is the very minimum requirement, Mr. President. It is $1. It will not pay 1 hour's salary to a school teacher in a primary school. It is $1. That is the minimum. I suppose we could make it 50 cents. Someone would still resent paying it.

Let us suppose a person were required to pay 25 cents to register. That would / be. in effect, a poll tax of 25 cents. People might resent that. Would that be offensive? No. What is offensive is the fact that a few Southern States have this as a requirement to vote. There is no other reason in the world. There is none other.

I point out again, if such a procedure is offensive, States ought not to require a poll tax for a fellow to get a license to drive an automobile to go to work to earn money to buy bread and meat for his family. That is as bad as this. It seems to me it is worse.

We went even further, Mr. President. I think Arkansas has some of the most fair voting laws that one could find anywhere. The next section in the act provides "Time for collecting taxes defined."

The section reads:

The "time for collecting taxes," as this term is employed in the constitution in connection with the payment of poll taxes, is hereby defined to be the period from October 2 up to and including October 1 of the succeeding year. Any person who has paid a poll tax within the dates named, shall, if possessed of the other qualifications required by law of an elector, be entitled to vote :'.t any election held in this State for a period of 1 year, beginning on October 2 following the payment of said poll tax and expiring on the succeeding October 1.

That date is fixed. Anyone who wishes to vote has an entire year in which to pay. There is no trick about it. A person does not have to pay within a certain 10-day period or a certain 30-day period, but has the whole year in which to pay $1 if he wishes to vote in Arkansas.

The following section, section 3-109, is entitled: "Issuance of poll tax receipts-Time for payment-Unlawful possession-Purchase by candidate unlawful-Penalty for violation."

Mr. President, Arkansas undertook to make the election laws as fair and as effective as it is possible for the English language to prescribe. I read from the section:

It is hereby made the duty of all collecting officers in this . State, or their deputies, to issue poll tax receipts · in regular order as they appear in the books and upon the forms as issued by the State auditor's office as now provided by law or may hereafter be provided by law; and it is also made the duty of all collecting officers in this State to cease issuing poll taxes after midnight of the 1st day of October of each year, provided the collector shall deliver to the county clerk the certified list of poll tax payers not later than the 15th day of October of each year, and it is hereby made unlawful for any collecting officer to date such poll tax receipts other than the correct date the same has, in fact, been issued.

When that list is so certified, Mr. President, it becomes the voting list. It becomes the official registration for voting in Arkansas. That is not much different from walking up to the county precinct and registering, or doing whatever is required to be done to establish eligibility to vote in other States. The only thing Arkansas requires is the payment of $1 to the public school fund.

We went further, Mr. President. We tightened up our laws in Arkansas. This was done not as a result of anything that ever happened on the floor of this body, but in order to insure fairness, equity, and nondiscrimination for all our citizens in respect to voting. In order to make no exaction of one we did not make of another, we revised our laws by the constitutional amendment and the statutes which followed so as to insure fair elections, honest elections, and the highest integrity in election procedures.

I quote further from that section: All poll tax receipts issued by the collector shall be made out and signed with pen and One can no longer erase or fool around with a pencil.

No poll tax receipts shall be delivered to any person later than 5 days after the date of the issuance therof and the date written on the poll tax receipt shall be the date of issuance.

A person cannot get a lot of poll tax receipts, put them in his pocket, and date them when he wishes to date them. That is a violation of law. I continue to read:

It shall be unlawful for any person to be found in possession of any poll tax receipt other than his own after 5 days after the date of issuance thereof. It shall be unlawful for any person to deliver to another a poll tax receipt and unlawful for any person to receive a poll tax receipt after 5 days after the issuance thereof. No candidate for office shall purchase either directly or indirectly any poll tax receipt except for himself or his wife, parents or children.

Th . e violation of any of the provisions or requirements of this act shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $200 and the violation of any provision of this section shall render the peuon so violating the same, ineligible to hold any office in this State.

The next paragraph deals with the effect of poll tax receipts:

Effect of poll tax receipt: Possession of the receipt does not in itself invest the holder with the right to vote. The right arises when the tax is paid in a timely manner, the receipt being merely evidence of payment. Mr. President, it is like the record made of registration, which is evidence of the · payment. The payment of the poll tax is evidenced by a receipt that the payment has been made.

What I have read about the possession of a receipt is not a statute but a supreme court decision in the case of Henderson v. Gladish, 198 Arkansas, page 217. That is the court's interpretation of the poll tax in Arkansas.

SEc. 3-110. Overcharge for poll tax receipt--Penalty: If any collecting officer of any county in this State shall collect, receive, or accept more than $1 in payment for the issuance of a poll tax receipt, regardless of whether such poll tax receipt shall be issued upon a regular or a delinquent poll tax assessment, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $250.

The next section, section 3-111, states:

Purpose of act--penalties for delinquent poll tax assessments prohibited.

They would be barred from collecting the penalty. All one must do is actually pay the $1. The section reads as follows:

Nothing in this act (sees. 3-106, 3-110, 3- 111) shall be construed as altering or changing in any manner the time of paying or assessing of personal or real property, or poll taxes, but it is the intention of the legislature to prohibit the collecting of penalties for delinquent poll tax assessment.

So in the days when poll taxes were assessed in Arkansas-and they are no longer assessed-a penalty could not be collected on the tax. The citizen paid $1, which went into the public school fund. In effect, it amounts to a registration fee, or a pol: tax, which goes into the public school funds.

The next section, section 3-112, states: Poll tax receipt may be issued without payment of other taxes: Upon the payment of poll tax assessed (against any person liable) therefor, and the specific penalties imposed for a failure to cause the same to be (assessed or) paid at the time allowed for severally doing the same acts without penalty, the person making such payment shall be entitled to receive from the collector a separate poll tax receipt, and to have his name included in the collector's official list of persons who have paid poll tax; and it shall be unlawful for any collector to refuse to execute such receipt, or to enter on said list the name of any such person, because of the failure or refusal to pay the taxes due upon any property held by such person. But all taxes on any such property are hereby preserved.

A citizen might pay his poll tax but not his property tax. The collector cannot refuse to grant him a poll tax receipt upon payment of the $1, notwithstanding the fact that at the same time the citizen may say, "I do not want to pay my property tax. I will let that go delinquent."

A citizen in Arkansas may pay his property tax and say, "I am not going / to pay the poll tax." If he does not pay the poll tax, the only thing he can be deprived of is his right to vote.

A citizen might say, "I will not give you $1 to help run the public schools in this county. I refuse."

Arkansas merely replies, "If you are · that kind of citizen, you ought not be permitted to participate in the affairs of government."

Mr. President, I declare that I cannot see much wrong with that procedure. We require a citizen to register before we let him vote. In fact, the poll tax procedure is a registration. In effect we say, "As evidence of your qualities of good citizenship that would entitle you to participate in and to have a voice in the government of this county, in our State and in the Nation, give us $1 for the children we are trying to educate."

I say that we might condemn that procedure. But we would not have to go more than 100 yards from this Chamber to find worse things to condemn. It really does not make much sense.

It seems so trivial to have before the Senate and consuming the time of the Members of this body an issue over whether we should require a man to donate $1 to educate the children of a State before we let him vote.

From day to day I see in the galleries · of the Senate children from all over the Nation. We are all happy that they can come. I wonder what they would say about permitting a man in their community to vote for President, Governor, county judge, county sheriff, or State representative who says, "I refuse to give $1 to pay the teachers and other costs of educating children."

Mr. President, I think the better the quality of the voter, the higher his intellect and his sense of responsibility as a citizen, the better voter he will be. He is better than one who is indifferent about public affairs, or one who perhaps has only one particular ax to grind in voting. The responsible citizen says, "I am interested in the future citizenship · of my country. I am interested in those for whom we in this generation have a responsibility to provide opportunities so that they may become more enlightened even than we, and thus keep civilization progressing instead of retrogressing. "I give my dollar to help that child, be that child black, white, yellow, or any other color, or of either sex. I help that child get an education. I pay my . poll tax of $1, and I walk to the ballot box with pride. I have enough interest in the future of my country and the welfare of the children and in the program of education that I give $1, a very minimum, for the privilege of walking to the polls and voting for the candidate of my choice. Have I been degraded, because my State · has required that minimum evidence of good citizenship?" I say "No." • I am not degraded by doing it, by having - to pay $1. I am proud that in Arkansas I have the opportunity lists. to do it. I am privileged as a citizen of Arkansas to make that contribution, to get my receipt showing that I have made that contribution. I put the receipt in my pocket or keep it in my possession as a badge of distinction, not as evi- · dence that I have been degraded or that some right had been denied me, or that something has been extracted from me. No. I pay it gladly, and I look little children in the face as I walk down the street on election day. I feel a glow - of pride and patriotism in the fact as I go to exercise my right of suffrage, to help choose the officials of the government for my county, for my State, and for my Nation.

Before I do that I show my good faith. I demonstrate my qualities of citizenship to the minimum degree at least by having taken $1 and given it toward the education of these children.

Who condemns it? I cannot condemn it. What is the reason for condemning Yet we are taking up the time of the Senate-it may be a month before we are through ':"vith the debate-merely because some persons would impose their will and their way of doing things on the citizens of other States.

This has gone on for years, as I have cited the history of it. Why is it now necessary to make it appear, by what is proposed here, that what we have been talking about is almost a crime, that it is degrading, that it is an imposition, that it is oppressive. That is what we would do if we followed what is proposed here.

Another provision of the Arkansas Statutes reads: