violate all of those provisions of the act. And they also go beyond the terms of the Constitution even as construed in the Brown case, because the Constitution thus far has been construed merely to prohibit discrimination, that is the exclusion of a child from a particular school solely upon the basis of his race, and not to require integration of the races. And yet these guidelines are based virtually entirely upon the theory that they must either browbeat or bribe school districts into establishing racial balances in the schools. I am a man who believes in speaking plainly, so I can't be misunderstood, and some people don't like me for so doing, but I am convinced, from a consideration of the guidelines established by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, that the Department is more concerned with integration than it is with education, insofar as southern schools are concerned. Mr. Nix. Senator, I think speaking one's mind is one of my weaknesses, also, but I am so concerned about the education of our children that I think it is unreasonable for anyone, either on a State or National level, to place local system superintendents and boards of education in the position of trying to staff and operate public schools when they don't know, from the beginning of one fiscal year to the end of that fiscal year, what additional rules and regulations are going to be issued that would cut off their funds, their source of funds, or cut off a particular program that had been built into a total educational effort. This is my plea to the Federal officials: Tell us what you can do for the entire year, and then leave us alone and let us run the programs within your rules and regulations, but don't cut the money off during the middle of the year. Senator ERVIN. I have been concerned with the same problem, as a result of being requested by school districts in North Carolina to intercede with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and ascertain what they were requiring. I am frank to state that in some instances it has taken me 6 weeks to get a reply to a letter addressed to the Department. Any department that can't answer a letter in 6 weeks has got no business undertaking to manage the schools of the entire country or of an entire section of the country. Now, when title VI was before the Senate I predicted what has come to pass. I requested the Senate to write into the bill what the exact requirements were, to spell out the meaning of "discrimination," and not leave the definition to 40 or 50 different Federal agencies administering 40, 50, 60, or 100 different Federal programs. I wasn't heeded on that point. Referring to Caligula, the Roman emperor who wrote his laws in small letters high on the walls so the people couldn't read them, I pointed out that compared with title VI, Caligula was a far more just legislator than the Senate if it passed that bill in its present form, because the Senate would be saying the meaning of law is going to be determined by what may hereafter be devised by Federal administrators. In that way the Senate was far more unjust than Caligula because if somebody had a long enough ladder and a magnifying glass he could have climbed up and read Caligula's laws. But we passed title VI and left the laws undisclosed in what are, as far as the thoughts on this proposition were concerned, the then empty craniums of Federal administrators. We have one department making one interpretation of the law and another department making another interpretation of the law and one agency making one interpretation one day and another on another day. I predicted then we were going to have chaos in the educational field and in other fields, because these funds would be used to bribe local officials into an acceptance of whatever notions these different and varied agencies administering these acts might entertain. I think you point out very effectively that there are people sitting on the banks of the Potomac, representing the Federal Government, which contributes only 6.1 percent of the total expenditures for schools in your State, who want to assume virtually complete domination of those schools. It is also to be remembered that a substantial part of that 6.1 percent which comes from the Federal Government was undoubtedly paid into the Federal Treasury by the people who made the contribution of the other 93.9 percent. I do not see how our Federal system of government can endure, if the determination of how schools are to be operated is to be transferred from the school districts to the banks of the Potomac, and there vested in a department which, with all due respect for it, I have observed closely for 12 years, if you give it an inch of authority, it always takes a mile. Mr. Nix. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inject one thought here. You know, history records that nations last for about 200 years. Our Nation is 190 years of age. If this trend continues at the rapid rate that it has in the last few years, I have a fear for the type of a government that we will have by the year 2000. Whenever you remove the control of public education away from the parents and the people in the individual communities and States, and centralize it all into one body on a national level, I think on the road to destroying this great democracy that we have. you are Senator ERVIN. I find myself in 100 percent agreement with that observation, and that is one reason I still fight, sometimes against great odds, to try to preserve the Federal system of government. I am a great believer in the principle of the Founding Fathers, which was expressed by Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, when he said that liberty is government divided into small fragments. That is the reason the Constitution divides the powers of government between the Federal Government on the national level and the States on the local level, and assigns legislative powers to one department of government and executive powers to another, and judicial powers to another. But we pass laws which ignore these distinctions, which attempt to concentrate all the powers of government into one central government, and give the judicial powers of that government to executive agencies, and also give the legislative powers of that government to executive agencies. I think that we are in a serious condition when so many men are willing to destroy fundamentals for the sake of accomplishing, in a hurry, objects that they deem to be desirable. I appreciate your appearance here, and the amendment which I offer is merely to bring a little due process and a little justice into these programs. In my mind it is abhorrent for the Federal Government to cut off lunch programs and educational programs that are designed for the education and welfare of little children, just because the Fed eral Government doesn't agree in some instance with some of the actions of the men who have control of the schools. Certainly, the children have no control of the schools. As you pointed out very well in your statement, the people who are injured are not only people that don't make the policies but they are the people who stand in the greatest need of this assistance. Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10:30 Monday morning. (Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m. Monday, June 13, 1966.) CIVIL RIGHTS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:33 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Ervin and Scott. Also present: George Autry, chief counsel; Houston Groome, Jr., Lawrence M. Baskir, and Lewis W. Evans, counsel; and John Baker, minority counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Counsel will call the first witness. Mr. AUTRY. The first witness is Mr. Alan Emlen, chairman of the Realtors' Washington Committee of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, Washington, D.C. Mr. Emlen is accompanied by Mr. John C. Williamson, counsel for the Realtors' Washington Committee. Senator ERVIN. Gentlemen, we are delighted to have you with us. The Chair wishes to recognize the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania at this time. Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, your witness, Mr. Alan L. Emlen, is a neighbor and friend of mine in the community of Chestnut Hill in Philadelphia, a real estate broker who has been engaged in that business, as his statement indicates, for 21 years, and he is appearing on behalf of the Realtors' Washington Committee. He has held high office in the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission, and he is a very well known Philadelphian. While he and I may always with our constituents not agree entirely in all matters of law, I have indicated disagreements with title IV which are postulated on different reasons from those which I think Mr. Emlen will propose. I would like to add, however, that in our community a number of residents, representing many people who are quite well known, including both U.S. Senators, I think we are fairly well known up in our neighborhood anyway, joined in a public advertisement not long ago in which we said that we would welcome the entry into that neighborhood and the purchase and occupancy of real estate by any person who in good faith became the owner of that real estate, that we would welcome neighbors without any discrimination of race, creed, or color, and it represented a community and local action which I regard as of high importance, because this community does contain and has contained many of the holders of public office, a greater per |