I have examined the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and find nothing therein that gives Congress the right to establish policy, the closest being Section 3 of Article 2, the recommendation of the President "of such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" which certainly does not cover national policy. While time forbids us to make exhaustive research, I know of no law to the contrary. However, unless my memory is incorrect, there is a time of jurisprudence which forbids legislation of giving specific authority one to the other.

I would sound the warning that all signs indicate we are in a period of political decline. When it becomes necessary for the political powers of a government with command of the military to compel the majority of its citizens to bow to a significantly small minority to fraternize against their will and by the use of raw force to compel them (the majority) to sell their property or dwell with them in the same premises where individual members of both families are seriously affected by the presence of one another, without choice, under the penalty of fine and jail sentence for failure, then the government has reached a point of the greatest violation of natural law decreed by God in man's creation.

Instead of the strong and the rich oppressing the poor, in the present situation the back bone of this country, the white middle class are the ones most affected. We find the nee'r do well, a large segment of our more serious criminal offenders, insincere, would be social adjusters, communist affiliated organizations and reformers, solely for individual personal financial enrichment under heel. These elements are oppressing and grinding this group in regulating his and his family's daily living and controlling the disposition and/or use of his property which by ingenuity of well managed saving and deprivation he has accumulated at personal sacrifice, contrasted to their free living, dissolute habits and immoral practices and crushing all ideas of righteousness.

When are these social reformers going to stop this contemptuous display of disregard for individual rights and liberties, particularly of the majority, all over the nation. When are they going to realize only a very small contingent of this nurtured minority has any desire for all these so called civil rights, which are actually government created privileges of a confiscatory nature and antisocial in practice.

When are they going to re-examine this movement, take inventory of its effects, and stop short with the realization of its possible ultimate results.

The federal courts no longer condemn this oppression and injustice, the rights of religious beliefs are no longer recognized. To whom then, are these oppressed citizens going to make their appeal. The confines of States' Rights are no longer existant, the last of man's liberties and rights, the free enjoyment of his home and family according to his own dictates, are taken from him-so what is left. What further oppressive cuts does the future hold. He is taxed and threatened with increasing taxes to support welfare and poverty projects of undeserved elements, who are incapable of self support, despite our so called greatest prosperity.

Are these measures of depriving and punishing the thrifty segments of our population the acts of successful political victory, which has been questioned and shown to be doubtful of honest national probity, under the guise of a plume, the Great Society.

This measure will unquestionably promote discord among neighbors. How can there be peace and harmony among people of widely divergent habits, thought and background, with little, if any mutual interests, to live in same house, half of the same, or adjoining building, under compulsion, and no freedom of consort choice or neighbors, opposed to each others living habits, from the start, rearing of children, different sources of income, different friends and acquaintances, open to insult and abuse with forced visitation, simply because he is a Negro or his skin is black must be accepted. Men sacrifice today, as they have done since time's beginning, to select their neighbors, neighborhoods. This law would make them prisoners in their own homes.

American Indians, finest type of human characteristics, lived by tribal membership and killed any intruders.

Forced association will bring hatred, where friendliness now exists, and nurture crime. These emotions by the very nature of human thought, will exert themselves to rid each other of the troublesome and disturbing factors which make their lives miserable under compulsive living where association cannot be avoided.

Everything in the way of men's actions for good or evil goes back to the individual. If thinking is good we make progress-if bad he creates turmoil and must turn back to repair the damage, delaying the other man's progress in the interim. The same principle applies in nationalism, as well even to any world group of nations.

Successful government comes only with the cooperation of the majority governed. Mens' minds cannot be captured by force and their social habits can never be curtailed by chicanery of government agents. Nor can their association with their fellow men be regulated by liberals on sociological theorizing.

Of the first, revolution is rampant in every border of the world, East, West and South. Men are dying, sacrificing themselves by individual hunger and self immolation, and revolution, with the certainty of death in each instance, for what they believe is right.

Has there been one single day when this country of ours has not known some race difficulty, since that fateful day of May, 1954? Yet, the Attorney General and his political appointees, over whom none of the people have any control, by reason of such circumstance, are, to the extent of his personal legislation governed by it. None of this would be possible, however. unless the head of government did not acquiesce and condone it for political expediency and personal and party gain, all despite flagrant disapproval of the majority who are its victims.

Section 402: In all of the press releases, and generally the understanding of everyone, this bill was intended to cover personal or individual housing however in Section (a) of this article with every type of corporate entity mentioned, I have yet to find anyone who has ever heard of providing PROTECTION for this type of so-called "person" and which could cover every type of commercial property, in addition to personal housing, unless it is intended as a guise of discrimination against some of the corporate membership and/or some of the stockholders, and I know it will occur to anyone else, as it did to me, why by the farther stretch of the imagination it now becomes necessary to protect the corporate rights of housing for alleged discrimination, and this section is confusing when in reading Paragraph (b) of Section 402, it does use the word "dwelling" for "residential use by one or more individuals or families" and does not use the noun "person", which adds to the perplexity of the true meaning of the end desire of the U.S. Attorney General.

In paragraph (c) of this same section, under this provision an individual Owner would be restrained from advertising for a particular type of lease for occupancy intended or for which the premises are to be used. He could very well run afoul for a charge of discrimination and an alleged violation of this act if he refused an offer from someone he felt would not obey this restriction.

In paragraph (e) of this same section, we have another invasion of privacy without any resemblance of legal right in requiring a submission of access to private records of individuals or corporations, associations, etc., and any notations made on these private records indicating a particular situation or reason for verbal or written negotiation as to the type of tenant desired could very well be construed as a violation of this paragraph and the custodian of these records could be prosecuted as well as his principal.

If the latter refused the perusal of these records it is an absolute certainty that a Court Order would follow on complaint of the applicant, subpoenaing the records which certainly would intimidate anyone in an agency status from following the wishes of the Owner, made in all good faith and with no idea of discrimination, the sole purpose being to protect the Owner from undesirable tenancy and occupancy.

Section 405: Encourages group action regardless of their motives, socialistic or communistic influences, to compel an individual Owner to rent a dwelling to one of their members, subjecting Owner to severest type of harassment, threats, and bodily harm, picketing his premises, etc. An Owner and his family would be in great physical danger if they left their own personal property.

Plainly, this is an open invitation to the NAACP to follow their usual course of conduct including the privilege of civil disobedience and injunction violation. Unions are fined, but in the case of the NAACP we know of no instance where they were fined in our locality yet the Federal Courts have repeatedly held other individuals and organizations in contempt for infraction of their orders and in some cases, even suspended jail sentences.

We quote from a recent statement of Justice William J. Brennan. Jr.: "Today, as rarely before, case after case comes to the Court which finds the individual

battling to vindicate a claim under the Bill of Rights against the powers of government, federal and state.

"But many of the nation's Founders, especially James Madison, were apprehensive that the Blessings of Liberty had not been sufficiently secured, so they began the amending process. Specific guarantees that the government would not intrude unreasonably into the private life of the citizen were drafted. The first ten amendments, drawn up by Madison and quickly adopted, have come to be known collectively as the Bill of Rights."

And another quotation from Alan Barth :

** a respect for privacy. It is in this as much as in any other single characteristic that the free society differs from the totalitarian state."

We give you a case in point:

Mr. Rickenbacker is the son of Eddie Rickenbacker of World War I fame. "He was fined $100 and given a suspended jail sentence of sixty days. Mr. Rickenbacker not only had to pay the fine but was admonished by the judge that he would have been sent to prison for the sixty days had it not imposed a special hardship on his family at the time. He evidently spent several thousand dollars appealing his $100 fine.

"Mr. Rickenbacker took his appeal up through the United States Court of Appeals and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, but his petition was denied. The Justice Department's attorneys simply reminded the Court of Section 221 of Title 13 U.S.C., 68 Stat. 1023, 71 Stat. 484, and that was that!”

This prosecution was based on his refusal to answer a twelve or fourteen page questionnaire of the most intimate type of his personal dwelling and home life. In a recent book called "The Naked Society" by Vance Packard, there is a tremendous amount of material, both informative and in the nature of an exposé, many portions of which could be of tremendous help in combating this legislation. There is one interesting quote, among many others, by Judge Jerome Frank: "A sane, decent, civilized society must provide some ** oasis, some shelter from public scrutiny, some insulated enclosure, some enclave, some inviolate place which is a man's castle."

*

There is much material in this book relative to the method used by the Government in gathering evidence for prosecution and with even greater detail on the methods of private investigation and the instruments that are used and the manner in which this evidence is gathered and the illegal activities of the Attorneys Generals' office in intercepting private conversations and on nterpretations of what constitutes a violation of this statute.

As an example, we find the following:

"Mr. Jackson found that one phrase, by straining, could be rationalized into an authorization to tap. That phrase said it was a crime to "intercept" and "divulge" messages. Mr. Jackson decided that for the emergency this could be stretched to mean that it was all right to intercept as long as you did not divulge. He chose to ignore a nearby phrase banning the "use" of any intercepted message. The war emergency ended; but all of the U.S. Attorneys General since Mr. Jackson, including the incumbent one, have embraced his interpretation to justify wiretapping, where it seemed to be warranted, for "leads" only. And many local law enforcement officials have echoed the Attorneys General. The interpretation has been mouthed so many times that people assume it is the law."

Section 407: Intervention Atty. General. This section gives him the widest possible latitude. a super F.B.I. The only decision for him to make is that he has "reasonable cause to believe" that he should be a party to the litigation-not what the trial Court decides, but his judgment.

He also, alone, has the right to make the decision of whether or not he intervenes in, or institutes an "action of general public importance".

Section 408: Here is some additional Federal Bureaucratic domination, disguised in the most innocent language possible and the Attorney General's secret weapon, to get all possible evidence without running the risk of opposition of due process, search and seizure and the various other restraints under the several constitutional amendments.

The people who demand these special housing privileges are the same ones in the majority of instances, whether (white, black, red, brown or yellow) who in great measure are living under and being supported by Welfare and Poverty programs and refuse to work now, as they have in the past and will continue their indolence in the future, as long as Government will support them and by their indolence, exempt themselves from income taxes.

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Lansing, May 18, 1966.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr.,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for copy of your letter dated May 6, 1966, addressed to Governor Romney.

I will limit my comments on S. 3296 to Title IV; however, the other Titles certainly have the general approval of this office.

Title IV guarantees a right to equal opportunity in housing. This guarantee would supplement a right to equal housing opportunity which my Opinion No. 4161 of July 22, 1963 states already existed in Michigan. This office welcomes a Nation-wide guarantee, for it is only when all areas are covered and there are no white havens to flee to that our neighborhoods will become stabilized and the fears of so many people will evaporate.

I have some specific comments on Title IV itself:

1. There is an overriding problem which is not covered clearly enough, and that is the problem of indirect discrimination. For instance, when a white tenant is evicted for having Negro guests or when a white couple is evicted because they have adopted a Negro child. What about a white tenant who is evicted because of membership in the NAACP?

2. I note the absence of an "anti-blockbusting" (fair neighborhood practices) section, and urge the inclusion of such provisions. We refer you to the proposed model of Chapter 5 of the Second Tentative Draft of the Uniform Civil Rights Act, issued for discussion purposes only by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

3. The concept of "different treatment in contracting or negotiating for the sale, rental or lease of a dwelling" could well be added to Section 403 (b).

4. A provision forbidding discrimination based on race, etc. relative to membership on real estate boards might be added to Section 403 (e).

5. Section 404 does not appear to govern the process of applying for a loan. For instance, there may be discriminatory treatment in terms of delays, credit requirements, etc., and Section 404 might be amended to forbid discrimination in the application process. Section 404, like many other Sections, presently embodies the indirect discrimination problem discussed above, when it describes the "race, color, religion or national origin of such person". What about the race, etc. of such person's wife or friends, or the civil rights organizations to which such person belongs?

6. Section 405 might be amended to add a prohibition against interference with any person "attempting to exercise or enjoy," and a prohibition against discrimination for having "aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or attempt to exercise or enjoy, any right guaranteed by Section 403 or 404". For instance, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission found that an apartment manager in Ann Arbor evicted white tenants because of their sympathy with Negroes attempting to locate in the apartment building. The attempt to exercise rights to equal opportunity in housing should be given the same protection as the exercise of such rights.

7. Section 406 (b) might be clarified on the question of who has standing to be a plaintiff. May a civil rights organization be a plaintiff? Can state or local human relations commissions start suit on relation of an individual aggrieved person?

8. Section 406 (c) might be clarified to describe the circumstances under which a restraining order or temporary injunction might be issued.

9. Section 409 should be amended so that there is no invalidation of state or local laws protecting the same or similar rights as protected by the proposed Act. For instance, under the present language a fair neighborhood practices ordinance might be invalidated or a state law forbidding housing discrimination except for two-family or smaller units might be invalidated because they do not protect the same rights as are guaranteed by this Title.

10. Section 501 (a) (5) might be amended to add the words "financing or use", which words seem to have been inadvertenly left out. See Section 401. In my opinion, Title IV of the proposed Act is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. There seems little question but huge movements of building ma

terials are effected by a market which discriminates and which is, therefore, artificial and not free.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am pleased to be invited to comment on the policy and constitutionality of the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 and, in particular, the provisions on non-discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, as embodied in Title IV.

Legislation in New York now provides a remedy for racial discrimination in perhaps 95% of all the housing accommodations available in the State. While the State Commission administering the law has its own counsel, my office has certain investigatory duties and has been involved in certain injunction proceedings, hence I can speak from direct experience. To my observation, the law has provided an effective remedy for minority persons and families who can afford housing in the better housing areas and has worked well.

The existence of the law has been a countervailing force to the tendency in some communities to form a lily-white ring around the central city. To the extent that it provides a pressure valve providing means of escape from the Negro ghetto, it has in my opinion taken a lot of the steam out of potential "blockbusting" activities to convert neighborhoods from all-white to all-Negro and has thus contributed to racial harmony and the stability of neighborhoods. In New York State we have had experience both with the type of statute providing a right to go to court to obtain housing discriminatorily denied because of race and the administrative type of statute. The administrative type of statute, providing an inexpensive and a readily available means of redress, has been far more useful.

On the question of constitutionality, it seems to me, as a lawyer, that a consitutional basis exists for this federal legislation just as the United States Supreme Court found a basis for Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294).

Procedurally, I would like to see in the federal statute more deference to existing State machinery, somewhat on the model of Title VII of the 1964 act, relating to discrimination in employment.

I thank you again for this opportunity to offer my comment on an important bill.

Sincerely,

LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, Attorney General.

STATEMENT OF T. W. BURTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA My name is T. W. Bruton, and I am the duly elected and qualified Attorney General of North Carolina.

This statement is made in regard to S. 3296, which is a bill entitled: "To assure nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury selection and service, to facilitate the desegregation of public education and other public facilities, to provide judicial relief against discriminatory housing practices, to prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or intimidation, and for other purposes." This bill was introduced in the 89th Congress, 2d Session, on April 28, 1966. and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on May 3, 1966. The bill contains five titles, the first of which deals with discrimination in jury selection. the second title authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to bring