housing buyer. Here, equal opportunity and neighbor-love coincide. Fair housing legislation, balancing the rights of buyers and sellers, appropriate to all levels of government, should be enacted speedily as part of the long, painful struggle of the people of the United States to bring to fuller reality the clear meaning and purpose of our fundamental laws and principles." (See "Statements 65," published by the General Board of Christian Social Concerns.) You will note that many more provisions of the civil rights legislation currently before your committee find general support in the official policy statements of The Methodist Church here referred to. I have highlighted the housing issue for the particular reason that it appears to be the most controversial portion of the bill. Sincerely yours, GROVER C. BAGBY, Associate General Secretary. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Washington, D.C. NATIONAL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The National Apartment Owners Association is comprised of apartment owners throughout the nation. Our membership consists of owners of both small and large apartment units, and we strongly oppose title IV of the Civil Rights legislation now being considered in Congress. The title IV provisions are aimed directly at the real estate industry, particularly that segment in the business of leasing rental units, and we believe that in the accelerated drive for civil rights, the property rights, guaranteed in the Constitution, are being ignored. Surely, a law in the nature of the one now proposed will discourage investment in real estate. When an individual decides to invest in real property, he is choosing this investment in lieu of other possibilities, such as stocks or bonds. He has determined that this investment will reap a return, or fail, based on his own judgment. Adverse governmental pressures will undoubtedly discourage real estate investment. This discouragement would come when the need is the greatest for housing. Programs which attack unemployment and ignorance will eventually solve the basic problems. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that legislation in the nature of Title IV of the proposed Civil Rights bill does not contribute toward this end. The problem can be solved by local, voluntary programs to assist citizens in finding housing in chosen areas. This, by its nature, will be a slow process, regardless how good or bad the delay may be. No law can ever be written that will immediately force true neighborhood acceptance of minority groups. Yours truly, J. F. FRALEY, Executive Secretary. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS The National Association of Home Builders, the trade association of the American home building industry, submits the following statement concerning title IV of S. 3296 dealing with discrimination in housing. The Association has been the sole spokesman for the home building industry since 1942. Today, it represents more than 45,000 members, organized in 402 State and local associations throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. During the past decade we have consistently urged that discrimination in housing results primarily from deep-rooted and long-standing community prejudices, and as such, cannot be eliminated solely through legislation. In 1959, the Association's Annual Policy Statement pointed out: "Real progress toward this goal [elimination of discrimination in housing]... is obscured by the enormous problems arising from deep-seated emotional convictions which the home building industry did not create and does not as an industry share." In 1961, prior to the issuance of Executive Order No. 11063, relating to Equal Opportunity in Housing, we stated: "We sincerely believe and earnestly hope that education, tolerance, and understanding will gradually lessen, and eventually remove, the community attitudes which have kept builders from further progress toward meeting the needs of this portion of the home building market. We urge development of community group efforts to bring this about." In November 1962, following the issuance of the Order, we pointed out that discrimination in housing * * * “does not arise from builder bias but results from emotions and deep-seated attitudes of our customers; that this is beyond the control of our builders; and that a builder as a businessman can successfully sell or rent houses only under circumstances acceptable in the local market. However much we may have questioned the wisdom of attempting to resolve this problem by Executive Order, such an order is now a reality." Of course, once the Order was issued the industry did its best to comply with its full letter and spirit. We pledged the industry to produce as large a volume of housing as possible and stated that, "As in the past, the home building industry will continue to cooperate in educational programs to eliminate prejudices affecting the housing market." Some local affiliates of NAHB have conducted studies of this subject and have taken the lead in establishing voluntary open occupancy policies in communities ready to accept them. We believe this approach produces more significant progress than decrees or legislation. We recommend the continuation of existing programs, and the development of new programs, designed specifically to attack the underlying problem of an inadequate supply of housing available for low-income families which affects all Americans regardless of race. Such programs as the Rent Supplement Program, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 simultaneously attack the evils of poor housing, poverty, unemployment and underemployment, and lack of education. They provide the essential social and economic foundations without which civil rights laws with respect to housing can have little meaningful effect. The NAHB role in this coordinated approach is a vital one. We firmly believe that our most significant contribution in achieving equal housing opportunity lies in producing a greater volume of housing for low- and moderate-income families. The availability of an adequate supply of such housing would reduce the cost of housing and thereby provide greater housing opportunities for all Americans, regardless of race, color, or national origin. In recent months Industry efforts in that direction have been frustrated as the cost of land, labor, material, and money has steadily risen. It may be stated flatly that "tight money” makes impossible production of homes for persons of modest means. We fail to see how the legislation before you will be of any practical help in increasing housing opportunity for all American families if the productive capacity of the Home Building Industry continues seriously crippled by lack of construction credit for builders and of long-term credit for home buyers. We have repeatedly warned that present credit conditions gravely impair our ability to perform our economic and social function. So far, at least, our warning of the grave consequences of present monetary policy has fallen on deaf ears. Under whatever circumstances the American Home Building Industry is forced to operate, we will continue to do our utmost to provide, at the lowest possible prices, good homes for all American families. Because as we have stressed for many years-we do not feel that legislation helps toward that end-because we are convinced that the way to accomplish the purpose of title IV is by improvement in community attitudes rather than by compulsion-we must oppose title IV of the Bill. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN The National Council of Catholic Women has been involved in the struggle for interracial justice since 1948. Our commitment is based on the recognition of man's human dignity, on the belief that each man is a unique individual, created by God, and as such, entitled to live under conditions most conductive to realizing his innate dignity. We have engaged in the creation of understanding and communication between the races in our communities and have worked to educate ourselves and others in the causes of interracial tension. We actively sought passage of the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 and have continued to press for the strong enforcement of these laws. We have reviewed the "Civil Rights Act of 1966," S. 3296, and strongly recommend its passage. Two statements adopted by our Board of Directors at their January 1966, meeting are particularly relevant: Housing We are aware that housing directly affects the stability and health of family life, and that many of our citizens do not enjoy the right to buy or rent decent homes in neighborhoods suitable to their means and family goals. We join the President of the United States in urging legislation to prohibit racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. Justice in the courts NCCW expresses deep concern for the cause of justice in the courts resulting from the acquittals of the Alabama slayers of Jonathan Daniels, Rev. James Reeb, and Mrs. Viola Liuzzo. Though we affirm our belief in the validity of the jury system, we believe the system itself is on trial so long as these juries are not representative of the community. We urge the Attorney General be empowered to require nondiscrimination in jury selection in federal and state courts. We further urge legislation to prohibit intimidation, attack and murder of civil rights workers and other citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional and civil rights. We further urge that S. 3296 be strengthened to assure its enforcement. We would recommend: (1) Civil indemnification for the victims of civil rights violence and for the persons injured because of their race or color, while trying to exercise their rights. (2) The enforcement of the fair housing provision by an administrative agency. (3) A more automatic method of instituting procedures for ending jury discrimination. (4) The inclusion of state and local government employees under the coverage of Title VII, the Equal Employment Section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. STATEMENT OF TYRE TAYLOR, GENERAL COUNSEL, SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL At its Annual Meeting held at Sea Island, Georgia, on May 23-25, 1966, the Board of Directors of the Council unanimously approved the following statement on Federal Force bills: "The Council profoundly resents the action of Congress in passing, and the Supreme Court in upholding, P.L. 89-110, the so-called voting Right Act of 1965. Born of hate, hysteria and hypocrisy, this law reimposes Reconstruction on certain states of the South with no appeal to the local courts. It does this by requiring these states to entreat Federal authorities for approval of local laws before they can become effective. "The Council opposes so-called Federal Civil Rights legislation as a further unwarranted encroachment by the federal government upon the rights of the individual citizen, the state and local communities. It also opposes-and for the same reason-executive action in this area." In opposing the so-called Civil Rights bill of 1966, I shall confine my remarks primarily to the potential impact of Title IV upon the rights of the individual citizen and home owner. To be sure, there are other provisions of the bill, including Federal jury-packing, to which the council strongly objects, but Title IV is of such transcendent importance and significance that I have decided to confine this discussion to it alone. I In invoking the Constitution of the United States in this strange day and time, one has the uncomfortable-not to say frightening-feeling that he may be invoking a dead document: That-on the road to Federal tyranny and under the guise of adapting this once basic set of principles to changing times and conditions—we may well have already passed the point of no return. Still-and notwithstanding the murderous beating it has taken in recent years at the hands of those who were sworn to defend and uphold it-and dead or only moribund— it's the only Constitution we have or are likely to have. So-today-and somewhat like a sleep walker-I go through the ritual of appealing to its provisions for whatever such appeal may be worth. п Although-and except for the welfare clause the preamble of the Constitution has never been regarded as the source of any substantive powers conferred on the government of the United States, we may properly and appropriately refer to it to determine the Framers' purpose in drafting it and the people's purpose in ordaining and establishing it. And from this we learn that, while they had a number of purposes in mind, one of the most important was: "To promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our prosterity ***." What are the "blessings of Liberty" as the term is here used? Undoubtedly one of the major purposes was the protection of the right and freedom of the individual to acquire, own, and dispose of property. While many things have changed since his day (1723-1780) and the property right is not an absolute right,' the eminent Jurist Blackstone recognized the reality and legal significance of the property right when he observed: "There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affection of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole *** dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe." Many of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers and students of Blackstone. Indeed, in many parts of the country his famous Commentaries were the only source of knowledge of English law. Hence we may suppose that many of the lawyers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention shared his view of the nature and value of the property right. In any event, they erected numerous safeguards of this right in the body of the Constitution itself. For example: The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of any soldier, in time of peace, in any private home without the owner's consent. The Fourth Amendment declares and seeks to protect the right of the people to be secure in their houses as well as in their persons, papers, and effects. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law and that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits each state from depriving any person of property without due process of law. Clearly-and if words still have their long-accepted meaning-Title IV of S. 3296, if enacted, would be in flagrant violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It would destroy the right to the free use and disposal of residential property. The private owner would no longer have a free choice in selecting a buyer. In the opinion of eminent lawyers, the seller would no longer have freedom of choice as to sales price or conditions of sale. The landlord could not exercise his own free will in selecting the tenants who would share his home with him. It would inject the element of compulsion 2-legal coercion 1 But in those areas where the property right has been limited, there has been a tangible real harm from which society had to be protected. Example: Zoning laws. 2 If the seller insisted upon exercising freedom of choice, he could be hailed into Federal Court and the Court, sitting without jury, could order the sale or rental of property to a person not the seller's choice. The Court could assess damages without limit. If a complainant alleges that he cannot afford a lawyer, the Court could furnish him one free. The Attorney General would be empowered to intervene in any case at his own discretion. between a property owner and the person with whom he would do business. And having once offered to sell, the seller could not thereafter change his mind. It is said that Title IV of this bill is addressed to the controversy—and, in our view, it is a strictly phony controversy-between human rights and property rights. Since when, one may fairly ask, have property rights ceased to be-almost preeminently-human rights? More to the point, since when have property rights ceased to be the very foundation of human freedom which, next to life itself, is the supreme human right? I disagree with Liberal Columnist Walter Lippmann on most things, but on this phony Human Rights vs. Property Rights issue he makes sense. He is quoted by Senator Sparkman as having said that "The only dependable foundation of personal liberty is the personal economic security of private property ***. Private property was the original source of freedom. It is still its main bulwark". III This thoroughly mischievous bill flies in the face of all Anglo-American concepts of property ownership. What is its supposed legal justification? Mr. Katzenbach says that it's the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce: That the movement of people, money and building materials is hampered by racial discrimination in housing. The distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee has demolished this argument by listing three situations in which it could not possibly be true: "Suppose a widow, whose only income consists of Social Security payments, wishes to supplement that income," the Chairman asks. "She rents a room to one of her own race. Where is the interstate Commerce?" "Suppose the man who owns the house and lot next door to his home sells it to a friend. Where is the interstate Commerce? And why should the federal government care? "Suppose the manager of a home for retired Methodist ministers refused to negotiate with a retired Baptist minister for the rental of an apartment. Where is the interstate Commerce? And anyway" the Chairman concludes, "What business is it of ours?" Others suggest that this proposed invasion of rights rests upon the “due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Interpretation of that right has uniformly been that it applies only to action by state agencies, and not to those of individuals. What is the legal basis of this proposal? There is no legal basis and it should be rejected. I close with this statement by Senator Holland: "The truth of the matter is that Title IV would destroy the freedom of all for government control of all. It would replace the judgment of free men with the judgment of the State." WOMAN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND, U.S. SECTION, May 26, 1966. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: I am enclosing a statement on the Civil Rights bill for the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which we would appreciate your placing in the record. We did not ask to testify this time because of the desire to keep the hearings brief, but we would like our statement to be considered along with all the others. Sincerely yours, Dr. MILNOR ALEXANDER, 3 Mr. Katzenbach contends that, when a home is offered for sale "to the public," the seller has made a commitment to see the transaction through. 4 "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." |