February 2, 1960 (3)

"The power of Congress to protect the election of President and Vice President from corruption being clear, the choice of means to that end presents a question primarily addressed to the judgment of Congress. If it can be . seen that the means adopted are really calculated to attain the end, the degree of their necessity, the extent to which they conduce to the end, the closeness of the relationship between the means adopted and the end to be attained, are matters for congressional determination alone" Stephenson v. Binford. (287 U.S. 251, . Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the very able report on this same subject, made by the great George W. Norris, in 1942, which is Report No. 1662, 77th Congress, 2d session, upholding the desirability of legislative action to outlaw poll taxes be also printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was refered H.R. 1024, an act to prevent pernicious political activities, begs leave to report thereon as follows:

At the same time the committee had under consideration H.R. 1024, the committee also had under consideration S. 1280, a bill concerning the qualification of voters or electors within the meaning of section 2, article I, of the Cons _ Constitution, making unlawful the requirement of the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in a primary or other election for national offices.

These two bills have the same object in view, to wit: Making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to vote in a primary, or other, election, for national offices.

Your committee recommends the passage of H.R. 1024 when amended.

In this form your committee recommends the passage of H.R. 1024.

Practically the only question involved in this legislation is the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. The committee has reached the conclusion that the proposed legislation is constitutional and should therefore be enacted into law. Those who believe the proposed law is unconstitutional rely upon section 2, article I, of the Constitution which reads as follows:

.._ "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature."

The qualification of a voter is generally believed to have something to do with the capacity of a voter. We think it will be admitted by all that no State, or State legislature, would have the constitutional authority to disqualify a voter otherwise qualified to vote, by setting up a pretended qualification that in fact has nothing whatever to do with the real qualification of the voter. No one can claim that the provision of the Federal Constitution above quoted would give a legislature the right to say that no one should be entitled to vote unless, for instance, he had red hair, · or had attained the age of 100 years, or any other artificial pretended qualification which, in fact had nothing to do with the capacity or real qualification of the voter. The evil that the legislation seeks to correct is in effect that in taking advantage of the constitutional provision regarding qualifications, the States have no right to set up a. perfectly arbitrary and meaningless pretended qualification which, in fact, is no qualification whatever and is only a pretended qualification by which large numbers of citizens are prohibited from voting simply because they are poor. Can it be said, in view of the civilization of the present day that a man's poverty has anything to do with his qualification to vote? Can it be claimed that a man is incapacitated from voting simply because he is not able to pay the fee which is required of him when he goes to vote? In other words, when States have prevented citizens from voting simply because they are not able to pay the amount of money which is stipulated shall be paid, can such a course be said to have anything to do with the real qualifications of the voter? Is it not a plain attempt to take advantage of this provision o! the constitution and prevent citizens from voting by setting up a pretended qualification ' which, in !act, · is · no qualification at We believe there is no doubt but that the prerequisite of the payment of a poll tax in order to entitle a citizen to vote has nothing whatever to do with the qualifications of the voter, and that this method of disfranchising citizens is merely an artificial attempt to use the language of the Constitution, giving the State power to set up qualifications, by using other artificial means and methods which in fact have no relation whatever to qualifications.

However, the constitutionality in our opinion does not depend alone upon the language of the Constitution above quoted. There are other provisions in the Constitution and amendments to the Constitution to which we desire to call attention.

Section 4 of article I of the ori g inal Constitution reads as follows:

"The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Repre s entatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress m a y at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

The subcommittee to which this proposed legislation was referred has held rather extended hearings and has listened to very able and competent constitutional lawyers in the discussion of the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. These two provisions o! the Constitution above quoted have been discussed at great length and with great ability by some of the ablest constitutional lawyers in the country.

The pretended poll tax qualification for 'VOting has no place in any modern system of government. We believe it is only a means, illegal and unconstitutional ln its nature, that is set up for the purpose of depriving thousands of citizens of · the privilege of participating in governmental affairs by denying them a fundamental right-the right to vote.

The requiring of a citizen to pay a poll tax before he can vote is in effect the requiring of the payment of money to exercise the highest qualification of citizenship. It . is in effect taxing a Federal function. The most sacred and highest of all Federal functions is the right to vote. It is not within the province of a State, or its legislature, to fix a fee or tax which a voter must pay in order to vote and try, in this way, to come within the Federal Constitution by calling this a qualification. ·

In the Yarbrough case decided 1n 110 U.S. 651, the Supreme Court of · the United States said:

"The right to vote !or Members of Congress is fundamentally based upon the Constitution of the United States, and was not intended to be left within the exclusive control of the State."

Supreme Court Justice Miller in that case said:

"But it is not correct to say that the right to vote for a Member of Congress does not depend upon the Constitution of the United States . "

In the Classic case, decided in 1941, Justice Stone of the Supreme Court said:

"The right of the people to choose, whatever its appropriate constitutional limitations, where in other respects it is defined, and the mode of its exercise ls prescribed by State action in conformity to the Constitution, is a right established and guaranteed by the Constitution."

Justice Stone said further:

"While in a loose sense, the right to vote for Representatives in Congress is sometimes spoken of as a right derived from the State • • • this statement is true only 1n the sense that the States are authorized by the Constitution to legislate on the subject as provided by section 2 of article II, to the extent that Congress has not restricted State action by the exercise o! its powers . to regulate elections under section 4 and its more general power under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the Constitution 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.'"

One might add that, since voting is one of the fundamental governmental rights, the right to tax this fundamental privilege by a State would be giving to the State the power to destroy the Federal Government. No State can tax any Federal function. This is a proposition which will have to be admitted by all and, if this Federal functionthe right to vote--can be taxed by a State, then the State has a right to destroy this Federal function which is, after all, the foundation of any government. As a matter of self-preservation, the Congress in order to save th e Federal Government from po s sible de s truction , must have the right to prevent any State authority from destroying t h is cornerstone of the Government itself. The right to vote for Members of Congress 1s a right, as the Supreme Court has said, granted under the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, any law, constitutional or statutory, of a State which taxes this fundamental privilege is contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. It could be said, of course, if these poll tax laws are unconstitutional, they could be taken to the Supreme Court and there challenged directly and that a law of congress is therefore unnecessary to protect this constitutional right. This is undoubtedly correct but it does not follow that, when the Congress of the United States has · had brought to its attention these poll tax laws by which millions of our citizens are in effect deprived of their right to vote, that it would not be the duty of Congress itself to pass the necessary legislation to nullify such unconstitutional State laws. Most of these people are deprived of their right to vote by these poll tax laws which are a method of taxation. As a rule they are poor people and are unable to vote because they are poor. The very fact that it is this class of people whose rights are being taken away makes it clear that they could not rely upon their constitutional rights of carrying their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States. The expense would be absolutely prohibitive and it 1s therefore the duty of Congress to protect these millions of citizens in their most sacred right as citizens-the right to vote.

We think a careful examination of the so-called poll tax constitutional and statutory provisions, and a.n examination particularly of the constitutional conventions by which these amendments became a part o! the State laws, wm convince any disinterested person that the object of these State constitutional conventions, from which emanated mainly the poll-tax laws, were moved entirely and exclusively by a desire to exclude the Negro from voting. · They attempted to do this in a constitutional way but, in order to follow such a course, they deemed it necessary to even prohibit the white voter the same as they did the colored voter and hence they devised the poll-tax method which applied to white and colored alike. In other words, the poll-tax laws were prohibitive to all people, regru : regardless of color, who were poor and unable to pay the poll tax.

We desire to call attention to the Virginia constitutional convention which submitted an amendment which was afterwa:rd adopted to the constitution of Virginia by which it was intended to disfranchise a very large number of Virginia citizens. We think this convention can be regarded as a fair sample of other conventions in other poll-tax States. Hon. Carter Glass was a member of that convention. Near the beginning of the convention Senator Glass made a speech in which he ou t lined · in ve r y forceful l anguag e what the object was, after all, of the convention. He did this . in his usual commendatory method of . getting at the real cream in the coconut. Near the beginning of the convention he made . a speech in which he said:

"The chief purpose of this convention is to amend the suffrage clause of the existing constitution. It does not require much prescience to foretell that the alterations wh i ch we shall m a ke will not apply to 'all persons and cl a sses without distinction.' We were sent he r e to make distinctions. We expect to make distinctions. We will make distinctions."

Near the conclus i on of the convention , Senator Glass delivered another address in which he referred to the work already performed by the convention. He said: · "I declared then (referring to the beginning of the convention and the debate on the oath) that no body of Virginia gentlemen could frame a constitution so obnoxious to my sen s e of right and morality that I. would be willing to submit its fate to 146,000 ignorant Negro voters [great applause] whose capacity for self-government we have been challenging for 30 years past.”

There is no doubt but what Senator Glass stated the real object the convention had in view. The fact that his remarks were re- · ceived with great applause indicates that his fellow members of that convention agreed with him and that 'the real object they had in view, and which they believed they could accomplish, was disfranchising "146,000 ignorant Negro voters."

Under the circumstances, can there be any doubt when perhaps the greatest leader of all stated what the object was a.nd what was expected to be accomplished by the so-called poll-tax laws? If we concede that this was the object of the law, then we admit it is unconstitutional because, if this was the effect of the law, it in fact made an artificial qualification which, in itself, is illegal . and unconstitutional, in order to come 1n under the qualification clause -of section 2, article I, of the Constitution.

It ought to be borne in mind also that many, if not all, of these constitutional amendments in the poll-tax States are in direct conflict with the statutes under which these States were readmitted to the Union under the act of Congress of June 26, 1870 16 Stat., p. 62) • The provision which re­ :rers to Virginia reads as follows:

"The constitution of Virginia shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen - or class of citizens o:t the United States of the right to vote, who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recog- · nized, except as punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they have been duly convicted under laws, equally applicable to all the inhabitants o . f said State: Provided, That any alteration of said constitution, prospective in its effect, may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters."

It therefore follows that these State poll tax constitutional amendments were in direct violation of this statute and therefore absolutely unconstitutional.

It seems perfectly plain that the object of this poll-tax provision 1n the State constitutions was not to prevent discrimination among the citizens but to definitely provide for a discrimination by which hundreds of thousands of citizens were taxed for the privilege of voting and that, therefore, under section 2 of article I of the Constitution, it seems plain that such a provision in the State constitution, or State law, was simply a subterfuge to accomplish other aims by resorting to the so-called "qualification" clause in section 2 of article I of the Constitution. It ls likewise equally plain that at the end of the War Between the States, when these States were readmitted to the Union, they were readmitted under a statute of Congress which provided explicitly that · the constltutions of the States "shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote · ."

It is therefore plain, under all the circumstances, that the so-called poll-tax laws of the State bringing about such a disqualification to its citizens in the exercising of suffrage is in clear violation of the laws Of Congress in addition to being a violation of the Constitution of the United States. It is a clear violation of the agreement made by the State, when it was readmitted, that it should not provide for such discriminatory amendments to the State constitutions. It follows therefore that the so-called poll-tax laws, bringing about the disfranchising of its citizens in the exercise of suffrage, are a clear violation of the laws of Congress in addition to being a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Those who believe the proposed · legislation is unconstitutional rely on the statement of a historic fact that, when the Constitution was adopted, all of the Original States had property or tax qualifications. This ignores entirely the testimony of scholars which clearly demonstrates why that fact alone does not prove the right of Congress today to forbid such requirements for voting in Federal elections. It seems to us that this regulation is subject to the criticism which Mr. Justice Holmes leveled against the use of history when he said:

"It is r _ revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it is laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule persists from blind imitation of the past." (Holmes: The Path of the Law, in Collection Papers, p. 187.)

We think also Justice Holmes was right when, in discussing the situation in Missouri v. Holland (252 u.s. 416, 433), he said:

"It (the Constitution) must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago."

The constitutional provision relied upon to strike down this legislation as unconstitutional must be considered with other constitutional provisions. ·

In section 4, article IV, of the Constitution of the United States, it is provided:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of Government."

What does this mean in the light of the present-day civilization? Can we have a republican form of government in any State if, within that State, a large portion and perhaps a majority of the citi.zens residing therein are denied the right to participate in governmental affairs because they are poor? We submit that this would be the result if under section 2, article I, of the Constitution, the proposed law is held to be unconstitutional. The most sacred right in our republican form of government is the right to vote. It is fundamental that that right should not be denied unless there are valid constitutional reasons therefor. It must be exercised freely by free men. If it is not, then we do not have a republican form of government. If we tax this fundamental right, we are · taxing a Federal privilege. We might just as well permit the States to tax Federal post offices throughout the United States:

Under the guise of · a pretended qualification this provision of the Constitution, we believe, has been nullified every time a State has denied the right to vote to any of its citizens because they do not have the money to pay the State the fee set up as a pretended “qualification.” We think that this fact has been fully demonstrated by requiring the payment of a poU tax for the right to vote.

It 1s conceded, we think, even by those who believe the proposed law is unconstitu· tional that, while the poll tax is comparatively small in amount, 1f any poll tax at all can be enforced so a.S to prohibit voting by those who do not have the fee, the principle involved would permit the State to fix a fee much higher than is usually fixed now, and it is not at all unlikely that, in carrying out the real provisions of the poll-tax laws, this amount could be increased so that the poll tax might be fixed at $10, $50, $100, or even greater. The constitutional right to fix any poll-tax fee concedes the right to fix that fee at any amount desired.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

;rt is quite clear that the so-called poll-tax laws do abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. If citizens of the United States are required to pay a poll tax it is clearly an abridgment of their privileges and immunities.

It is said that section 2 provides an exclusive remedy for a violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Section 2 refers to the apportionment among the several States of representatives in Congress and provides for the reduction in the number of such representatives whenever the right to vote is denied. We do not think this remedy is an exclusive one. Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution is positive in its terms and says that no State shall make or enforce any law which is an abridgment of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.

The sponsors of the poll-tax laws do not admit that they have prevented anyone from voting. In fact these laws do not, on their face, directly prohibit any citizen from voting. The effect is brought about by the levying of a poll tax and providing that the citizens must pay this poll tax in order to vote. While he is not denied the right to vote, he is taxed for this privilege and, in case of poverty, this results in a denial of the privilege of voting and thus directly interferes with the citizen's right to participate in governmental affairs. Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution says that this shall not be done and these laws therefore come in direct conflict with section 1 of the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment to the Constitution has other sections referring to the right to hold office by a Senator or Representative tn Congress and with reference to electors for President and Vice President. Section 4 of this amendment refers to the public debt of the United States and prohibits the United States or any State from assuming or paying any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Section 2, as above stated, refers to the apportionment of · Representatives among the several States.

There is no more reason why section 2 should modify section 1 than there is that section 3 or section 4 should be considered 1n · connection with section 1.

It is quite clear that the so-called poll-tax laws do abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. If any citizen of the United States is deprived of the privilege of voting by any of these polltax laws, it see;ms a clear abridgment of the privileges of citizens of the United States. One of the greatest privileges, . and a funda ... mental one, of every citizen of the United States is the right to vote. If he is deprived of this right, he · is denied the right to par' .. tieipate in governmental affairs. Such a citizen becomes an outcast. He is subject to all the laws of the State. His . citizenship is admitted and · the burdens which rest upon hiin are the same as rest . upon all other citi- zens. He can be drafted into the Army and be compelled to face the foe and give up his life to protect the lives of his fellow citizens. Yet he is de . deprived of the most sacred priv- ilege of all-the right to vote. It is quite evident that all these poll-tax laws are in direct violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution as well as being in violation o! other constitutional and Federal laws heretofore referred to.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I merely wish to take this opportunity of associating myself with the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. As the Senator may recall, ever since he and I have been in .the Senate we have been sponsors of similar amendments. I was pleased to have an opportunity to vote for the Javits amendment. I wish to commend the Senator from New York for his efforts in bringing the amendment before the Senate. I, too, have found, from my personal study over the years, that a legislative enactment relating to therepeal of the poll tax has constitutional basis. While I felt that this was a better approach, I also felt that it was important that some action be taken to at least clear away the poll tax limitation on the voting right. Therefore, I also voted for the Holland amendment to utilize the constitutional amendment method.

Finally, I wish to · say that this is a forward step in accomplishing a civil rights , program. Slowly but surely Congress is tearing down the barriers to the exercise of the franchise.

When Congress shall have finally completed its work in terms of reinforc- · ing the 15th amendment, it will have done something for American democracy which I am sure our forebears thought had been accomplished 7.5 or 90 years ago.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, my colleague from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL], I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. President, in order to expedite matters, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with. I shall be happy to explain their purpose.

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

The amendments offered by Mr. KEAT• ING, for himself and other Senators, which were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, are as follows:

Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

"That the following articles are hereby proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United. States, and any one of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

“ I ARTicit.m-

.. 'On any date that the tOtal number of vacancies in the House of Representatives e x ceeds half of t he au t horized , membership t h ereof, and for a period of sixty days thereR fte r , the executive authority ~ of each State s ha ll have power to make temporary app o intm e nts to fill any vacancies ; including t h ose h a ppening during such period, in the r .:mres ent a tion from his State in · the House o f - Representatives. Any person temporarily a ;;>poi nted to fill any such vacancy shall serve . u n t il the people fill the vacancy by election as provided for by article I, section 2 , o f the Constitution.

" ' ARTICLE--

" ' SE c TION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Sen a tor 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 or to meet any property qualifications. · · " 'SEc. 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. · · · · "'SEc . 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"'ARTICLE--

" 'The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall elect, in such manner and under such regulations as the Congress shall . provide by law-

•••a number of Delegates to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Representatives to which they would be entitled if the District were a State with such powers as the Congress, by law, shall determine; and

"'a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole · number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State; such electors shall possess the · qualifications required by article II of this Constitution; they shall be in addition to those appointed by · the · states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and cast their _ ballots as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.•

"Amend the title so as to read: 'Joint resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives, to abolish t a x and property qualifications for electors in Federal elections, and to enfranchise the people of the District of Columbia.’ "

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, per • , haps the Senators who are interested ih the amendment might be able to hear what l have to say U the Chair would endeavor to get order in the Chamber. The _ ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem• pore. The Senator from New York will suspend. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from New York may proceed. . Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, tile amendment, by its terms, strikes . out · all after the enacting clause and then reinstates the so-called Kefauver amendment and the so-called Holland amendment. Then it adds a third amendment, which I shall describe in a moment. However, it provides in the first section thereof that these articles are proposed as amendments to the Constitution, ' and that any one of them shall be valid upon ratification by the legislatures of threefourths of ~e States of the -p'nion.

In the first place, dealing briefly with this point, it seems to me that it is much more orderly to provide that each of these proposed constitutional amendments may be submitted separ-ately to the States , instead of putting them all in one package. Frankly, I confess that the more · orderly procedure would be to present each amendment separately and have it voted upon by itself, and stop there , rather to embody several of them in one resolution.

However, we have already adopted the so-called Holland amendment, which I supported. Now I propose an additional amendment to the Constitution.

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

Mr. KEATING. Yes; I yield for a question.

Mr. COTTON. On the point the Senator is now discussing, as I understand, his amendment, if it were adopted, would have the effect not only of separating his proposal from the so-called Kefauver-Hoiland proposals, but it would also separate the Kefauver from the Holland proposal when they are submitted to the States. Is that correct?

Mr. KEATING . . Yes. My reason is that I believe it is better to submit each of them separately to the States than to put them all in one package.

Mr. COTTON. I am gratified to know that the Senator's amendment does contain such a provision. I would . have gladly voted for the Holland amendment if it had not been hopelessly yoked to the original amendment which, in my opinion, is like _ yoking a horse and a steer. I could not possibly vote for that kind of package deal in tampering with the Constitution. I congratulate the Senator from New York that the first thing his amendment does is to separate the proposed constitutional amendments, in order that they may be considered separately by the people of the various States, if they are considered.

Mr. KEATING . I appreciate the re• marks of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I must say to him that I thought the hooking or yoking of my amendment to the so-called Holland amendment would be more like yoking a steer and a cow, because they both have to do with the voting franchise. whereas the · original Kefauver amendment does not have anything to do with voting. I therefore think that even if we considered only the anti-poll-tax amendment, it might be appropriate to consider my amendment, in connection with it.

Mr. COTTON. But it does not so yoke it. Is that correct?

Mr. KEATING. It does not so yoke it. My proposal does two things. First, it separates all three . e of the proposed amendments. Secondly, ~t adds a proposal providing that the citizens of the District of Columbia shall elect, under such · regulations as the Congress shall provide by law, first, a number of delegates to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Representatives to which they would be entitled if the District were a State, with such powers as the Congress by law shall determine. - Mr. President. on my amendment I ask for the yeas and nays at this poin,t.

The yeas and nays were not ordered .

Mr. KEATING. I shall have to m a ke the same request later.

. The second thing tlie amendment does is to provide for the election of a number of electors for President and Vice · President equal to the whole number of Senators and . Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. It also provides that such electors shall possess the qualifications required by article II of the Constitution; that they shall be in addition to those elected by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors selected by a State; and that they shall meet in the District and cast . their ballots as provided by the 12th amendment. _

In other words, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL] and I in the proposed amendment endeavor to give the Senate the opportunity to give to the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President and representation in Congress.

As to the latter, I recognize there are differing views. There are those who say the - District of Columbia should have a Senator, or two Senators. There are those who think the District should have three Representatives. Our amendment gives representation only in the House, and it does not even give a voting representation, unless COngress later determines to do so. In other words, it provides for the number of Delegates the District would be entitled to have if it were a State, which would be two or three Representatives, and it provides also that Congress shall later give them such powers as Congress shall determine.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr . President, will the Senator yield for a question? · .

Mr. KEATING. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. ALLOTr. The Senator has just made a statement which implies that at a subsequent time, under the proposed amendment, . the nonvoting Members of the House . of Representatives from the District of Columbia could be given the power to :vote, by statutory enactment. Do I understand that to be the fact?

Mr. KEATING. It provides for such powers as Congress shall determine.

Mr. ALLOTT. In other words, to make the record perfectly clear, this is not simply an amendment to provide for three delegates or two delegates; it would also provide for voting delegates at any time that Congress should by a simple majority decide to that effect. Is that correct?

Mr. KEATING. That is correct. Congress could later by majority vote give to the delegates power to cast a vote, in my judgment.

Mr. ALLOTT. That is the interpretation which the Senator from New York and his cosponsors put on the language contained on page 2, lines 19 to 23 inclusive. Is that correct?

Mr. KEATING. That Js my · understanding of what that language means.

Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KEATING. · Mr-. President. it is my opinion that this amendment is certainly equally as important as any other proposal which could come before Congress to enlarge the exercise of the franchise. The continued massive disqualification of all the · residents of the District of Columbia from their right to participate in our electoral processes is inexcusable. It is unreasonable. It is undemocratic. We can and must seize this opportunity to remedy this deplorable state of affairs. I would hope that this was one defect in our electoral processes which Members of this body from all sections of our Nation would enthusiastically join in correcting. .

There is some difficulty in stirring up widespread concern for the plight of the residents of the Nation's Capital. The · area of the District of Columbia is small. Only local inhabitants would be affected . by this reform. But the principles at stake are large. Our action would have international impact. We would be demonstrating to the whole world that in America democracy begins at homethat we practice what we preach. ·

Only in the past few days I had a letter from a housewife in the Bronx, who said to me, "There is a lot of talk about civil rights these days: Do I correctly understand that in the District of Columbia no citizen, white or colored, has the right to vote?"

I had to tell her that that is the fact. Let me recall a few facts which have an important bearing on this subject. The first one is that the population of the District of Columbia exceeds the population of 12 States which have full representation rights in both the House and Senate. These States are New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii. Indeed, the District of Columbia has more residents than the States of Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming, combined. These States including their Senators, have nine Representatives in Congress; the District of Columbia has none.

The second fact is that the residents of the District of Columbia pay well over $350 million annually in Federal taxes. This is more tax money than is contributed by the residents of any one of 25 States having a total representation of 148 Members in the Congress. Taxation without representation is still the lot of our local citizens.

Fact No. 3 is that more than 100,000 men and women who lived in the District of Columbia served in our armed forces during World War II. This was a greater contribution in manpower to the defense of our Nation than was made by 14 States. Many of these brave souls made the supreme sacrifice in our country's battles. It is shameful that these courageous men and women who fought and died for freedom could not enjoy its essential quality in their own homeland.

These are shameful facts. Here are several hundred thousand Americans who . are called upon to pay taxes, to serve in our armed forces, and to fulfill all the other obligations of citizenship, but who are denied one of its most sacred privileges.

How much longer shall we permit this our stain on our democracy to remain un- low cleansed? nity. I would seize any opportunity to erase this black mark. But I believe that con- ident, sideration of this matter, as I pointed out to the Senator from New Hampshire yield [Mr. CoTTON]. in connection with · the South anti-poll-tax amendment is particularly this appropriate. Both are of the same nature in that they a.re attempts to remove unreasonable impediments to voting field; rights. They are both comparable in credit their impact and their justification. I do not know how many people in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia will be benefited by the re- ator moval of the Poll tax. But I am certain praise that the number is no more than the number of citizens in the District of Columbia who would benefit from removal of the absolute bar against their right to vote. '

This is not a mere matter of numbers, however, but basically a matter of principle. We cannot justify the denial of of the right of a citizen to vote . because of of his residence in the District of Columbia when any more than we can justify the denial from of the right to vote because a citizen has failed to pay a fee. Both conditions are entirely inconsistent with our demo- called cratic sYstem. Both deserve prompt extermination.

One other thing should be made clear. the This is a right-to-vote amendment, not a as self-government amendment. I strongly supported the home rule bill when it I was was before the Senate last year, and I hope the other body will proceed with dispatch to complete action on that mat- the ter. What we are dealing with here to- ate day, however, is something quite differ- have ent. This amendment deals only with national representation. It does not die establish any form of territorial govern- I ment or elected local legislative systems. the These are separate matters, and we should not delay action on this proposal for because of the pendency of the other. Both are of the utmost importance, but future neither need await the other's fruition. PQsed; In substance, this amendment pro- , the vides only two things: First, that the - people of the District of Columbia shall of elect a number of delegates to the House would of Representatives equal to the whole self number of representatives to which they the would be entitled if the District were a State, with such powers as the Con- they gress, by law, shall determine; and second, that the people of the District of gress. Columbia shall elect "a number of electors of President and Vice President haps equal to the whole number of Senators in and Representatives in the Congress to mean which the District would be entitled if it were a State." This is the form in of which the amendment was approved by that a 5-1 vote of the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee of the Committee of oil the Judiciary just last September. I would be willing to go beyond these recommendations and provide definite vot- to ing rights for the representatives and tional perhaps even for representatives in the which Senate. The provisions of this amend- · ment represent, in other words, a bare that minimum of what we must do. But this which much must be done, in my judgment, if we are to bestow upon the residents of a ci Nation's · capital their rights as telmembers · of the American commu-

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Preswill the Senator yield?

Mr. KEATING. · I am very happy to to the distinguished Senator from

Dakota, who offered substantially proposal when the District of Columbia home rule bill was before the Senate; who has been a pioneer in this and to whom should go the major for focusing our attention on this important problem in the District of Columbia.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The Senfrom New York is generous in his of my efforts with regard to the establishment of some right and some opportunity for the people of the District of Columbia to have a voice in their own Government.

I have · gone - through a considerable educational experience, I may say, in regard to voting rights for the District Columbia. During the first Congress which I was a Member of the Senate, the distinguished former Senator Arizona [Mr. McFARLAND] was the majority leader, he asked me to take charge of the presentation of the sohome rule bill. That was a little unusual, in view of the fact that I was then a member of the minority party of Senate. It was my privilege to act the floor manager for that bill. Again, in the succeeding Congress, when chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, I had the honor of presenting the so-called home rule bill to Senate. In both instances, the Senapproved the home rule bill. But I seen that bill go to the House of Representatives and there languish and of inaction.

have somewhat reluctantly come to conclusion that the only practical possibility of affording an opportunity the residents of the District of Columbia to vote in the reasonably near is through the procedure here prothat is, to give them the right and opportunity to vote for Delegates or Representatives who would be Members the House of Representatives and who • have such powers as Congress itmight see fit to give them, and, by same token, have a right to vote for presidential electors on the same basis as would if they were represented by Representatives and Senators in the Con­

But I go somewhat further than perdoes the Senator from New York believing that this . amendment will an effective step toward self-government for the people of the District

Columbia. The Constitution provides the Congress shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District Columbia. No home rule bill ever proposed or devised has been able, in the absence of a constitutional amendment, get around that existing constitutional Every home rule bill we examine contains, somewhere within it, a provision which recognizes Congress could overrule any action might be taken by a District of Columbia local legislative body, whether t y council or whatnot. In any case, exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia rests with the Congress. .

The amendment which the Senator from New York has submitted, on behalf of himself, the Senator from Maryland, and myself, does · not change the constitutional provision which leaves within the Congress exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia, but it gives the District of Columbia citizens an opportunity to have representation in the Congress, which has this exclusive legislative jurisdiction. That is why to that extent this proposal would give the people of the District of Columbia a voice in their own government.

The Congress would continue to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia; and the people of the District of Columbia would then, for the first time, have real representation in the Congress.

When I originally proposed an amendment along this line, and submitted it when a bill in this field was last before the Congress, I proposed that such representatives of the people of the District of Columbia have the powers which traditionally have been had by Territorial Delegates. Territorial Delegates in the House of Representatives traditionally have had the right to speak on the :floor of the House, the right to serve on House committees, .- and the l'ight to submit amendments; but they have not had the right to vote in the House of Representatives or the right to vote in the House committees on which they might serve.

This amendment would give the Congress itself the power to determine what powers such Delegates to the Congress shall have. Presumably the Congress could give them the same powers that Territorial Delegates traditionally have had; or the Congress could go further, and could give them the right to vote. ' But the right to speak on the :floor of the House of Representatives, the right to submit amendments, and the right to serve on House committees would be great improvements over the situatio,n :which now exists. • I think the logic of this proposal is beyond question to anyone who will make a comprehensive study of the situation.

The Senator from New York has ably presented figures in regard to the amount of taxes paid by the residents of the District of Columbia. Nothing is more deeply imbedded in the traditional theory of our Government than the proposition that taxation without representation is tyranny. The people of the District of Columbia pay taxes far in excess of the amount of taxes paid by many States; and, as the Senator from New York has pointed out, the people of the District of Columbia pay taxes which gross more than the total amount of taxes paid by many States. Yet the people of the District of Columbia have no voice in their own government. So certainly in the District of Columbia there is taxation without representation. Furthermore, as the Senator from New York has well pointed out, the District of Columbia has provided many soldiers to the Armed - Forces of the Nation. Certainly to be called . upon to fight for one's country and then be denied an opportunity to participate in its government by means of voting is grossly unfair.

In that connection let me point out that a few years ago the Congress passed a law which provided that an alien who had served in the Armed Forces of the Nation would thereby acquire the rights of citizenship. If it be true that Congress once decided that it was just that an alien who served in the Armed Forces should be granted citizenship upon the completion of his service--and that step was taken by means of legislation proposed by former Senator Lodge, of Massachusetts, as I recall-and if it was sound to permit, as a result, 25,000 aliens to obtain citizenship by virtue of having served in the Armed Forces of the Nation, why should not th'e people of the District of Columbia who served in the Nation's Armed Forces be granted · one of the rights of citizenshiP-to wit, the right to vote?

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the :figures indicate that the people of the District of Columbia who served in the Armed Forces suffered casualties at a higher rate than did those from any State who served in the Armed Forces. However, I point out that these figures were prepared before the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as States.

I emphatically join the Senator from south Dakota when he says there is no justice in denying the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, the Senator from New York, with his characteristic sense of . justice, has pointed out a possible exception for the State of Hawaii, because, as I recall, Hawaii had a regiment which had higher casualty losses than those suffered by any other regiment which served during World War II.

Mr. KEATING. That is also my recollection. ' I believe I have heard our colleagues from Hawaii cite, with great and understandable pride, the wonderful record of the Hawaii regiment.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. It was probably because of the excellent record the Hawaiian soldiers made during the war that many of the Members of Congress felt that Hawaii had earned admission to the Union as a State.

By the same token, we should certainly now similarly recognize the valiant service of the soldiers from the District of Columbia.

One collateral point which might be made in that connection is that the city of Washington becomes the home of a greater number of retired officers of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force than does any other city in the Nation, by reason of the fact that many of those who have served in the military forces lose their residence in their native States, and also by reason of the fact that many attractions exist for living in the city of Washipgton.

But when they reside in Washington, they find themselves deprived of the right to vote. I have always felt that those who take the risks involved in the military services certainly are entitled to have a · voice in the affairs of the country they have served.

Finally, let . t me say that it has seemed to me that the other argument the Senator from New York has mentionedto wit, our position before · the world-is, in itself, a compelling reason for the adoption of this amendment. Certainly it is an anomaly that this country, the United States, which today before the world holds itself out as the great devotee of freedom and the great apostle of representative government, should deny voting rights to the residents of the Capital City. I see no justification whatsoever for such a position. It compromises our position in every international gathering and in every international endeavor. To say that representative government is good for the new countries in Africa and in Asia, but that in the Capital City of the United States itself the residents should not have the right to participate in their own government is ~ an inconsistency which weakens the position of the United States in every international conference today.

So I certainly urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield to me?

Mr. KEATING. First, Mr. President, let me say that I appreciate very much the eloquent appeal the Senator from South Dakota has made for adoption of this amendment. I express to him publicly what I had said to him privately, that I am most grateful indeed for -the pioneering work which he did in this field.

I am very happy to yield now to my distinguished colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I am in agreement with the remarks of the illustrious Senator from South Dakota. During the adjournment of Congress I had the pleasure of visiting 14 countries in the Far East. Everywhere I went, people in the Far East remarked to me that America heretofore had certainly preached much concerning democracy but many times fell short of what it preached. My election to the Congress of the United States was in a measure an answer to them that we do believe in self -determination, and that we practice democracy as we preached it. .

In granting to the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President and to have a Representative in the House of Representatives, we would, to a great degree, be giving to the people of the District of Columbia the right of self-determination which we have been seeking for all the people of the world. This would again be an answer to the critics who claim that we in America practice a limited type of democracy. This would be applying the principle of self-determination domestically.

The able Senator from South Dakota made reference to the heroism shown by citizens of Hawaii in the last war. I would like to say in connection with the question of statehood for Hawaii, that there was much doubt on the part of many people as to whether the people of Hawaii - ii were loyal and patriotic citizens. In the last war the citizens of Hawaii demonstrated that they were loyal and patriotic Americans. Throughout the war there was not one single case of sabOtage against the American Government, and our men in the service distinguished themselves heroically on the battlefield and everywhere. The 442d Regiment of Hawaii was one of the most h i ghly decorated of all regiments in the history of the United States of America. This demonstration of patriotism · I believe contributed much to the Congress granting statehood . to Hawaii.

I am profoundly happy to hear from the distinguished Senator from South Dakota that the heroic . sons of the District of Columbia in the last war distinguished , themselves admirably and I am happy to join my worthy colleagues in his efforts to bring democracy and self -determination to the people of the District of Columbia. I wish to thank the able Senator for yielding.

Mr. KEATING. I am exceedingly grateful for the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii. I cannot refrain from saying I was in the Far East at or about the time the Senator from Hawaii was. I think his visit tothe Far East as a United States Senator was most helpful and fruitful in giving our country a standing in the world. He had what might be called a triumphal tour, despite his extreme modesty, On all sides I heard the expression, from our o~ people and from people in the Far East, "Here is a U.S. Senator . 6f Chinese extraction." It has completely erased all of the talk which we often had heard in Asian countries. We have oftentimes somewhat slighted the Asian countries in our dealings · with them: · · We · have heard it said that we are interested only in Europe, that we have our allies in Europe, that we have no interest in the Far East; and much of the trouble that we have had in the Far East has stemmed from that feeling. Here is a man who went to the Far East as a U.S. Senator-. He did notable service for his country, and I know I express the attitude of all of us when I say we are proud indeed of the tour . which he made. · ·

I am grateful to him for his support of the amendment. His support is in consonance with the principles in which he believes and with his record both in Hawaii and since he has become a Member of the U.S. Senate.

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

Mr. KEATING. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. JAVITS. First, I should like to express support of my colleague in his effort to get this very desirable amendment in the constitutional amendment now before the Senate; but more than that, I should like to express my appreciation for being associated with a Senator who seizes the right opportunity. It is not often that there are proposed in the Senate constitutional amendments where we have a chance to act. This is an opportunity, which I hope the Senate will not forego today, to do elemental justice to the people of the District of Columbia. I am delighted my colleague has taken the · initiative to propose it and give us an - opportunity to effectuate his proposal.

Also, l should like to join him in . contemplating this major point . . ThiS is a season when the United States is expanding its horizons. It would have been unthinkable, in another day, to admit into the Union, the Territory of Alaska, 1,700 or 1,800 miles away from the mainland of the United States, or to admit Hawaii, 2,500 tnlles away, and separated from us by an ocean. Yet our people have had -the kind of vision which is truly historic and which marks our capability for being world leaders, for the mark of leadership is the willingness to expand one's views.

My colleague from New York is asking us to take care of the home fires at the same time we expand our vision, and this is an opportunity for us to correct a rankling injustice and give to the people of the District of Columbia a right which is denied to the people of very few Federal districts in other countries of the world. I think the research of the Senator shows that fact.

Mr. KEATING. In general, that is true. There are a few parallels, but very few. In most Federal districts in other countries the people of those districts have the right of national representation.

Mr. JAVITS. I express the hope that t-lie Senate will see that this justice is done, as proposed by my colleague. In a very elemental way, these are the minimal requirements that one could conceive. Why they can be denied or what opposition can be made against them, I . cannot imagine. we have a chance to take care of this situation today, and I hope the senate will do so.

Mr. KEATING. I appreciate very much, indeed, the gracious remarks of my colleague from New York , and his support · of the amendment which I am sure Will be helpful. . .

Mr. B~~LE; Mr. President, Will the Senator Yield. . .

Mr. KEATING. I am happy to Yield to my · distinguished colleague from Nevada.

Mr. BrnLE. I should like to subscribe to the statements made by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING].

As the Senator recalls, this subject matter came before this body last July, when we had before us for discussion the District of Columbia home-rule bill. The junior Senator from New York performed a very valuable service at . that time. · He stated, and I think I quote him correctly, that the home-rule bill was not the vehicle to use to provide for national representation for the District but that the proposal should come through the Judiciary Committee and should be considered on its own merits.

I thoroughly subscribed to that view. I thoroughly subscribe to th · e statements the Senator from New York is making at the present time. As the Senator well knows, I appeared before the Judiciary Committee on September 9, of last year. in support of · the particular amendment which is now · before · the Senate. I said at that time, and I now repeat, that I gave no priority either to the home-rule bill or to the constitutional amendment which would give na­ · tiona! . representation to the District of Columbia. I felt very keenly then, and I feel equally keenly now, that the right of suffrage is important in both instances.

I think this is the correct posture, I think this is the correct vehicle, to use to bring the question before the United States; and I certainly hope the amendment will be agreed to.

I likewise hope, and I am sure the Senator from New York will join me in the hope, that there will be nothing in the adoption of this amendment that will in any way prevent . us from moving the bill providing full home rule for the District of Columbia a step further in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. KEATING. I entirely agree with that statement . . On this subject I think I share completely the views of my dis- . tinguished colleague fr.om Nevada. I strongly supported the home rule bill. I hope that bill will be acted on by the other body, but I think it would be a mistake for us to hold up a proposed constitutional amendment at this time while awaiting action in the other body, Let us go down both roads, with the hope . that eventually the citizens of the District of Columbia will have the right to vote for President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, and . will also · be given a measure of fuller conduct of their own affairs, which incidentally, will relieve us of many burdens with which, in my judgment. we really should not be concerned.

I cannot leave that subject without saying to my colleague f;oDJ. Nevada how much 3:11 of us appreciate and admire the dedicated serviCe which he has given to the District of Columbia and to its problems. He has placed a mark o~ distinction. upon service on the District of Columbia. Commi~tee by the way he has handled Its affairs. · It was my great pleasure to work with the Senator on the home rule bill. I share his views completely. His support of this amendment will do a great deal to insure its passage, because all Members on both sides of the aisle have a great deal of confidence in · the judgment and ability of my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. BIBLE. I thank the Senator from New York · for those very kind sentiments. I have enjoyed my service on the District of Columbia Committee. I think all of us rather recognize that Senators do not particularly beat a path to the door of the District of Columbia Committee room for service on that committee.

I look at the matter a little differently, This is the Nation's Capital. · It is the Capital of our Union, and I think all our citizens should take great pride in the Nation's Capital, as I believe they do.

I am happy to give my services in that direction by serving on the committee, to the best of my capabilities. I am certain that my distinguished friend from Maryland [Mr. BEALL] feels exactly the same. He is the ranking minority member of the committee and has devoted many long hours of service to the District.

I simply · wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING]. As he knows, in my · statement before the · committee · I · said I could see no reason at all why both national representation and home ru~e · coUld not go arm and arm down the · ais l e toward passage.

Mr. KEATING. I hope so, too.

I will say to my colleague from Nevada a n d my colleague from Maryland, if we dered. c a n have ' both measures enacted by the Congress it will be a great monument to the work of both these stalwart Senators who have given such outstanding service to the District of Columbia.

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the Sen a tor yield?

Mr. KEATING. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from New York for bringing up the amendment at this time. I am very happy to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

The Senator from New York and I advocate home rule for the District of Columbia, and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE], chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, has long advocated it. While the pending proposal does not go as far as the measure the Senator · from Nevada and I have been advocating, it is a step in the right direction.

There is an old saying that one must crawl before one walks, and one must walk before one runs. This amendment will accomplish the first objective; namely, to give some 800,000 disenfranchised people the right to be firstclass citizens.

It has been my pleasure to work with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Nevada, who has demonstrated a sincere interest in the District of Columbia matters. In my 17 years of service on the District committees, of the two Houses, I have never known anyone to show greater interest in the welfare of the citizens of the District of Columbia than our present chairman, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. BIBLE].

Certainly the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING], in sponsoring this proposal and presenting it at this time, is doing something which is praiseworthy. I hope the Senate will agree to the amendment.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. KEATING. I am grateful to my colleague from Maryland, who has been definitely instrumental in trying to give to the people of the District of Columbia a greater measure of control over and conduct of their own affairs.

· Of course, we face problems in the other body. However, I hope the problem with reference to the constitutional amendment, which will be considered by a different committee in the other body, will not be so serious as the one with reference to home rule apparently

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The question is agreeing to the aniendtnent offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] for himself and other Senators.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. President~ I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT protempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk ~ proceeded to call · the roll.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the , quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so or­

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, on my amendment I ask for the yeas and · nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.