Слике страница
PDF
ePub

succeed abroad, then we must boost private enterprise in every way possible.

It was for this reason that I recommended more than a year ago the establishment of a "businessmen's peace corps" and I am happy to report that this organization, called the Executive Service Corps, is on its way to reality. I also was pleased to note that President Johnson, in his foreign aid message, cited the corps as the key move to expand private initiative in the United States and the developing countries.

As any exercise in private enterprise should be, the corps will be a businessman's organization, with the Government serving only in an advisory capacity. Retired, semiretired, and midcareer businessmen will be offered the opportunity to volunteer their skills and knowhow in private enterprise abroad. Corps members will work directly for businessmen overseas, thus avoiding again the government-to-government approach.

The Executive Service Corps, when fully operative, is going to bring about substantial reductions in our foreign aid requirements, simply because the boost

in private enterprise will reduce the need for help from outside. Private enterprise accounts for our power and prosperity in the United States today. By exporting this great American dreamwith businessman helping businessmanwe will not only lift living standards, but point the way to freedom and to freedom and strength.

THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN AID

MESSAGE

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from New York without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, first, I should like to make a comment upon the President's foreign aid message, because for many years, both in the House and in this body, I have been deeply concerned with this program.

It seems to me we are near a path of disaster for foreign aid if we pursue the line of continually treating it as if it were a tentative program, as subject to an overhauling and reevaluation that has not yet been made.

As I have stated before, I think it is the best defense we have against communism, and that it must be vigorously pursued.

I do not agree with those who think the program is a failure. There have been instances of need for correction in one place or another, but foreign aid has been a success in great measure, and is largely responsible for keeping the world where it should be-on the side of the free.

posal, and not come in later with a reevaluation or reorientation. In this way evaluation or reorientation. In this way the Congress could inaugurate a new program rather than continue to labor under the idea that we are acting tentatively and that we will throw foreign aid whatever bones are necessary to keep it going, but that we will really have a program later on. That is the real danger to the present program.

I say this at the same time that I hail the President's recommendations on use of the free-enterprise system in foreign aid. aid. If the President wants a line on which to overhaul and change the prowhich to overhaul and change the program, that is the line. He ought to embark on it and use it as an aspect of the Executive Service Corps, about which the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE] had something to say.

In this approach there are also guarantees of housing loans in Latin America and the advisory committee on the private enterprise system which is to be made available. All this can be highly effective in meeting the great needs. Technical assistance is available

warm and penetrating piece by Bruce Catton into the character and personality of John F. Kennedy that gives us an even greater appreciation of him.

This excellent article, which serves as an introduction to the book, tells how President Kennedy "personified youth and vigor," how he came to symbolize change in our Nation; "we began to look ahead once more and to realize that it was not only possible but imperative to think about the limitless future."

In the perceptive words of Mr. Catton, "What President John F. Kennedy left us was most of all an attitude." In President Kennedy's wonderful words from his classic inaugural address

Let the word go forth from this time and place to friend and foe alike that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed.

And because of my own abiding and expanding interest and respect for the

from the private sector, which the de- youth of our Nation, our great resource

veloping nations so urgently require.

The Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise Participation resulted from an amendment which I sponsored. I am glad the President is "picking up that ball." But it was done 3 months ago, ball." But it was done 3 months ago, and nothing has happened yet. The Committee is required to report by the end of 1964. This is true of many other aspects about the use of the private enterprise system.

I think we are coming dangerously close to shortchanging the foreign aid program, which will always be needed in the public sector, to a considerable extent, no matter how much private enterprise participates.

We are coming close to materially endangering it, probably disastrously, because of the tentative character of the way we approach this problem, with the attitude of "just wait; we will bring something in."

So, much as I commend the President for what he is seeking to do to save the program, I hope he will go further and count on a program heavily premised upon the private sector as well as the public sector and bring it to Congress in connection with the message on the subject, instead of leaving the bill on foreign aid on a tentative basis, as was done last

[blocks in formation]

I say this because of the President's message. If we continue to temporize THE CHARACTER AND PERSONAL

with reevaluation and overhauling, it will hurt the program, even though the President is now asking that we provide the minimal amount he, himself, could possibly ask for.

I hope, when hearings are held, that the administration will make a firm pro

ITY OF JOHN F. KENNEDY Mr. PELL. Mr. President, while glancing through a book entitled "Four Days" published by the United Press International and the American Heritage magazine about the assassination of President Kennedy, I came across a

for the future, I feel it fitting that these good words about President Kennedy by Mr. Catton should be called to the attention of the Congress and the Nation. article be printed in the RECORD. I ask unanimous consent to move this

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

"FOUR DAYS"

(Introduction by Bruce Catton) What John F. Kennedy left us was most of all an attitude. To put it in the simplest terms, he looked ahead. He knew no more than anyone else what the future was going to be like, but he did know that that was where we ought to be looking. Only to a limited extent are we prisoners of the past. The future sets us free. It is our escape hatch. We can shape it to our liking, and we had better start thinking about how we would like it.

It was time for us to take that attitude, because we thought we were growing old. We had lived through hard experiences and we were tired, and out of our weariness came

caution, suspicion, and the crippling desire to play it safe. We became so worried about what we had to lose that we never began to and sometimes it looked as if we were bethink about what was still to be gained, coming a nation of fuddy-duddies. world was moving faster than ever before and we were beginning to regret that it was moving at all because we were afraid where it might take us.

The

But President Kennedy personified youth and vigor-and perhaps it was symbolic that both his friends and his foes picked up his Boston accent and began to say "vigah." He went about hatless, he liked to mingle with crowds and shake the hands of all and sundry, for recreation he played touch football, and for rest he sat in an old-fashioned rocking chair as if in sly mockery of his own exuberance. He seemed to think that things like music and painting and literature were essential parts of American life and that it was worthwhile to know what the musicians and artists and writers were doing. Whatever he did was done with zest, as if youth were for the first time touching life and finding it exciting.

of outlook. By itself, vigor is not enough. With all of this there was a cool maturity Courage is needed also, and when youth has courage it acquires composure. In the

most perilous moments President Kennedy kept his poise. He challenged the power of darkness at least once, and during the hours when his hand had to stay close to the fateful trigger he was composed and unafraid. Once in a great while a nation, like a man, has to be ready to spend itself utterly for some value that means more than survival itself means. President Kennedy led us through such a time, and we began to see that the power of darkness is perhaps not quite as strong as we had supposed-and

that even if it were, there is something else that matters much more.

It was his attitude that made the difference. Performance can be adjudged in various ways, and we have plenty of time to appraise the value or the lack of value of the concrete achievements of the Kennedy administration. The President who called on us to stop thinking about what our country what we could do for our country may or may not have given us specific programs that would embody that ideal in actual practice; the point is that he wrenched us out of ourselves and compelled us to meditate about the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. From the beginning, the whole of our American experiment has been made up of an infinite number of aspirations and unremembered bits of heroism, devotion, and hope, lodged in the hearts of innumerable separate Americans. When all of these are brought together, the Nation goes forward.

could do for us and to think instead about

That, in the last analysis, is the faith America has wanted to live by. We are always uneasy when we find ourselves keeping our noblest ideals in mothballs, carefully

shielded from contact with the workaday world; deep in our hearts we know that we are supposed to take them out and work for them even if contact with harsh reality occasionally knocks chips off of them here and there. Whether this man knew the best ways to put our ideals into practical use is a sec

ondary consideration now. He did think

that we ought to try our best to do something about them, and that belief his death did not take away from us, because we came to share in it.

We turned some sort of corner in the last few years. Almost without our knowing it, one era came to an end and a new one began. The change had little to do with formal acts of government-with specific programs, bits of legislation, or exercises of Presidential power. It reflected a change in the times themselves. For a whole generation we had had to face terrible immediate problemsdepression, war, cold war, the infinite destructive power of the nuclear mystery that we knew how to release but did not quite know how to control. Then came a breathing spell, a faint but definite easing of the tensions. Almost for the first moment in our lifetimes we began to look ahead once more and to realize that it was not only possible but imperative to think about the lim. itless future rather than about the mere problem of warding off disaster.

President Kennedy came to symbolize that moment of change, not because he caused it but because he fitted into it; not because of what he did but simply because of what he was. He might almost have been speaking from Shakespeare's text, telling us that being ready is what really matters-being ready to meet any challenge, to assume any responsibility, to lose fear for ourselves in an abiding concern for the common good. The 4 harrowing days that began on November 22, 1963, brought us face to face with the future. What happens next is up to us. The readiness is all.

That is why those 4 days are worth reexamining. We relive that time of tragedy less to commemorate a departed President than to dedicate ourselves. When the Army bugler sent the haunting notes of "Taps" across that grave in Arlington Cemetery he

sounded a long goodbye and a commitment to eternal rest for John F. Kennedy. For all the rest of us, that was the trumpet of dawn itself.

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT

JOHN F. KENNEDY

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, there apparently is no further business under the "morning hour," so I will get on with

my speech.

Much has been said and written about the tragic event that took the life of President Kennedy. Much of it has been good, much of it has been hysterical. By the same token, much has been written and said about the city of Dallas, where fate decreed that a bullet fired from ambush by a confirmed Marxist should find its target.

The American people are fortunate in that, while we have gloryseekers and muckrakers among those who report the news and explain its meaning, we also have able and conscientious men and women who honestly want the truth to be known. To these dedicated persons we are all indebted.

Recently, two articles have been published which I believe deserve special recognition by the Senate and by the American people. American people. One was written by the distinguished columnist Eric Sevareid, one of our most discerning report

ers and commentators. His story appeared recently in the Washington Star and many other papers. The other article was written by Larry Grove, an award-winning reporter with the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Grove's article was accepted for publication in the Quill, the official publication of Sigma Delta Chi, the professional journalism society. I commend both articles to Senators, particularly those who have been prone to heap scorn on Dallas, and on Texas, because of the evil deed of an avowed, and itinerant, Marxist.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these two articles printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DALLAS REACHES THE AWKWARD AGE-RECENT EVENTS BLAMED ON RETENTION OF SMALLTOWN EASINESS IN BIG CITY

(By Eric Sevareid)

The sense of civic pride, like the sense of nationality, becomes part of a man's personality in this life. When news came of the absurd county jail break, a friend in Dallas said to me with a groan, "They hated us last November, now they will laugh at us."

People are just people. In no fundamental sense whatsoever are the people of Dallas, Tex., different from other Americans, though their professional boosters at times like to think they are. What happened to Dallas is that the principle of randomness in nature-including human nature-caught up with them. It is the principle that makes events come in clusters, from the grouping of the galaxies to the run of luck at poker.

The murder of President Kennedy led to the murder of Oswald, which led to the trial of Ruby which led to the jail break. "People will think," said my stricken friend, "that we just can't do anything right."

But Dallas has done many things right, and some things much better than some other American cities, including, it may be

argued, its handling of the most difficult civic problem extant-the process of racial integration. Racial hostility is certainly there, but it hardly compares with the massive, sullen hatred developing in New York or Chicago. Dallas has more than enough of crime, but nothing like New York, where the nightly, nonfatal shootings and stabbings are so numerous they do not even make the papers. It has acquired more than its share of those bitter little political hate groups, and one reason they stand out so sharply is

that they exist in the middle of a human climate that is breezy and openhanded in the

best tradition of western friendliness.

And this brings one to the specific practicalities of why Dallas, or Dallas officialdom at least, has done some things wrong, at critical moments, unfortunately, of her civic history. The mistakes were not due to corruption; they were not due to laziness or ignorance.

They were a direct result of this same western casual, smalltown easiness of nature. The "Big D" is a metropolis in body, but not yet in spirit. It got big too quickly for that. It doesn't want to part with the chummy, blackslapping, first-naming spirit of its youthful Main Street days, and I can't say that I blame it. With sophistication goes formalities; Dallas wants the former but instinctively resists the latter.

By the book, a city hall or a county court

house ought to be centers of formality, rules, and-if possible-dignity. In a mediumsized western city they become centers of informality. The nickname camaraderie around the Ruby courtroom both beguiles and astounds the European journalists cov

ering the trial.

To go back to the beginning when the law of randomness caught up with Dallas; when the first policemen to rush into the Book Depository Buildings saw Oswald sitting in the refectory, of course the man in charge said, "He's OK, he works here." And of course, for the policeman, that was enough.

When the press and cameramen wanted a look at Oswald during his transfer from the city jail, of course the chief of police wanted to be accommodating. When Jack Ruby joined the throng, of course the officers let him stay; what was familiar was okay. The courthouse jailer who failed to lock the door behind him, I can't fully explain; I suspect those desperadoes had become familiars, too; he probably called them "the boys."

Dallas wants the rewards of big cityness, but it doesn't want to pay the penalties. One of the certain penalties is the sacrifice of cozy good-fellowship in high places. The police chief who was in office last November 24th is still in office. Everybody likes him as a decent man. Everybody likes Sheriff Bill Decker, too. On the evening of the county jail break, while two or three of the criminals were still at large, Sheriff Bill took his wife out to dinner as he had promised.

The newspaper accounts next morning seemed to take this as a reassuring sign of steady calm.

Dallas has reached the awkward age. It's part boy, part adult; and at the awkward age, very awkward things happen.

[From the Quill, March 1964] DID PRESS PRESSURE KILL OSWALD? (By Larry Grove)

If it matters, as a preface to this pieceand perhaps it might-my personal politics are liberal. And, like many other reporters, I often quarrel with editorials appearing in the newspaper I work for.

I'm neither a native of Texas, nor a police beat reporter. I'm not overly sensitive to criticism fired at the State of Texas.

What I mean is, I can take the Alamo or leave it.

I have never managed to get a traffic ticket fixed. And, so far as I know, our family has never produced a policeman.

And now, Quill, the magazine for journalists, has asked me to explore the question: "Did Press Pressure Kill Lee Harvey Oswald?"

From repetition alone, the question is one that should be explored-and, if possible, answered.

The American Civil Liberties Union bulletin charged in its January issue that the killing is "directly related to police capitulation to the glare of publicity." And further, that police in Dallas "arranged Oswald's transfer from the city to county jail to suit the convenience of the news media—and thereby exposed Oswald to the very dangers which took his life."

Cleveland Amory, in the January 4 Saturday Review, made almost the same point with the comment that "if we can try to get on the moon, surely we can guard a man in a motorcade ***. As for the aftermath in the Dallas station's subbasement, Dallas as a city will live it down; but for the police force, it's hard to find words that are, shall we say, subadequate ***. It is high time to take a long critical look at the often suprapolice powers of the ladies and gentlemen of the pressure."

It may be difficult to see how getting to the moon has anything at all to do with the difficulty of guarding a man in a motor

We have it on authority of a high Secret Service official that it is impossible to prevent an assassin from killing a President riding in an open car.

As a rider in the motorcade that President Kennedy rode in Dallas on November 22, 1963, it would be my opinion that any of the estimated 300,000 persons lining the motorcade route could have killed the President had they been willing to trade their lives for his.

But Mr. Amory's insistence on the examination of suprapolice powers of the press still is in order.

A logical start might be: What kind of pressure?

The man who drew the most criticism was Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. As near as words in news media can come to it, Curry was drawn and quartered.

Curry told me:

"I think it was pretty obvious to everybody that there was a lot of pressure. There was no direct pressure, but there were pointed

requests that the press should be allowed to see Oswald, the man who shot the President.

"Think what the American Civil Liberties people would have said if the press had not been allowed to see Lee Harvey Oswald.

"Some of the newsmen-and I don't mean the local reporters-were rather insistent. "They were like a pack of animals. "The pressure wasn't directly on me. But misrepresented reports and snide comments on television began to create an atmosphere that Dallas was to blame, as a city, for the death of the President.

"Had we kept news media away from Oswald, they were all too ready to accuse us of running a police state, a Gestapo."

(A television newsman, shortly after Oswald was captured showed a photograph and said "This is what Lee Harvey Oswald looks like." He made a point of correcting himself to say the picture showed what Oswald did look like and we don't know what he looks like now after 3 hours in the custody of Dallas police.)

Even Voice of America was telling the world that Dallas, Tex., was a center of extreme rightwing activity. This was a theme that caught on.

Radios and television sets and newspapers bristled with conclusions that the shooting "had to happen" in Dallas. Because, because, well, hell, because there was a vocal rightwing in Dallas.

Strangely, this did not stop even after the killer proved to be an avowed Marxist, who had given up his citizenship in Russia as a means of expressing his contempt of the U.S.A., one who had taken a Russian bride, and, months before, had ordered the rifle he used to kill the President.

On another day, the statements and the jumping-at-conclusions may have been merely libelous. On the emotion-packed afternoon and evening of November 22, 1963, the careless indictments could easily have led to a bloody pogrom had not cooler heads in the news craft and cautious police work prevailed.

Dallas police were being subjected to unmerciful criticism from the time the shots echoed and a saddened world heard the news that the President had been killed.

It happened that this was the police force that had maintained order along a motorcade route lined with 300,000 people clamoring to see their President. Where the Secret Service had asked for 350 Dallas city policemen to assist it, the department put more than 400 at its disposal.

Police helped prevent what could easily have raged into widespread panic when the assassin's shots struck the President and assassin's shots struck the President and Texas Gov. John Connally.

And, 90 minutes after the President was slain, the same Dallas police force had the assassin in custody and safely spirited to jail ahead of a glowering and angry crowd.

One brave policeman, J. D. Tippit, gave his life. Oswald killed him.

Alone, the department by 9:30 p.m. that same November 22 had gathered a mass of evidence that would have convicted Oswald in any court in America.

To reassure the world that Oswald's rights weren't being trampled upon, the prisoner was brought before the live television cameras that evening.

Oswald was sullen, surly. And he looked, for all the world, as he had looked before he was taken into custody by Dallas police.

Even so, an examination of tapes of radio and TV programs and copies of newspapers on the following morning shows a central theme: Dallas, Tex., had killed the President. The police department allowed this to hap

pen.

which its rightwing was allowed to be vocal? What else could one expect in a city in

Overlooked in most of the stories that

developed the theme that Dallas is a mean, mean city were some pertinent facts:

The Secret Service is directly charged with protection of the President. Dallas police gave more help than was asked for.

The FBI was aware that Lee Harvey Oswald-defector, potential assassin, Marxistwas working in a building along the President's motorcade route. It had not notified the Dallas Police Department, nor the Secret Service.

This was part of the evidence which Capt. Will Fritz, chief of the Dallas Police DepartWill Fritz, chief of the Dallas Police Department's homicide bureau knew about, and had questioned Oswald about.

What was the name of an FBI agentJames Hosty-doing in Oswald's notebook? Had this evidence been bared at the time, perhaps some of the police department's detractors may have turned their fire on the FBI. Perhaps they would not have turned their fire at all.

But would the Nation have been prepared, in that hour, to receive the news that the FBI had been aware of Oswald's whereabouts before President Kennedy stepped in his car for his fateful ride in the motorcade?

Police Chief Curry elected to suffer in silence while his city took the worst that irresponsible members of the outside news media could dish out.

The words of John Dryden might apply to some of the words broadcast and written that weekend by men and women who knew the

story they wanted to write and looked only for bits of fact that would justify their conclusions:

"They value not the right or wrong,
Save as it serves their cause.
Their business is to please the throng
And win its loud applause."

Newspaper readers won't have to be reminded that some of the words written during the time of the Nation's agony reached splendid heights. There were words written with heavy hearts by newsmen who loved their President and felt a responsibility to the truth that, they believed deeply, President Kennedy loved.

Journalism also reached some of its sorriest depths.

Bob Considine reviewed the weekend in Dallas this way:

"Yes, and a collection of some of the dumbest cops in the annals of crime-squares in modified 10-gallon hats, the best of whom couldn't make the 6-man force of the Borough of Allenhurst (N.J.) Police Department. They'd be rejected as extras in Mack Sennett's Keystone Comedy Cops."

In another reference, Considine said the 10-gallon hats covered "pin-size" heads in the Dallas Police Department.

No purpose could be served now in reminding Mr. Considine that one of those dumb cops, J. D. Tippit, died trying to capture the assassin of our President. If he doesn't feel cheap already, then, I, personally, feel cheap for my chosen profession.

But a purpose is served with the illustration. Because, regrettably, Considine wasn't alone among the old pros who might have been expected to have been cool-headed professionals in a world that had, temporarily, lost its sense of balance.

A segment of the journalistic profession was painfully slow in giving up its fantasies. One could fill a book with references that should embarrass any fairminded man.

Since Dallas had a vocal rightwing that most reasonable men could honestly despise, wouldn't it be convenient if the evidence didn't point so clearly to a Communist, who had-with premeditation-killed the President?

And wasn't it maddening in some quarters that the pieces of truth that could be found weren't fitting together, in some amorphous way, to segregation?

Drew Pearson was hammering away at the rightwing theme 2 weeks after the tragic weekend.

A New York Herald-Tribune sports story supplied these gems about Dallas. It was, as its headline proclaimed, "a city that don't back no losers." (Honestly, few cities do.) A Dallas barber, unidentified by name, supposedly supplied the quaint quote.

A bylined writer himself supplied the color: a local (Dallas) strip joint was featuring Candy Barr (former Mickey Cohen girl friend) while all this was going on, he wrote.

The stripteaser hadn't performed in Dallas for 4 years.

Those were samples from a heavy file that defiled an American city for no purpose that comes to mind at the moment.

This was the "pressure" of which Police Chief Curry spoke. The Nation is poorer if the press impaired police work because of this pressure.

The newspaper I work for had printed a full-page advertisement on the day of the President's visit that, bitingly I thought, questioned his policies.

At the same time, in an editorial, an editorial cartoon and a feature column, the Dallas Morning News warmly welcomed the President to Dallas.

As a personal matter, I would have enjoyed living immensely if no one at all ever disagreed with President John F. Kennedy.

But to keep the record straight, President Kennedy himself had announced that his visit to Texas was "political."

Would the journalism profession all join in now and abhor a newspaper's right, even the responsibility, to sell advertising to persons or groups with dissident viewpoints?

Would the President have wished an America in which opinion of dissent and questioning of administration policies could find no expression?

In the tortured reasoning that prevailed, the advertisement in the News was found somehow to have caused the President's death. Though it appeared November 22, it prompted nonsubscriber Lee Harvey Oswald, 6 months earlier, to order a weapon to kill the President.

(The News supported Richard Nixon editorially in the 1960 presidential race. But it allowed me and some of my colleagues to buy space and identify ourselves and our personal preference for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. It editorially supported a Democratic candidate in the Governor's race in 1962-John Connally.)

At a time when the Nation and the world sought a scapegoat-a condition not unknown in many other periods of history-the press media might have been expected to have made a stronger appeal to reason. Facts were difficult to come by, and so conjecture was allowed to serve.

Not all of us had the rare opportunity on the century's biggest Presidential story that my energetic colleague, Hugh Aynesworth, had.

Only Aynesworth-among the hundreds of newsmen who converged on Dallas that tragic November weekend-was witness to the three biggest stories:

(1) He eyewitnessed the assassination of President Kennedy from a position in the crowd near the school depository building;

(2) He was one of only three newsmen who went inside the Texas theater with police officers when they arrested the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald; and

(3) He was present when Jack Ruby, a striptease club operator, lunged through a crowd of newsmen and fatally wounded Oswald.

Aynesworth is a vice president of the Sigma Delta Chi chapter in Dallas, the professional society of journalists. He was true to the highest ideals of the profession in his search for facts, and he found them.

Aynesworth was first with valuable exclusive investigative stories including (1) Oswald's testing of his mail-order rifle at the Sportsdome Rifle Range, (2) the discovery and an interview with Ruby's brother who held to his anonymity for a time by refusing to visit the assassin of the man who killed the President, (3) first to unfold the escape route of Oswald before his eventual capture. On the latter story, copyrighted in the Dallas News, I was privileged to work with him. He led the way.

If, for no other reason than his spectacular work and widespread use made of facts he gathered under difficult circumstances, Aynesworth should be allowed an opinion on the topic at hand:

How did press pressure relate to the slaying of Oswald?

Says Aynesworth: "I doubt that many of the newsmen, among the dozen I talked with that weekend, believed police actually would move Oswald during the daylight. Naturally, the television people would have preferred the move to be made during the daytime hours.

"But the story would have been covered well, regardless of the hour Oswald was moved from city jail to county jail.

"Many newsmen remained around the clock, waiting. Many others were staying at the Statler Hilton, just a stone's throw away. "A telephone call would have brought all of them running.

"To say the 'press pressure' was responsible for Oswald's death, I think, is overdrawing a point. It didn't. There is no doubt in my mind that the large numbers of newsmen working the story hindered police.

"My own credentials were checked twice as I passed through the cordon of officers guarding the station. I didn't see Jack Ruby until he brushed through the crowd, pushed a radio newsman aside, and fired the shot into Oswald."

Jim Ewell, regular police reporter for the News, said he is certain the insistence of the press, notably television people, forced the police department to call moves that it would not normally have made.

And the great number of newsmen, he believes, hampered the interrogation of Oswald. "The walls couldn't have held out all the noise from the newsmen standing thick in the hallways. Under anything like normal conditions," Ewell said, "I am sure in my own mind that Capt. Will Fritz would have obtained Oswald's confession.

"I have seen many, many hardened criminals break and confess under the captain's interrogation; Fritz is a thorough, softspoken man."

From another angle, Ewell believes police could have eased the chaotic situation themselves "by appointing a liaison man to brief reporters and prevent their running over the whole place."

There were instances of radio newsmen barging into offices, grabbing police telephones and relating their stories for broadcast in distant cities. Invariably, the broadcast berated the same police department whose officers were extending courtesies.

The same condition-hundreds of competing reporters crowding into small spaces-is facing Judge Joe B. Brown, who, at this writing, is preparing to hear the State's case against Jack Ruby.

Judge Brown saw the possibility of similar chaos, with more newsmen swarming to Dallas to cover the Jack Ruby hearings.

He asked help. The Bloom Advertising The Bloom Advertising Agency, a prominent Dallas public relations firm, took on the chore free and voluntarily.

It's job: assist with seating arrangements

and identification of news media covering

the Jack Ruby preliminary hearings.

And even this has been misinterpreted by some prominent news media. They have written that the judge has hired a firm to handle his publicity. They will insist that their readers see it printed that way; they are writing it that way.

A simple telephone call could have set them straight. Why get the facts when conjecture will serve?

There is a lesson to be learned from the tragic November weekend in Dallas.

And, in one newsman's humble opinion, some members of the press of America have not yet learned it.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of Mr. MANSFIELD that the Senate proceed to consider the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, at the outset of my remarks, I should like to

emphasize that I am not a segregationist. I should like to state further that I believe that the established constitutional rights of all Americans should and must be protected. I wish further to note that I believe that discrimination in hiring, or in serving, or in any other field, is morally wrong when such discrimination is practiced solely because of color. But I submit further that this is a difficult type of immorality to legislate out of existence.

Mr. President, I believe that many people, regardless of their attitude on civil rights, feel that in a number of areas and in a number of ways, this civil rights bill is an out-and-out unconstitutional extension of Federal Government power over the private rights of every single American citizen. This legislation is violative of the constitutional prerogatives of all Americans to live their own private lives and to conduct their own private businesses in accordance with their own individual wishes and desires.

Certain sections of this proposed legislation are today requiring our Nation to face a constitutional crisis. We are now being called upon to determine once again, just as our forefathers determined at an early date in our history, whether a citizen is entitled to own, control, and dispose of private property in this Nation. This is a subject that is completely entwined with our history, our culture, and our future.

The right of a citizen to own property, his ability to produce capital for investment and expansion, the right to be secure in his own property-these are things that place a citizen on a par with government and provide him a means for effectively withstanding the natural trend of Central Government to grow larger and larger at his own expense. If ownership, or control, of a nation's property is lodged in government, it should be quite obvious that the citizen will be utterly dependent upon government for his every want and need. This Nation cannot long survive a completely regimented economy, a completely controlled cultural atmosphere, a completely ordered society.

Mr. President, portions of this civil rights bill, if enacted into law, would be an unconstitutional extension of Federal governmental power over areas which our Constitution has reserved to each State and its people, that is, the power to regulate certain matters within the respective State borders, through duly elected State legislatures.

In the formation of our Constitution, the citizens, acting through their States, apportioned the powers of government in a most unique and providential manner. Instead of delineating certain areas of activity to the citizens, certain powers were set aside for the Central Government. All other powers, as American schoolchildren know, were reserved to the States and to the people. This reservation was not made contingent upon the States or the citizens performing certain acts. The reservations were made, period. Certain areas of government were reserved for the States, to act in, or not act in, as they saw fit.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. President, the Constitution is crystal clear as to the power of the Federal Government in non-Federal matters. There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government in nonFederal matters.

One of the most sacred of constitutional rights which is beyond the power of the Federal Government, is the complete freedom to select, to choose one's own friends and colleagues; and yes, one's own customers in private business. As I have stated, I do not believe in discrimination. I do not propose to pass upon the economic wisdom of a businessman turning business away from his

door. I believe he would be foolish to do so, but in my opinion he has the right to be foolish or wise, as he himself determines.

II. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The right of the individual to own and use private property is a cardinal tenet of American constitutional heritage. In the early years of our history, Justice Chase, speaking in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386, 388 (1798), declared:

There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the Government was establishedthe legislature *** cannot violate * the right of private property.

In American Jurisprudence, section 355, we find the statement that: The right of property is a fundamental, natural, inherent, and inalienable right.

It is not ex gratia-as a matter of grace-from the Legislature, but ex debito in accordance with justice from the Constitution. In fact, it does not cue its origin to the constitutions which protect it, for it existed before them. It is sometimes characterized judicially as a sacred right, the protection of which is one of the most important objects of government. The right of property is very broad and embraces practically all incidents which property may manifest. Within this right are included, states American Jurisprudence, the right to "acquire, hold, enjoy, possess, use, manage, insure, and improve property."

By some, it is proclaimed to be one of

the natural rights of man. Blackstone

wrote:

The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control

or diminution, save only by the laws of the ment to limit the profits of property for land (Blackstone, Commentaries). public purposes.

In the formative years of our Nation, the Supreme Court declared in Vanthe Supreme Court declared in Vanhorne v. Dorrence, 2 Dallas 304, 310 horne v. Dorrence, 2 Dallas 304, 310 (1795):

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and inalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property; Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires;

its security was one of the objects that in

duced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact.

The recognition of the right of private property is said to distinguish the civilized from the primitive man.

The concept of eminent domain should also be mentioned here. This doctrine of the right of the sovereign to take the property of an individual was recognized by the courts subject to two stringent restrictions. The taking must be for a public use, and the owner must be paid just compensation.

Blackstone expresses well this inherent limitation on private property:

So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to

In Kent 2, Commentaries, Lecture 34, yield to that of the community; for it would it is said:

To suppose a state of man prior to the existence of any notions of separate property, when all things were common, and when men, through the world, lived without law or government, in innocence and simplicity, is a mere dream of the imagination. The sense of property is inherent in the human breast, and the general enlargement and cultivation of that sense, from its feeble force in the savage state to its full vigor and maturity among civilized nations, forms a very instructive portion of the history of civil society and government, and the acquisition and enjoyment of property. It is, to speak correctly, the law of his nature; and by obedience to this law, he brings all his faculties into exercise, and is enabled to display the various and exalted powers of

the human mind.

Indeed, Blackstone in book II, chapter 1, ascribes a Biblical sanction to the concept of individual property.

The thesis that the framers of the Constitution were striving primarily in the formation and adoption of the Constitution to safeguard property interests, a thesis so authoritatively documented by Charles A. Beard in "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," 1913, is now generally accepted. So fundamental were the rights of property considered by the Founding Fathers, that property was placed on a par with life and liberty. The fifth amendment reads:

be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or not. Besides the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights, as modeled by the municipal law. In this and similar cases

the legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner; but by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained. The public is now considered as an individual, treating with an individual for an exchange. All that the legislature does is to oblige the owner to alienate his possessions for a reasonable price; and even this is an exertion of power, which the legislature indulges with caution, and which nothing but the legislature can perform (1 Blackstone).

These instances illustrate the fallacy behind an assumption that the right of property is historically an absolute right. The right of property is indeed one of the most sacred of our rights. But it has always been subject to certain welldefined restrictions. The right of property, as the writer Richard Ely has so succinctly stated, is an exclusive, but not an absolute right.

The words of the Court in Loan Association v. Topeka (20 Dallas 665, 662663 (1875)) are relevant here:

It must be conceded that there are such

Nor shall (any person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of rights in every free government beyond the law.

The framers of the 14th amendment continued this juristic tradition, of incorporating guarantees of property in the Constitution itself, by including an identical prohibition on State action. See Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 112, 141 (1877).

Yet as the old common law rules on property show, the law has always balanced the right of the individual to the free and untrammeled use of his property against the interests of society.

Thus the doctrine of nuisances evolved.

A man is free to use his property as he sees fit only to the extent that he does not do so to the injury of others.

The power of the Government to tax property or the profits thereof is itself a recognition of the rights of the Govern

control of the State. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute dis

position and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is nonetheless a despotism.

There are limitations on such power which grow out of the essential nature of all free governments. Implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social com

pact could not exist.

A great part of our legal and political history is the story of the shifting of the balance between the broader demands and interests of the community on the one hand, and the individual rights and privileges of private property on the other. The development of American

« ПретходнаНастави »