tion to this type of legislation. We are already hearing again many of these misconstrued notions that are largely appeals to sympathy and which rest on misleading generalities and unwarranted assumptions of fact. As far as our industry is concerned we have heard time and again, in Rhode Island and across the Nation, that our opposition to "forced housing" legislation is emotional, resting on vested interests and caused by bigotry and prejudice against Negroes. Those who make this argument are only appealing to emotionalism and prejudice. Their efforts are still aimed at presenting this issue as being exclusively concerned with the rights of some, whereas the real issue is concerned with everybody's rights in a free society.

Another misconception that is consistently flouted in our faces is the age-old line that human rights are more important than property rights. We cannot state too strongly that this is not an issue. There are no rights but human rights, and what are spoken of so derisively as property rights are only the human rights of individuals to property. This is not a controversy between people and moneyed interests, no matter what anyone thinks. This is a legitimate controversy between those who believe that questions of such intimate personal concern as are involved in the sale or rental of private housing should be left to the judgment and free choice of individuals and those people who believe that such matters should be subject to control by the Federal Government.

We believe that civil rights are those as defined by Bouvier, "which have no relation to the establishment, or management, of government. These consist in the power of acquiring, and enjoying property, of exercising the parental and marital power, and the like." They are the absolute rights of persons, the right to personal security, the rights of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property as regulated and protected by law. They are the rights which we had thought to be inalienable according to the fundamental principle of American Government. These civil rights that we hear so much about today are either conferred upon us or are inherent in all of us and supposedly protected by Government. Our complaint, in part, is that the Government is abrogating its responsibility to protect these rights for all of us. Among the conferred rights which we believe must be protected by Government are the right to vote, the right to jury trial, the right to worship as we choose, freedom of speech, and assembly, and significantly the right of life, liberty, and property, and subject only to due process of law and the accordance of equal protection of the law. Dating way back in this American society of ours the individual has far more occasion to live out his life through exercise of rights which are so basic as to be beyond the province of Government to retain or control, much less create.

These rights relating to the doing of something or not doing of something as the spirit moves are reserved to the individual person without guarantee of attaining them or without impediment to accomplish them being afforded by Government. Among the civil rights of which we speak are, for example, the right to love or to hate; the right to be ambitious or lazy; the right to dispose of one's property as one sees fit; the right to acquire wealth or forsake it; the right to contract; the right to embrace one's associates while rejecting

others; the right to seek associations with mankind or withdraw from them, and many others.

Title IV of this act ignores the fact and yet helps to bring home the point that these rights are available, but in many cases their fulfillment is dependent on the attitude and reactions of other people.

If we are sincere in trying to change people's reactions and attitudes, no worse way could be found than through title IV, because this created democratic society of ours has led us to believe that a man's home is his castle, and that it meant something for a man to acknowledge and be proud of his right to life, liberty, and property. Are we now to relieve him of his right to his hard-earned property? If so, how do we claim that he still has his life and liberty?

How can we separate any of these three without destroying all of them? While no decent person will defend racial or religious hate, it does not follow that every possible action taken to eliminate them is either good or necessary.

Prohibition was termed a "noble experiment" but it did more harm than good because it abridged everyone's personal freedom without justification. The same basic error permeates title IV of this act. To condemn title IV no more makes us a proponent of bias than opposition to prohibition made one a bootlegger or drunkard.

Another widely spread argument that only adds to the confusion is the one that equates other laws on the books with "forced housing" as proposed under title IV. The argument goes that private property is already subject to the "police power" of the State, and a housing proposal such as this would simply be a proper extension of that power. Proponents also add that the same arguments are used now that were used previously to other legislation. We clearly submit that the "police power" is inherent in government and we recognize its necessity in order to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people, but the very necessity for its exercise must be clearly shown. Too much use of the "police power" leads to a "police state."

Property regulation by zoning, or even traffic regulations are often cited in support of this argument but this is a poor example as these things are for the mutual benefit and protection of all. If you see fit in your wisdom to report out title IV, you have taken an unwarranted step away from the mutual protection of all toward the utter destruction of the sanctity and privacy of a man's home. This is unjustifiable and is an inexcusable assault of the very rights of those you would protect. For it is our position that every man, regardless of his race or color, should have and must have the right to dispose of his hard-won property.

Utter chaos can set in in future years when it begins to become apparent that everyone has lost this precious right that has always been held sacred. We are convinced that title IV only expresses an attempt to do something by law which, by its very nature and composition, it will ultimately destroy.

We are further convinced that as bad as this section is, it is only one more step along the way that the social engineers are designing for all of us. For, if you can take away this right of free association and the right to dispose of his property within his own will, and this is what you would do, then there is no doubt that you can in the future take

away a man's right to own property. Ridiculous? We hardly think so when such proposals as title IV were labeled "ridiculous" only a short time ago.

We share the President's hopes and high expectations that this country can build cities in which people can come together to lead the good life, but the law proposed itself takes away fundamental rights which it purports to guarantee by legislation to every American entitled to these rights under our Constitution.

Wholesaling of civil rights by legislation under title IV is nothing but a phony, high-sounding effort that unfairly offers pie in the sky to people who need help and then it isn't there. This is part of the story in Rhode Island where we now have a law. By the admission of some of its stanchest proponents, after a year on the books, it is completely ineffective. Because of administration? No. Because of the law. In Rhode Island the law is a sham. It was a pitiful waste of precious time and hasn't helped solve a problem we all know exists. Disappointment has set in. People who thought there would be help, find none. Proponents who maintained this law was all they wanted, couldn't wait a year before trying further and more stringent methods. Still they miss the point in Rhode Island, just as title IV misses the point. The foundation of law should neither be the promotion of integration nor the promotion of separation in private living, but to insure that any willing buyer and any willing seller, regardless of race, religion, or color, can have the opportunity to meet in a free marketplace and deal with one another as they see fit.

If a member of a minority group needs a home, and a roof over his head, he does not need a law or a lawsuit; what he needs is living accommodations.

It seems quite clear to us from our long battle in Rhode Island before the law passed, that the money and effort that was expended on both sides by either fighting for or against the legislation could have been better used in doing something about the problem.

were

If proponents were sincerely interested in providing homes for people instead of setting a course or way of life for us all to follow, then much could have been accomplished. One reason we told we needed this type of legislation in Rhode Island was because the community had failed to properly relocate families displaced from their homes in the Lippitt Hill section of Providence. Well, we find some of the leading proponents of this type of legislation as the eventual owners of this area where surveys clearly showed a desire by the people living there to remain in the same general area, and also that the rents were an extremely low average of $35 to $45 per month with most families needing three bedrooms.

But what has happened in this little State of ours where the problem should not have been insurmountable? Well, we now find the area, close by, incidentally, to a large educational institution, is known as University Heights and the beautiful housing finally being constructed after much delay has a rent scale starting with one-room efficiency apartments at $90 per month up to over $200 when you finally hit the three-bedroom units those displaced were in need of.

This, of course, is advertised as truly being an integrated housing development. It is integrated all right-the rich with the richer.

Why even the lower priced apartments on the scale are kept ghetto style together in the same building, separate and not equal with the higher priced ones. If the proponents in Rhode Island were sincere they had a chance in this area to help instead of working for a statewide law as a panacea which has proven to be worthless.

A few years ago, when much more time could have been saved in our State, we offered a piece of legislation that would have started the ball rolling on cooperation between all people of good will. But we were shunted aside, laughed at, and then forgotten. We have gotten used to this type of treatment because it is repetitive whenever you mention another way of attacking this problem other than law.

Now we have the law-it isn't working and there are people laughing. People who need homes are beginning to find out now that those of us who were considered their opponents and were accused of various things, including bigotry, are really not so bad after all. Knowing the law won't work, we have submitted and offered cooperation on a practical five-point program which hits at the problem. Suddenly there is acceptance of our program which is encouraging.

But strangely it is the same type program we offered before, but in the headlong rush for legislation it was ignored and brushed aside by those who should have known better.

Perhaps we have been somewhat at fault for being unable to get our positive program over before this time but again the same thing is going on now under title IV. When you are talking about voluntary groups it becomes a physical impossibility to protect your rights against the onslaught of unfair legislation and at the same time do everything you should to alleviate the problem.

What we have offered in Rhode Island is no quick cure, but it is a sure one and reasonable men are beginning to see its merits. We think that instead of considering title IV that men of good will, conscience, and a sense of justice should use this type of program.

The problem is a local one and acceptance and support of the following program should be given by local leadership.

1. To establish an assistance program through cooperation with community leaders that will serve individuals and families who are having difficulty in obtaining housing they can afford, located in areas of their choice. To work simply without redtape. To encompass all sections of a community. To offer its help to all applicants. 2. To build neighborhood opinion to accept, without objection or harassment, minority families.

3. To induce acceptance of the right of any citizen to purchase property and the right of any citizen to sell property-by voluntary contract without harassment by others not party to the contract. In this way the right of voluntary contract, which is so important and basic to all, can be protected instead of destroyed as title IV would do. 4. To stamp out the fear-exploiting "blockbusting" practice which is opposed by all of us.

5. To encourage the formation of nonprofit housing corporations, preferably under church and civic auspices, which with current and improved programs of government support can truly hit at the problem of good, integrated low-income housing which cannot be supplied by private enterprise.

If we have been lax in some regards in the past, and we admit our responsibility and obligation to do what we can as good Americans, then this is more than true of many church groups who have only given lipservice to the problem and now expect the Government to do their work for them. They, above all people, should know that you can't rely on a law to carry out a Christian ethic.

It's time for some of these people to stop moralizing and get off their right and more reverend rear ends and do something constructive. Signs of constructive action by such groups are becoming more evident and this should be further encouraged. We have one such group in Rhode Island starting despite the many obstacles that must be overcome to do good work in this field. In areas where urban renewal has been urban removal to minority groups these people must be offered their help.

We offer our help unequivocally to such a program. Attempts to solve the problem by other methods such as title IV will only fail.

In fact, in Rhode Island with our law the easiest course for us to take would be to ignore the law we are so convinced is ineffective. But the easiest way is not the best way in most things, and that holds true here. We want to accomplish something now. We are sincere, and more than this, we are convinced we are right.

There are many truly untested approaches on biracial housing that should be explored. We are not prepared to say our fellow Americans in the church, school, and home have failed. We know that the main problem is an economic one not easily or practically handled by private enterprise. We shall continue to keep the needle out to spur and encourage ourselves, church, and civil groups to live up to our responsibility. Responsibility has been shirked long enough. We have admittedly missed some of ours. We intend to correct that while still maintaining our opposition to law in this field.

We had made forecasts in Rhode Island about our law and can do the same thing, we are sure, nationally under title IV-that it will be ineffective and will not provide housing. It has become apparent that some leaders of minority groups and proponents of "forced housing" legislation do not want to solve the housing problem, but as a result wish to force integration by using it as a tool.

The attitude of some has been to miss the opportunity for good housing by being willing to sacrifice housing for integration, and this is a matter of record. Respectable housing for Negroes and other minorities has been sacrificed on the altar of integration by wasting time trying to accomplish something through force of a law that cannot and will not work.

This is what title IV does. Changing or watering down title IV won't help. The objective remains the same and we know that those who seek the law will, under title IV, as our exeprience has shown us in Rhode Island, only seek to amend it until they think they have what they want, whatever that is. They tend to concentrate one-sidedly upon the seeking of justice, but justice alone is not enough-there must be Christian charity-and Christian charity will not be invoked by law in this case.

(At this point Senator Javits entered the hearing room.)

Mr. LYNCH, One further point regarding our real estate industry is that in Rhode Island, and beginning to spread across the Nation, is

65-506-66-pt. 1- -28