CIVIL RIGHTS PROPOSALS

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1956

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland (chairman), A. Willis Robertson, and Langer.

Also present Robert B. Young, professional staff member, and Richard F. Wambach, assistant to counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The first witness is the Honorable Joe T. Patterson, the attorney general of the State of Mississippi.

Mr. Patterson, we would like to have your views, sir, on the desirability and the constitutionality of these bills.

STATEMENT OF JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Senator Eastland, and gentlemen of the committee. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the committee for affording me an opportunity to appear here in opposition to these pending bills.

I can fully appreciate how busy this committee is at this time at this session of the Congress, having been an employee of the Senate here a good many years ago myself and, for the sake of brevity, I shall address my remarks to the recent proposals submitted to the Congress by the United States Attorney General Brownell and the bills that have been introduced in support thereof, and what I propose to say with reference to the 4-point civil rights program, as it has been designated, of course, is equally applicable to all other bills of similar import.

Viewing the "4-point civil rights program" as proposed by the United States Attorney General, as a whole, and taking into consideration the guiding question that should control in the consideration of such far-reaching legislation-that is-whether such legislation is needed to accomplish the stated purpose of same? We can come to only one conclusion, and that is, that all 4 proposals are wholly unnecessary, in addition to the fact that all 4 proposals strike once again at the rights reserved unto the States by the 10th amendment, and constitutes another broad step toward the centralization of power in the Federal Government to the exclusion of the rights of the State.

1. Let us view the first proposal, and S. 3605-"To establish a bipartisan Commission on Civil Rights in the executive branch of the Government." The duties of the Commission as set forth in the bill are far beyond the capacity of 6 members to accomplish in 2 years, which is the life of the Commission according to the bill. In my humble judgment, the task assigned to this 6-member Commission by the bill could not be accomplished by 6 men, regardless of ability, in 8 or 10 years. Having served two terms in the legislature of my State, and having observed a similar trend in Congress, I learned long ago that the creation of a "temporary" commission or bureau by a State legislature, or the Congress, is in fact the birth of another permanent commission or bureau.

Every duty imposed upon the proposed Civil Rights Commission can now be accomplished under existing Federal or State laws.

Practically all of the duties imposed upon the proposed Commission are properly the prerogative of Congress and State Legislatures, and not of a commission in the executive branch of the Government.

Moreover, the creation of this Commission for the stated purposes would set up in the executive branch of the Government a source of harassment to the States in the administration of their laws. and a constant source of harassment to the executive branch of the Federal Government by those who are going to feel that this Commission is being provided for their sole benefit, to the exclusion of all others. At the very beginning, if the President does not appoint members of this Commission who have previously demonstrated complete sympathy and accord with the views and wishes of those well-organized groups that are responsible for this proposed legislation, he will immediately have the wrath of these groups brought down upon his head, and be accused of not being in sympathy with his own recommendation.

Regardless of party affiliation, regardless of the party in power, I think we can all agree that the creation of this Commission, for the purposes stated in the bill, will be the establishemnt in the executive branch of the Federal Government one of the greatest sources of political harassment that the Executive has ever had to contend with, and in my opinion it already has more than its just share of that to contend with.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the point in it? Our people are law abiding are they not?

Mr. PATTERSON. Definitely so, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. And races get a square deal, do they not?

Mr. PATTERSON. This would just be a source of harassment to those States that the record shows are law abiding, which I shall attempt to point out briefly as I go along, with my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. PATTERSON. 2. The second proposal: "Creation of a new Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, under an Assistant Attorney General, to facilitate enforcement of civil-rights statutes. The Attorney General said he anticipates a flow of litigation from the Supreme Court's ban on race segregation in public schools."

As I understand this proposal, it would create in the Department of Justice a "new Civil Rights Division" under an Assistant Attorney General appointed by the President, which would give to this Division the status of being one step from that of Cabinet rank.

The proposals that follow the recommendation of the creation of a new Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department clearly show that it is the desire of the Attorney General to completely take over the supervision and enforcement of all so-called civil rights legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Does it not also show that he desires to move in on the States?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir, definitely.

The CHAIRMAN. And the expression of State sovereignty?

Mr. PATTERSON. Under the recent decisions on the question of supersession, I presume they would strike all of the State legislation on all such matters.

The creation of a Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department under an Assistant Attorney General, and amending existing laws to give to this assistant the power and authority as recommended, would create an even greater source of harassment to the States and their law-enforcement agencies than the creation of a Commission on Civil Rights.

The creation of a new Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, clothed with the authority that is requested, presupposes the fact that the United States district courts throughout the country, and especially the State courts, have wholly failed to take proper cognizance of the civil rights of its citizens, regardless of race, and have not and will not see to it that the constitutional rights of its citizens are properly protected. After all, so-called civil rights cannot rise any higher than those rights conferred upon a citizenship by the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the respective States. The records of the United States district courts and of the State courts do not warrant any such assumption.

3. The Attorney General proposes an "Amendment to existing law to make it a crime for any person to use intimidation, threat, or coercion to deprive anyone of his rights to vote for candidates for Federal office. At present, Federal statutes aimed at preventing deprivations of voting rights reach only State officials and not private individuals."

That is the statement of the United States Attorney General. In the first place, existing Federal and State statutes are fully adequate to protect the citizen against "intimidation, threat or coercion to deprive anyone of his right to vote for candidates" for both Federal and State office.

Section 1985 of title 42, United States Code Annotated, affords full protection of the right of a citizen to vote for President, Vice President, and Members of Congress of the United States.

It is wholly unfair to the United States district courts and the United States district attorneys throughout the country to assume that they have ignored this statute and have wholly failed to enforce same. Moreover, every State in the Union has statutes making it a crime. "for any person to use intimidation, threat, or coercion to deprive anyone of his right to vote for candidates" for any office, State or Federal.

The CHAIRMAN. Those statutes are enforced within the States? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir.

As far back as 1848 the State of Mississippi had statutes making it a crime to intimidate electors in seeking to exercise their rights to vote.

Section 2032 of the present, Mississippi Code of 1942 provides:

Whoever shall procure, or endeavor to procure, the vote of any elector, or the influence of any person over other electors, at any election, for himself or any candidate, by means of violence, threats of violence, or threats of withdrawing custom, or dealing in business or trade, or of enforcing the payment of a debt, or of bringing a suit or criminal prosecution, or by any other threat or injury to be inflicted by him, or by his means, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both.

Section 2106 of the present Mississippi Code of 1942 (Annotated) provides:

If any person shall, by illegal force, or threats of force, prevent, or endeavor to prevent, any elector from giving his vote, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding two years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both.

We submit that it is wholly unfair to the courts of Mississippi to assume that they will not enforce the above-quoted statutes. However, the request of the Attorney General that "he be authorized to bring injunction or other civil proceedings on behalf of the United States or the aggrieved person in any case covered by the broadened statute," and his further surprising request "for elimination of the requirement that all State administrative and judicial remedies must be exhausted before access can be had to the Federal Court," is to assume that State administrative and judicial processes have broken down and wholly failed to meet their responsibilities under the law.

If it is to be assumed that State courts have so completely failed in the field of civil rights, then it is reasonable to assume that they have at least partially failed in their responsibilities in all other matters, and if the proposed legislation creating a Civil Rights Commission in the executive branch of the Federal Government, and a Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department of the Federal Government, has become necessary on account of the failure of the State judges and other court officials to live up to their solemn oath of office, then it is reasonable to assume that they have failed all up and down the line in the discharge of their duties, and have, therefore, ceased to accomplish their mission; and in order to correct this, another commission should be created in the executive branch of the Federal Government and another division created in the Justice Department of the Federal Government, to investigate, supervise, and direct on behalf of the Federal Government, or the individual concerned, in all matters that might come under the jurisdiction of State courts.

4. The fourth proposal of the Attorney General to amend "existing statutes so as to give the Attorney General power to bring civil action against any conspiracy involving use of hoods or other disguises to deprive any citizen of equal treatment under law," so as to "allow the Attorney General to bring proceedings on the Government's behalf," is wholly unnecessary and places the Federal Government in the courts as the complaining party instead of the aggrieved person, who certainly should properly bring his own suits.

Why should all the power and prestige of the Federal Government be thrown behind just one particular type of litigation on behalf of an aggrieved person? Isn't it reasonable to assume that if an aggrieved person really has a just cause of action that he could stand on his own in Federal or State court, without the Federal Government

taking over for him? I again repeat, if the Federal Government is to take over so completely in this particular field commonly called civil rights, then is it not reasonable to assume that the precedent has been set for the Federal Government to take over in any other field of law enforcement that it might deem expedient to do?

Such a course is bound to culminate in virtually the entire field of law enforcement being taken over by the Federal Government, and in reducing the State courts to mediocrity. Certainly, no justification for such a course can be found in the Constitution of the United States. Certainly, no such course can be justified if the States are to continue to be recognized as sovereign States.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the "Four-point civil-rights program" as recommended by the United States Attorney General, is aimed directly at one section of the United States; however, I think that it would be well to consider the effect that such broad and sweeping authority conferred upon the Department of Justice might have upon every State in the Union, because the authority and power conferred upon the Department of Justice by these proposals can be exercised and brought to bear upon the people of the States of New York and California as well as upon the people of Mississippi and Georgia.

The right kind of thinking people in every State, regardless of location, concede that members of so-called minority races are entitled to have their rights as guaranteed to them by the Federal and State constitutions properly protected; however, I have never found any one from any State in this Union-and from 312 years in the Army, I had the opportunity to know and be with boys from every sectionI never have found one yet that felt that the so-called minority groups had paramount rights to the exclusion of the majority.

Speaking for the State of Mississippi and its fine people, the record wholly fails to show where the people of Mississippi have ignored the civil rights of the Negro race, which up until only a few years. ago constituted 50 percent of its population, and in some particular localities the Negro population exceeded the white population as high as 10 to 1.

A spirit of understanding and good will has existed between the white and colored races in the State of Mississippi for more than 100 years, and each race has prospered and gone forward side by side in an atmosphere of sympathy, understanding, and good will.

The charge of economic pressure being brought upon members of the Negro race by the people of Mississippi is unfounded and wholly refuted by the number of prosperous business and professional members of the Negro race in Mississippi. If an unbiased investigator wants to get at the truth of this charge of economic pressure, he has only to go to the banks, the mercantile establishments and other leading businessmen and make inquiry as to the credit rating of these reliable and well-to-do members of the Negro race.

An unbiased investigator has only to look at the farms and different business enterprises owned exclusively, and operated by, members of the Negro race, to arrive at the conclusion that a member of the Negro race can prosper in the State of Mississippi and be protected in his right to do so.

As heretofore stated, the request of the United States Attorney General "for elimination of the requirement that all State administra