January 29, 1960 (4)

'Ille Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) to amend the Constitution to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, first, I want to say that I have greatly enjoyed the very able presentation by my colleague the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], as I have the other speeches which have been delivered on this subject. This is a matter of greater importance than perhaps . some may be prone to think it is.

I rise to register my opposition to this latest proposal to cut away rights of the States. I refer to the antipoll tax amendment proposed to the measure before the Senate today.

The measure before the Senate, in the form of a Senate joint resolution, proposes an amendment to the constitution which would deprive all States of the right to levy a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting. While I realize a constitutional amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, passage of this joint resolution as proposed to be amended would inevitably result in further restricting the rights of States and the granting . of more power to the Federal Government.

Some argue · th _ at the amendment would affect only five States, that is, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Virginia. I . contend _ d that it would affect 50 States, inasmuch as a right is a right, whether it is used or not.

There is another very sound and practical reason for not tampering with the right of the States to levy poll taxes. That reason is simply this: The poll tax is a form of revenue collection used in the five States just named to help with the operation of their State governments. With the Federal Government moving steadily into many fields of tax­ ~tion, there is little left for the States. While we struggle here to bring about a balanced Federal budget, let us remember that the States are also having trouble raising necessary funds and balancing their budgets. Although the revenue derived from poll taxes may seem to some to be small, it is of substantial importance to Alabama in the support of our public schools.

I confess that it has caused me considerable wonder from time to time why there is so much concern over the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in five States of the Union, and yet there is no particular concern, so far as I have ever known, over requirements :in various - States for certain property prerequisites.

While we do have a poll tax in Alabama, a great part of the population is exempt from it. Veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean · conflict, and members of the National Guard, are exempt from the poll tax. All persons over 45 years of age are exempt, as well as the blind, the deaf, and totally disabled persons owning taxable property not in excess of $500. These exemptions apply to all races. Thus, Senators can see that a substantial number of Alabamians pay no poll tax at all.

Another reason why it is unwise to bring up this legislation is the certain belief, especially of the people in the five States which have the tax, that it is a further effort on the part of Congress to enact or bring about the approval of measures treating with the race issue, to dictate to the States on a State matter.

Now is no time to stir to fever pitch the emotions and feelings of any of our people on the highly controversial and explosive race problem by considering a measure which, regardless of what is intended, will be thought of as further treating with the problem.

As I told the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on April 10 of last year, proposed action relating · to racial matters, or which may be so interpreted, will speed up deterioration of the previous harmonious relations that existed between the races.

I explained further that I wished each member of the committee could understand the racial tensions that have been generated by civil rights agitation · since 1954. . .

Communication between · the leaders of the two races has been largely destroyed. It has become well nigh impossible to settle problems once settled on a mutually satisfactory basis. Suspicion has replaced trust. Fear has replaced mutual confidence.

The unwise _ and unjustified school desegration decision of the Supreme Court in 1954, and agitation for the enactment of measures relating to racial matters, have brought about resentment and distrust between the Negro and the · white that will require generations to heal.

Mr. President, I feel very earnestly that all of us need be concerned about the maintenance of the system of gov­ ernment our forefathers set up. They established here a dual system of gov­ ernment, a Republic made up of a federation of sovereign States. There was a system of two spheres of government set up, the Federal, the State. A certain · sphere was set off in which the Federal Government was to be absolutely supreme, another one was set off in which the State government was to be supreme. There was no overlapping of the two spheres in which both governments were to operate with concurrent authority.

I believe in that dual system of government. I believe it is the best way to get good government. It is the best way to keep government close to the people by keeping powers lodged in the sovereign States. ·

I desire to see that system continued. Approval of the amendment before the Senate unquestionably would impair that system.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that the measure before us today, no matter how well intentioned its proponents may be, is in essence another instrumentality or vehicle to enable the Federal Government to make further inroads upon the historic constitutional rights of _ the States.

Oh, what wrongs some seem willing to commit in the name of treating with the race issue. What madness has seized us that drives men to seek to alter an immutable social phenomenon at the expense of tearing asunder the very fabric of our constitutional government. There has · been no showing what ' ever ' that in those few States where a poll tax is yet exacted as a prerequisite to voting there is any disenfranchisement by the tax, or that if such disenfranchisement does occur it falls with - any greater force on one race or color than upon another, or that the tax constitutes any unreasonable burden upon the exercise of the right of franchise.

I have pointed out earlier that the poll tax in my own State of Alabama is a revenue measure and that it does indeed produce needed revenue in a State where revenue sources are sorely inadequate. The people of Alabama do not regard the poll tax as a burden upon the right of franchise. Why do I make such a statement? Because events in Alabama show it to be true. Until a very few years ago, the $1.50 per year poll tax in Alabama was cumulative in its effect throughout the total number of years a ' citizen was required to pay a poll tax f.or the privilege of . voting. 'Illis period of years is from age 21 through age 45. For many years the law required that if a person did not pay his poll tax in the year he became otherwise eligible to vote, say at age 21, his ' delinquent poll taxes accumulated until such year as he chose to pay up all his back taxes and vote.

If a person became eligible to vote in Alabama, say at age 21, but did not actuaUy vote until age 45, such person would owe an accumulated tax of $36.

Over a period of years, many citizens did fall in arrears to such an extent that payment of such back poll taxes became burdensome. Recognizing this burden, the people of Alabama, the people themselves, decided, and acted, to do away with this extensive cumulative requirement.

Acting of their own free will and accord, the people of Alabama voted to wipe out $30 of every $36 owed by citizens for back and current poll taxes. In doing so, the State of Alabama lost much revenue and much potential revenue, because all over $6 in delinquent poll taxes was forgiven.

The people of Alabama acted within their own judgment, acted voluntarily to do this, knowing full well that it would mean losses in revenue to the State of Alabama. But the people of Alabama had themselves been conscious that a heavy accumulation of back poll taxes had become a burden for some upon the exercise of franchise.

The people of Alabama made the decision themselves, free from dictation or compulsion, and knowing full well such action would mean that Alabama would have to find another way to raise the equivalent amount of lost revenue.

I call attention to the fact that the remaining five States where a poll tax is exacted as a prerequisite to voting are among the lowest income States in the Union. Senators from States which enjoy higher incomes should be conscious of this fact.

We do not forget that in the earlier years of our country other States, too, occupied a relatively low position with respect to per capita income. . In those days, many other States likewise exacted · a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting. As the revenue potential of those States increased, the States, one by one, recognized other sources of revenue and repealed their poll taxes.

Such States reached their own decisions and acted voluntarily. They acted out of their own judgment and in their own circumstances, free from any coercion or usurpation of their historic constitutional authority.

Is there any reasonable basis for assuming that the remaining five States will not themselves pursue a similar course of action when the judgment of the people of those States leads them to feel that such action by them is indicated?

Certainly none will be heard to say that the people of these five States are any less capable of exercising sound judgment or of pursuing wise and judicious courses in the light of their circumstances.

However earnestly some may feel it desirable that we rid ourselves of a poll tax wherever it may be found to exist in this Nation, the means here offered of superimposing the judgment of the National Government and its power upon the historic judgment and power of the five remaining States, are not justified by the ends that are being sought.

No one should delude himself for one moment into · thinking that the means sought in the resolution before the Sen• ate will not bring about a permanent trespass and inroad · by the Central Government upon the jurisdiction of the States. It is vain to argue otherwise. Senators should be aware of the implications of the course which it is proposed this body pursue-a course of continuing this latter-day business of encroaching more and more upon the historic and constitutional rights of the States.

Senators well know the provisions of the Constitution. Each of us has taken an oath to uphold it and defend it. Defense of the Constitution, to my mind, means not alone defense of it against foreign ideologies which threaten to overthrow it and our system of government. Defense of the Constitution includes, in my judgment, defense of it against whimsical and frivilous . proposals to change and emasculate it.

Our form of government was conceived in and rests upon the concept of balanced powers. This concept was implemented in the most marvelous document ever to come from the mind of man. Our Constitution is the embodiment of the intellectual artistry of our Founding Fathers.

The balance of powers created by the Constitution is as delicate as the finest instrument with which no reasonable mind would dare to tinker.

Yet, we are called on today to tinker, for the sake of expediency, with the most delicate instrument in the whole world. If the amendment proposed is adopted upon the recommendation of men and women who are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, there can be no question whatever but that we will have contributed at least a degree of imbalance to the delicate balance created by our Founding Fathers. We will have taken weight from one side and put it on the other side. It will, of course, be argued by some that a little weight and a little imbalance should not make much difference. I charge that it does make a difference-a very vital difference.

It will make a difference in that whatever gradation of imbalance is affected, we will have moved that much further away from perfect balance and perfect functioning-the political equipoise envisioned and provided by the framers of the Constitution.

I am, of course, not so naive as to claim perfection, even in the Constitution, but none will assert that the Constitution is not the most nearly perfect document every conceived for a government of men.

I am far more concerned with the trend we are pursuing in the attempted management of our affairs than I am with whether people pay a poll tax or do not pay a poll tax.

If we adopt the resolution before us today, we will be accelerating the recent disturbing and alarming trend toward stripping away the elemental essentials and attributes of State sovereignty as proclaimed, reserved, and guaranteed by the Constitution. ·

One might be heard to ask: Why some should be so disturbed over such a little preemption of State judgment and authority by the Federal · Government? I hold with the old Scotch proverb, "mony muckles mok a mikle," which when translated means "many Iittles make a lot." Many little imbalances contribute to one large imbalance. Many little trespasses constitute a great encroachment. I am mortally afraid of the conclusion to which such a course will lead. Today, it is proposed in the resolution before us that the National Government do no more than forbid a State its historic right to levy a poll tax. If this kind of course on which it is proposed we proceed-a course of simply prohibiting or forbidding the individual States to lay down certain requirements for voters-leads to no more than further future enumeration by the Federal . Government of qualifications which States may not in their judgment lay down, it will have effectively and completely had the Federal Government preempt the power of the States to act in the area of franchise and elections. The States will no longer have authority or right of judgment in this historic area where judgment and authority are indispensable to the preservation of our system of government.

For anyone to argue that this trend may not go very far is to close his eyes to reality and to one of the most recent public documents filed with the Con- , gress. He need look no further than the recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission, incorporating, for example, a proposal for temporary Federal registrars, a proposal for universal suffrage, a proposal dealing with the preservation of registration and voting records, and a proposal concerning a national census and inquiry into the whys and wherefores of citizens exercise of the heretofore conceived to be our secret ballot.

Some of these proposals deal only with the matter of prohibiting to States certain actions. Others go further and throw the Federal Government bodily over into the business of managing and controlling elections and the election machinery in the several States.

If the Federal Government is given the power to forbid the exercise by the States of reasonable judgment within the area of jurisdiction reserved to them by the framers of the Constitution, it will be only a matter of time until the Congress finds itself powerless to withstand pressures to have the Federal Government run and control completely the franchise processes and the election machinery of this country.

I say it is time that we stop and take a look at the directions in which we are being tossed by the winds of politics and the waves of race emotion and hysteria. We are caught up in a great psychosis o! expediency. Some Senators . are let- . ting themselves be . driven by sectional feeling and race emotion to support actions which they know within their secret consciences constitute absolute abridgments of the Constitution and complete rejection of the carefully conceived plans of the framers of the Constitution. State control over the powers and processes of franchise is the hallmark of our republican form of government. Take away such historic and constitutionally delineated jurisdiction and control and vest them in the Central Government and we will begin the inauguration of autocratic power in "the land of the free." Oh, I know this will not come about overnight. Nor will it come as a result of any single action, but if this proposed constitutional amendment becomes the law of the land, we will have taken a long leap toward the substitution of autocratic government for representative self-government, through a process of erosion and attrition-step by step and bit by bit. We will have insured for ourselves autocratic government just as surely and as effectively as if we repealed outright and forthwith article I, section 2, and the lOth amendment to the Constitution albeit we will have seen it come a little more slowly.

Nothing could be clearer than that the proposal before the Senate today is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. The courts have uniformly held that the States have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised. Lassiter v. North Hampton County Board of Elections (360 U.S. 45); Pope v. Missouri 079 U.S. 328, 633): Mason v. Missouri 079 . U . S. 328, 335) . Article I, section 2 of the Federal Constitution in its provision for the election of the House of Representatives and the 17th amendment in its provision for the election of Senators provide that officials shall be chosen "by the people." Each provision goes on to state that the "electors in each State shall have the • I qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." Moreover, the right to vote "refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the State"-McPherson v. Blacker 046 U.S. Members of the Senate would be welladvised to reread, or read if they have not read it, the decision in the case of Pope v. Williams (193 U.S. 621, 632):

The privilege to vote in any State is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. • • • It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere . citizenship of the United States. In other words , the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided , of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution. · Notwithstanding the clear . wording and intent of the Federal Constitution, as uniformly interpreted by the courts, it is proposed by the resolution before us to have the Federal Government get into the business of fixing voter qualifications in the various States. True, the resolution accomplishes it backhandedly by forbidding States to fix a certain qualification. But the effect is no less harmful or destructive than a positive proclama- tion of a qualification. ·

The proposal, if adopted, will undermine the entire fabric of our system of government.

Regardless of such good intent as the sponsors of the resolution may have, the resolution has the practical effect of asking Members of the Senate and House of Representatives to recommend that the historic meaning of the Constitution of the United States be violated and that the intention of our Founding Fathers be ignored and their judgment repudiated. It is no mere happenstance that the conduct of elections and the fixing of qualifications of electors has been left to the · states . The concept is basic, the one to serve as a check upon the other. The importance of this repository of power has been stressed by the Supreme Court in innumerable cases. It is well expressed in Quinn v. United States (238 U.S. 347). There the Supreme Court characterized the power of the State government over suffrage as one "which has belonged to those governments from the beginning and without the possession of which power, the whole fabric, upon which the. division of State and NatiOnal authority under the Constitution and the organization of both governments rests, would be wi.thout support and both the authority of the Nation and the States would fall to the ground . " .

These are . strong words. Unquest10n- ably they were not lightly spoken. rr:he power. of the States over suffrage, which must include the power to fix the qualifications of voters, Is. undoubtedly, , as the Supreme Court said It was, basic to the foundatiOn of our Government. . The proposal. before . us . would, If adopted and .ratified, limit the power of the States. Wit~ respect ~ the fixing of voter qualifications. It 1S true that the limitation would b~ only as respects the exactiOn of a ~on. ta.x .. But •. n? matter how narrow t~us ~ImitatiOn, It IS never- theless a. h~Itat10n upon the hiStoric and constitutional power .of ~he States. A limitation IS a limitatiOn. Where the delicate balance of power between the State~ a~d t:t;te Federal Government, where our historic system of checks and balance IS involved, the degree of the limitation is · unimportant.

Th~ fact that a limitatiOn of any d~- gree IS. imposed ~here none was previously Imposed IS the VItal questiOn. Whatever can be don:e by. degrees can ultimately be accomplished m wholesale fashion. I, for one, would never support any measure which ran counter .to ~he letter and the spirit of the ConstitutiOn in a matter so intimately associated with the delicate balance of powers upon which the preservation of our system of government rests.

If this resolution before us should be submitted to the legislatures of the several states and to the people, there can be no escaping the conclusion that it carries with it the recommendation of this body: That the Founding Fathers were wrong; that the Supreme Court has been wrong throughout our history in holding that the plenary powers of State government over suffrage were essential to the continued existence of both State and national authority under the Constitution; and that the Constitution should be overthrown to the degree and to the extent that control over at least some of State authority over elections and election machinery should be taken away from the States. As for me, I propose to abide by the Constitution and to leave suffrage and the regulation of it where it has always belonged-indeed, . where it has always been.

I cannot support this proposal which will have the effect of disturbing and upsetting and throwing out of balance the historic and delicate balance of powers ' recognized and safeguarded by the Constitution in the system of checks and balances which our forefathers intended should never be disturbed. ' It is inconceivable to me that the U.S. Senate should, with all the many problems besetting the Nation and the world today burden itself with the consideration of legislation that is as narrow in immediate application as that which proposes the constitutional amendment now under discussion. It is inconceivable that 100 Senators should spend so much of their precious time-time that is critically needed for consideration of other subjects-in proposing a change in the Constitution aimed today at 5 of the 50 States in the Union. · We have other things to do than to rewrite the Constitution in a way that destroys the rights of the five States which choose to continue to employ vot• ing requirements that many other States, North and South, have exercised throughout the life of this country.

I happen to think that my colleagues and I would be devoting ourselves far more in the national interest if we spent our time and energies in trying to hammer out legislation for a workable farm program, for the farmers of all 50 States, rather than spend, as we are doing, hours and hours on a measure aimed at affecting only 5 States. · · The only national aspect that I can see to this resolution is that it adds dangerous fuel . to a fire which may ultimately consume the cloak of sovereignty of every state in the Union.

Make no mistake. about It, If this pro- posed amendment IS adopted and ratified, every State in the land will have surrendered a part of its sovereignty to the National Government or rather had such sovereignty taken away by a wave ' of emotion and rash action. Each and every state will be less free and less sovereign than it was before.

s.enators know that . one encroachment invites another .. Precedents invite a successiOn of . . actiOns. Wrongs have a way of be~et~mg wrongs. .

Today, It Is the poll tax m only onetenth of the States that Is under attack. But let other States take heed .. Tom?r­ row, . 1t may be . some qualificatiOn peculiar to them which Will be under attack. It may be proposed that the Federal Government forbid citizens in other States to do what they are doingsomething they feel, and the courts uphold them in their feeling, they are entitled to do under the authority of the Constitution of the United States.

The young State of Alaska, for example, permits striplings of 19 to cast a ballot. Will the people of Alaska be told by the Federal Government that their 19-year-old citizens are forbidden longer to vote? Will Georgia be told that its 18-year-old citizens must not cast a ballot? Or will we by that time have reached the point where the Federal Government will be affirmatively prescribing and ordering voter qualifica- tions? Will every State be told that, since we are a great conforming mass, all States must be and must act exactly alike and that all 18- and 19-year-old citizens must be permitted to vote?

Will I-daho be told by the Federal Government that it must admit to the ballot all Chinese or persons of Mongolian descent not born in the United States? Today, Idaho excludes such persons from fue~ll~ . Will the Federal Government decide tomorrow it wishes to take over the whole field of residence requirements in the various States and counties and beats? Senators know that there is the widest variation among States, counties, cities, and beats as to the residence requirements as a requisite to the right of franchise.

Will the Federal Government seek to tell the State of New Hampshire that its 6 months' requirement for voting in a town is too long a period?

Will the Federal Government tell the State of Ohio that it cannot require persons living in a precinct or ward to live in a precinct or ward for 40 full days before becoming eligible to vote?

Or will the Federal Government decide, for example, that the State of Nebraska has the fairest ward or precinct voting requirement-only 10 days residence required and that this must be taken as a national standard?

Will the Federal Government decide that Colorado has the ideal residence requirement for voting in a city or town? Will the Federal Government, under our conforming mass theory, say every State and every town and city must have exactly the same residence requirements?

Will the Federal Government decide that Oregon, with its 6 months' State residence requirement as a prerequisite to voting, has the ideal waiting period; that any longer waiting period anywhere discriminates against transients and hoboes, or whoever they be?

Will the Federal Government, under our conforming mass theory, decide that the rights of transients and hoboes can be protected only if a 6 months' residence requirement is fixed in every State?

I understand that New Hampshire does not exclude from the ballot idiots and insane persons under guardianship. I am looking at a document compiled by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress on qualifications for voting. The document is dated July 27, 1959. I note from the Library of Congress compilation that some three or four other States act as does New Hampshire with respect to idiots and insane persons under guardianship. · I am sure that New Hampshire and the other few States like her in this respect have good and sufficient reason for their laws. I have faith in these States and confidence in the judgment of their legislators and their people. I do not question what these States might have done, or their motives. But it appears from the Library of Congress compilation that all of the rest of the States in the Union, well over 40 of them, do not admit idiots and insane persons under guardianship to the ballot. Will the Federal Government in time decide that exclusion of such persons from the ballot is a discrimination . tion against such persons? ·

Will the Federal Government, in keeping with this latterday conforming mass theory, prohibit and forbid other States to exclude idiots and insane persons under guardianship from the ballot? Or, will it be decided that the removal of any such discrimination can perhaps more readily be accomplished and the conforming mass theory better effectuated by having the Federal Government forbid New Hampshire and the other few States like her to admit insane persons and idiots under guardianship to the ballot? We should ask ourselves what it is that we are seeking? Is it the removal of discriminations or is it the effectuation of a perfect conforming mass of human matter where we are today free, separate, and distinct individuals who are proud to exhibit unfettered bodies, hearts, and minds, motivated by a soul.

America was settled by people from the Old World who were sick and tired and sore at heart from being regimented, oppressed, and made to conform to the will of autocratic power. The settlers of this country came here to escape regimentation, oppression, and conformity. They came here in search of personal liberty and individuality and the opportunity to be what they aspired to be and what God in His Heaven ordained that they be. If they had wanted to remain exactly like everybody else, one mass of human misery, penury, and degradation, they would have stayed right where they were and never have come to these shores.

How often we speak of the freedom and dignity of the individual. Indeed, we have achieved the highest degree of individual dignity ever achieved on the face of the earth. Our people have attained and enjoyed a higher dignity because they have been free and individualistic and because they have escaped from the kind of entombed mass of miserable humanity some would unwittingly have us go back to.

This conforming mass theory constitutes an impeachment of the very ideal of the freedom and dignity of man proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and realized under the guarantees of our Constitution.

Up to this point in - the life of our country, we have managed to get and stay further away from the conforming mass theory than anywhere else on the face of th~ globe. If we succumb now to the force of Federal edict and usurpation of State powers where, I ask, can those persons who still wish to be different find a haven? America is the last great stronghold of individualism; the last great bastion of individual dignity.

Let us keep it that way.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President I ri~e i~ opposition . to the proposed c~n­ stitutional amendment which would prohibit the Imposition of a poll tax as a condition of suffrage by a State.

. Let ~e say, at the outset, that I find no particular virtue or advantage in a poll tax as a condition to voting At the time I was elected Governor of South Carolina in 1946, · the constitution of South Carolina contained a provision which made the payment of a poll tax a prerequisite to voting eligibility. I felt then, and I feel now, that the poll tax was not a satisfactory source of revenue for the State, nor was it a suitable or workable prerequisite to exercise of the ballot. I, therefore, proposed to the legislature that a constitutional amendment repealing this requirement be submitted to the people of the State. The legisla- ture concurred in my proposal and submitted the constitutional amendment to the people, who voted favorably thereon. The payment of a poll tax is, therefore, no longer a condition of suffrage in South Carolina.

There have been numerous proposals for Congress to attempt to prohibit poll taxes by enactment of a statute. It is a credit to the Senate that the question we face now is not before us in the form of a proposed statute, for the Constitution gives the Federal Government no authority to act in this field. The very fact that we are now debating a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with this matter is a clear-cut recognition by the Senate that Congress at present has no constitutional authority in the matter of voter qualifications or eligibility. This is, however, about the only encouraging feature of the proposal with which we are confronted.

Mr. President, in the days following the war for independence with England; commonly referred to as the American Revolution, our forefathers inaugurated what historians call an experiment in democracy. I believe that the historians' characterization is accurate, when properly defined.

Mr. Webster gives two definitions to the word "experiment." One definition defines an "experiment" as "a trial or special observation made to confirm or disprove something doubtful.” It appears, Mr. President, that the proponents of the proposed constitutional amendments view the work of our Founding Fathers in light of this definition, and that they particularly dwell in their thoughts on the last word, "doubtful." There is another definition given by Mr. Webster for the word "experiment," and it is in the sense of this definition that history will a:tnrm that our constitutional federated re . public was an "ex- . periment in democracy." The definition which is correct for this use of “experi- ment" is "an act or operation undertaken to test, establish, or illustrate - some suggested or known truth."

The · difference in these definitions as applied in this instance is simple. The former indicates that our Founding Fathers were basically ignorant in the principles of government, embarking on an unlighted course without means of navigation, or in modern parlance, betting blindly on a long shot. Our 170 years of glorious history and progress under the government planned by the God-inspired wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution dramatically demonstrates the inaccuracy of the phrase "experiment in democracy" if defined in such a sense.

Every facet of our daily lives bears unquestionable proof that those who conceived our governmental system were steeped in understanding of the lessons taught by the history of · man's struggle to devise a government under which he could enjoy the opportunity to achieve his destiny, and that their thinking was balanced by practical experience of the inequities and abuses that inevitably flow from ineptly designed or selfishly administered government. With what could have been no less than divinely inspired wisdom, their experiment in democracy was an operation to illustrate eral a known truth.

Mr. President, let us examine some of the practical problems and basic concepts which were foremost in the thinking of those who conceived of our constitutional federated republican form of government.

There were in America 13 newly independent States, isolated geographically from the rest of the civilized world, and from a contemporary standpoint, weak militarily, individually and even collectively. Far from being a homogeneous society, they were bound together by no legal bonds, their working relationship having sprung primarily from a common cause against a common enemy. Even the fervor for the common cause varied substantially in degree from one State to another.

The efforts for union of these States was born, not from any feelings of selfidentification by the peoples of one State with those of another, but from a necessity for survival. There was no desire for equality or similarity of treatment with the peoples of another State, for all of those hearty souls were too fresh in the memory of the suffering which stemmed from an "equality of treatment" given by England to the several colonies. The experience acquired as colonists inspired an intense desire for self-determination, as well as a well-founded mistrust of any governmental unit which could not be observed and controlled close at hand. It was undoubtedly this very heterogeneity among the several independent States that emphasized in the minds of the Founding Fathers. the historically proven truth · that any government worthy of existence must preserve and protect the maximum .degree of local self-government, with only the minimum degree of power absolutely essential to military survival and economic progress vested in a central government. This principle of government is a truth, as valid in every respect today as it was in the days following the Revolution, specifically proven once and for all by the constitutional drafters' "experiment in democracy."

Mr. President, the federated structure of our governmental system is the principal reason for its continued successful existence. It was not for the primary purpose of protecting basic rights of individuals that the U.S. Constitution was designed. The people of the various States were aware that they could well protect themselves from despotic action by a government within their own State. Each State government is completely capable of protecting individual rights of its citizens with safeguards against the loss of personal . liberty and freedom. The governments of the several States served their people well in this respect before the Union was formed, and have continued to do so within the framework of the Union. All of the States do not impose the same requirements on their citizens, nor do all the States provide either the same -substantive rights or the same procedural remedies for their citizens.

The lack of uniformity among the sevStates is not to be deplored, but rather to be acclaimed. Conformity is not natural to people of different regions, who enjoy different political, religious, and social heritages, who live under different economic conditions or even live in different climates. We should constantly keep in mind that conformity is not a goal of our democracy. It is a goal of absolute forms of government, such as communism; and absolute forms of government exist, in the final analysis, by force--not from the support of the people. The . advantage we enjoy from democracy over dictatorial regimes stems solely from the individualism of democratic peoples.

Let us be candid. Conformity is despicable, a blight and leech on the prog- · ress of society, for it can be attained only at the level of the lowest common denominatOr.

~e federated system of government is designed to thwart conformity. It is a system whereby the peoples of dif ferent mores can work together in harmony for their mutual advantage. The federated system is an agreement to disagree. Let us not endanger the structure itself by attempting to achieve a greater degree of conformity.

One of the gr-eat assets of our federation, Mr. President, is that no one need endure the laws of a particular State if they be .repugnant to him. The Constitution provides for a full and free commerce between States. If, for example, one objects to the poll tax as a condition of suffrage in the State of his residence, he is perfectly free to remove to one of the 45 States which impose no such qualification .

When the Union was formed, there was a total of 13' States. There were substantial differences in the economies of the various States, as there were in the areas of political, religious, and social heritages. They were truly heterogeneous, as I have stated, But how much greater the heterogeneity of the various States today. There are now 50. They are spread from the semitropics of Florida to the arctics of Alaska, from the deserts of Arizona to the Pacific-washed isles of Hawaii. Whereas the Thirteen Original States had differences in economy, we now have a dissimilarity which is far greater in degree. Where once a dozen religious beliefs · held sway, thousands flourish. The common language which we share has facilitated understanding, but let us not deceive ourselves into believing that it has destroyed our differences. God willing, our individualism will survive forever.

There is no reason, therefore, to change the pattern of nonconformity which has proved successful. We have already endangered the system by our conformity efforts at the Federal level through an abusive expansion of powers of the Central Government. If, indeed. there should be any additional transfer of constitutional powers, it should be in the other direction.

Mr. President, a constitutional amendment is a serious matter and should not be proposed in the absence of compelling reasons. Partisan or political considerations should be put aside, and play no part in this vital area.

How much urgency is there for such drastic action in the form of a consti- · tutional amendment to eliminate , the poll or capitation tax as a condition of suffrage? None. It is a matter of small import, blown up all out of proportion by overemphasis from politically inspired propaganda.

In the days immediately following the Revolution, the former Colonies, then States, performed a minimum-but adequate for the times-amount of service. The expenses of government were comparatively slight. The burdens of government fell less evenly on the population than is normal in a State today. It was the general feeling that those who bore the responsibilities of government should exercise the ballot. It is not surprising that the ownership of property and the payment of taxes were common and usual prerequisites to the · right of suffrage.

In the early days of the Union; there were no direct taxes of any consequence on the populace for the support of the Federal Government. The costs were so slight that they could be and were borne almost entirely by tariffs.

As an expression of the belief that those who bore the responsibility of government should vote, all of the States imposed taxpayment, or its equivalent, property ownership as a condition of eligibility for voting. These voters eligibility requirements were summarized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (21 Wallace 162), as follows: Thus in New Hampshire, "every male in- habitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of 21 years of age and upward, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request," were its voters; in Massachusetts, "~very mal,e inhabitant of 21 years of age and upward, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of . the annual income of £3, or any estate . of the value of £60"; in Rhode Island, "such as . are admitted free of the company and society" of the Colony; in Connecticut, such persons as · had "ma,- turity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, atid 40 shillings freehold or £40 personal estate," if so certified by the selectmen; in New York, "every male inhabitant of full age who · shall have personally resided · within one of the counties of the State for . 6 months immediately preceding the day of election * * * if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder possessing a freehold of the value of £20 within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of 40 shill- · ings, and been rated . and · actually paid taxes to the State"; in New Jersey, , "all inhabitants * * * of full age who are worth £50; proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for 12 months immediately preceding the election"; . in Pennsylvania, "every ' free man of th~ age of 21 . years, · having resided in the State for 2 years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least 6 months before the election"; in Delaware and Virginia , "as exercised by law at present”; in Maryland, "all free men above 21 years of age having a freehold of 50 acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all free men having property in the State above the value of. £30 current money, alid having resided in the county in which they offer to vote 1 whole year next preceding the election"; in North Carolina, for Senators, "all free men of the age of 21 years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the state 12 months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of 50 acres of land for 6 months next before and at .the . day of election," and for members of the house of commons, "all free men of the age of 21 years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the · State 12 months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes"; in South Carolina, "every free white man of the age of 21 years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein 2 years previous to the day of election and who hath a freehold of 50 acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed for at least a · months before such election, or (not having Informational, Educational, and Cultural

TV Programs

EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Friday, January 29,1960

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- · dent, I congratulate the three major networks on their decision to devote an hour each .week of their most valuable such. freehold or tow.n lot) , hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote 6 months before such election, and hath paid · a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling toward the support of the Government"; and in Georgia, "such citizen anq inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of 21 years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided 6 months within the county." Clearly, Mr. President, . conditioning suffrage on payment of taxes was the normal and usual practice in the early days of the Union.

As time has passed, the services and misservices of government, both of which are extremely expensive-as is illustrated by the size of the national debthave increased enormously. In an unsuccessful · attempt to pay for these Government functions, innumerable taxes at both the Federal and State levels have been levied. As a result, there is · almost no one who does not share in the responsibility of government insofar as finances are concerned. With a few exceptions, the burden of taxes is so widespread that a taxpayment prerequisite to suffrage excludes practically :ho one. Most States have recognized this fact, and have repealed meaningless · constitutional and statutory provisions imposing such eligibility requirements. At the present time, there remain only five States which still have such requirements on voting privjleges. As in the States which have aban .. doned such voting requirements as the poll or capitation tax payment, the requirements in the remaining five · are undoubtedly meaningless from a practical . standpoint. Such a tax is rarely as high as ' $5 a year, and in this inflationary economy the number of people who cannot pay this low amount is small indeed.

Mr. President, I do not mean to imply that there are not substantial numbers of people in the five States which require payment of poll or capitation tax as a condition to voting who do not · pay the poll or capitation tax. Although I have no statistics on this matter, I assume that there are large numbers who are delinquent. It is a known fact that EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS time to cultural and educational programs which will start next November. Such voluntary cooperation to imp,rove television programing should be encom·aged.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a statement which I made on the subject on January 17.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR CLIFFORD P. CASE

The suggestion by Chairman John 0. Doerfer of the Federal Communications Commission Thursday that the television networks set aside a half hour each weekday large numbers of. the American people are complacent about exercising their ballot. This is amply illustrated by the fact that · · a substantial percentage of those · who register to vote do not participate in the election itself. It is only logical to assume that a major portion of those Who do not pay their poll or capitation . tax, · have the financial ability, but do not have sufficient interest in voting to pay the tax. This is borne out in States which had, but recently repealed, poll-tax requirements. There has been no substantial increase in the registration or voting in South Carolina since the repeal of the ' constitutional provision which made payment of a poll tax a condition of eligibility to vote.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn from an objective analysis of the situation is that we are conducting an · exercise in self and public deceit. There is no real consequence to the issue about which this proposal has arisen. Even were the proposed constitutional amendment passed by the senate and the House, and ratified by the States, it would have no significant · effeCt on the numbers of persons who have the opportunity to vote, nor on the number of persons who fulfill their responsibility by exercising the right of the ballot.

Mr. President ; as I have said, although mY State, · upon my recommendation while I was Governor, has repealed the poll tax as . a prerequisite for voting, it is my firm conviction that this is a matter which should be left to each State. Therefore, I oppose passage of the joint resolution to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed, which would take away a certain right which now rests within the States and would transfer it to the Central Government in Washington.