always agree as to whether it could be controlled by statute or whether constitutional amendments were required, the bills upon which action. was taken in the House so often came over to this very deliberative body, and I have a recollection that we felt terribly ignored over on the other side that we could not even get an expression from the Senate as to whether they were opposed or indifferent on constitutional grounds. So this issue simmered. Those bills found a nice, comfortable dark pigeonhole, and they seemed to stay there. So there has been a sort of an impasse as to this issue for a long time. So now, as I say, we have washed out all the petty little things in the spirit. I think we are now prepared to go ahead and devote ourselves to it. Senator O'MAHONEY. There were hearings held on the constitutional amendment and on the anti-poll-tax bill, and I presided over them. The hearings were printed, and the whole record was free, even to the Members of the House, who abandoned the House Senator HENNINGS. If they would pay for it. Senator O'MAHONEY. And came to the Senate by preference. Senator JOHNSTON. I think we had better get back to the bill under discussion. Senator O'MAHONEY. I have an appointment at 4 o'clock that I can't miss with some members of the Senate who do not happen to be members of this committee. Will you excuse me, please? Senator JOHNSTON. Are there any further questions of the Attorney General? Senator MCCLELLAN. I would like to ask some questions. Mr. Attorney General, what is embraced in the term "civil rights" as it is used to create this division? Attorney General BROWNELL. Well, under that proposal it would be left to the discretion of the Attorney General to decide what exactly would be in that division, what classes of statutes would come under that division. Senator MCCLELLAN. Where the law just says in general terms "civil rights," do you think that would leave it entirely to the discretion of the Attorney General as to what class of cases or work he assigned to that division? Attorney General BROWNELL. Maybe I can clarify it a little bit better this way. The jurisdiction of the Department of Justice is governed by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. But I was speaking of limiting ourselves to those matters within the proper Federal jurisdiction, and then the division of the work between the other office of the Department and the new assistant Attorney General's Office would be discretionary with the Attorney General. Senator MCCLELLAN. What offenses would you regard as a violation of civil rights? Would cases of murder be a proper function of that division? Attorney General BROWNELL. No, that would not be within the Federal jurisdiction. I think there are some bills before the Congress-I am not sure whether they are before this committee or not, but I know they are over in the House-which would, in my opinion, go so far as to bring murder cases into the Federal jurisdiction. As I stated before the House committee, we would be opposed to that. Senator MCCLELLAN. What about extortion? Using the mails to defraud, would that come within the civil rights? Attorney General BROWNELL. There are a number of those statutes on the books now. Senator MCCLELLAN. Would you recognize the right to possess and enjoy property-would all those cases come within the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division? Attorney General BROWNELL. Well, now, for example, the so-called labor extortion cases, I was speaking offhand, I would think more properly belong in the Criminal Division than they would in the new Civil Rights Division. Senator MCCLELLAN. Would they be violative of civil rights, the offense? Attorney General BROWNELL. Well, you are undoubtedly dramatizing that the term has never been given a specific definition. That is one reason. Senator MCCLELLAN. I think when we are going into a field like that we ought to have some idea how it is going to operate. Attorney General BROWNELL. Well, I could give you this assur ance Senator MCCLELLAN. Would kidnaping violate civil rights? Senator MCCLELLAN. Would that come within the jurisdiction of this Division? Attorney General BROWNELL. Yes, the ones within the Federal jurisdiction. Senator MCCLELLAN. How are we going to know if we don't spell it out? Are you going to leave it to each Attorney General to decide which responsibility he will place in this Division? Attorney General BROWNELL. No, the limits on his authority are very explicit. They are the Constitution of the United States and the statutes, and he has no authority whatsoever to bring into Federal jurisdiction anything that isn't placed there by the Constitution and the Congress. Senator MCCLELLAN. I am talking about the things you have jurisdiction over, not extraneous ones. Attorney General BROWNELL. Let me give you this example. At the present time the Fair Labor Standards Act violations are in the Civil Rights Section of the Criminal Division, and have been for years. That might not seem like a very logical division of authority between the divisions, but it has been going on for a long time, and it has worked pretty well. So there is a little discretion there to decide which division can handle it. Senator MCCLELLAN. I would like to know, and I think the Senate and the Members of Congress would like to know what particular function this Civil Rights Division is going to perform, what is going to be assigned to it, what is going to be its responsibility, what crimes, what offenses not just passing it blindly, just given the name "Civil Rights Division," without any interpretation of what "civil rights” means with respect to this particular statute. Attorney General BROWNELL. I can give a pretty good description of that right now, I think, if you would like to have it. Senator MCCLELLAN. Let's have your idea. Attorney General BROWNELL. My idea would be to place in the new division, if it is created, the violations of sections 241 and 242 that I mentioned here today; also the violations of 1971 that I mentioned here today, of the Lindbergh kidnaping law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the antipeonage law, the Ku Klux Klan law, Anti-Ku Klux Klan law, and any new-if any of our recommendations before the committee today are adopted they would also go into that section. Senator MCCLELLAN. What about the use of the mails to defraud, or extortion? Attorney General BROWNELL. I am inclined to think that would stay in one of the other divisions. Senator MCCLELLAN. Don't you think that violates civil rights? Senator MCCLELLAN. It does in a financial sense, doesn't it? Attorney General BROWNELL. Yes. I would say those financial frauds would probably stay where they are and not go into this. Senator MCCLELLAN. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that you submit to the committee a statement as to what functions, what offense, and so forth, this particular Division would supervise and have jurisdiction over. (This information was subsequently received by letter dated June 4, 1956, and is as follows:) Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington 25, D. C. JUNE 4, 1956. DEAR SENATOR: During the hearing of May 16, 1956, conducted by your committee on proposed civil rights legislation, Senator McClellan requested the Attorney General to furnish a list of the statutes that would be assigned to the Civil Rights Division which would be created if the proposed legislation were enacted. The Civil Rights Section is now responsible for the enforcement of the following statutes: The civil rights conspiracy statute (18 U. S. C. 241) The substantive (color of law) civil rights statute (18 U. S. C. 242) Election crimes, Hatch Act, and corrupt practices law (18 U. S. C. 591-612, 2 U. S. C. 241-248, 252-256) Involuntary servitude, peonage, and slavery statutes (18 U. S. C. 1581-1588) Safety Appliance Act (45 U. S. C. 1-16) Hours of service law (45 U. S. C. 61-66) Air carriers law (45 U. S. C. 181, 182) Accident reports law, railways (45 U. S. C. 38, 39) Signal Inspection Act (49 U. S. C. 26) Eight-hour law on public works (40 U. S. C. 321-326) Kickbacks from Public Works Employees Act (18 U. S. C. 874) Shanghaing sailors statute (18 U. S. C. 2194) Merchant seamen laws (18 U. S. C. 2191-2193, 2195, 2196; 46 U. S. C. 542a, 545-546, 567, 568, 570, 571, 575, 643, 652, 653, 658, 660, 662, 667, 672, 701) Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50 U. S. C. (App.) 520, 530) In addition to these statutes, there would probably be assigned to the Civil Rights Division the following: Protection of voting rights (42 U. S. C. 1971 as it would be amended by the legislative proposals). (See e. g., S. 3718.) Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (42 U. S. C. 1985 as it would be amended by legislative proposals). (See e. g., S. 3717.) The antikidnaping statutes (Lindbergh law) (18 U. S. C. 1201, 1202) The Civil Rights Division probably would also be responsible for the formulation of legal and policy approaches involving constitutional and civil rights within the Department of Justice, and would serve as liaison between the Department and other Government departments, agencies and commissions in such matters. For example, the new Division might assist the President's Committee on Government Contracts in its program to diminish discriminatory practices in its field; advise the the State Department in connection with human rights problems involving the United Nations; or assist other government establishments in maintaining equality of opportunity in employment in their staffs. The Civil Rights Division would also be responsible for keeping the Attorney General informed of developments in constitutional law affecting the basic rights of the people, and it would participate in cases before the courts involving important civil rights issues. After further consideration of the problem and experience in the operation of the Civil Rights Division, additional statutes and functions, might be transferred to the Division and reassignments might well be made. The foregoing tentative list of statutes and outline of functions, however, should indicate the scope and nature of the proposed Division's authority and duties. Sincerely, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. Attorney General BROWNELL. I think that is a very constructive suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I will be very glad to comply with it. Senator JOHNSTON. We will be glad to have it. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is all I wanted to know, Mr. Chairman. Senator JOHNSTON. Any other questions? Senator HENNINGS. One more question. Mr. Attorney General, I read to you a list of a number of those civil rights so-called bills that are now pending before the subcommittee. We would appreciate it very much if your Department would undertake to give us an opinion on all of them, where it is a policy to give an opinion, or where you feel that you can. Attorney General BROWNELL. I think I covered quite a few of them in my statement today, but I will check over them. Senator HENNINGS. I am sure you did. There were a number of others, however, and I don't think any of us are so wise as to think that certain points reported out might be and should be reported out, or might very well be reported. Thank you very much. Senator JOHNSTON. Did you have a question? Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir, 1 or 2. On page 8 of the statement you picked a Mississippi illustration. One of the questions asked in those cases before they could vote was a question such as, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" Do you have that affidavit that was submitted on that? Attorney General BROWNELL. We have that in the files of the Department. Mr. YOUNG. Would you submit that to the committee? STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, County of Forrest: Before me the undersigned authority personally came and appeared and after being, by me, first duly sworn deposes and says: 1. My name is —, Negro female of majority age, and I reside at Hattiesburg, Forrest County, Miss. 2. That on Friday, April 11, 1952, I, along with other Negro citizens, all of whom are residents of Forrest County, Miss., applied to the office of the Registrar of Voters, to be registered to vote for the President of the United States, Congressmen, and other State, county, and city offices. 3. Over a period of years, I, along with other Negroes, who possesses all the qualifications as prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, have tried to register from time to time and have been asked such questions as: A. How many bubbles in a bar of soap? B. What is the due process of law? All of which is not required by the laws of the State of Mississippi. 4. That on all occasion the registrars submitted Negroes to tests not required of whites during the same period and not provided for in the Constitution of the State of Mississippi. 5. That on Friday, April 11, 1952, around 10: 00 a. m. when I, along with other duly qualified Negroes applied for registration, were told by two white ladies, who are employees of the Registrar of Voters and reported to be Deputy Registrars, that they could not register us but we would have to come back when Mr. Cox, the Registrar and County Clerk was there. 6. The young white ladies, on other occasions, have been observed registering persons of the white race but never registering persons of the Negro Race. 7. I possess all the qualifications to register required by law and the only reason for denying me is because of my race and color. 8. That the action of the registrar and his deputies is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 9. That I am not by name nor have I been a party by name to any suit against the Registrar of Voters of Forrest County, Miss. Mr. YOUNG. I direct your attention from there to section 1971 of title 42 of the United States Code, one of the titles that you suggest we amend here. And according to my reading of that code, such a question would be in violation of the law. Was any attempt made by the Department of Justice to prosecute in that case? Attorney General BROWNELL. That was before we came down here. Maybe Mr. Caldwell would know. Yes, that was presented to the grand jury. Mr. YOUNG. Was there an indictment? Attorney General BROWNELL. No, the grand jury refused to indict. That is the trouble we get into in many of these criminal cases. Mr. YOUNG. Would you have had better success with the injunctive process in that case? Attorney General BROWNELL. Yes. Mr. YOUNG. I direct your attention to 3 other statutes on the books, the conflict of interest statute, 1 of them applies to the prosecution of claims against the Government; and the third one has a 2-year prohibition on making claims against the Government after leaving the Government employment. In this Commission would these statutes cause you any trouble in selecting the members of your Commission or your staff? Attorney General BROWNELL. As I remember, the bill provides for an exemption there. What is the number of that bill? I have got it right here. It is S. 3605, the one that I am speaking of. Mr. YOUNG. Perhaps I didn't see it in this bill. Attorney General BROWNELL. I don't see it either. We would have no objection to putting that in there. Mr. YOUNG. Would you be in favor of labeling those statutes for the purpose of the personnel of this Commission? Attorney General BROWNELL. I think it might be helpful in getting the right personnel. You have got a point there. |