March 27, 1962

The Senate resumed the consideration of . the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) pro- viding for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, what is the pending question?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND], striking out all after the resolving clause, as amended, of Senate Joint Resolution 29, and inserting in lieu thereof certain other words.

Mr. MANSFIELD. This is a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to abolish the poll tax in the several States, is it?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is a propo.s.ed constitutional _ amendment. -

Mr. HOLLAND rose. - -

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr-. President——

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Georgia.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I - be- . lieve I have the floor.

The VICE . FRESIDEW,l'. The Senator from Florida has not been recognized; n ' e has not _: yet addressed the __ C~ir.

Mr. - HOLLAND; . Mr. President, I did not get here---

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President­

The VICE PRESIDENT · . Do · es the Senator from Georgia yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, Mr. President; I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, . dent, I did not get here in time to consult with the majority leader and the Senator from Georgia. Of course I am willing to have whatever procedure they see fit to propose followed in connection with the things we understand will happen today.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida seek recognition?

Mr. HOLLAND. I have already been recognized.

The VICE PRESIDENT. No; the Chair did not hear the Senator from Florida address the Chair first. The Senator from Georgia first addressed the Chair, and the Senator from Georgia has been recognized.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, inasmuch as this question has arisen, let me say that I understood the Senator from Montana to state, last evening, just before the recess was taken, that the order of business today would be that the Senator from Florida would offer his amendment and would address himself to it, and that then the Senator from Georgia would have an opportunity to make a point of order.

I came here prepared to follow that · procedure, as outlined by the majority leader. I do not always agree with the positions taken on various issues on the floor of the Senate by the majority leader; but in order to retain my standing in the Democratic Party, I support him on matters of procedure. [Laughter.]

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

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am very happy to follow any course of action which will be satisfactory to the majority leader and to the Senator from Georgia. I was simply seeking advice as to whether the two distinguished Senators had agreed on a course of action. I am perfectly willing to follow the course which has Beall been suggested by the Senator from Georgia. · ·

Mr. RUSSELL. We had agreed to the extent that the · Senator from Montana had announced what he conceived would be the order of business today, and the Senator from Georgia had not entered any demurrer thereto.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield to me?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The distinguished Senator from Georgia is correct in his Dodd interpretation of what was said last night. If it is agreeable to him, I would appreciate it if the Senator from Florida could now be recognized.

Mr. RUSSELL. Very well; I shall withdraw my recognition for the present, and also my request for the quorum.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President­

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, does the Senator from Florida wish to have a quorum call at this time?

Mr. HOLLAND. there would be a short quorum call, accommodate Senators who may desire to be advised if any of them wish to hear what I shall say.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator indulge me a moment? I had proposed to suggest the absence of quorum merely out of courtesy for my distinguished friend, the Senator from Florida. But if any other Senator wishes to suggest the absence of a quorum, that will be satisfactory.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, inasmuch as so many of my distinguished colleagues are desirous of suggesting the absence of a quorum, as a courtesy to me, I shall be glad to yield to any of them for that purpose, provided it understood that in yielding for that purpose I shall not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will correct. the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. How long does the Senator from Florida expect to discuss the pending question?

Mr. HOLLAND. Forty-five minutes or an hour, I suspect.

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

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Sena tor from Illinois, for the purpose of enabling the Senator from Illinois to suggest the absence of a quorum, with the understand-ing that in yielding for that purpose the Senator from Florida will not lose his right to the floor?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct, Mr. President.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The absence of a quorum has been suggested; and the clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: [No. 30 Leg.] Aiken Hart Moss Allott Hartke Mundt Anderson Hayden Murphy

Hickenlooper Muskie

Bible Hickey Neuberger Boggs Hill Pastore Burdick Holland Pearson Bush Hruska Pell Byrd, Va. Humphrey Prouty Byrd, W. Va. Jackson Proxmire Cannon Javits Carlson Johnston ~~b~~~~ · Case, N.J. Jordan Russell . Chavez , :Keating Saltonstall Church :Kefauver Scott ' Clark :Kerr Smathers · Cooper :Kuchel '- Smith : Mass. Cotton Lausche Smith, Maine Curtis Long, Mo. Sparkman Dirksen Long, Hawaii i Stennis

Long, La. Symington

Douglas Magnuson Talmadge Dworshak Mansfield Thurmond Eastland McClellan Tower Ellender McGee Wiley Engle McNamara Williams, N.J. Ervin Metcalf Williams, Del. Fong Miller Yarborough Fulbright Monroney Young, N.Dak. Goldwater Morse Young, Ohio Gruening Morton

Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Tenpessee . tMr. GORE], the SenatOr from Colorado [Mr. CARROLL], and the Senator from MinneI . understood . that sota [Mr. McCARTHY] are absent on to official business. Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the · Senator from Maryland [Mr. BuTLER], and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] are necessarily absent. a The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] is absent because of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr.

SMITH of Massachusetts in the chair). A quorum is present.

Mr. HOLLAND. · Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that after considerable delay the Senate is about to take up the amendment which I sent to the desk and offered yesterday afternoon. I understand that amendment is now the is pending question. Am I correct in my understanding?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. BuR-

DICK in the chair). The Senator is

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, first I wish to give a little history about the amendment. The amendment is in substantially the same form now--only a few words different--that it was in when offered by me first in 1949, 13 years ago,' with the concurrence of eight very fine Senators from that part of the country from which I come. They · agreed with me that not only was the principle involved in the amendment right, but also that the South, which had · already . knocked out poll taxes entirely in six . States, going much further than the amendment would go, should show its willingness to recognize the conviction of the country that people who are American citizens and citizens of a State and who are otherwise qualified to .vote should not be prevented from voting for their President, Vice President, Senators, and Representatives in Congress -· ­ that is, the elective Federal officialsby reason of any · failure or Unwillingness or inability to pay a poll tax or any other tax which might be substituted therefor. Mr. President, I ask leave at this time · to read into the RECORD the names of the distinguished additional Senators who joined me in that faraway time, the 81st Congress, in 1949. They included the distinguished Jate Senator from Georgia, Mr. George, who unhappily is not with us now; the distinguished for­ . mer Senator from Texas, Mr. Connally; , the distinguished . late . Senators from Maryland, Mr. O'Conor and . Mr. Tydings . ; the distinguished Senators from · Louisiana, ~r. Ellender and Mr. Long; the distinguished late Sen · ator from North Carolina, Mr. Broughton; and the . distinguished Senator . from Virginia, Mr. Robertson.

Mr. President, I cannot speak with certainty as to the objectives of all · co- . sponsors at · that time, . but I . do know · from long conversations at the time with Senator George of Georgia, that his opinion and his objective were exactly the same as my own; that this was something which ought to be done, and that the South ought to have an affirmative part in doing it. ·

Mr. President, without reading the list . of the distinguished cosponsors in later . Congresses, I ask unanimous consent at · this time that the lists of Senators who joined me in the 82d, the 83d, the . 84th and 85th Congresses be printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks. ·

There being no objection, the lists were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Eighty-second Congress: Senators Holland, of Florida; Smathers, of Florida; George, of Georgia; Hoey, of North Carolina; Smith, of North Carolina; McClellan, of Arkansas; Ful- . bright, of Arkansas; Byrd, of Virginia; Robertson, of Virginia; O'Conor, of Maryland; Ellender, of Louisiana; Long, of Louisiana.

Eighty-third Congress: Senators Holland, of Florida; Smathers, of Florida; George, of Georgia; Hoey, of North Carolina; Smith, of North Carolina; Ellender, of Louisiana; Long, of Louisiana; McClellan, of Arkansas; Fulbright, of Arkansas; Robertson, of Virginia. Eighty-fourth Congress: Senators Holland, of Florida; Smathers, of Florida; George, of Georgia; Ellender, of Louisiana; Long, of Louisiana; McClellan, of Arkansas; Fulbright, of Arkansas; Ervin, of North Carolina; Scott, of North Carolina; Thurmond, of South Carolina.

Eighty-fifth Congress: Senators HoLLAND, of Florida; SMATHERS, of Florida; McCLELLAN, of Arkansas; ELLENDER, of Louisiana; LONG, of Louisiana.

Mr. HOLLAND. The list of those Senators who joined me in the 86th Congress was so long and so much like the group which has joined me this time that I shall not ask that that list be separately printed.

Mr. President, I do ask, however, that the list -of the 67 cosponsors who have joined me in the introduction of the amendment proposed by . Senate Joint Resolution 58 of this Congress be printed in the RECORD in full at this point in my remarks.

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

Senators AIKEN, ALLOTT, ANDERSON, BART­

LETl', BEALL, BENNETT, BmLE, BOGGS, BURDICK, BUSH, BUTLER, BYRD of West Virginia, CANNON, CAPEHART, CARLSON, CASE of New Jersey, CHAVEZ, CHURCH, COOPER, COTTON, CURTIS, DIRKSEN, DODD, ENGLE, FONG, GOLDWATER, GRUENING, HARTKE, HAYDEN, HICKENLOOPER, HRUSKA, HUMPHREY, JACKSON, KEATING, KE­

FAUVER, KERR, KUCHEL, LAUSCHE, LONG Of Hawaii, LoNG of Louisiana, LONG of Missouri, MANSFIELD, McCARTHY, MCGEE, METCALF, MonrONEY, MORSE, MORTON, Moss, MURPHY, MUSKIE, NEUBERGER, PASTORE, PEARSON, PELL, PROUTY, RANDOLPH, SALTONSTALL, SCOTT, SMATHERS, SYMINGTON, WILEY, WILLIAMS Of New Jersey, WILLIAMS of Delaware, BOROUGH, YoUNG of North Dakota, and YOUNG of Ohio.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Florida yield at this point, if to do so would not break the continuity of his thought?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. A unanimous-consent request has been granted for printing in the RECORD, as a part of the remarks of the able Senator from Florida, a list of Senators who, in the 87th Congress, joined him as cosponsors of the measure. It has been my privilege, . which I have accepted also as a responsibility, to be among those whose names appear on that list. Is that correct? Does the Senator find my name listed?

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator 'is : correct. I am happy to gratefully acknowledge the fact that ever since he became a Member of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has joined me in the o:ffering of the amendment. -

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is appropriate to add that Senators are deeply conscious of the painstaking and effective manner in which the · subject under consideration has been presented on recurring occasions in this body by the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Our franchise of freedom, the American ballot, is an instrument to be used by citizens not only as a right and an opportunity granted by law, but also as an expression of a responsibility which stems from the law. So, to vitiate in any degree the representative use of the American ballot would weaken the system under which we operate as a democracy.

For the record, I commend wholeheartedly the leadership which has been exemplified over and over again in this vital matter, and I applaud the worthy e:fforts of the diligent senior Senator from Florida.

I do not desire to overpaint the picture of a situation inherent in the subject about which we are talking, and which causes me to characterize the measure as "a franchise of freedom," but I urge that we do everything necessary to guard against forfeiture of our freedom. We would even drift, rather than be driven, into a dictatorship. We could lose democracy by default if, in this Nation, we should fail to encourage maximum use of the ballot. The Sena- · tor from Florida proposes a method by which the number of persons qualified to vote would be increased. The attainment of this end result would be wholesome.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the kind remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Again I thank him for joining me in presenting the amendment on various occasions since he became a Member of this body.

Mr. President, at this time I should like to place in the RECORD section 1 only of the amendment which I o:ffered yesterday, which states all of the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment. I shall read it:

SEcTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Mr. President, in the amendment are . minor changes from Senate Joint Resolution 58, which I explained, and was · happy to explain, yesterday in · a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAS] . . If any further explanation is desired, I shall be glad to yield for 'the purpose o{makiri.g it.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. . I am . happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. A suggestion has been made that the amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida contains provisions which would eliminate the disqualification that now exists in some States with regard to a poll tax, but in p~ace of such a poll tax disqualification, the amendment would allow States to pass laws making the payment of taxes a qualification for the right to vote. I read the amendment, and I found no such language in it. Will the Senator explain whether, under the proposed amendment, States could disqualify a citizen from voting on the basis of failure to pay either a poll tax or any other

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am happy to reply. The proposed amendment covers the subject of possible disqualification to vote by nonpayment of any other tax in exactly the same words that it covers the poll tax requirement. The Senator may have received his information from the fact that, as orig- · inally introduced this year, as introduced every year since 1953, and as approved by a yea-and-nay vote of 72 to 16 in the Senate, in 1960, the resolution included two provisions which are not now in the proposed amendment. They were as follows:

In addition to mentioning failure to pay a poll tax or other tax, there was mention of failure to meet a property requirement. There was also a section 2 in the measure which, recognizing the fact that 12 States had laws that disqualified such people as paupers from voting, excluded the amendment from application in that kind of case. There was no case in which property ow.nership was the only qualification for · a finding that a person was a pauper. That provision, inserted in the amendment for the past 8 years, was put there at the suggestion of the legal sta:ff of the Library of Congress and the legal sta:ff of the Senate in order to preclude any . fear on the part of any Senator representing 1 of the 12 States which had a provision disqualifying paupers from voting, and assure him that his State was not a:ffected. There was never any intention to disqualify anyone by that provision, but instead, to show that the States that had so acted were protected in the continuance of their action.

Incidentally, the Library of Congress informed me specifically that in every instance in which measures a:ffecting paupers had been placed in the laws of the respective 12 States, they were enacted as measures to preserve the purity of the ballot, because it had been found that in the case of the ballots of inhabitants of poorhouses and the like they were likely to be voted by others who had some political iron in the fire. Such was the salutary purpose in each of the 12 States. ·

However, at the suggestion of the majority leader, and after a conference with the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. CELL . ER], the leader in the House on that question, we all came to the conclusion that there would be no prospect or possibility of any State now imposing ~ property qualification, _ because while property qualifications have existed in the distant past, and some time or other have been found iii the laws of nearly every State in the distant past, there have been none enacted for many years. Any legislature confronted with such a situation would have to realize that it was disqualifying many of its people, of all colors, and of humble situations in life, from voting. . We think there is no practical chance that that sort of thing shall ever again be invoked. Section 2, to which I have referred, affected only the property owning qualification.

Some comment has been made to the effect that we are destroying the jurisdiction of one of our ablest committees, the Committee on the Judic~ary, in taking up this measure as we are. I want it made very clear that not only are we not destroying that jurisdiction, but that for 14 long years I have been invoking that jurisdiction, and that there have been five thorough, detailed hearings upon this proposal, - the records of which are printed and are available now to any Senator who may · wish to read them, and on four occasions ' there have been recommendations from the subcommittees which handled these hearings to the full committee that the measure be reported to the Senate. However, the measure has never been reported to the Senate.

Senators will recall that in 1960, when we took up this matter, we had to do it . without benefit of a formal report of the Committee · on the Judiciary. We do have the approving reports of the subcommittees on four occasions, and we have this year, in connection with the very thorough hearing conducted under the leadership of my distinguished friend, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr KEFAUVER], the - report on the exhaustive hearings which were . held. While the committee was not willing to recommend the proposal, we do have this quotation, which shows very clearly that the subcommittee still feels the same way it has . felt through the years. I quote from page 13 of the report:

As a safe and certain method, a constitutional amendment is preferable.

There were pending two or more constitutional amendments on the same subject. The opinion of the subcommittee was very clear that they regard the constitutional amendment method as the preferable method.

Let us recall that 68 Senators are cosponsoring this measure in this Congress. Let us recall that there were exhaustive hearings held last year. Let us recall that this follows the pattern of what has happened in each Congress beginning with the 81st Congress.

It can hardly be said with any degree of solemnity whatever that the Judiciary Committee has been imposed upon; instead, it was quite apparent that the conditions in which we found ourselves were such that the joinder of 68 Senators, more than enough to sustain this or any other constitutional amendment, had not brought forth a report or even a report without recommendation which would bring the measure to the floor of the Senate.

So when we come to the point where the inaction 9f a great committee- h~ resulted in such = a · situation . as this for 14 years; and when we now have an ample number of Senators as cosponsors of this measure to assure its submission to the States, so far · as the Senate is concerned , it is a protection of the rights of Senators and a protection of the rights of the Senate itself to bring up the matter in any way that is available, from a strict parliamentary standpoint, and that is what we have done here. ·

Mr. President, I recall that some Senators who are not greatly interested in ­ the Alexander Hamilton resoluti-On wept bitter tears over the fact that that resolution was interfered with here. I call attention to the fact that a second resolution of the same sort has been introduced and reported by the committee, and is on the calendar. No harm has been done to anyone. To the contrary, the Senate, through its appropriate committee, has shown very proper concern and consideration to the two distinguished Senators from New York [Mr. JAVITS and Mr. KEATING], WhO were the cosponsors of the original Alexander Hamilton resolution, and, as I understand, are also the cosponsors of the substituted Alexander Hamilton resolution, which is now on the calendar.

Mr. J.AVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. I should like to state that what needed to be done has been done with respect to the Alexander Hamilton resolution. As I expressed myself when the first action on the resolution was taken in the Senate, I had no doubt · about the fact that that would be done. It is a measure of universal appeal. I am sure that the Senator from Florida, as he states quite properly, would not wish anything untoward to happen to the resolution.

Nonetheless, this does not in any way excuse us---and I am sure my colleague [Mr. KEATING] would join me in this statement were he on the floor at this time-in expressing our appreciation to the Senator from Florida and to all other - Senators and to the appropriate committee, as well as to the Senate leadership, for the speed and cooperation which have been shown in restoring the Alexander Hamilton resolution to its original status quo position. I have little doubt that it will be followed in proper course by action.

I do not wish in any way to depreciate the understanding which I have of that courtesy and cooperation, when I state that I appreciate what was done in view of the circumstances last night. It so happened that my plane was delayed, and I arrived here at 6: 15 p.m. The Senator from Florida, with his unfailing courtesy, took note of the fact that 1 was in no position to introduce my substitute. I will introduce it today. However, this is all of a pattern. Whatever may be our difference with respect to the policy involved, this is all of the pattern of the Senator's unfailing understanding and courtesy in the relationships as between Senators, all of whom are very busy men.

Mr. HOLLAND . . I thank the distin- · guished Senator from New York. Certainly I would not want to preclude any Senator from bringing up a matter which he regarded as a matter on which he wished to express himself in this debate or in any other debate. I am glad the Senator from New York is here this morning. ~ am sorry that his plane · was delayed yesterday. I thought it was appropriate at the time to call attention to the fact that we were purposely endeavoring to give full protection to the Senator by the course we followed yesterday. ·

Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I should like to talk about the full text of the requirement of the resolution very briefly, from two different standpoints: In the first place, I should like to speak from the standpoint of one who is a citizen of a State which until 1937 had the full poll tax requirement. I realized how many good people were deprived of their privilege of voting by reason of t . he existence and enforcement of the poll tax provision. I saw repeated cases prior to 1937-and I am talking about my own observations in my own State of Florida—where fine citizens of undoubted patriotism, through absence from the State at the time it was necessary to pay the poll tax, or through forgetfulnessand the State of Florida required the payment of the tax well ahead of time- ­ had not paid the poll tax, and were, as a result, deprived of their opportunity to vote. I am speaking not only about Federal officials, but also of all officials at · the State and local level.

I also saw during these early days machine rule of several counties in my State. That has now ceased. That machine rule was perpetuated by the practice of bloc payment of the poll tax in some counties, in order to retain in office certain critical officials within those counties. I have before me an editorial from one of the finest papers in my State, the Tampa Tribune, of Tampa. It tells of what happened prior to 1937. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial may be inserted in full at this _ point in the RECORD as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the editorial . was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE TRUE AND THE FALSE

In the poll tax debate taking place in the U.S. Senate, the people are witnessing two useful demonstrations.

. One is the hypocrisy of the . professional northern civil rights champions.

The other is southern conservatism at its enlightened best.

The debate centers on a proposed constitutional amendment offered by Florida's Senator HoLLAND to abolish payment of poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in the five States which still require it.

Senator HoLLAND, a conservative in the best sense of the word, has been fighting for years to ban the poll tax by constitutional amendment. In this campaign he has had to battle both southern secessionists and northern aboli tlonists.

The secessionists, as typified by Mississippi Senator EAsTLAND, would hold fast to a trad1· tional means of discouraging Negroes from voting. The abolitionists, like New York Senator Javits, are less interested in removing the poll tax than in arguing the right of Congress, by legislative act, to control State voting requirements. They don't want to concede that States have a constitutional right to fix qualifications for voters; and still less, we suspect, do they want a southern Senator to get credit for abolishing the poll tax. That would mar their fabricated image of the South as a swampland of bigotry from which the oppressed can be delivered only by the freethinkers of New York and Chicago.

If the loud shouters for civil rights had thrown their support behind Senator HoLLAND's amendment when he first introduced it some years ago, the poll tax no longer would encumber the elections of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia . But they preferred to keep the issue.

President Kennedy, we are pleased to see, is not a party to this hypocrisy. He has forthrightly endorsed the Holland amendment as an important contribution to good government .

And so it is. The poll tax is not only a device to discourage the Negro from voting; it is also a handy implement of fraud by which courthouse gangs often perpetuate themselves in office. Such, in any case, was Florida's experience in the years before the poll tax was abolished by the legislature in 1937. One of the telling arguments for its repeal was the corruption of elections it made possible through bloc payment of taxes by well-heeled political machines.

We would prefer to see the five remaining States follow Florida's example and cast out this archaic tax by their own action. But since they do not seem disposed to do so, we believe with Senator HoLLAND that the principle of no tax on voting should be written into the Constitution.

In leading this fight (in which he has the pledged support of 68 other Senators) Senator HoLLAND does credit to Florida, the South, and the cause of true conservatism.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I now wish to read this paragraph:

And so it is. The poll tax is not only a device to discourage the Negro from voting; it is also a handy implement of fraud by which courthouse gangs often perpetuate themselves in office. Such, in any case, was Florida's experience in the years before the poll tax was abolished by the legislature in 1937. One of the telling arguments for its repeal was the corruption of elections it made possible through bloc payment of taxes by well-heeled political machines.

I do not think it is necessary to pursue that point further. Undoubtedly that was the experience in Florida. After we had repealed the poll tax, we saw a tremendous improvement, both from the standpoint of the cessation of the machines of the type I have just mentioned in the government of certain small counties, and in the immediate added participation of citizens in elections.

In 1936, when Florida repealed its poll tax, the total vote cast in the Democratic primary was 328,749. In 1940, the primary vote was 481,437, an increase of 152,688. Comparing that increase with the gain in population in the 5 years from 1935 to 1940, we find that the increase in the participation in our elections was 4 · 6-plus percent, whereas the percentage of census gain from 1935- that being a State census-to 1940, the year of the Federal census, was only 18 percent. So the increase in voting was _ almost three times as great as the inc r ease in Florida's population. This was an increase in the participation of white citizens in voting, because in 1940, in the Democratic primary, Florida still had the white primary system. As we all know, the white primary was knocked out shortly thereafter by the Supreme Court of the United States. But I am talking now about the phenomenal increase in those 4 years of the number of white citizens alone, as shown by the actual election figures.

We have found since the white primary system was abolished, and since Negroes have been participating more and more in our elections, that the number of their participants has risen from 20,000 in the general election of 1936 to 183,197 on the registration books in 1960.

There are persons who think we are interested only in white voters, and there are persons who think we are interested only in Negro voters. So far as I am concerned, I think a citizen is entitled to vote for his President, his Vice President, his Senators, and his Representatives, regardless of what may be the law of the State with reference to local elections. I think the results accomplished in our State, where in 1960 1,- 540,000-plus voted, indicate rather conclusively the beneficent nature of what Florida has done.

It is not for me to belabor any other States. The States about which I shall speak briefly are States of which I am very fond. I am very fond of their Senators. I do not have to tell Members of the Senate that that is true, because they know it is the case. But when we look at the results in the good States of Mississippi and Alabama in the 1960 general election, we are bound to see what has happened there as a result, in large part, of the imposition of a poll tax.

Mr. BUSH rose.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut when I have finished this point, if I may do so.

In the good State of Mississippi, the total participation as shown by the election returns and the census reports was just above 25 percent of the total number of citizens who were eligible by age to register and participate. Twentyfive percent or one-fourth of the total number of voting age is a good deal less than one-half the number of white citizens who were eligible by age to participate in that election.

When we compare that figure with the national average of around 70 percent, certainly we can see that something is wrong, and we can realize that that sort of expression is not representative of the citizenship of that good State.

I call attention to the fact that the election was very vigorously contested; and that is, I think, to the credit of the State. There were three groups of candidates for presidential electors: the regular Democratic group, the unpledged Democratic group, and the Republican group. It so happened that the two distinguished Senators from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND and Mr. STENNIS] were voting for the regular Democratic ticket, as were several Representatives; that the Governor of the State and other Representatives were voting . for the unpledged Democratic ticket; and that the Republicans were making a major . effort in that State, as compared with their earlier efforts.

When we consider the actual results, we realize how tragic the picture is. Almost 1,200,000 citizens were of eligible age and residence to qualify to vote had they wished to do so. The winning ticket of electors polled 116,000 votes, just under 10 percent of the total. As I have just remarked, the total vote cast was 25 percent. How anyone can feel that that was a representative expression of the people of that good State, and how anyone can feel that other States and other people everywhere in the Nation do not have a stake and a proper interest in that sort of situation, I do not see. Personally, I have a very deep interest in seeing that representative expressions are made in elections for national officers, whether it be in my own city, my county, my State, or any other State, by as full participation of the citizens as can be had, because I believe in the voice of the people. I decry any effort to confine the voice that is heard at elections to a much smaller segment of the citizens than that which truthfully represents the whole people. Mr. President, there are some who feel that the people in the Old South portion of Florida would not and cannot support this amendment. I have the opposite conviction. The largest vote I received in 1958-the last year when I was elected to the Senate--from any county in Florida was 81 percent of the votes cast in Gadsden County, which has the largest percentage of Negro citizens of any county in our State; and, incidentally, they have known for years that I have been a cosponsor or an original sponsor of this proposal, and they also know that I voted for repeal of the poll tax in Florida in 1937.