March 26, 1962

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion o( 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 n ational monunient. ·

Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, I now return to the matter that is pending before the Senate, to express my personal concem and interest not only in the subject matter of the proposal, but with respect to its, in effect, being displaced immediately, and in its place .substituted a proposed consti . tutional amendment. In addition to the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment, I submit to the Senate and to the thinking people of this Nation that the great Senate of the Unitedand I use the word "great" in its very best sense-the great Senate of the United States is embarking on an uncharted and unknown field which I personally believe will prove to be a reckless field and which will beset us with bad precedents later if we try to embark UJlOn that serious matter of submitting a constitutional amendment by this unseeming and unwise method, and by sheer force of numbers alone ram through a proposed constitutional amendment, riding the back, so to speak, of the legislative enactment of an extraneous subject.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think it ought to be said, when it comes to the question of ramming through anything, that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], now speaking, and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], who seems to be getting ready to carry on some more activity, · are doing an extraordinary Job themselves.

I point out to Senators that we have been on this matter of taking up a joint resolution for over 2 weeks, and that, to the best of my knowledge, certainly during my years in the Senate, and on the basis of the precedents which I have looked into, nowhere will we find two greater bulldozers, perhaps I should say bulldoggers, on this particular proposition than the Senator from · Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL]. They have made life not miserable, but certainly uncomfortable. They have been tenacious, persevering, and on the floor of the Senate every minute that we have been in session over the past 2 weeks. I express the hope that we can get to the matter of taking up Senate Joint Resolution 29, having to do with Alexander Hamilton•s home, · very shortly, because I wish to say that these two · Senators are certainly holding my feet to the fire and I think also the feet of the Senate as a whole. I do not know what is going to happen if and when we take up the resolution. However, I express the hope that we will have that opportunity sometime soon, and I would say to the Senator from Mississippi that I feel that my feet and the Senate's feet have been burned enough.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator for his remarks, as far as they go. I deeply appreciate, as does the Senator from Alabama also, .I am sure, what the Senator has said. On the matter of saving time for the Senate, t would say to the Senator from Montana that if · he would just withdraw his motion to take up the joint resolution, and withdraw aU support to the idea of adding a constitutional amendment to it, th.e Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Mississippi would yield very . quickly and get out of the way, so to speak, around here.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. A.s always, the Senators from Alabama and Mississippi drive · a bard bargain. However, there will be no bargaining on this proposal. w~ will stay with the matter until it is settled one way or another. We -certainly would not want to see all of the illuminating debate which we have heard during the past 2 weeks go for naught by withdrawing the motion to take up Senate Joint Resolution 29. I am sure the Senator understands my position, as I do his, and I onlY hope he will get off my back long enough to allow the Senate, after 2 weeks, I repeat, to get down to the pending proposal. The Senator from Mississippi has faced up to his responsibility far more effectively than I had anticipated. It is now the time, long past, in my opinion, for the Senate to face up to its responsibility.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Let me say that I used the expression “ram through" more with reference to sheer majority vote to transgress what I believe are the g . good rules of the Senate, and then, of course, with reference to the two-thirds vote to . adopt a proposed con­ 'Stitutional amendment.

But back to my remarks concerning the procedure which it is proposed to have the Senate adopt. At best, lt is a kind of legislative hocus-pocus. With all deference to everyone concerned, it shows a lack of integrity -for Senate rules and the functions they are supposed to perform. With the increasing pressures from various sources for this or that piece of legislation, with various organized groups knocking at the doors of Congress more and more every year, and especially after every presidential campaign and every congressional campaign, the Senator from Mississippi believes that if we are to continue effectively our representative form of government, instead of tearing down the integrity of our rules, there must ' be a building up of the prestige and sanctity of the ordinary channels and functions which relate to the passing of a measure. I think we are ' becoming more and more careless at every session by resorting to procedures of this kind, by seeking to do indirectly the things we cannot do directly.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President. will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. t yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does not the distinguished Senator believe that when 68 Senators, more than two-thirds of the total membership, have offered a proposed constitutional amendment, and when that number is more than enough to submit the constitutional amendment, they should have the pr . privilege, _ ~t long last, after _ r ~any years, to · have the Senate itself pass _ upon . their proposal?

.Mr. STENNIS ~ From the investigation which the Senator from .Mississippi has made, and merely taking the information he . has obtained on this question from Senators whose names appear on the resolution, he is fully satisfied that they did not understand the import or the origin of the measure when their names wer.e placed on the proposed amendment. That has become well known during this debate. Senator after Senator has spoken against the proposed amendment in the strongest kind of terms, Senators who in previous years have signed the measure as cosponsors. They are Senators whose high .sense of public duty and integrity cannot be challenged in any forum. They have said that this proposal at one time was a matter of .strategy, a defensive movement, but that the .situation has now changed.

As one Senator who has attended many conferences over the years since becoming a Member of this body, I can add my . small voice to what has been said along this line, namely, that the original submission and .signing of the constitutional proposal in past years was well known to have been-certainly among many Senators--a purely defensive measure, .a matter of .strategy. Now that a little life has been breathed into it in that way, it simply keeps on running.

Further in answer to the . Senator from Florida, the main weight. the chief blessing, and the only political surport this matter has received is due to its having been mixed up with the . civil rights political question, which is almost nationwide and is under consideration. Therefore, I do not think the Senate ought to pass this proposal or to vote on it if it has to come through the doors it is now coming through. ·

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Mississippi by his comment that several Senators who were cosponsors of the measure in earlier years have taken the floor to speak against it does not mean to suggest, does he, that any of the 68 present cosponsors of the measure have taken that position?

Mr. STENNIS. The record will speak for itself as to who has done so; but I have talked to some of the present authors of the resolution and have no doubt in my mind that they have somewhat different views about it from what they had when their names were .signed to the measure.

I can further testify that this proposal was circulated through the Senate in the early days of the list session of the 87th ·- congress-that is, in January i961. ' It : was passed around among Senators. at least on this side of the aisle, by an employee of the Senate. and thereby the inference, at least, was that it had · the blessing of the leadership : of the ·- Se:riate-whch it might have had at - that time.

Nevertheless; io secure names · to · · . a proposal for a constitutional amendment b~ 11at'iriff it passed around q _ ~ the · floor of the Senate by a Senate employee was, the Senator from Mississippi thought, dangerous business; it was a practice which ought not to have been indulged in. The Senator from - Mississ-ippi happened to come upon the :floor of the Senate at that very time and saw what was taking place. He immediately notified the majority leader, the Senator from Montana [Mr. FIELD], of his objection to it, and the Senator from Montana immediately stopped the activity.

I am not attacking the Senator from Montana or the Senator from Florida. I simply say it was a looseness in the way of doing business.

Each individual Senator-including the Senator from Mississippi-should be more closely on guard concerning what he signs as a coauthor or cosponsor. Certainly we ought to be more on guard about the activities of the employees of the Senate, who are supposed to represent all of us, not merely one or two, or a few, in going around and drumming up cosponsors of measures.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Mississippi further yield? . Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that before the introduction of the present proposed amendment early in the 1st session of this Congress, the Senate had considered exactly the same measure in 1960 and had adopted it by a vote of 72 to 16?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Florida is correct. The RECORD shows that. However, there is much that could be said about how that vote came about and the strategy employed in that instance. But I shall not go into detail except to say that the proposed amendment never passed Congress, even though it passed the Senate. I appreciate the interest of the Senator from Florida in this subject. I know he has worked hard and diligently on it-too hard, I think; but he is the Senator to decide that, of course.

To return to the subject of the integrity of the Senate, I do not believe we could have more grave questions coming before us, regardless of the subject, than questions concerning the integrity of our legislative functions.

Without adverting to it too much, the Senator · from Mississippi has been engaged in a considerable study for the last several months regarding a question upon which he anticipated he would have to rule. It concerns executive privilege in the giving of testimony before a legislative committee. I was interested in legislative privilege. We are members of the legislative branch of the Government. We are directly responsible. Of course, the President of the United States is, too. However, the legislative branch of the Government, those who hold positions directly responsible to the peoplethe Members of the House every 2 years, the Members of the Senate every 6 years-has privileges. The judicial branch also has privileges, as does the executive branch. It is very refreshing to · make a full study of the precedents as they have developed over the decades and to observe that, in the final analysis, one branch of the Government has never been successful in overriding another with reference to privilege.

The Supreme Court of the United States could not take files from the humblest subcommittee of the Senate, whereas the Senate could not take certain things from the courts or from the executive branch. I have increased appreciation for the legislative privileges and functions of our truly great form of government. If we do not enforce these privileges and if we do not have a proper sense of high obligation for our own rules and if we do not fully live up to them and maintain their integrity, of course no one else will, and no one else will respect them; and then the legislative branch will not be able to carry on very long with its proper functioning.

Furthermore, Madam President, it is actually a sad fact of life that some Members will make an effort to substitute - for this small legislative bill a constitutional amendment; and some Members favor proceeding, if necessary-so I understand-actually to apply cloture to the motion to have the Senate take up this measure-a measure to which there is no opposition; but certainly it has no high rating on the priority list of proposed legislation at this session. - Yet some Members actually would have cloture applied to the motion to have the Senate take up the bill-not for the sake of the bill itself; no, Madam President, a thousand times no. On the contrary, the purpose in that connection is the ulterior one of applying cloture in order to have the Senate take up a polltax constitutional amendment, a measure which in itself is not the subject of any particular or large amount of interest or any particular demand. But the point is that it is a part of the so-called civil rights program. That is the only issue here; everything else is tail to the dog.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that cloture is a very unusual and very extraordinary procedure, one which has been resorted to by the Senate on very few occasions; and is it not also true that for many, many years the Senate had no rule XXII providing for cloture? ·

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Alabama is correct. The history of this matter is well known. Freedom of debate in the Senate is considered _ sacred ground, and is considered so essential to the proper operation of the Senate that for many, many years there was no rule XXII. But even after there was a rule XXII, cloture was most sparingly exercised. Yet, Madam President, some Members favor invoking cloture in connection with the matter now before usnot the Alexander Hamilton National Monument bill or the poll tax in a few small States, but part of the civil rights program. ,

Furthermore, if I may say so, the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] is in the forefront, leading the pack in this attempt, whereas ordinarily lle fights hard against the imposition of cloture.

But I believe he has become obsessed with the idea of ending the poll tax, and that obsession is - carrying him along--carrying him so far that he is :finding himself in the position of favoring the invoking of cloture-a position very, very contrary to his usual conception of the proper way for the Senate to function.

But, Madam President, the important point for us to bear in mind is that the course which some Members now advocate would result in turning the Senate aside from proper observance if its rules and proper functioning under its rules and procedures and the maintenance of their integrity, and would substitute, in accordance with the wish of some Mem- · bers, consideration of such a constitutional amendment; and some Members would go so far as even to have cloture invoked, in order to have the Senate take · up this measure.

Madam President, at this session we have had a good illustration of real legislative statesmanship at its best, and also, I believe, executive statesmanship: The President of the United States had a reorganization plan which he wished made valid, and he wanted it to run the gantlet. So he pressed for action on it in Congress. I believe he made a mistake of judgment iri that connection; but, at any rate, that was his decision. A Senate committee was considering that proposal, but some of its proponents got in a hurry. However, at least they came . in the front door. They made a direct motion to have that proposal withdrawn from the further consideration of that Senate committee; and thus the issue was squarely presented in terms of the . matter of procedure and the mainte- nance of the integrity of the rules of the e~nate. When the vote was taken, the Senate stood squarely in favor of maintaining the integrity of those rules. The Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] was greatly concerned about that . matter; and he stated here on the floor, in substance, that it is essential that _ the integrity of our rules in connection with committee procedure be maintained. And the Senate voted to do just that.

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

- Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. _ HOLLAND. Does not the Senator from Mississippi think there is · a considerable difference between that situation rnd the present one, in that the Senator from Florida has for 14 years been trying to get this matter before the Senate; and the subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary have uniformly approved it and reported it favorably to the full committee, but never have been able to get any action on it through the full committee, despite the fact ‘nat it was well known that every year and every time a majority of' the full committee favored this course; and also despite the fact that approximately 60 Members of the Senate have joined in cosponsor: .: "lg this measure, but still have found it extremely difficult to obtain action on it from the full committee, even though , gh the subcommittee headed by th · e Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCLm.­ LAN1 had proceeded speedily and diligently in the eff-ort to fulfill Its duties and to give the Senate - tlre benefit of its ju.:':.gment?

Mr . .STENNIS. Madam President, I would say to the Senator from Florida that of course there are always differences of opinion in regard to what is the proper procedure in any situation; but certainly the attempt to have the Senate take that matter from the committee which had jurisdiction of it was a direct assault, as then proposed by the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD]; and in that connection each Sena · tor~including. <>f course, the Senator from Florida-could vote as he saw fit.

I realize that it is possible that because of the great .interest of the Senator from Florida in the matter we are now discussing, it could be that his best judgment would be overwhelmed to such an extent that he would vote to discharge the committee from the furtherconsideration of the matter. But at least in that case there was an opportunity for a direct vote by Senators and a direct choice by Senators; and, regardless of the outcome of that vote, the integrity of the rules of the Senate would be upheld-as it was upheld. ·

But .in the present instance, an indirect attempt is being made; and that attempt does the rules of the Senate no good and does the integrity of our .system no good. In fact, it does them positive harm.

Again I emphasize that no attempt is now made to have the Senate consider the merits of the proposal. Instead. the entire attempt is made in connection with the so-called civil rights program. and that is what gives this matter impetus.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President. will the Senator from Mississippi yield further to me?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that the distinguished majority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] gave full notice, ahead of time, that his effort, in connection with the calling up of this particular measure, would be to get a vehicle for the attachment of the constitutional amendment; and is not that why the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and his colleagues have held up the taking of action by the Senate for nearly '2 weeks now, in an effort to prevent the Senate from taking up this vehicular bill?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Florida is correct when he says the Senate was given full notice in regard to what the procedures would be; and I commend the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] and also the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] for that; and I know they would not consent to anything less. Of course, with anything else the Senate could hardly operate as a body.

But, Madam President, of course we are opposed to the proposal for such a constitutional amendment; we are no . t opposed to the Alexander Hamilton National Monument bill, as such. But the point is that if the course now advocated by some Senators is followed, we shall be violating our own system and we shall be casting aside our own procedur-es and we Shall be · trying by an Indirect w.ay to accomplish . such a result---tbereby establishing precedent after precedent that w.Ould - plague us. -

- Madam President, I point ou.t that in aU the history of our Government, never before has an attempt been made to add to a legislativ-e act-which, of course, has to be signed by the . President of the United States, after its passage by majority vote by both Houses of Congress— proposed constitutional amendment. So if a majority of the Senate votes to have the Senate ta.ke up this matter a~ this time. I hope there will be full and enlightening debate in regard to that very grave subject.

When we consider the seriousness of every word in our Constitution and the seriousness of amending it, certainly it is out of keeping with the spirit of that great document for us to resort to indirect ways and what I think is a misuse, of a most serious kind, of our valuable rules here in the Senate. · - Leaving that subject for the time being, it . seems clear to the Senator from Mississippi that the proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment have just not made out a case for the amendment. They have just not made out a sufficient case for the amendm-ent, considered and .standing on its own bottom. They have not shown that there is a demand for it on the part of the people throughout this great Nation. They have not shown that there is a real need for it. They have not shown that there is active support for it by tlte people throughout the Nation. Even though there has been large support for it .here on the .floor, there has not been shown an active interest and support of it by the people by and large. The informed people, or those who are merely casually informed, just have not been aroused to give the real support that ordinarily goes with a matter of grave importance as that of a constitutional amendment. That interest is lacking. There must be a reason for it. There is not a suf­ .ficient case, or anything like it, for the amendment. Therefore, there is no real reason, no demanding reason, or no urgent reason for the fight that is being made to offer the proposed amendment.

Those of us who are opposed to the amendment do not make .any apology whatsoever for our opposition. I know I am representing, and other Senators have spoken for themselves, what time has proven to be sound, basic, fundamental principles, time tried and tested .as applied to the practical affairs of life and government in our area of the country, overwhelmingly approved over and over again by the people in those States. The people in some -of the States have seen fit to change their laws. That is . entirely all right, but those who are taking the same position I take only ask that our people be protected and given the privilege of the same right-that is, to pass on the question themselyes-that llas been taken in other States.

I know one State, at least, where the people voted on thi:s matter within the last few years, arui -voted overwhelmingly to retain the poll tax .as a very small token of good citizenship, as a mild regUlation m orderliness, with reference to exer:cising the privilege of voting.

I am not certain, of course, but I have little doubt that in the States which have the poll tax now the people would vote overwhelmingly to keep that little measure on the books as a safeguard. It does not keep from voting any person who wants to do .so, merely because he has to make the least possible sacrifice. It does clear out the irresponsible, the reckless, and the drifters.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that every dollar from the tax in the States that have the poll tax goes for the education of the youth of the States?

Mr. STENNIS. Certainly. Every dime in every one of those States goes for education. In my State, the money has to be spent within the county where it is paid. It cannot go 1 foot beyond the borders of that county. It is a trust fund for education.

. Mr. mLL. Is it not true that in all the States there are certain prerequisites for voting, and is it not true that in the States that do not have permanent registration, the voters must register from time to time?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that when they register they have to go to where the books are, and take the time and the trouble to register?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. It is far easier for the individual voter to look after the little matter of paying the poll tax within a certain period of the year than it is to go to the trouble of keeping up with registration and going around and following the book, so to speak. - Mr. HILL. Is it not true that election day is the only day in the year, and the oruy day in 4 years in some cases, or in the case of a U.S. Senator the only day in 6 year.s. on which the person must be there, and he must go where the polling place is, and very often he has to wait in a line before his turn comes? · Mr . STENNIS. Oh, yes.

Mr. HILL. In the State of Alabama the people have from October 1 to February 1, 4 months, within which to pay the poll tax. Any day except Sunday within that period they can pay the poll tax, -or they can send a check for $1.50 through the mail to the tax collector.

Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. They can do it just by sending in a check that way. It is paid, and the receipt is usually put with other papers. - The Senator from Arkansas mentioned the pride one has in the idea of having become a qualified elector and of saying, ••Here is my poll tax receipt. I am a man on my own. I am 21. Here is evidence that I am goiilg to take part in the operation of my government." I . think the .senator from Mississippi has every single poll tax receipt he ever received. I had particular pride in the :first ones.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that in the case of · State elections to abolish the poll tax, which have taken place; I think, in two States in the last 8 or 10 years, the people who voted constituted the restricted electorate who were permitted to vote under the poll tax system of those particular States?

Mr. STENNIS. That is true, if one wants to put a narrow interpretation on the word "restricted." There was very, very little restriction. I maintain that . to have quality voting, to have responsibility in government, there must be some kind of regulation--call it restriction if one wants to-and there must be some kind of screening out of the irresponsible, the drifters, and the others who are not willing to fulfill their citizenship responsibilities by making a little sacrifice.

Something has been said, I know in good faith, though the figures were not given, with reference to the qualified electors in my home State.

Madam President, when a person becomes 21 years of age in my State, if an election is held within a certain number of months that person does not have to pay a poll tax the first year. If a person is disabled-and that is a question of fact to be decided-he is given a permanent certificate of exemption, if he has a permanent disability, of course. When a person reaches a certain age-in my State the age of 60-he never has to pay a poll tax again. This works out so that only three out of four of our qualified electors pay poll taxes. I do not know that there is any official list of total numbers of voters in the State at any particular time, because that varies with the disability certificates, with those who become 60, with those who become 21, and so on. However, in the AP survey of 1958 there were, in round numbers, some 600,000 registered voters in Mississippi. · I bring that up because reference has been made to the fact that in the presidential election of 1960 it was said there was a relatively small vote, only 283,000 voting in that election.

The Senator from Mississippi knows something about the sentiment, the feelings, and the talk among the people in that election, because he was out among the people day after day and week after week. A lot of the people did not vote at all. They intended not to vote at all. They we . re qualified to vote. They did not like the platform of either one of the major parties. There was even what was called a third ticket in the picture at that time After the campaign was over, although there was considerable interest in it, many people withheld their votes. Others voted as they saw fit, which is as they should do. My point is that it was not a typical election.

The real election in any State, Madam President, is well known. That is the election which involves a long ticket with . a lot of names, and a lot of officers being elected. The main election in Mississippi, of course, is the primary election. Mississippi is comparatively a one-party State, though the Republicans are mak-

CVTII--316 ing some headway and claiming a whole lot of headway.

The real election is the one in which the people . choose their county officers and their Governor. That is when there is the largest turnout. Of course, in our State it is in our primary election.

Recently there was a primary election in Mississippi, with voting for Governor and for county officers, and the number voting was well over the 400,000 mark, which is a great many more than voted in the presidential race to which I referred.

As the Senator from Alabama said, the money, which is an appreciable amount, goes into the treasury for the benefit of the schools. Some Senator translated the money into the number of school buildings it would build or the number of teachers it would employ. Every single dollar of the money goes for the benefit of the schools of the State. In my particular State, the money goes into the treasury earmarked for the schools of the county in which the money was paid. In other words, the parents who pay this small amount see it turned back and spent for the education of their own children. It works that way. It cannot be any other way.

So far as the Senator from Mississippi now recalls, this is the only tax in the State which is expressly earmarked for a single purpose and which c _ cannot lawfully be used for any other purpose.

I was not able to hear all of the debate, although I have been present every day and most of the time-all of the time which has been consistent with administrative matters in connection with this problem. Something has been said on the floor about the abuse of the poll tax and about it being an evil thing which designing men could use for their own benefit and for their own unholy purposes.

Madam President, in some isolated place here, there, somewhere, at some time, something like that might have happened in some of these poll tax States.

As one who has been out among the people and who has had responsibility to the people for many years, 8.s one who served for 5 years as a district prosecuting attorney and for years thereafter as a judge, as one who came in contact with officers all the time and the reports about crimes or irregularities, I can say I never heard of such a thing happening. I never heard of the corrupt use Qf poll tax receipts in my State.

I have heard a great deal more direct proof, under sworn testimony, about the misuse of relief funds in the large cities of the United States, and about the threats to take people off the relief rolls if they did not vote Republican or if ments. they did not vote Democratic. We heard witnesses swear that was what happened to them, and that they were taken off the rolls. I had that experience as a member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. I shall not call the names of any cities, but the testimony was in an open hearing - and there was sworn testimony. The report was from an impartial source. The late Senator Schoeppel and I were on the subcommittee.

I think there is far, far, far more abuse of the relief rolls with reference to trying to influence unfortunate recipients of relief as to how they shall vote not only in Federal elections but also in State elections and mayoralty elections, and others of that kind, than there is perhaps some little abuse in the relatively few rural States with reference to poll taxes.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. The distinguished Senator in an earlier appearance made a statement which I shall quote, and with respect to which I shall ask a question. The statement is found on page 4097 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Frankly, with the growing problems of our Government and the Nation itself, I am firmly convinced that instead of lowering qualifications for voting, we should be raising them.

Mr. President, I expect to enlarge upon that thought, as well as others, during the debate on this important question.

I ask the distinguished Senator at what stage in his speech he expects to enlighten the Senate as to what raising ot qualifications he thinks would be appropriate, going beyond the poll tax requirement? I have been listening throughout his various appearances in the hope that he would elucidate that point. Does he expect to do so?

Mr. STENNIS. As best I can I shall do so now.

I was referring not particularly to the States which already have poll taxes, but to many States which have virtually no regulations.

· If the poll tax is repealed, as I understand the situation, in Virginia there will not be any restriction or any regulation of any kind left, so far as the law is concerned, with respect to the list of voters who have paid the poll tax or met its requirements. That is the voting liSt. If we take that away, there will be nothing. ·

Something would have to be added. So long as the States have the poll tax they have a responsibility list. That is to a mild degree a restriction. It is a sifting out. It is a pitch for quality of citizenship.

In some States a citizen need not do any more than sign his name. I am willing to have such States continue to pass on their own procedures, because I do not believe in trying to coerce a State because its law is not what I think it ought to be. But I believe there should be more and more regulation in some of the States as to educational requireI would not repeal a law that presently r-equires a voter to know something about the English language. I understand that such is the law in New York. In my view it would be wise to have some restrictions on what ! call drifters-those who drift around from place to place. I think in my own State we could make a more restrictive rule with reference to those who move away from one place and live somewhere else. We let too many of such people return and vote. Some requirement that would be fairly easily complied with, resulting in a minor contribution of money to the State treasury, and containing a restriction about having to live in one place a while before one is qualified to vote, is what the Senator from Mississippi had in mind.

I believe the problem is more acute because of the enormous increase in our population. As every Senator knows, more and more groups are organizing in order to put pressure on the Congress. More and more of such people have a direct interest in obtaining a check from the Federal Government. More and more programs are being fed into the Federal machinery of Government to benefit directly more and more people, which increases the burden upon representative Government.

I have never believed that there was any great virtue in numbers. I have never believed that wisdom came merely from masses of numbers. Certainly, if we expect our representative form of Government to survive, we shall have to give more thought and serious attention to the quality of citizenship rather than trust only to luck and to the masses. We must emphasize more the responsibilities of Government. I do not know of anyone who has ever in life contributed very much to family, society, or his community unless he was willing to accept some kind of responsibility. I think the question of voting should carry some responsibilities with it. I do not know of any better training anywhere for any child, regardless of circumstance, color, or opportunity in life, than to teach him to carry responsibilities. That is what I had in mind with reference to voting qualifications.

Madam President, in passing I should like to remark that we all like to think back to events that occurred in our youth.

In the 1910's and the early 1920's, people thought in terms of merely having an opportunity to improve themselves, to secure a higher education, and to obtain a job.

The person who had an opportunity of that kind, grit and determination, together with sufficient responsibility to hold a job when he obtained it, improved himself and went on up the ladder. That is one the great lessons of life.

The question of a poll tax fits into the subject of service to government. But returning to the overall proposition, I think that even though we have the finest young generation we have ever had-they are more intelligent, their minds are sharper and finer, and they have had better food and training in many ways-at the same time we are failing to teach them, as the Senator from Mississippi sees it, enough about the responsibilities of life. We are failing to teach them that every privilege carries with it a duty, and that the quality of their work is what counts and what will lead them on to a better position. I do not think we are doing enough in the way of teaching these fine young people that essential lesson. We are getting off on the idea of mass action, mass virtues, the mass improvements, mass relief programs, and mass everything. We forget that, after all, the strength of a nation depends upon the individuals who are in it, at least the total of the individual strength, and there is no substitute for those qualities.

The Senator from Florida reminded me of another point when he asked the question about the details of qualifications for voting. I mentioned on the Senate floor the other day that instead of taking powers away from the States, removing what few privileges the States have left, either abolishing them altogether or transferring them over into Federal powers, we ought to be giving more attention to the Federal powers that we already have. We should give more attention to the powers we now have rather than entering into crusades to limit the States.

As a taxpayer of the District of Columbia, I referred at that time to the increasing and onrushing tidal wave of crime that grows by leaps and bounds here in the Capital City and is not sufficiently checked. Not enough is being done about it . . I am not here to lecture anyone on that point. I am greatly concerned about it, not only for reasons of the personal safety of the people, but also the impression that we make in countries throughout the world. If the ambassadors and their staffs here tell their people back home the truth about that situation-and I assume they dol know it is bound to create a very bad impression as well as distrust. I am confident in my own mind that something can be done about it.

I wish now to mention a Member of this body who is actively trying to do something about the District of Columbia government. I refer to the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that handles the District of Columbia appropriations bill. He raised the question of the soundness of the way the relief program is being administered. He boldly raised that point in the Senate. The Senate sustained him on the point. As I understand, he has investigators going into the question, and he has discovered an appalling set of facts. He did not give me the figures which I am about to state, but something like 67 percent of the relief cases which have been investigated have been shown to be cases that are not entitled under the law to receive the benefits. As I say, I think this is an outstanding illustration of a Senator who has moved into a problem here and is doing very constructive work in spite of pressure the other way. I will back him up and I believe the Senate will also. He is setting a pattern that can be used elsewhere in the nation for good. I would not destroy the welfare program. It is the mass of abuses that has become a scandal in many places that I am attacking.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ALLOT!'. Madam President, since the Senator from Colorado is a member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the District of Columbia ,- I believe it would be remiss, since I am on the floor, not to join in the Senator's remarks about the work of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] on the committee. I know that last fall, after he held extensive hearings upon the welfare program of the city of Washington-and I use that term "extensive" advisedly-and after he had secured admission from those in charge that less money could be used, and even after the Senate and after the House had acted upon the recommendations, he was subjected to terrific pressures from the press and from other sources to authorize, himself, action by the District of Columbia which would negate the action by the Congress. I, with I believe every other member of the subcommittee, joined in supporting the position he had taken.

With Congress meeting only less than 2 months after he was subjected to this pressure, and with a supplemental appropriation bill coming up, through which any real injury or hurt could be handled, it is incomprehensible how any responsible citizen could-! do not care who he is-exert upon any chairman the pressure that was exerted upon him to abrogate not only the action of the subcommittee, but also the action of the Appropriations Committee, and to abro· gate the action of the Senate itself, and to abrogate the action of the whole Congress.

It is a sad commentary on the mistaken concept that some people have of our Government. I advised the Senator-and this is a matter of recordthat I thought he would be sincerely criticized, and rightfully so, if he attempted to follow the dictates of some of the press and some of the people who were trying to lead him in a different direction.

Since the Senator from Mississippi mentioned this matter, I believe it is about time to lay it out and make a record on it. I was called at a football game-one of the two I saw last yearin Boulder, Colo., by a reporter of a Washington paper. He purposely withheld the facts from me in trying to trap me into admissions and statements with respect to what had occurred, and about which I had no personal knowledge, because I was in Colorado, not here. I did not appreciate this type of action. However, the Senator from West Virginia did stand pat, and I think rightfully so. If we are going to adopt the policy in Congress that the chairman of the committee can abrogate action of the subcommittee, of the whole committee, and of Congress itself, then we really have gone a long way in this country to throwing away the basic concept which our Founding Fathers put together.

Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, the remarks of the Senator from Colorado are sound indeed and certainly true. They are very timely. The Senator from West Virginia LMr. BYRD] may be surprised that the Senator from Mississippi brought this matter up at this time. Certainly the Senator from Colorado is reflecting the very finest sentiments of himself and the other members of the subcommittee.

The Senator from West Virginia, as chairman, took an above average amount of pressure on this matter. He is a statesman of the very highest order with extreme courage and dedication to his responsibility. If anyone undertook to pressure him out of his position he certainly picked the wrong man. The Senator from West Virginia is setting a pattern for the Nation. That is my main point. I am proud that he is doing it. I am certainly going to back him up in the committee and on the Senate floor. While the Senator from Florida had to be out of the Chamber, I spoke about a matter here of which his question about voters reminded me; something that I said the other day to which I would return. Instead of taking away from the States the few fragments of power that they still have, we ought to be very concerned about using the Federal authority that we already have.

I illustrated that point by showing the condition into which we are letting the Capital City get as a city of lawlessness, as a city without safety for the citizens, including the ladies, and the terrific adverse impression and opinion that it has created around the world.

I am not an expert in this matter. I am not on the committee which handles District of Columbia matters. I am sure the members of that committee are doing the best they can. However, · merely as a matter of practical application of matters, I do have this comment to make. As I say, as a Member of this body and also as a taxpayer, I do not lay the blame on the city Police Department. So far as I know and understand, the Police Department is staffed with competent men. I do believe that the word and message must go out from the White House to the Commissioners and Police Department that the White House is going to back them up if they take the lead in enforcing the law and in seeking out the offenders; if they arrest the offenders and prosecute them, and spare none. Word like that would get around mighty fast, and it would be electrifying as to results.

Let the message go out from the White House to the Department of Justice and to the prosecuting attorneys, to bring all offenders to justice on the facts of the case, and to spare none. That is another word that would get around mighty fast, if word went out to the prosecuting officials to prosecute offenders to the extent of the law, and to have the Justice Department stand up before the court and urge penalties that will be felt.

Let the message go out from the White House to parole boards and to the related agencies-! do not know what terms are used here--to let the prisoners serve their sentences. Of course there would be exceptional cases, after the facts have been fully developed. However, that is another word that would get around mighty fast. That is what is lacking.

Let the message come to Congress, if funds are needed to build additional clean, adequate workhouses and training schools, and for the purpose of buying some farms, where these offenders can be put to work. Let that message also say that all able-bodied prisoners will have to work for the duration of their term, and that the penalty will fit what the prisoner has done. Let it be a sentence that will be felt, and we will not have a repetition of these things.

There is nothing about the situation that cannot be solved. A continuation, however, of lawlessness may be expected as long as there is softness in the outlook, softness in the imposition of penalties, and softness in carrying out and in meting out punishments that are given in the course of justice.

If we stop these activities, and will be :firm, not c:r;uel; if we will impose strong penalties, not too severe, but conservative, punishment will be the strongest deterrent to the commission of crime, and these incidents will stop. But they will not be stopped so long as this blather is put out and the law is explained away by slanderous reference to the Irish and the Poles of another generation. Such talk as that, such degrading of the intelligence of the people, such approaches as that will encourage crime and lawlessness.

I have before me an editorial entitled "Washington's Thugs," published in the Washington Evening Star of March 19. I do not like to advertise these things, and I do not agree with the entire editorial, but after reviewing some of the attacks, the writer concludes by saying: The immediate problem, however, is that of coping with crime itself, not the conditions which produce criminals. In this connection, more extensive policing of the streets and the severer penal ties suggested by Judge McGuire certainly would help, but to be avoided is the fuzzy-minded notion that the yokers will go away if we all pretend that they do not exist.

Chief Judge McGuire is the judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia whom the Senator from Mississippi wished to quote the other day, but the article concerning whom he could not :find readily at his desk. Chief Judge McGuire's pronouncement is one which is sound in logic, is sound in law, and sound in human nature. Nothing short of it will meet the situation. I think we owe it to those who are running afoul of the law to let them know the certainty of the punishment that will fit their acts. The only way to accomplish this is to have the word go down the line that that is the business for today, for tomorrow, for next month, and the future.

Certainly we owe this to the defenseless, helpless people who are entitled to protection. A call came to my office only the other day from a woman who said, "I am a captive in my own home.” l think she expressed it very well.

I return to the basis of the proposed constitutional amendment. It has been one of the truly great checks and balances of our constitutional system to leave the power of qualifying electors and stating what their qualifications shall be at the State level and within the power of the States, so that as their Governors and legislatures come and go, and times change, they might have those requirements in keeping with the opinion of their time.

I mentioned a few minutes ago another of the great proven checks and balances that we have firmly imbedded in our Government. It is not directly mentioned in the Constitution. It is the one with reference to the protecting of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government from honest overreaching by any of the branches. That line of decisions has come down from George Washington's administration to the present administration and relates to the executive privilege, the judicial privilege, and the legislative privilege. It is one of the most illuminating and fascinating subjects which one engaged in Government could possibly read. It shows the practical side of the idea of checks and balances. There has been a difference of opinion about it as applied to different cases; but always that principle has been maintained and has been upheld. No President has ever been upheld in his effort to take records from the legislative branch. The legislative branch has never been upheld, in the final analysis, when it has tried to take records from the executive branch. That is a check and balance which is written into the very Constitution itself. It is spelled out, so to speak, in the section of the Constitution that has been quoted so many times and so effectively by other Senators. It provides that the qualifications of voters for Members of the House of Representatives shall be those required in the respective States for the most numerous branch of the State legislatures .

Without any apologies · or explanations of any kind for those little attacks, those of us who stand here to keep this reasonable power from being swept away are standing on the very firmest foundation that can be found anywhere. It is in the Constitution. It is not an implied power or an implied function; it is a power expressly spelled out and well defined. Until now, it has been a consistently followed principle of our Government with reference to checks and balances. I believe it is necessary to have these checks and balances if we are to retain our dual system of government, our Federal-State system. It has proved strong enough to be able to cope with any problem that has arisen so far. It has proven itself capable of coping with the mightiest task, in a material way, that has ever been placed upon any nation in the history of the world. namely, to be the policeman, so to speak, having the military resources and power necessary to protect the free world. That is exactly what we have today. We have the ground soldier, the paratrooper, and the landing marine, right on through the entire arsenal of our resources to the ICBM itself. We are prepared in a material way to defend not only ourselves, but also the entire Western World.

However, here at home, with reference to the requirements of responsible citizenship, the requirements for quality citizenship, and the requirements for supporting our Government and having some appreciation of it, to the extent of the payment of a small, now almost infinitesimal, poll tax, we are loosening up, we are softening up, we are leveling off. I think we are creating conditions of weakness instead of building up strength. we are generating · softness, irresponsibility, and a lack of appreciation of the necessity for quality.

I hope that in its wisdom the Senate will settle this question by not even voting to let the resolution be considered until it can be stripped of · this illegal effort, as I see it, to try to tie around our necks the proposed constitutional amendment.

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. In the adoption of the 19th amendment, the women's suffrage amendment, the States, by a vote of three-fourths of them, followed the same course as is now suggested with reference to the elimination of the poll tax, did they not?

Mr. STENNIS. By constitutional amendment; yes, that is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. I know that the great State of Mississippi, which is so ably represented by my distinguished friend, on March 29, 1920, voted against or voted to reject the women's suffrage amendment. Is it not true that the judgment of the three-fourths of the States which ratified the amendment has proved to be salutary, sound, and wholesome in the Senator's own State?

Mr. STENNIS. As the Senator from Mississippi said the other day, the question of adopting the 19th amendment was an altogether different question from the one now proposed, which would eliminate the little requirement imposed upon all pes:r;ons, men · and women, regardless of race, color, or anything else. The 19th amendment, to which the Senator from Florida has referred; actually created a new group of citizens:

They were already citizens, of courseit actually created a new group to which the right of suffrage would be extended. In other words, following the ratification of that amendment, no States could deny suffrage to the members of that group. Of course, some States previously had extended the right of suffrage to them.

However, I do not think there is any analogy between the two, in terms of how Mississippi voted at that time. At that time Mississippi was represented in the Senate by what I call "the outstanding brain Senator" that Mississippi has sent to the Senate through the centuries-­ and I say that with all due deference to others. I refer to John Sharp Williams. He was a great scholar; he was highly ~ducated-as was well known throughout the Nation; and he is said . to have been one of Woodrow Wilson's main right arms in connection with matters arising before World War I and during World War I, as soon as Woodrow Wil- son was in the White House.

I am sure John Sharp Williams · voted in accordance with his convictions and in accordance with his view as to what was sound and best for the Nation. I would not question his judgment one iota.

Of course I think it is excellent that our ladies can vote. I remember when that constitutional amendment was ratified; and I think the voting by the ladies of the Nation has elevated the citizenship standards of the United States.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield again to ine?

Mr. STENNIS; I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Let me call attention to the fact that the great State represented by the Senator from Mississippi and five other States rejected the amendment; and I am asking the distinguished Senator from Mississippi if it is not true that the judgment of the three-fourths of the States which ratified that amendment has been found to be salutary, even in the States which then rejected the amendment?

Mr. STENNIS. But I do not think there is any analogy at all between the two. Mississippi voted for the 18th amendment; but in the judgment of the Nation, that was a mistake. So there is no analogy at all between the two.

The proposed amendment of the Senator from Florida would strike down one of the chief few remnants of State power in this delicate, sensitive field of voter qualifications; and I say, with all due deference, that I do not think the 19th amendment or the 18th amendment has anything to do with this matter. This matter involves the question of what is sound, on a constitutional basis, with reference to t.he qualifications of electors.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield again to me?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that prior to the submission of the 19th amendment, a large number of the States had acted to give the right of suffrage to their women citizens, and that then the 19th amendment pursued the constitutional method of submitting the matter to the jury of the States, to see whether three-fourths of them thought that the correct procedure; and that it has proved to be salutary and sound, and has justified the belief of the Founding Fathers that when threefourths of the States agree, the · matter is sure to be in the interest of the entire Nation? Does not the Senator from Mississippi agree to that?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Florida is historically correct about the fact that the amendment was submitted, and was ratified, and all that. But in my opinion there is no analogy between that subject matter and the subject of our discussion in the present instance. It could also be said, in regard to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, that time has proven that they were wise, for they were a brake-or, at least, they were an attempt to apply a brake-­ and a restriction on the Federal Government.

By the way, Madam President, let me refer briefly to George Mason. G'eorge Washington said that George Mason had the best mind of any man in the Nation. George Mason declined to sign the Constitution, at Philadelphia. Thereafter, he opposed its ratification by Virginiawhere it was ratified by a scant 10-vote majority, as x' recall.

George Mason said . that the reason why he did not sign the Constitution at Philadelphia was that · it did not: s~f- ficiently protect the States in their reserved powers, and because it did nothing about slavery; and he said that thereby it left within itself the germs of secession. I may not have quoted George Mason with exact accuracy; but certainly, as I recall, I have quoted the substance of the statement made by one whom George Washington described as having the best mind of his generation. Of course, the first 10 amendments were adopted, for it was thought that they would protect the reserved powers of the States.

However, the amendment now under discussion-which relates to one of the reserved or retained rights of the States-would sweep it away.

Madam President, during the course of this debate! have had considerable administrative duties to carry out; and there is a certain matter which I should like to mention later today, if certain material is available at that time. I realize that I have been in the process of making my second speech on the question of the motion to take up the joint resolution. I ask unanimous consent .that, if I see fit to do so, at a later stage of the debate on this motion, I may use 15 minutes, as a part of my second speech.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection--

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, I have no objection, because I certainly would not wish to interfere with the Senator's making his complete effort.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. GRUENING and Mr. COTTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLAND. In fact, Madam President, we have no disposition at all to prevent any Senator's gaining the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, a little later I wish to have a certain matter inserted in the REcORD, and then to ask for a quorum call.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, as I understand, any Senator can obtain the floor. I understand that the only rule now being enforced under the direction of the majority leader is the one which prevents a Senator from - yielding for anything but a question during the course of his speech.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. Madam President, I yield the floor.

GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY, MARCH 25

Mr. WILEY. Madam President, I take this opportunity to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that · yesterday, Sunday, March 25, marked an important day in Greek history. Yesterday was Greek Independence Day. That date marked · the · 141st anniversary of the start of the effort on the part of Greece to free itself from Ottoman rule. That effort was outstanding in its day. It is fitting that today we should remember some of the great contributions made to the world by the people of Greece.

Among the chief contributions made in that country was the early foundation in democratic government. Greeks all over the world should be proud of their country and for the contributions Greece has made in democratic government, with its emphasis upon the dignity of man, and their high regard for the law.

We all know of the many triumphs and the glory of old Greece. We all know of their early contributions in the field of literature and philosophy. There were many others equally great from a cultural standpoint.

Persons of Greek descent may well be proud of their cultural and political heritage with their contributions to government. I take this opportunity to make note of Greek Independence Day and I hope that other Senators will have the opportunity to pause for a moment during this busy day to reflect and to think about the contributions which Greece has made throughout its history to the arts, its culture, and to government.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Madam President, on · March 25, 1821, th e people of Greece deJared their independence from the Ottoman Empire that had overrun the entire Balkan area since 1453. The history books relate the many struggles for freedom by the people of Greece for their independence, whose final drive for vic- · tory was sparked from the aid and encouragement they had received from the people of America, who, not long before - that, on July 4, 1776, declared their independence.

Madam President, from ancient times up to the present the Greek peopk and the Greek nation have been a bastion of defense in the fight for freedom and liberty, beginning in the ancient days when the Greek warriors withheld the onslaught of invasions from across the Aegean Sea. During World War I the Greek nation fought on the side of the United States and her allies. The world will always remember how, on October 28, 1940, after a sudden attack by the Fascists and followed later by the Nazis, the brave Greek warriors protected the bases on the north until Hitler's over- - powering mechanized forces and · air attack overtook that nation. A few years later, after they were freed from the Nazis, the Communists tried to move in, and the Greek warriors and their families were able to withstand the Communist infiltration-something that the countries to the north were unable to do. It was then, Madam President, that the United States of America, through the Marshall plan, and with the aid of the Republican Congress in 1946, gave . aid to Greece which help _ ed her in her struggle against communism. That aid to Greece has continued from that time, through two terms of the Eisenhower administration and under the present administration, to the point that Greece again has gained much of its economic stability.

Greece gave to the world much of the civilization we enjoy today in the form of good government, the arts, science, philosophy, culture, as well as the immortal Greek language, which is one of the basic foundations of the English language which we use in this country of ours, a language the teaching of which has been reintroduced into many of our public schools.

Madam President, there has always been a close bond between Greece and America, because we both believe in the same basic principles of freedom and of good government, and because the basic documents of our Nation that were written by our Founding Fathers related to the basic principles of freedom and government originated in the Golden Age of Greece.

Madam President, throughout the State of Illinois, I have many good friends who are Americans of Hellenic extraction. Many of them are Greek immigrants who came to America because America loomed great in their minds as the promised land. They have grown with America and have become leaders in the professions, and business, and the civic and public life of their respective communities. I join them in honoring Greek Independence Day.