CIVIL RIGHTS PROPOSALS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1956

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

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2:40 p. m., in room 424 Senate Office Building.

Present: Senator James O. Eastland.

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

Mr. Young. We are recommencing today the testimony of Mr. Horace Wimberly, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas, on civil rights bills before the full Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Wimberly opened his statement yesterday, but because of the calls on the floor, the hearing was adjourned until 2: 30 today. Are you prepared to resume your statement, Mr. Wimberly? Mr. WIMBERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF HORACE WIMBERLY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS-Resumed

Mr. WIMBERLY. I concluded yesterday afternoon by reading a letter I brought with me from John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General of Texas.

In addition to these basic and fundamental principles set forth by our attorney general. I would like to express some particular and detailed observations as to legal problems inherent in the civil rights proposals now before Congress, most of which I understand to be assigned to this committee for study.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 to establish Joint Committee on Civil Rights: There is no need for this legislation. There are countless committees and organizations throughout the country handling this type problem under both public and private auspices. Such a committee would be a wasteful duplication.

There is a lack of safeguards against the committee being at some time "stacked" with members of both parties who have a political axe to grind against a given section.

This bill does not provide a time limit for the filling of vacancies on the committee, thus raising the possibility of an abnormal ratio in party representation being allowed to exist for a considerable length of time.

The power of subpoena is too broad. The possibility of requiring the presence of any citizen in the country to appear at hearings per

haps several thousand miles distant, without mention of reimbursement for expenses thus incurred, in order to answer any charge whatever, no matter how ridiculous. It would also enable the committee to subpena books, papers, and documents belonging to the States without the States' consent, thus infringing upon their freedom of action, and perhaps retaining these books, papers, and documents for an indefinite period of time when they might be necessary for the functioning of the State. Thus, the committee could indefinitely impound in Washington the entire records of the State of Texas, if the committee "deems it advisable." There is no limitation other than the discretion of a possibly "stacked" committee in its own subpena

powers.

There is no restriction on the use of funds other than the discretion of the committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 29, Proposing constitutional amendment to abolish Poll Tax, etc., as qualification for voting: This would deprive the State of a revenue source. In Texas most of this revenue goes to the school children.

It would make registration fraud easier, and detection thereof more difficult.

S. 900, Federal antilynching bill: The title of this bill is a misnomer. This is far more than an "Antilynching Act."

It makes violence against an individual violence against a group; thus, violence against a white, Germanic Baptist is violence against all these groups.

Mob violence is violence, pure and simple, regardless of the individual's group classification. This bill merely restates State law. Usurpation by individuals of State police powers is already illegal.

Under this bill, failure of the State to secure a conviction in a lynch case makes the lynching the act of the State. Does this then make it liable for damages, etc.?

Lynching is illegal, and merely one of many illegal acts. Does every illegal act in the United States therefore "discredit this country among the nations of the world," and "render it imperative that Congress permit no such acts"? This would declare Congress' responsibility to prevent all murders, felonies, misdemeanors, and civil suits arising thereunder.

Have "the United Nations Charter and the law of nations" come to assume so great a role in domestic criminal actions as to necessitate their inclusion as authority in a bill of this nature?

This bill is also unconstitutional, in that the Federal Government may protect the State against "domestic violence" only at the request of the legislature or the executive. (Art. IV, sec. 4, United States Constitution.)

Must the Ú. N. Charter be invoked to effect these ends? I was under the impression that the United States Constitution does a pretty good job of this.

A person has no more national right to be free from lynching than he has the right to be free from other forms of murder. The Government can only apprehend the criminals who commit such acts and institute various preventive measures. Each State is doing a good law-enforcement job in this field of State responsibility.

The definition of a lynch mob in this bill is far too broad. The term "attempt to commit violence" allows of far too broad interpretation.

Who is to determine whether or not violence is committed because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or religion? Almost any two people in the United States belong to different groups insofar as at least one of these classifications is concerned. Therefore, almost every act, or attempted act, of violence committed by two or more people against another, would have to be investigated to determine whether or not this is the cause. This would in effect transfer almost all criminal jurisdiction into the Federal courts.

What does "incite" mean? Would it cover such remarks as "This man needs executing" to a friend, come within the meaning of “incite"?

What constitutes "mental injury"? Does calling someone of another group a "sorry so and so," etc., constitute "mental injury"? Such a remark is certainly likely to mentally upset the individual. It is conceivable that such a statement could be classified as causing "serious mental injury" and result in 20 years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. This is an absurd provision.

The penalties are far too heavy for what might well be trivial offenses.

There are already State laws dealing with murder, maiming, etc. It is unnecessary for the Federal Government to enter the field.

By the new doctrine of Federal preemption-such as the Pennsylvania sedition case-Federal legislation in the entire criminal field might preempt the entire criminal laws being voided and a national criminal code, changing our Nation into a "police state."

This would result in constant Federal supervision of every local law enforcement officer.

This bill is utterly superfluous. A kidnaping across State lines is just that, regardless of the nature of the individual kidnaped, or the groups to which he belongs, or the reasons for his kidnaping.

This bill would remove virtually all civil suits into the Federal courts, for the same reason given above in regard to criminal actions. It authorizes suits against the States, in violation of the 11th amend

ment.

It places the burden of proof on the law enforcement officers, who must prove that they used "all diligence and all powers vested in them," rather than on the prosecutor to prove otherwise.

The minimum limit of a civil judgment is unheard of to begin with and far too high when trivial incidents may be involved.

The trial of cases under this bill could be conducted in places other than the Federal courtroom, suggesting many possibilities of trial in places too small to admit of reporters and general public, too remote,

etc.

The time of limitation is too long and would permit nuisance or malice charges brought long after the event.

S. 901, Federal anti-poll-tax bill: This bill would deprive the State of a revenue source, would make registration fraud easier, and detection thereof more difficult. This bill is unconstitutional as it violates article I, section 2, which allows the States to prescribe the requirements of suffrage.

S. 902, bill to add Assistant Attorney General to Justice Department to enforce civil rights: No need for such addition.

This bill provides for a wasteful increase in the Department of Justice and FBI, when a need therefor is not shown.

It would allow increased meddling in State affairs and affairs under the jurisdiction of the State by an increasingly imposing Federal police.

S. 903, bill to make Federal offense any interference with voting: This act is superfluous, since it is merely a restatement of case law. It would allow prosecution by the United States Attorney General of large numbers of nuisance and malice suits.

S. 904, bill against peonage, slavery, etc.: This act is totally unnecessary in the present day and time. What does "attempt" include? This could allow of too broad interpretation, and it would give rise to the necessity of determining a man's thoughts and intent, even when no criminal action had taken place.

S. 905, bill to supplement civil-rights laws: This is mainly a restatement of case and statute law and is utterly superfluous.

S. 906, bill to establish a Commission on Čivil Rights: The purported findings are unwarranted. No need for such commission has been established, as other agencies, public and private, carry on such work.

Review of action detrimental to civil rights by private individuals is unnecessary, as the Congress, under the 14th amendment, may only legislate against State action.

The discretion of the Commission is the only limitation on the objects on which its moneys are spent.

The subpena power in this bill is too broad. It is conceivable that a State governor could be subpenaed and retained indefinitely to the detriment of State affairs, and his refusal to appear could result in a district court citing him for contempt.

S. 907, general civil-rights bill inclusive of many topics: Title I is identical to S. 906; title II is identical to S. 902; title III is identical to Senate Concurrent Resolution 8; title IV is identical to S. 905; title V is identical to S. 903; title VI is identical to S. 904; title VII is largely a restatement of case law. Segregation in interstate commerce has already been struck down.

S. 3415, bill to establish FEPC: This is nothing more than FEPC with a new name. There is no need shown.

It would be wasteful, as there are already many public and private organizations doing the same work.

Federal intervention is not necessary in formulating plans to promote civil rights.

It smacks too much of a propaganda agency.

Its investigation powers are so broad that it may interfere with and interrupt any individual's business upon nuisance or malice charges being brought.

The subpena power is too broad. The same criticism is due in this case as in Senate Concurrent Resolution 8.

There is no need shown for financial assistance to a State civilrights commission. The States desiring such a commission are financially able to pay for it themselves.

S. 3604, bill to appoint additional Assistant Attorney General: No need shown for an additional Assistant Attorney General.

S. 3717, bill to authorize Federal Government to prosecute civil suits for persons making civil-rights complaints: This would furnish the resources of the Federal legal branch as counsel for individuals. No need shown.