March 24, 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.

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 establishment of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, Thursday, a week ago, I began my first speech against the motion to make Senate Joint Resolution 29 the pending business before the Senate and to have substituted therefor the language of Senate Joint Resolution 58, a proposed · constitutional amendment to prohibit the poll tax requirement as a prerequisite to voting for national officers.

Mr. President, since that time there have been a number of developments. I have stated time and time again on this :floor that this joint resolution is an attack upon the sovereignty of the States; that it is an attack upon our dual system of government; that it is an attempt to deprive the people of this country of a fundamental American right, namely, the right to make decisions and to control their affairs at home. And I have stated that the . one certain way to destroy this country is to nationalize all its institutions and create a strong Central Government in the National · capital.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Mississippi yield?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Could there be anything farther from the concept of the Founding Fathers, who first fought the Revolutionary War and won it for us, and then wrote the Constitution, than such centralization of government?

Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly there could not be; nothing could be farther from that concept. In fact, if we were to pass this joint resolution, it would be the first great step toward repudiating the spirit of that great instrument, the Constitution of the United States, and the intention of the great men who wrote it. . Mr. fiLL. Was there in that Constitution anything which was more jealously guarded or more jealously wanted than the provision which called . for leaving to the States the fixing of the qualifications of electors?

Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly not, for that is a fundamental liberty. It is a fundamental liberty. It is fundamental to our entire system that the States have the absolute power to · fix the qualifications of voters. ·

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield further to

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is not that absolutely fundamental tO our dual system of government and to retaining the power in the hands of the people, if there is to be · a democratic system of g'Overnment -of the peopl-e, ' by the people, and for the people?

Mr. EASTLAND. That ls exactly cor• rect. There cannot be -a -government o~ the people, by the people, and for the people unless the people themselves at the local level have the power to fix the qualifications of electors and to handle their own local affairs. The National Government was created largely for interstate commerce, bankruptcy matters, a uniform system of currency, the common defense, and to handle the foreign affairs of the United States.

The Senate and the people of the United States generally should realize here and now that the fight we are now making to protect the constitutional powers of the sovereign States goes far beyond the borders of any one geographic area of our country. The President in his message to Congress said that he was interested in only two areas of civil rights at this time-abolition of the poll tax 'S.S a requirement for voting and the adopting of the antiliteracy bill which will soon be before the Senate.

I have on my desk a proposed bill, S. 3059, which would add a new section to chapter 13 of title 18 of the United States Code. It has been recommended to the Congress by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, in a letter under date of March :20, 1962. It is designed under the pretext of clarifying a number of difficulties that the Department says it has found in prosecuting cases of police brutality under title 18 of the United States Code. It is bottomed · on the old civil rights acts that were passed in the Reconstruction days. It, along with '8. companion bill which I shall discuss shortly, will completely emasculate local and State police authorities from performing their duty in the detection, apprehension, and -conviction of people charged with violations {)f the laws of a State.

The language proposed for this new criminal chapter is as follows. It is headed, "Section 245-Imposition 'Of Summary Punishment and Coercion of Statements."

The section reads:

Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, strikes, beats, assaults, injures or threatens or attempts to strike, beat, assault or injure the person of .another for the purpose of inflicting summary punishment upon such other person or f.or the purpose .of compelling such other person to make any statement shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both; Provided that if physical injury results the punishment shall be by fine of not more than $5,0DO or imprisonment for not more than five years · or both, .and if death resul:ts the punishment shall be by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

For the purposes of this section, summary punishment means any inJury inflicted otherwise than in accordance with the procedures prescribed by state or federal law or regulation.

Mr. President, that was an old civil rights statute passed during the Reconstruction era, which the Department at:­ tempts to amend. It was then based upon race, but now race has been eliminated; and I say this proposed statute IS 'SO broad that it will mean that the Federal Government, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or by U.S. deputy marshals. will supervise every police department iri this country, every sheriff's office in this country, and every law enforcement agency in the United s. 3059. States. This bill, if enacted would convert us into a · police state.

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

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that there are some 3,000 counties in the United States, and that each one of them has its own sheriff who is responsible for law and order in that particular county?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. Is it not also true that there are many cities and municipalities, and each and every one of them has its own police department under its mayor or president of the city commission?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. And these sheriffs and police officials are the ones who, from the very inception of our Government, have had the responsibility for the enforcement of law and order?

.Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. Then, am I to understand that the proposal of the Department of Justice is to put all these sheriffs, and all the chiefs of police with their police departments-some 3,000 of themunder the Department of Justice, so to speak?

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator knows that, under the bill to which I have referred, if a policeman were accused of slapping a convict or a criminal, the Department of Justice could go to the community and investigate him; and the Senator knows that when a local policeman is investigated, in effect it is an intimidation of that policeman and an intimidation of his department.

Mr. HILL. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, for a question.

Mr. HILL. In other words, that is an undermining of enforcement of law and order by the local authorities. Is that correct? ·

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

I rt&.d from the letter to the Vice President of the United States which accompanied this proposal:

This Department has encountered a. number of difficulties in prosecuting ca-ses of police brutality u,nder section 18, United States Code, 242.

Mr. President, the bill to which I have referred would encourage the lawless elements 'Of this country in assaults upon members of the police department. It would encourage a criminal who was being arrested by a policeman to become violent with the policeman, because then the Federal Government would step in. In a moment I shall read a statement by Mr 4 64 Edgar Hoover, a great American. that the day · of police brutality in this country _ is ever '! _, In the face of that, we have this bill. It shows that there is an effort to nationalize and control from Washington the police power of the States; and that is abhorrent to every single principle on which the American Government was founded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there may be printed in the RECORD, at the conclusion of my remarks,

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, as you know, the Department of Justice has embarked upon two laudable undertakings. One is a drive against organized gambling and the e-ther is a drive against organized racketeering, and the U.S. Senate has cooperated because it has passed a bill that the . Department thought was necessary. But I tell you, Mr. President, the great question in this country is not in those two fields, but whether children and women are safe upon the streets of the great cities of this country. Has local law enforcement broken down? Can the Federal Government assist in making streets safe for women and children, regardless -of their race, who go out upon the streets of the great metropolitan areas of the United States-women who venture out after dark around the very Capitol of the United States · Of America?

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

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that if the Federal Government in any way enters the field of law enforcement in the States and local communities, instead of taking action to undermine and break down the !ocal authorities who have the responsibility, namely, the sheriffs, chiefs .of police, and policemen, it ought to be .sustaining and supporting and helping the sheriffs and local police officers?

Mr. EASTLAND. Of course. Let us take the Capital of the United States. God knows, if there is one place in the world where someone should be secure in his person, secure from robbery, from purse snatching, from assault, from rape, it .ought to be the area around the Capitol of the United States.

We should have the support of the Department of Justice not only in this undertaking but also in seeing to it that the police are assisted in their great duty of making the streets safe.

I shall read from a story which appeared on the front page of the Wash- ington Evening Star yesterday. The headline is "Police Escort Capitol Hill Secretaries."

This is the news story:

. POLICE EsCORT CAPITOL HILL 'SECRETARIES

-Four police dog teams and a revitalized police escort service have been established to curtail Capitol HUI .assaults and purse snatchings.

District Police Chief Robert V. Murray said today that the four dog teams have been assigned to the area around the Capitol Grounds : ·

A memorandum cirCulated by · the Capitol Secretaries .Club reported !the new eel'Yieea came at the .request D! women w.orklllB .on the Hill following a series of incidents, including the snatching of a purse from a Congresswoman.

- The club also revitalized _ an arrangement originally made several years ago whereby the 'Capitol Police would provide escorts, on request, for women leaving the Capitol and its office buildings after dark.

An officer 'Of the club said the service has been available all along, but few women knew about it. Club officers discovered the e s cort policy in discussing the crime prob· lem with Capitol Police.

Mr. President, it is terrible when the police must escort employees of Senators and Representatives in Congress, .and employees of the officials of the Capitol of the United States, when they leave their offices after dark.

Rather than to attempt to take over the police departments of this country, which are now doing the very best they can, the Federal Government ought to be cooperating. The Federal Government should not attempt to take over their functions.

The whole trend of the recent enforcement of law presents an alarming picture. We have seen the Mallory decision by the Supreme Court. to hamstring and to forestall the law enforcing officers of the United States. We have seen recent decisions concerning pleas of insanity, which cloak murderers, rapists, and other criminals with a sanctity unheard of in the development of our jurisprudence.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. because it has nothing more to do, would go far beyond the judicial impediments by the courts, and would throw up a protective shield, under the terms of the bill, to intimidate law enforcement officers in their pcwers to make simple arrests for ' misdemeanors and felonies. I think the enactment of the bill would add to the security of criminals.

Why is there this drive against the law abiding? Why is there this protection for the criminal?

A police officer is underpaid at best. He risks his life and limb at all times in order to protect society. Now he is to . be made a whipping boy, he is to be harassed and intimidated by the Federal Government every time he is called upon to make a simple arrest.

The bill which has come to the Congress would make the common law rule of reasonable force in making an arrest a mockery and a sham. It would make it a mockery and a sham, Mr. President, because the police of this country, in making arrests, would be afraid tc use that reasonable force which is necessary to secure the arrest. The police would be afraid of the great supergovernment which will · swoop down upon them. · When there - are -racial tones involved in an arrest in this country, that situation _ would apply more than ever.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Pr-esident, will the Senator yield?

Mr. EASTLAND : 1 yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Can the Senator think of anything which would do more to . break down morale, to break down spirit, to break down esprit de corps, and to break down the will to be efficient and effective in the discharge of their duties on the part of the local sheriffs and police officers than the passage of such a bill as the Department of Justice has recommended and requested?

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is exactly correct, but that is not all. A bill has come to the Congress entitled an antilynching bill. It begins by saying, I tell the distinguished Senator from Alabama, that the Government will protect the rights secured or protected by - the Constitution or laws of the United States. Of course, that means that the Supreme Court--and there are some wild dreams over there-could define what is a right secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, under the bill the Department of Justice would go further, and would give a right of action when police were negligent or did not use due diligence. There would be a right of action for damage. Instead of the burden of proof being on the complaining party, the bill would place the burden of proof on the town or the municipality or the county.

What this whole program seeks to do is to take from the States their police power and to nationalize it in the city of Washington, D.C. That is the whole program. These bills would encourage criminals to commit crimes.

We · should have the support of the Federal Government. There are areas in New York City, in Chicago, in Philadelphia, and in the other · great cities of the country where a person is not safe on the streets at any hour, day or night, where law and order have broken down, where the police are not able to cope with criminals. I say, rather than having a drive to nationalize the police power and to deprive the States of their police power and their powers to fix qualifications for voting, the best thing the Federal Government can do is to help the local police make it safe for anyone to appear on the streets at any time, day or night.

I wish to read from a column written by a very noted columnist, the Honorable Holmes Alexander, which has appeared in numerous newspapers in this country: Recently there began a round robin of holdups and robberies of public buses. Recently half a dozen Negro boys boarded a bus in the Negro section of Washington, beat the white driver into submission, took $30 from him, and went their ways.

A busload of Negro passengers sat there and watched it all happen, but none of them came to the driver's aid. None of them, except a 16-year-old youth (who gave a false address), stepped forward as a witness to the crime.

My mail 1s cluttered with press releases from an African city about world rule by law, and I have interviewed a past president of the American Bar Association, who is pushing the idea. But when such crimes happen almost nightly in this privileged Capital of the free world, a city without industrial tion. slums, with integrated schools, with gobs of money from. a generous Congress for social uplift, what ls a man to write? Can he rationally write that races are equally lawabiding when the police statistics jeer at trre thought? Can he believe 'that this city is any more ready for "democracy" th . an Leopoldville? Can he plausibly agree with the liberals that the Southern States, all of them founded by Anglo-Saxons with centuries of background in self-rule, should submit to rule by a Negro majority or near majority? At the turn of the year I was polled, along with many others, by a Negro publication on Negro needs. Many of my colleagues checked "'civil rights," "education," . and "equal job opportunity," but my first choice was "crime prevention." If Negro leaders could do this basic thing for their people-get substantial numbers of them out of the criminal classes-many other good things would folIt is not good enough to boast by press release that some punk was just arrested-- in Podunk, or to hear the Attorney General vow his attachment to clean living and clean government. Action is what we need, and there is no better place to begin than in the Federal . City.

BRING IN TROOPS

Troops were brought into Washington to shovel snow which threatened to break up the inaugural ceremonies in 1961. Troops were sent to Little Rock to enforce a Supreme Court order. It would be equally logical to put this city, or parts of it, under martial law during the night hours and holidays. The streets are . e unsafe. The Metropolitan Police are admittedly losing control. The criminal groups are not demonstrating for bread or for political rights. It is sheer lawlessness.

Americans have a tradition about this sort of thing. In times past, in the West and in the South, when authorities could not, or would not, keep order, citizens formed vigilante bands which took law and punishment into their own hands.

This is undesirable-and it is preventable. It is up to the Government of the United States.

Mr. President, that is the end of Mr. Alexander's column, which had wide circulation in the United States. But I think it does picture happenings in this country. The great overriding question in which we ought to have the help of the executive branch of the Government is not the anti-poll-tax bill. The question is not gambling, though gambling is a proper field for a Federal program. Of course, organized interstate racketeering is a proper target for the Federal Government. But I say that the great overriding question is the safety of the individual on the streets of the Capital of the United States.

Frequently I have heard people say, “I must vote for this, because if I do not, what will they think abroad? What will the Congo think? What will Ghana think? What will Peru think? What will Russia think? What will Germany think? What will England think?"

Mr. President, wh-at do such people think when Government employees are not secure in their persons around the very seat of government of the United States?

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

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques­

Mr. HILL. Is not the responsibility for the government of the District of Columbia, which in -an earlier statute was referred to as a Federal city, the responsibility of the Federal Government?

Mr. EASTLAND. It is the sole respon­ Mr. EASTLAND. sibility of the Federal Government.

Mr. HILL. Why does not the Federal Government meet its own responsibility which is definite, clear, precise and com- manding, rather than seek to invade the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the States and the local communities?

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is exactly correct. I should like to ask the Senator from Alabama a question. Are there not many areas in the District of Columbia in which the Senator would not venture at any hour, day or night?

Mr. HILL. The , Senator is exactly correct.

Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator is a distinguished Member of the U.S. Senate. Yet the Senator has said on the floor of the Senate that he would not venture into areas of this city which is the seat of government of our country, at any hour, day, or night. Mr. President, that is a correct statement.

~r. President, measures such as those proposed would make the Federal Bureau of Investigation a superpolice agency, and it would supervise the law enforcement activities of every city, county, and town in the Union. I do not know what is meant by the word "summary." Webster defines the word as ••comprehensive; summarizing concisely· done without delay or formality; as', summary vengeance." He says *hat in law it means "of, pertinent to, or using a summary procedure; used in, or done by, summary proceeding.”

I suppose it is actually designed to mean anything the Department of Justice wants it to mean when it goes meddling into the affairs of State and local police departments. But I say that it is a serious and far-reaching matter. Mr. President, the Civil Rights Division does not advance even one slight reason or justification for the enactment of so far reaching a piece of legislation as this proposal is. With crime rampant in these United States, local law enforcement officers from one end of the United States to the other would be confronted with a new and unique definition of criminality on their part, for which they can be subject to not only criminal sentences, but also civil sanctions.

The great Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, as late as the March 1962 issue of the Law Enforcement Bulletin, stated in the lead editorial to all law enforcement officials in the United States:

But for a few isolated instances, the day of police brutality is past.

In another section of the editorial he states that the FBI is charged with the responsibility of investigating alleged violations of the law.

What is the purpose of these bills? Mr. Hoover has stated that, except for a few Isolated instances--and we do not legislate for a few isolated instancesthe day of police brutality is past.

I say the purpose of this whole program is to establish a nationalized police.

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

Mr. HILL. Is there any man in the United States who can speak with more intimate knowledge and with greater authority and one in whom people have _ greater confidence, than Mr. J. Edgar Hoover?

Mr. EASTLAND. There is no one in this country who can speak with a greater knowledge. He is regarded as absolutely conscientious and sincere a man in whom the people have implicit con­ · fidence. I believe that the idea of a national police is absolutely abhorrent to him. Yet that would the result of the enactment of the two bills that are now presented. The resolution is a great step in the same direction of nationalization, because it would deprive the States of their rights. The great question for the National Government in the field of crime is to assist, under the American system, in stopping rape, murder, robbery and other violence that constantly · and daily and hourly occur in the great metropolitan centers of the United States.

In the course of my first discussion of this matter, I joined in support of the point of order that is proposed to be made by the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] on the substitution of a constitutional amendment for matter that is legislative in character and requires the signature of the President of the United States in order to be finalized as statute law. Under our Constitution, this point of order is well taken, and when and if the Senate i~ called upon to vote, it should be sus tamed.

I also pointed out during my first discourse on this subject that the present administration was taking a most ambiguous position. The President suggested to Congress in his state of the Union message and reiterated in a letter to the distinguished senior Senator from FlorIda [Mr. HoLLAND], which was read on the floor the other day, that the poll tax as a prerequisite for the exercise of suffrage in five States of the Union should be deleted from the laws of the five sta:tes by the route proposed to be adopted. m Senate Joint Resolution 58. I now reiterate that this position of the administration is directly contrary to the official policy adopted by the Government of ~he United States with reference to voting in the United Nations. The United States takes the categorical posi­ ~Ion that any nation which is delinquent m the payment of its assessments a,.o:; levied by the General Assembly of the United Nations should be denied the privilege of voting in that body and this denial of the right to vote would continue until such time as the delinquent assessment was paid in full. I challenge anyone to deny that there is any difference in the principle involved in denying to members of the United Nations the right to vote for failure to pay assessments and the reasonable requirement of Southern States that a small poll tax of $1.50 or $2 be paid before the individual can exercise the privilege of franchise.

Let me say at this point that the man who is unwilling to put up $1.50 or $2 for the support of the school system and the education of our youth is not a worthy subject of the franchise. It is not a right, but a privilege, which can be granted or denied by the States, except under two amendments to the u s Constitution. · · Constitutionally and historically the exercise of franchise is a privilege' that Is granted by the sovereign States and not a right that can be asserted as being inherent m ~he act of living and breathing. I again state that under every standard of logic and reason, the ad­ ministration should either change its VIews m regard to the anti-poll-tax amendment or reverse the position it now takes concerning the payments of assessments by delinquents in the United NatiOns as a condition to the exercise of franchise.

It is one of those coincidental ironies that the vehicle selected to transplant a constitutional amendment on legislation should happen to be a resolution that would establish a memorial to one of the fathers of our constitutional system Alexander Hamilton. It may even b~ that this former dwelling of Alexander Hamilton which is proposed to be perpetuated as a national monument may be · the selfsame place where Hamilton sat down and penned the immortal words that are contained in his share of the Federalist Papers. While Hamilton would be the first to concede that the people can. achieve any desired purpose _ . by amending the Constitution of the United States in the manner and form therein provided, he would stand before the people forever and deny the wisdom and sense in attempting to pass a proposed constitutional amendment such as that now before discussion. The actual author of Federalist Paper No. 52 is in dispute. It is attributed to either Hamilton or Madison. Regardless of which one of the two fathers of our constitutional system actually penned this essay there can be no doubt but that both of them subscribed to the sentiments therem expressed. This Federalist paper states:

The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the Convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. It was so established and so defined in atrticle I, section 2, which provided that the electors in each State shall have the . qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. ·

Now it is sought to supplant Alexander Hamilton, in the joint resolution, with a poll tax amendment. r · wm quote what one of the great mean who founded our country said.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President will the Senator yield?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a . qu~s- tion.

Mr. HILL. Do we not all recognize the bx:illiance and greatness of Alexander Hamilton; and do we not also consider him in our history to have been . one of the men who . most strongly favored what we might call more centr&lization of Government in Washington? Did he not favor centralization more than the other Founding Fathers?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is exactly true. .I think we ought to have the ear of the distinguished senior Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL], because Alexander Hamilton really was the father of the Republican Party. . :t am about to read further from a statement by Mr. Hamilton.

Also, I further believe that Abraham Lincoln would have taken the same position which a number of us take on the :floor of the Senate today.

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

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that Thomas Jefferson w.as the great advocate of States rights and local self-government?

Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. HILL. It is not true that Abraham Lincoln declared that the principles of Thomas Jefferson are the maxims of all free society?

Mr. EASTLAND . . What the Senator . from Alabama says is exactly correct. Thomas Jefferson was the father of the great Democratic Party. He is a man whom we all love and revere.

I quote further from Alexander Hamilton: have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been 1m- proper for the same reason; and for the tion. additional . reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal Government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.

To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to 'Some of the States as it would have been difficult to the Convention.

Thus, the fathers of the Constitution speak their piece on the question of who has and who should have the power and right to establish qualifications for voters.

In my original speech I buttressed - the position taken in the written words of the Constitution and from the writings of the contemporaries who lived at the time it was drafted · with innumerable · decisions · of ~ courts, both "F-ederal ·· and State, which have uniformly · held the poll tax to be a reasonable requirement for · the · privilege of exercising the right · of suffrage ~ I have not yet exhausted the text o:t many of .: these cases, and · hope that the opportunity will be - presented to me to return to · them . dur.ing this present discourse.

. It is no pleasure 'for us who are -:: opposed to the - enactment of an · amendment such · as that which would now be presented to · the . Senate, tQ have to stand here day after day, hour after hour, and assert our reasons for this opposition at length . and in great detail. I do believe, however, that this extended debate in the U.S. Senate, like all such debates that have taken place in the past, is healthy and gives the .opportunity for the people to be enlightened on the issues that are drawn in the Congress. The proponents of this amendment are in the position of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel, because the little matter of a poll tax imposed by five States is not even worthy of consideration of Congress and the legislatures of three-fourths of the States in order to be made a part of that immortal document which is the fundamental charter of our Government. However, the · principle involved in the proposed amendment is most profound and far reaching, because it is another step toward the destruction and annihi­ ' lation of the dual system of government that is the heart and genius of the U.S. tion. Constitution. When the day comes that the people of 50 States are pressed into one conglomerated mass, that is the day when liberty and freedom will be forever dead. The greatest contribution that has been made to mankind by the Eng- . lish-speaking people is a demonstration that government should be built from the bottom up, and not imposed from the top down. It is the people living at the level of local communities who worked out the rules of human conduct incorporated throughout the centUries in the body -of our common law that have made possible a kind and character of individual liberty and freedom never before witnessed at any time or at any place on the face of this earth.

Mr. mLL. Mr. President, will . the voting. Senator yield?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques-

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that today th B ·t· h th E 1· h h th e n lS - e ng lS - ave e most democratic government - in the world except our own Government?

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; that is true.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that throughout the years the · British Government has moved further .and further from the - centralization of power · to the-vesting of power, responsibility, and authority in the hands of the local people?

Mr. EASTLAND. What the Senator from Alabama says is exactly correct. Before Hitler, Germany had a system similar to ours. Hitler destroyed . it. When . his dictatorship . was destroyed, Germany went back to the old system, under which the police power resided at home, where - the people could make their own decisions for their own · institutions at the local level. · ·

Mr. KUCHEL , - -Mr: - President-, · will - the Senator yield, · with the usual guarantees that he will not lose the floor? ·

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished . senior Senator - .from California provided I , ilo not lose ~ mY right to . the floor; -:p.rovided I regain . the floor at the conclusion of his remarks, to continue my speech; and that when I resume it will not count as another speech on this subject.

1\{r. MOSKIE. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER . ' (Mr. Hickey in the chair) . Objection · is heard.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I wish to ask my able friend from Mississippi to yield to me for a .question. I do not understand why the distinguished acting majority leader does not object when a Senator ' on the majority side asks for the right to interrogate 'the Senator from Mississippi, but when a Senator on the Republican side asks for a similar privilege it is denied. . I ask my friend to ponder that.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have no objection to a question. ·

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques­

Mr. KUCHEL. Is it not · true that the platform of the distinguished Democratic Party, to which my friend adheres, promised the American people that the poll tax would be abolished by Federal legislation? · ·

Mr. EASTLAND. To be perfectly frank, I do not know; I never read that.

Mr. KUCHEL. If the Senator will permit---

Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute; I yield only for a question.

Mr. KUCiiEL. Is it not true that the 1960 platform of the Democratic Party Provides;

We will support whatever action is necessary to eliminate li.teracy tests and the payment of poll taxes as requirements for

Mr. EASTLAND. As I told the Senator, whether it stated that or not, I do not know.

Mr. KUCHEL. If it did state that-­ Mi-. EASTLAND. What is the Senator's question?

Mr. KUCHEL. If it did state that, I ask my friend whether he repudiates it.

Mr. EASTLAND. I tell the distinguished Senator from . California that I am a Senator of the United States, elected by the people . of my State to . the U.S. Senate; that my first allegiance is _ to my .country, not to any politicalt>arty; that no group of politicians representing special interests, .and sitting in a : smoke-filled room, cail control my vote . as a Senator of the United States; and _ God . knows that if this country is ever destroyed, it will be destroyed when · political conventions control the votes of Members of Congress. God forbid that - such a thing . would ever come about. ~ -· Mr . KUCHEL. · Mr. President, will the Senator from MisSissippi _ yield further . ? ~· The · r PRESIDING · OFFICER . . Does . the Senator from .Mississip.Pi yield to the -: S-enator fr.om California?

Mr. EASTLAND. - i - yield . for a · question. · - . . · - . , .

.Mr. . KUCHEL. When the Senator from Mississippi - refers ; to the machinations of a group of politicians in a smoke-filled room, does he refer to the machinations of the members of his political party when they met iri Los office. Angeles to draft this platform?

Mr. EASTLAND. I think the platforms of both political parties were written in that way; that is my judgment of the matter. And I think I would violate my oath of office if I allowed a political convention to bind my vote as a Senator of the United States.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield further?

Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a question.

Mr. KUCHEL. Yes, for a question, only; in other words, assuming that the Senator from California has accurately stated--

Mr. EASTLAND. I ask the Senator from California please to ask his question.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Mississippi will yield for a question--

Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, for a question, only.

Mr. KUCHEL. Does the Senator from Mississippi repudiate that plank of the Democratic platform?

Mr. EASTLAND. I am here opposing it. The Senator from California says it is in the platform. I said I did not know; I said I had not read it. But I said that I am not bound by anything in the platform of any political party:

Mr. KUCHEL. I thank my friend.

Mr. EASTLAND. If that is repudiating it, it is repudiating it. But those are the facts about it.

Mr. KUCHEL. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. EASTLAND. I owe my first allegiance to my country. I have taken a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. If I permitted a crowd of politicians at a political convention to bind my vote, why, Mr. President, I would be repudiating my oath of office.

Refreshing my memory, I will inform the Senator from California that I had the honor to be one of the representatives of my State on the platform committee at the Demo ' ­ cratic National Convention. I opposed this plank in the platform, and I opposed others, in the platform committee; and when the platform was pre- · sented, the repudiation by my colleague, Senator STENNIS, and by me-both of us were on that committee-and therepudiation of the entire platform by our State convention were filed in the convention. And we did repudiate it-andjustly so.

But regardless of whether one repudiates a platform, a great fundamental question is involved: A Senator of the United States, under his oath of office, must reach decisions which he believes to be constitutional and which he b~­ lieves to be best for his country. He must do that regardless of what some p · politician or what some political convention may have scld. And, Mr. President, if I were to reach any other decision or any other conclusion, I believe I would be acting in violation of my oath of Of course every Member of the Senate is entitled to his own view in regard to what he should do; and he is entitled to reach that decision without criticism from the senior Senator from Mississippi. Mr. President, when the Central Government attempts by transitory majorities in a legislative assembly to bend and abrogate rules that are the quintessence of the best that can be devised by human experience, then we begin the destruction of the brightest jewel that is in the crown of our birthright. I beg and plead again with the Senate to let the States and the people manage their own affairs in the time-honored tradition, rather than impose another federalizing amendment upon them.

I should like now to analyze in more detail exactly what Senate Joint Resolution 58 proposes to do and to demonstrate how ridiculous it is in view of the various provisions in the constitutions and statutes of the 50 States regarding the exercise of the franchise by the citizens of those States.

Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 58, proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States relating to the qualifications of electors, was introduced . on February 28, 1961. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and then to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. Along with other proposed changes in the Constitution, it was the subject of public hearings on May 23, 26, June 8, 27, 28, and 29, July 13, August 25 and 30, and September 8, 1961. The serial print of the public hearings that involved Senate Joint Resolution 58, and a similar resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 81, was not published and made available to the Senate and the public until February of this year. The subcommittee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], has not yet reported to the full Judiciary Committee any proposed action in regard to this Senate joint resolution. Neither the subcommittee nor the full committee has been in the leastwise dilatory in regard to this matter. Over the years, countless hundreds of proposed constitutional changes have been introduced and never have received the considered attention of either the subcommittee, the fu11 committee, or the Senate. The substance of Senate joint Resolution 58 in one form or another has been before the committee since the Legislative Reorganization Act created the present committee system. Nothing is more worthy of grave and serious con- . sideration than is a proposed constitu- · tional . amendment, and more particularly one which, with deliberation and premeditation, destroys fundamental rights and powers that are vested in the sovereign States.

Senate Joint Resolution 58 denies to the States the power and the right to make three particular requirements as a prerequisite to voting in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress. The three areas wherein the States are to be denied the right to impose conditions concern first, any poll tax; second, any other tax; and third, any property qualification. While it is true that the Congress and the States have the right and power to enact not only this insignificant amendment, but also one that would transform and revolutionize our entire system of government, the exercise of the power does not necessarily mean that the purpose sought is wise or in the best interest of the people. Let us remember that while Senators can deny a right or power in one limited area today, other rights and powers can be denied to them and to their States, tomorrow.

The greatest single miracle that was achieved in the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution was the welding together in a Republican framework autonomous and sovereign colonies that gave to the Central Government certain specific and delegated powers and retained for themselves and the people all other powers, rights, and privileges.

Students of government and political scientists from abroad have always marveled as to how a country such as ours could survive with the now existing 51 separate legislative, executive, and judicial systems. Our Founding Fathers made this the primary condition to the establishment of a Union.

Section 2, article I of the Constitution reflects the fixed intention of the Founding Fathers to require that portion of · the entire population which should have the privilege of voting for candidates to a national office should be determined solely and alone on the basis of the qualifications of each separate State requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. It provides: ·

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the 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.

Francis Newton Thorpe, in his book, "The Constitutional History of the American People," sets forth charts and tables which show the qualifications of electors in the several States prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution.

This chart reveals that, in Massachusetts, to vote one had to own a freehold with an annual income of 3 pounds or an estate of 60 pounds.

In New York, the voter must have had a freehold of 20 pounds or pay rent of 40 shillings. To vote for a State senator, the freehold had to amount to 100 pounds.

New Jersey required an ~state of 50 pounds as a qualification of an elector. New Hampshire and Vermont both required that the voter be a freeholder. Maryland required · ' ~ freehold of 50 acres or town lot or paid taxes equal to a tax on 50 acres.

Rhode Island required . that a voter own 40 pounds in realty or 40 shillings per annual rent.

(Extracts from "The Constitutional History of

Qualifications

State Gonsti- Age Residence tution

New Hampshire —— 1784 21 Town _ - __ ____ ____

1792 21 _____ do . _-- -

Vermont_ ___ ~~ ------ 1777 21 1 year in State _--

1786 21 _____ do

1793 21 _____ do . __ --------- __

Massachusetts .. ---- 1780 21 1 year in town __ New York __________ 1777 21 6 months iucountY------ New Jersey _________ 1776 21 12 :rp.onths in county____ Pennsylvania.------ 1776 21 1 year in State __________

1790 21 _____ do __

Delaware_--------- - 1776 2 Maryland _ __________ 1792 1776 ---2i- 21 -2yearsiiii:ftate-_-~======= 1 year in county __ Virginia _____________ 1776 2 North Carolina _____ 1776 ---,i- - ~;-m.;;;th;·;.;·count;;:::: South Carolina ______ 1776 2 1778 ---21· -i-year-iiisiaie_-~========

1790 21 2 years citizen of

Georgia : _________ :_: 1777 . 21 6 ~:~:~s 1n St ate.

1789 21 6 months in citizens a . n . d inhabit- .

ants of the State.

1798

Kentucky----------- 1792 Tennessee ___________ 1796 1799 : :::i~~~;;,:~~;

tIn · New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and tury, most of the electors were church members.

State Date of law Age

Massachusetts __________ Mar. 23, 1786 ______ __ : ______ _ Rhode Island___________ 1762_______________ 21 Connecticut_____________ 1715_______________ New York _________ ; ____ Mar. 27, 1778 ______ --------- - New Jersey _____________ Feb. 22, 1797______ 21 Penns~1vania _______ " ___ Feb. 15, _ 1799______ 21 M d · - {October 1785 ______ } · aryan 1 --- ------------ Dec. 31, 1796_ _ _ ___ ---------