added costs involved, few have exhibited any desire to do so," and the majority of Indian people have expressed opposition to such and extension of state court jurisdiction."

Off the reservation the Indian enjoys the same rights of other citizens; but on the reservation, in the absence of federal legislation, he has only the rights conferred on him by the tribal governing body, because the constitutional guarantees do not restrict tribal action. Senator Ervin of North Carolina, has introduced bills in Congress to protect the constitutional rights of American Indians which would authorize the Attorney General to investigate Indian complaints regarding deprivation of their constiutional rights and grant the right of appeal in such cases from Indian courts to the United States District Court." Perhaps this signals an arousing of concern toward problems of the American Indian commensurate with that recesntly directed toward the American Negro.

4.5

Mr. KATZENBACH. Could I ask Mr. Autry, I think Senator Javits may have had some questions he wanted to ask and I don't know whether it is possible for him to ask those by letter rather than orally. I would prefer not to come back if that is possible.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Attorney General, I am sorry about this long delay. They were going to have a rollcall vote and they told me they would have another one soon thereafter. Several speeches in between held things up.

I want, on behalf of the subcommittee and myself, to thank you for your fairness at the hearing and also for the fine good humor you display at all times. I just regret that you don't entertain the same sound views on this bill that I do.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Senator, I appreciate all the courtesy which you, as always, have shown to me in this, and I am beginning to think I am not going to persuade you. [Laughter.]

Senator ERVIN. Well, I like to give hope to everybody, but I would say that that is a rather hopeless proposition.

We appreciate it very much. Thank you. I trust we won't have to get you back here unless the House bill comes over. [Laughter.]

Senator ERVIN. We will stand in recess until 10:30 tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10.30 a.m., July 20, 1966.)

43 Op. cit, supra note 14, at 88.

4 Op. cit. supra note 14, at 15.

45111 CONG. REC. 1765 (daily ed. Feb. 2, 1965). Previously, the only appeal was to a panel of judges who normally had no more training in the law than the trial judge, Op. cit. supra note 14 at 146. See 25 C.F.R. § 11.6 and § 11.6c (1961).

CIVIL RIGHTS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:45 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding.

Present: Senator Ervin.

Also present: George B. Autry, chief counsel and staff director; H. Houston Groome, Lawrence M. Baskir, and Lewis W. Evans, counsel.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

Counsel will call the first witness.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the first witness this morning was scheduled to be the Honorable Glendora McIllwain Putnam, assistant attorney general, and chief of the division of civil rights and civil liberties, for the State of Massachusetts. However, her plane has been delayed. She should be here in a short while.

The second scheduled witness is the Reverend R. T. Woodworth, appearing on behalf of the Taxpayers Interest League, Inc., of Baltimore, Md.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Woodworth, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee, and thank you for appearing before us to give us the benefit of your views on this proposed legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND ROBERT T. WOODWORTH, PASTOR OF OPEN BIBLE TABERNACLE, CHAPLAIN OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OF MARYLAND, ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS INTEREST LEAGUE, INC., BALTIMORE, MD., ACCOMPANIED BY MISS MAUDELLEN ZIMMERMAN

Mr. WOODWORTH. Thank you.

I have a prepared statement. Should I read it?

Senator ERVIN. You can either read it or you can speak extemporaneously and we will put your statement in the record. It is up to each individual witness to determine which course to follow.

You have a lady accompanying you.

Mr. WOODWORTH. I would like to introduce Miss Maud-Ellen Zimmerman, who is a teacher at the Baltimore Junior College. I have asked her to assist me.

Since the room is not overcrowded with Senators, if you would like to interrupt me while I am reading this to ask questions, you may. Senator ERVIN. Thank you.

Mr. WOODWORTH. The U.S. Post Office has just issued a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The stamp bears the inscription: "The rights of the people shall not be violated." Contrary to this constitutional principle, the civil rights bill, S. 3296, proposes to violate personal and property rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. I am sure that millions of Americans who do not have aggressive organizations to lobby for them nor a sympathetic press to preach for them, are greatly disturbed over these trends to eliminate the liberties of all our people.

Before anyone can discuss specific issues, he must lay down basic principles. The principle at stake is liberty-whether freemen will continue to be free, or whether they will be willing to sell their birthright, like Esau, for a mess of promised temporary comfort. The proposed new bill and amendments coming from the House of Representatives contain a whole deceptive appeal toward settling some disturbing social issues. But the violation of the rights of all the people cannot be tolerated under the delusion that thereby we can grant some rights to some of the people. In all our concern for the equal rights of all citizens under our Constitution, we must remember that the rights already guaranteed by the Constitution must not be abrogated by arbitrary laws which violate the spirit of the Constitution. It used to be self-evident to our forefathers that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Although they are not now self-evident, they are still endowments of God to all men, and cannot be denied by some men or government without serious consequences. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inheritance of God's people under the Bible and the Constitution. Under the Virginia Declaration of Rights, they included "Life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Our declaration says that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is our contention that it is not the consent of the governed to relinquish these rights to the Federal Government.

Present proposals are made on the basis that previous civil rights legislation is already inadequate. Where will it end? When will the proponents of governmental power over individual liberty be satisfied? How far do you intend to go? If enforced segregation was wrong, then forced integration is also wrong as a principle of law, both civil and moral. In fact, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1959 stated:

The need is not for a pattern of integrated housing. It is for equal opportunity to secure decent housing. *** There may be many Americans who prefer to live in neighborhoods with people of their own race, color, religion, or national origin. The right of voluntary association is also important.

Is this still a working principle? The freedom of choice of ones own associates and the freedom to own and use and dispose of ones own personal property are basic to our Constitution and customs. Again the issue is liberty-under law and under God. The fallacy

is that liberty can survive when men are governed by other men, rather than by law made by the consent of the governed. The history of dictatorships attest to this.

Pretending to abolish discrimination of one man or group over another, the present bill actually aggravates discrimination. For example, the requirement that jurors be labeled as to their race and religion paves the way for juries to be selected and stacked on these bases. The first amendment specifically denies that Congress shall make any law respecting religion.

Another major concern is the growing power of Federal Government apart from their elected representatives. Under our Constitution Congress has broad rights and responsibilities, but there is a current pattern of transfer of these powers to executive and judicial branches of the Government. The proposed civil rights bill would place more power in the hands of appointed officials and segregate the people from the powers over them. Congress must not now assign by legislative action more power to those who are not directly responsible to the people, or to Congress.

Still another area of warranted, not imaginary, concern is the infiltration of Communist conspirators into the movement to change our social order. The evidence presented by such responsible agencies as our Federal Bureau of Investigation on Communists directly involved in racial strifes is enough to require that all legislators look carefully into sponsorship of laws that will centralize power, divide race against race and class against class, and remove the rights enjoyed by freemen. Let us not leap wildly into legislation that promises to end all discrimination with one sweep of the pen, when known Communists have long agitated for the very laws before us. The Communists know what will divide our people and pit class against class. This has been their modus operandi for several decades of revolutionary experience. Let us not plunge our people into more revolutionary arenas by unworkable legislation which idealizes what cannot be realized merely by passing a law. Let us approach our modern social dilemma with caution, knowing full well that the unrest has reached kindling point already in many areas where friction has generated heat, and propaganda has fanned the fires of bigotry and anarchy.

Let us heed the pleas of the law-abiding, peace-loving, taxpaying citizens who want respect for all men, freedom of choice, and liberty more than license. These ought to be heard as much as the vociferous leaders of restless masses who make reckless demands. Mere passage of new laws will not satisfy those who now choose to disobey present laws they do not like. Let us lay the standard of liberty alongside any legislation lest we labor under the delusion that we can sell our heritage and have it too.

Specific aspects of the civil rights bill, S. 3296, which are specially objectionable are-and I have just taken these by titles:

I. The eliciting of the sex, education, race, religion, and occupation of a proposed juror, and then having the jury commission determining "solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form or the returned summons whether a person is qualified for or exempt from jury service." This presents a possibility that discrimination may be used in selecting juries on the bases of their race or religion, and thereby defeats its purpose.

Senator ERVIN. On that point, this bill would allow the individual to determine whether he was eligible to serve on the jury rather than the jury commission or the court, would it not?

Mr. WOODWORTH. Under this provision it looks like it.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, it would prohibit those who select the people for our juries from inquiring into the information on the questionnaire form?

Mr. WOODWORTH. Yes; on the basis of the information furnished. Senator ERVIN. So under this bill if a man had been convicted of a most grievous felony, and he made a false answer to the effect that he had never been convicted, they would have to accept his false answer rather than investigate the truth, would they not?

Mr. WOODWORTH. That may be so. I am not that familiar with the provision. But I am concerned about this aspect of it.

It paves the way now for reverse discrimination, and therefore defeats its purpose if we are to have a balance of race and religion when juries are to be selected impartially.

II. The injecting of Federal powers into State problems in calling to question the selection of juries gives tremendous power to the Attorney General with taxpayers funds to interfere with normal judicial proceedings of State courts. It infers that State courts are incompetent and makes it possible to destroy our confidence in State judicial systems by impugning their integrity. It provides unscrupulous lawyers with means of delaying and obstructing justice.

III. The interference of the Attorney General into control of public schools of any State is again a usurpation of Federal power over local communities and self-government. Such injunctions could conceivably take control of local and State schools by Federal authority merely on the grounds that there is reason to believe there has been discrimination. It presumes to judge a man's thoughts and then pronounces that his thinking is illegal. Such audacity caused Jefferson to declare:

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

IV. The open housing aspect ought not even be the subject of Federal legislation. I have spoken against this jeopardy of human and personal property rights before our Baltimore City Council and State legislature. For 3 consecutive years so-called open housing bills have been defeated in Baltimore City. For 4 years in the Maryland General Assembly they have failed to become law. Whenever the people on the east or west coast have been free to vote either for freedom in selling or renting their homes or for forced rulings, they have always chosen freedom. The eternal issue is personal freedom versus State control, in this case, Federal controls, and in God's name I appeal to freedom. The teaching of Jesus was, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?" (Matthew 20:15). God never intended that the classes or masses could dictate to property owners how they must use and dispose of their property. The civil right to own and dispose of one's own property is a characteristic of free men. Collective control is a characteristic of communism. It is not civil nor right to expect the Government to restrict the rights of all for the benefit of some. Edmund Burke observed long ago: "The people