March 27, 1962 (3)

47 South Carolina_ 1,227,000 386,687 31.514

48 Georgia _________ 2,342,000 733,349 31 .312 49 Alabama __ ___ _ __ 1,825,000 564,242 30.917 50 Mississippi. 1,163,000 298,171 25.638 Sources: The American Heritage Foundation; State Election Officials; United States Census Bureau. Hearings before Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendment of Committee on the Judiciary, June 27, 28, and 29, 1961, pt. 2, p, 475.

Mr. DOUGLAS. As the Senator from Florida mentioned earlier, these :figures show that the average for the country is a little over 70 percent. Idaho had the best record, with almost 81 percent voting. New Hampshire was next with over 80 percent. I am very happy that my own State was in the upper quarter. Illinois had 76 percent who voted and occupied 12th place despite the large proportion of our foreign-born population who are not yet citizens. But the 11 States at the bottom are all Southern States.

Thus, as the Senator from Florida mentioned, Alabama and Mississippi are at the very bottom, a little less than 26 percent for Mississippi, and 31 percent for Alabama.

While the percentages of participating voters is still low in all of the six nonpoll-tax Southern States, they are higher than in the poll-tax States. But they are still very much below those of the Northern, Middle Western, and Western States.

It is certain that the mere removal of the tax will not work wonders overnight, or perhaps even in the immediate future. It will merely remove one of the strands in the web of the poll-tax States which now hold down the voting. But the evidence seems to indicate that it would 79.953 appreciably increase the number of men and women who would go to the polls. This can be shown by what happened to the rate of participation in a number of States after the repeal of the poll tax. In Louisiana, the average rate of participation in the gubernatorial primaries increased from 40.2 percent to 61.1 percent after repeal. In the senatorial primaries, the increase in the average rate was from 31.2 to 46.5 percent.

In Florida the increase in the gubernatorial primaries was from 27 to 34.8 percent , and in the senatorial primaries from 20.1 to 32 percent.

In Georgia the repeal in 1945 of its cumulative poll tax resulted in a doubling of the number of voters, but this must be attributed in part to the collapse of the white primary and the introduction of the 18-year voting age. The average rate of turnout in Georgia gubernatorial primaries went from 16 . 9 to 30.3 percent.

In Tennessee, there was an average 12-percent increase after repeal.

Alabama's reduction of its cumulative poll-tax requirement, which, as I have said previously, amounted to 24 years, resulted in a spectacular increase of onethird in the number of registered voters and a long-term 10-percent increase in voting in senatorial and gubernatorial primaries.

Frederick D. Ogden, a southern political scientist, concludes that the repeal of the poll tax in general aided the movement for greater voting participation which was already underway. The increase which the abolishment of the poll tax would effect would be, according to him, somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. In my judgment, it might be higher. Certainly it would create several hundreds of thousands of additional voters. It might indeed cause many hundreds of thousands of additional voters to be added to the list.

V. POLL TAX SHOULD BE ABOLISHED BY STATUTE RATHER THAN BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The question is, then, What is the most effective way of removing this impediment?

I submit that the method of statutory enactment, once it were passed, would be far more effective than that of the proposed constitutional amendment submitted by the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLANDl. In the :first place, it would go into effect immediately across the Nation. The method of constitutional amendment is, on the other hand, at best slow and clumsy, while there is always the strong possibility or probability that it would never be ratified at all.

Let us consider the delay which a constitutional amendment would bring about. Thus, the 16th amendment took 3% years to be ratified by the States after it was submitted to them by Congress.

The 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th amendments each required only approximately a year, while :final ratification of the 21st amendment took less than a year, but ratification of the 22d amendment required 4 years.

Moreover, since the Holland amendment merely gives Congress the enabling power to pass a statute later, a further delay would necessarily occur after ratification. Indeed, unless the rules and procedures of the Senate are changed, a further :filibuster might prevent such legislation from ever being passed.

It is, however, highly questionable whether the amendment would ever be ratified by the States, for, as we all know, three-quarters of the States must approve an amendment before it can become a part of the Constitution. Therefore, if only 13 of the 50 States were to refuse or neglect to . ratify such an amendment, it would not go into effect, no matter how small might be the population of those StP , States or how restricted the numbers who actually took part in the electoral process.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I note that the Senator has not referred to the District of Columbia voting amendment, which, as I recall, was ratified m. about 9 months.

Mr . . DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLAND. 'That involved . somewhat the same issue as would be involved in this proposed amendment. I do not know why the Senator .omitted reference to that particular amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That was an omission. I am very glad to correct it.

It is, of course, a certainty that the five States which now impose a poll tax, and whose presently eligible voters have refused to repeal it, would not vote to give to the Government in Washington the power to do that which they will not do for themselves. What, then, about the other six States of the Old South which do not have the poll-tax requirement'? We can be quite certain that powerful and moving appeals will be directed at them in the name of their common past and their present sectional groupings. They will be asked if they are willing to allow the northerners and westerners in Washington, D.C., to dictate to their sister States what they should do. “You may not believe in th-e poll tax," they will be told, .. but please do not put us under the alien hand of the Yankees in Washington. Let us determine for ourselves what standards are to be followed inside our own States.”

This will be reinforced by invocations to the mystical pathos of the lost cause. The voters of the six sister States will be reminded that their grandfathers fought together at Gettysburg and Lookout Mountain and shed their blood together for the Stars and Bars. -

The memory of Robert E. Le~. Jefferson Davis, .. Stonewall Jackson, and their lieutenants will be invoked once more. _ Once again traveler will make the sad journey back from Appomattox, and the tired and footsor.e soldier in the faded gray uniform will again return to find his home burned, his cattle killed, and his silver stolen.

It will be almost impossible to resist such powerful emotional appeals as these, and it is doubtful whether a single one of the six remaining States of the Old South will have the temerity to ratify the Holland amendment. Almost -certainly not more than one or two would do so. This would mean that the refusal to act of only two or a few · more States would be sufficient to kill the amendment. - In view of the sentiments of some of the border States and the close alliance -of some of the smaller States with th-e . South, this would be likely to happen. Therefore I strongly doubt whether the amendment would ever get the necessary ratifications. States which cast only about one-sixth of the vote in the presidential election of 1960 would be able to defeat the will of States with five-sixths of the voters.

Madam President, I now come to a delicate matter, but I think I am in conformity with the established usages of the Senate:

Since private conversations on this matter have been repeated on the floor of the Senate by those most anxious to observe the procedures of the Senate, I assume that it will not be amiss if I relate a conversation which I had on this subject with · the senior Senator from Florida shortly after I came to the Senate many years ago · . ' When the Senator from Florida solicited my support for his amendment, I expressed my belief that it would be defeated because the Southern States would not ratify. I said I might look favorably upon the proposal if a hundred southern · political leaders would sign a roundrobin letter stating that they would not only urge their respective State legislatures to ratify the amendment but also personally would pledge that they would work actively to that end. That challenge ended our conversation.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does riot the Senator recall that the Senator from Florida told the Senator from Illinois that the · Senator from Florida would appear be­ . fore his own State legislature and ask for ratification by his State of the amendment? ·

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not quite remember that, but if the Senator from Florida so states, I am sure it is so.

Mr. HOLLAND. It is in the REcoRD in several places, during the course of the debates.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Florida is a very truthful man. Of course we accept his statement. No 'One -else has however come forward that I Jmowof.

It is certainly clear, from the . way in which the current . filibuster has been joined in by the overwhelming proportion of the southern Senators, that such a pledge will never be given, instead the congressional leaders from this section who are so generally esteemed at home can be confidently predicted to use their great influence against ratification just as they have used it to prevent even consideration of the amendment.

To adopt the method of trying to abolish the poll tax by the route of a constitutional amendment is, therefore, in all probability, to lead us down a blind alley, to consume a great deal of precious time, and to lead only to ultimate frustration and defeat.

If, however, we pass the statutory amendment advocated by the Senator from New York [Mr. Javits] a.nd others .of us, it would in the normal course of events go into effect immediately. If it were defied by some States, then court tests could be arranged fairly quickly and appeals decided. If the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act, thiS would finish the matter, because I cannot believe that Southern States would defy the solemn judgment of the Court upon such a matter.

There is another point which has been touched upon in the debate. That is, lf we adopt the route of a constitutional amendment in the matter of the poll tax, it will be very difficult for us to use the method of statutory amendment as the administration intends in the case of helping to define the .conditions under which the literacy test can be applied. The abandonment of the statutory amendment in the present case will be treated as indicating a disbelief in the constitutionality 'Of the literacy test provisions on the part of those who are its advocates. While lawyers may argue that literacy tests can be distinguished from poll taxes by reason of their being more subject to the 15th amendment, the precedent wiU operate in the minds of many against a literacy test statute. Some of the proponents of the Holland amendment may Justify it in the cloakrooms on the alleged ground that it will be easier to pass it through Congress than it would be to enact a statute. It is hoped it will not be filibustered -as hard as a statutory enactment might be. It is hoped that our southern friends will not really resist the amendment method, which the Senator from Florida has proposed.

While it is still not clear as to -what are the final intentions of our friends from the South. the filibuster which has been carried on by them for nearly 2 weeks would seem to - indicate that this ho-pe is illusory and - that the amendment method would be fought as bitterly .as would be that of s - statutory enactment. It should also be remembered - that there is a considerable body of . opinion in Congress which, for reasons I have mentioned, is conscientiously opposed to the use of the constitutional amendment. This sentiment was strong enough 2 years ago to prevent the Holland amendment from even being considered in the House.

As the Senator from New York pointed out, the statutory method has been approved on numerous occasions in the House. This opposition might likely be much stronger in the Senate than it was 2 years ago. It should be remembered that a two-thirds vote of both Houses is necessary for Congress to submit a constitutional amendment for ratification to the States. Therefore, even if the opposition to the amendment in Congress were not able to muster a majority of the Members of either House, its Members might very well be able to obtain more than a third of the votes and hence to defeat the amendment.

In contrast to all this, the method of legal enactment would only require a majority for it to .be passed. In addition, the Javits substitute has been precisely tailored to meet the structural defects of the Holland amendment.

I ask the sincere opponents of the poll tax to consider these tactical considerations very carefully before they conclude that the Holland tunnel is the best route to the desired destination.

VI. DEFECTS IN THE ORIGINAL HOLLAND AMENDMENT

This brings us to the crucial defects within the original Holland amendment itself which were not detected when this proposal was before us 2 years ago.

I ask Senators to read the original section 2:

Nothing in this article shall be construed to invalidate any provision of law denying the right to vote to paupers or persons supported at public expense .or by charitable institutions.

When this section was first included in the Holland amendment a few years ago, I thought it referred to the largely inoperative pauper laws of nine States, primarily in New England. and . which are no real barrier to voting. ~

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam ;president, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad ~ to yield. ! - thought at that time that there were nine. Apparently . there are 12. _ · Mr. HOLLAND. There are 12 States, 3 in the South and 9 . in other parts of the country . . . .

Mr~DOUGLAS . . I find that the Sell- _ ato.r is . correct- . . . _ _

. MJ:. : HOLLAND . . The uniform state- ment of all lawyers who have gone into that question - is that each . of . the laws was passed in an . effort to . pro.tect .the purity of . the ballot. because of the fact that people bad voted against their will when they were inhabitants of a poorhouse or of a similar institution.

.Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes.

We have been trying to trace the history of section 2.

I think it is accurate tO say that this provision was not included in earlier versions of the Holland amendment. and was first included in the measure proposed in the . 83d Congress. It was included then witHout an explanation of the reason for its inclusion.

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

Mr. - DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator certainlY . h~ not had an opportunity to read the record of the hearings. The Senator from Florida has very- carefully explained, at the various hearings before subcommittees of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the origin and the reason for the inclusion of that section.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I was referring to the time when the measure was originally introduced. I was not aware of the fact that the Senator had given . the rea.Sons for its original adoption. When I · studied this question last week in · some detail there seemed to me to. be some evidence that it was what was popularly known as a sleeper or joker. Let me say that I do not . wish to question the intent of the Senator from Florida. I merely submit that the sweeping t3rms of the amendment would have encouraged: several States to disfranchise a much greater number of citizens than · those who are now barred by the poll tax, because there was an explicit statement that the prohibitions against the poll tax as a requirement for voting were not to apply to property qualifications, to paupers, to those receiving public assistance, or to those supported by charitable institutions.

For example, those who receive public relief, or what is known as general assistance, are certainly being .. supported at public expense" and hence could be made ineligible to vote. Last November these numbered 394,000 · cases. in the country as a - whole. Of those, 39,669 were in the 11 Southern .. states, and 13,429 were in . the .five poll tax States. Also, in November 1961 there were 2,- 272,568 recipients of old-age assistance. These were . also supported at public expense, both State and national, and hence could .. be disfranchised. No , less than 891,045 of those were in the 11

States of the Old South and 170,274 were in the 5 poll - tax States.

_ Similarly . during . November . of 1961 · ther.e were 908,083 families in the country receiving Aid to dependent children Of . those 201,79i were in the Old South and 77.961 in the poll tax States. The mothers in those States could clearly have been made ineligible to vote. While it is probable that those in receipt of oldage security-payments toward which the aged persons had themselves contributed could n.Ot be- held to be "supported at public expense," this section could have been used to -exclude the 64,000 who are now receiving benefits under the KerrMills Act.

Mr. LONG ·· of Louisiana. . a. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The . Senator is not presuming that merely because a State would have power to do what the Senator has suggested. the State would do it? ,

Mr. DOUGLAS. It does not neces- .sarily follow. but a very explicit hint is given that if it wished to take that action, it could do so. . I am speaking , n,g of the original Holland amendment. It specifically stated that it did not apply to · paupers; to those receiving public assistance, or to those supported by charitable institutions · So I should say the handkerchief was dropped, so to speak, and the legislatur.e could take the hint very readily.

Mr. LONG of . Louisiana. - Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr . . LONG of Louis,iana . . ' I 'believe I have heard · of some people who · were silly enough to suggest that such · action ought to - be taken, but I do not . think those people have much chance of being effective.

Mr. _ DOUGLAS . . They do . not need to do.it now, because they · have a poll - tax. But if the poll tax we:re abolished, they could obtain the same end by the other methods suggested.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

· Mr. HOLLAND. ' I think the Senator would be interested to know that in States where such provisions have existed and exist now, either statutes clearly state or the courts have clearly held that the payment of Federal assistance cannot be held to create paupership such as is covered by the provisions of the laws of those States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. What I am trying to say is that the restrictions could be very readily tightened · · by further legislative enactment.

Mr. HOLLAND . . · Madam President, will theSenatoryie:ldfurther?

Mr. DOUGLAS. · I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND ~ .. Aside from the generosity of the Senator in having said that he would not accuse the Senator from Florida ef - putting a sleeper in · the amendment which I have presented, the Senator might also have _ commented that it would be practically · impossible to put a sleeper in . a bill of the import of the amendment before us - that would . fool 100 Senators and, · in 1960, would have fooled . them . so badly that 72 Senators, including. I . believe, the Senator from Illinois, voted for the measure.

Mr. DOUGLAS . . I was more naive in 1960. than. I. am today. I talked with several of the 68 sponsors of the Holland amendment .. · I pointed out section 2 to them anC. they said, "Good heavens. Did I sponsor section 2? I must have sponsored it in an unwary moment."

We all remember how the Bricker ~c amendment came · before the Senate with more than two-thirds of the Senators sponsoring the amendment. We all remember bow the · discussion of the Bricker amendment developed. We · could not muster a two-thirds vote because a great many of the so-called sponsors had put their names on the amendment without knowing the full import of what had happened.

The Senator · from Florida has such a disarming manner and such a gentle and genteel approach · with which he confronts his fellow Senators in the cloakroom that it is very hard to resist the seductive arguments which he advances.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. · 1 appreciate the kind words of the Senator from illinois, even though he is · slaying me with kindness. I invite his attention to the fact that the Senator from Florida has not lob­ . · · bied in - behalf · of his amendment. · He has argued · it in full and in the open at every hearing that was held. He has debated it in full on the floor of the Se nate. He would have had to be very keen indeed to have fooled the former majority leader, the then · Senator JoHNsoN, and the minority leader, the Senator from illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN]. He would have to be equally clever to have fooled the present majority leader, the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] and the same minority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN].

The Senator from Florida had a good amendment. He has retained more than 95 percent of it. He has omitted the part that he did omit against the specific request of the Department of Justice, because the Department pre­ !erred my original amendment. There are those who thought that that factor might have been used to help defeat the measure, even as the Senator from Illinois now when the provision about which he speaks does not even exist. is seeking to prevent Senators from fairly considering the present amendment.

So apparently there was merit in the opinion of the majority leader and others ~ that those provisions, though fair, and without great flaw of their own, might . be used by Senators who favored something else to put the original amendment in a false light. · .

But the Senator comforts himself with the- thought that even the Senator from Illinois voted for · the measure in 1960. He appreciates that vote. He thinks it was based on sound conscience, and he regrets that the Senator from Illinois will not have an opportunity to vote for the precise amendment again. as he believes he would.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, I was trying to lay a historical basis for discussion on this point . Having detected the weaknesses I have indicated, and having consulted with some of my colleagues, I' had drafted a series of amendments to the Holland proposal which would have eliminated the explicit encouragement which the original text of the Holland amendment gave to those devices. I was on my feet last night and on the point of offering such amendments when the Senator from Florida himself came forward with a revised draft, which was identical with the amendments which I had prepared , with certain exceptions. · I thought it was a case of either conscious or unconscious parallelism in actioh.

It may be that in this whispering Chamber word gets around very rapidly as to what is intended. It is possible that the knowledge that these amendments would be offered by a bipartisan group of Senators may have caused the Senator from Florida to back up and withdraw section 2. I do not know whether that is the case. However, I will say I am interested that there should be this parallelism of action.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam P r esident, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I wish to say to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Illinois, that he should disabuse his mind thoroughly and completely of any such idea, because, as one who was very vitally interested in this legislation, and who held a series of meetings over the past 4 or 5 days, I assure the Senator that to the best of our knowledge we had no idea that any Member of the Senate was in the process of considering amendments to the proposal which finally emerged. That ought to be clear for the RECORD. If we had known about the Senator from Illinois considering such a proposal I am quite certain we would have gotten in touch with him in one , way or another.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I did not say "conscious parallelism." I said it might well have been "unconscious parallelism."

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. Just as the Senator has confessed that he did not know that the Senator from Florida had amended his amendment until it was presented to the Senate, so the Senator from Florida did not know that the Senator from Illinois had any intention of submitting his amendment. Not being gifted with the power of reading minds and not having been in close contact with the distinguished Senator from Illinois, I had no idea that our minds were running in the same direction, although I was very glad to learn, in the colloquy last night, that this was the fact. I thought that the fact that our minds were running in the same direction would lead the Senator from Illinois to see the justice of the amendment. I still have hope for my friend from Illinois.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I must say that the present draft is a distinct improvement over the first one. If the first draft had been continued in the form in Which it was originally submitted, I should have been conscientiously advised to oppose the amendment and to urge other Senators to oppose it similarly. I would have made the frank statement that I am wiser now than I was in 1960, which in itself is an indication that we can improve with time.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. We all should admit that we can improve. However, I wish to call attention to the fact that the original amendment to which the Senator refers was submitted in 1953, and has been in that identical form from then until now. Therefore, it would not have taken any great prescience to learn what was in it in the intervening 9 years.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I believe 1960 was the first time that it came before the Senate.

The statements of the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Illinois appear in the colloquy in the final pages of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for yesterday. I am not quite certain what the provision with respect to the property qualification meant. There is the explicit provision in the original form of the amendment to permit a State to deny the right to vote to paupers and to persons supported in charitable institutions, for example.

The present draft is a distinct improvement.

There is a point which I wish to emphasize very strongly. While the new language does not encourage disqualification on afi of these grounds, it most certainly does not forbid them. It is silent on these matters. It leaves, therefore, a constitutional vacuum into which States which want to restrict the franchise could move. Could they not impose rather severe property qualifications, since this is not forbidden in the amendment? Could they not disqualify those on relief, since this is not forbidden in the amendment?

Could they not disqualify those receiving old-age assistance, because this is not forbidden in , the amendment? The same would apply with respect to those receiving payments for dependent children or those living in old people's homes. Disqualification on these grounds is not forbidden in the amendment.

I believe ' SUch disqualification would be against the spirit of the amendment, but would it be technically forbidden?

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. · I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that exactly the same situation would exist if the Javits amendment were adopted.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Not quite.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I am glad the Senator has brought lip this very important point, and I am very glad that we can clarify the situation. In the first place, my amendment contains the words "or other tax or to impose a property qualification.”’ The language is found at page 2, lines 15 and 16. That is forbidden as a prerequisite for registering to vote or voting.

That is the first point, and it is a very important point.

In the second place, let us remember that what we do is to give us the flexibility of a statute, so that if there is abuse we can move into it and act on it; whereas what the Senator from Florida would have us do is take the constitutional amendment route. Then we are lashed to two propositions: First, that we then can implement whatever it says, and whatever it does not say we cannot implement. If we want to change it, we can only move by way of a constitutional amendment, because we have moved, in the first instance, by the constitutional amendment route.

I respectfully submit that here is a very powerful reason why we should proceed by the statutory route and not by the constitutional amendment route. I am very grateful to the Senator for bringing up this point.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President, I believe the Senator has made / a very powerful argument. ,

With the limited amount of time at our disposal I , certainly am not ready at this moment to propose a further amendment to the Holland amendment, which would specifically outlaw such attempts. A provision in the Constitution must be drafted with great care. We have largely met this difficulty in the statute which the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITs] is proposing, by outlawing all property qualifications for voting.

VII . ABOLISHMENT OF RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING FUNDAMENTALLY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

Now, Madam President, if I may finish, I would say that those of · us who want to give all literate Americans the right to vote, whether they be black or white, and who desire that everyone may be treated as a child of the Divine Spirit, and consequently given an adequate. opportunity to develop educationally, economically, culturally, and politically, are always subject to two sets of criticism. On the one hand, we are accused of violating the rules, customs, and procedures of the Senate, which, as an eminent southern writer has correctly said, are the South's revenge for Appomattox. Then close behind this criticism follows the charge that we are antisouthern and are trying to heap indignity and disgrace upon that section of the country. We are presented to the world and to the South as being brutally unchivalrous and as offending the unappeasable honor _ of the South. 1 an this ~~spite the fact that at no time has any member of the civil rights group attacked the South. We have, on the contrary, been caref:ul to say that we in the North and the West have our weaknesses and sins on these matters as well, and that we should eliminate them in the North as rapidly as possible. We have not felt any self-righteousness, and I hope we have not expressed any. We have been careful indeed to point out . that . we of the North were delivered from the terrible curse of slavery not by any superiority ~ moral character , but . instead, by the fortunate accident of a colder climate aDd a. less fertile · · soil. ..

I hope I will not o:ffend my southern friends if I · say that they are fu a · sense prisoners of history and geography.

· Madam President, we are trying, in fact : to free all of our friends. both South and North, from the forces which im- prison so many. · We know that many of what are upheld as basic institutionS of the South are not really supported by the majority of the southern people but are, instead, imposed by a relatively small ·· lppercrust who are dominant and who control overwhelmingly the agencies of information and propaganda. We want to set free · the economically disfranchised majority of the South, both white and black alike. We want to open up the doors of more adequate education for the disinherited. both white and black alike. We want to open up the gates of opportunity so that the abilities of white and · black alike may function more · effectively. To do all these things, we of the civil rights group in theNorth are willing to pay more taxes . For we know that in this Nation, we are brothers, one of another, and should help to bear the burden of the States which have a . low income per capita.

Yes . and we believe that if we can but put these programs into e:ffect and arrange a reconciliation between presently conflicting groups, we can free even those who now despise us from the ob- · sessions which now possess them and so enable their natural and generous emotions and abilities to be devoted to constructive . ends. We seek to do this in the true spirit of friendship and without any sanctimonious self-righteousness.

Perhaps we cannot convince our friends that this is so . There are vested interests in misunderstanding which are hard to . supersede and it is difficult to keep on ~ friendly course when . one : s motives and conduct are systematically misunderstood and misinterpreted. But we shall nevertheless keep on trying and if we should slip now and then, we ask to be forgiven. For that does not represent the deepest desires of our hearts. I .am not at all certain that the world as we know it will survive the possible Armageddon of a nuclear holocaust. If it does not, it is better for us to go out ori a note of brotherhood rather than as querulous and hateridden creatures. And certainly our chances of survival are greater if we can be both free and united in brotherhood. For it is true now as it was in olden times that where there is no vision the people perish.

If the poll tax is a restriction on voting rather than a qualification for voting, Congress could abolish it for Federal elections without violating the constitutional prohibition against the qualification for voters and electors for national office and State legislatures.

Mr. JAVITS. Madam President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

. Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I think the whole Nation must be proud of the Senator from Illinois, whether one agrees with him or . not, and grateful to hiin for the tone of what he has said : I, as also a: person who feels very strongly about these problems, aS he does ... represent a · community which, on the whole ~ feelS the same way. It is an enormous community, containing 10 percent of the population of the United States.

I wish to . associate myself especially with the words “sanctimonious righteousness . " I feel no such thing. We understand very deeply the reasons and the bases of the currents which are at work here; but I also feel, with the Senator from illinois, that in a time of such peril, there is all the more reason for do- ing our · utmost to sound the clarion ean for morality and fidelity to the guarantees of our Constitution. . The Senator from Illinois has made a. trenchant speech. One could comment on it at great length. But if I did sO, it would depreciate from the lofty tone which the Senator from Illinois has used. So I leave it at that and express gratitude at being associated with a man o{ such luminous intelligence in a cause so worthy as this one · . .

Mr . DOUGLAS. 1 thank the Senator The PRESIDING from New York. ·

Madam President, we in Illinois know that we have many faults concerning this matter. We in the city of Chicago, which I love, know that in many respects we have fallen short of our ideals. However, it is the intention of all our citizens to push forward and to remove these difficulties as rapidly as possible. They are difficulties which, in the main, are not legal, but social. All I seek to do is to attempt to remove some of the legal difficulties which are impediments. I hope very much that in the months and years ahead we may move forward. ·

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. Javits] raises two fundamental questions: Whether the statutory approach to this proposal is constitutional; and whether, if the Senate should adop ~ such an approach, Congress would be likely to complete action on it.

I shall not add .to the already considerable flow of words on this subject by discussing the constitutionality of the Senator's amendment. I shall only state my conviction that the adoption of the statutory approach would be certain to delay the abolition of the poll ta.x as a prerequisite for voting. In my opinion, those who seek to end the poll tax will support the Holland amendment, and will oppose the statutory approach.

Madam President, I move that the amendment offered by the Senator from New York be laid on the table.

Mr. JAVITS . . Madam President, will the Senator from Montana withhold his motion for a moment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, I withhold my motion.

Mr. JAVITS. Madam PreSident, I wish the · REcORD to refl:ect that the voting package in respect to the implementation of the rec . recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission was: introduced by my colleague from New York £Mr. KEaTING]. The only reason · I have moved as I have with respect to the proposal now before · the Senate is · that I had done so on ~ ce before, in 1960. So ;r carry the matter on at this time. I simply desired that the REcORD be explicit about that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Senator · r from New York. · · . Madam President, I renew my motion that the amendment offered by the Senator from New York be laid on the table. Before · the vote is taken, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to · call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order !or the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, on the motion to lay on the table, i: ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from New York.

The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The le g islative clerk called the roll.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] and the SenatOr from Tennessee [Mr. GoRE] are absent on official business. · On this vote, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] is paired, with the Senator from Tennessee Wr. Gore]. If present and voting, the Senator from Alaska would vote "nay," and the Senator from Tennessee would vote "yea . "

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART], and the Senator from North Dakota nv.tr. YouNG] are necessarily absent. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] is absent because of illness.

If present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YoUNG] would each vote “yea.”

The result was announced-yeas 59, nays 34, as follows:

[No . 32 Leg.)

YEAS-59

Aiken Hayden Moss Anderson Hickenlooper Mundt Bible Hickey Murphy Boggs Hill . Muskie Burdick Holland Pearson Byrd, Va. Hruska Prouty Byrd, W.Va . Johnston Randolph Cannon Jordan Robertson Carlson Kefauver Russell Chavez Kerr Saltonstall Cotton Long , Hawaii Smathers Curtis Long, La. Smith, Main~ . Dirksen Mansfield Sparkman Dworshak McClellan Stennis Eastland McGee T ~ Talmadge , Ellender McNamara Thurmond Engle Metcalf Tower Ervin Miller Williams, Del. Fulbright Monroney Yarborough Goldwater Morton

NAY8-34

Allott Case, N . J. Dodd Beall Church Douglas Bush Clark . Fong Carroll Cooper Gruening ·

Hart Long, Mo. Scott Hartke Magnuson Smith, Mass. Humphrey McCarthy Symington Jackson Morse Wiley Javits Neuberger Williams, N.J. Keating Pastore Young, Ohio Kuchel Pell Lausche Proxmire

NOT VOTING-7

Capehart Young, N. Dak. Bartlett Bennett Case, 8. Dak. Butler Gore

So Mr. MANSFIELD'S motion to lay the Javits amendment on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Madam President, I m.ove to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.