Слике страница
PDF
ePub

pathy of the United States for all oppressed
peoples in foreign countries has been freely
manifested in all cases where it could be
done in accordance with the spirit of inter-
national courtesy and diplomatic usage."

In the next two decades the United States
protested no fewer than nine times against
the czarist Russian Government's repressive
acts and persecution of Jews. These pro-
tests, backed by the American people and by
resolutions of the Congress culminated in
1911 when President Taft terminated the
treaty of commerce with Russia which had
been in effect since 1832. President Taft took
this action over the advice of the State De-
partment which warned that abrogation of
the treaty would have serious effects on the
Nation's commercial relations with the Rus-
sian Empire in addition to larger political
considerations.

The United States has protested action
against Jews by Rumania, the Austro-Hun-
garian Empire, Italy, and Poland. The record
of U.S. protests to the Nazi government
should still be fresh in our minds. Secretary
Cordell Hull recorded in his memoirs that "I
found myself calling in the German Ambas-
sador time after time to protest against vio-
lations of the rights of our citizens, against
persecution of the Jews, and against mis-
treatment of Americans by Nazi bullies."

No policy is more firmly fixed in the con-
duct of U.S. foreign affairs than this moral
imperative to come to the aid of oppressed
peoples. American public opinion must be
roused to the danger that this Soviet cam-
paign presents not only to Jews-though they
are the first victims-but to all religious mi-
norities in the U.S.S.R. Moscow has every
reason to be concerned over the bad name
that its anti-Jewish policy is creating for it
in the world, and our protest must be in-
tensified in every way possible. Only then
will we be able to convince the Kremlin that
the price it must pay for its anti-Jewish pol-
icy is too high and too costly in terms of its
international image.

This is no time for counsels of caution
and fear-or of silence-on the part of Amer-
ican Jewry. Each great wave of indignation
will serve to ultimately alleviate, and will
help prevent aggravation of the plight of the
Jews in the Soviet Union. Each protest by
individuals, by organizations, and by the free
nations of the world will serve to make the
Kremlin realize how sterile and harmful is
its anti-Jewish policy.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Apr. 6,

1964]

HELP FOR SOVIET JEWS IS URGED
(By George Eagle)

Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Gold-
berg and Senator ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, Dem-
ocrat, of Connecticut, said yesterday it is
time for the United Nations and U.S. Senate
to become officially concerned with the plight
of Jews in the Soviet Union.

Justice Goldberg and RIBICOFF, in remarks
made at the opening session of the American
Jewish Conference on Soviet Jewry, con-
demned what they term systematic persecu-
tion of 3 million Soviet Jews.

The 2-day conference at the Willard Hotel,
called by 24 national Jewish organizations
representing most of America's 5,585,000
Jews, is intended to focus worldwide atten-
tion on the position of Soviet Jews. About
500 delegates are attending.

The participating groups hope to move the
Soviet government toward reforms of its poli-
cies towards Jews.

Neither Justice Goldberg nor RIBICOFF ex-
pressed fear that such efforts would hurt
United States-Soviet relations.

Justice Goldberg said: "In stating my
views, I do so as an American citizen who
supports the effort of our Government with
due regard for our own security as a Nation,

to seek ways for better understanding be-
tween our country and the Soviet Union;
one who shares with the great majority of
our people the desire for an end to the cold
war and for a just and lasting peace.

"In appealing for an end to governmental
discrimination against Jews in the Soviet
Union, I am mindful that as a nation our
record is not perfect-we all too often fall
short of realizing the great ideals of human
liberty and equality embodied in our great
declaration of human rights. I am also
mindful, however, that our Government pol-
icy is directed to ending rather than ex-
tending discrimination."

He added that expressions of concern over
the condition of Soviet Jews should not be
considered meddling in Soviet internal mat-
ters.

"Discrimination against Soviet Jews is not
solely an internal matter for the Soviet
Union. It is a proper concern for all in this
country and elsewhere who believe in human
values. Soviet mistreatment of the Jews
violates human rights and human dignity;
transgresses the United Nations Charter to
which the Soviet Union is a party, and vio-
lates the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which is morally binding upon mem-
ber states of the United Nations.

RIBICOFF called on the Senate-"historical-
ly *** one of the most effective forums for
expressing officially the aroused conscience
of our country"-to denounce "Soviet trans-
gressions" against Soviet Jews.

He has introduced a Senate resolution for
this purpose, and 63 Senators have joined
in sponsorship of the measure. He said
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair-
man J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT (Democrat of
Arkansas), "has assured me that hearings
will be held on my resolution."

Both Justice Goldberg and RIBICOFF de-
tailed evidence they said pointed to a Soviet
attempt to erase Jewish identity. They cited
the banning of Hebrew; discouragement of
Jewish schools and use of Yiddish; closing
of synagogues and kosher butcher shops,
and prohibiting the baking of unleavened
bread.

Justice Goldberg noted that while slightly
more than 1 percent of the Soviet popula-
tion is Jewish, 60 percent of those executed
for economic crimes were Jews.

The conference also heard from Label A.
Katz of New Orleans, president of B'nai
B'rith, and Rabbi Uri Miller of Baltimore,
President of the Synagogue Council of
America.

Katz said Premier Khrushchev's denuncia-
tion of Stalin did not extend to Stalin's anti-
Semitism. Katz also said the conference
was not concerned with cold war problems:
"We do not challenge Mr. Khruschev's view
of a world of good goulash and ballet. We
simply propose that good goulash tastes bet-
ter and ballet is more inspiring when the
human spirit is free and untrammeled."

Rabbi Miller said, "Discrimination against
Russian Jewry is without end, and all of it
is aimed at the cultural destruction of the
Jewish people."

[From the New York Times, Apr. 6, 1964]
GOLDBERG SCORES MOSCOW ON JEWS-JUSTICE,
AT PARLEY, CHARGES VIOLATION OF U.N.
CHARTER

(By Irving Spiegel)
WASHINGTON, April 5.-Associate Justice
Arthur J. Goldberg of the U.S. Supreme Court
accused the Soviet Government tonight of
having violated the United Nations Charter
in its treatment of the Jewish people and
Judaism.

Using strong terms, Justice Goldberg cited
what he called extensive deprivations of
Jewish cultural and spiritual rights and as-
serted that this discrimination "is not solely
an internal matter for the Soviet Union; it

is a proper concern for all in this country
and elsewhere who believe in human values."

He charged that Soviet mistreatment of
Jews violates world-wide concepts of human
rights and dignity, "transgresses the United
Nations Charter to which the Soviet Union
is a party, and violates the Universal Decla-
ration of Human Rights, which is morally
binding upon all member states of the
United Nations."

The remarks keynoted the opening of a
2-day conference at the Willard Hotel, con-
vened by 24 major national Jewish organi-
zations. It is aimed at adopting a long-
range program to arouse public opinion in
the Nation and the world against what Amer-
ican Jewish leaders term "the deteriorating
status of Jews and Judaism in the Soviet
Union."

The 500 delegates represent almost every
area and viewpoint of Jewish religious and
secular life. Their groups embrace the great-
er majority of the more than 5 million Jews
in the United States.

Participants call its representative charac-
ter the most comprehensive since 1943, when
all groups united under the old American
Jewish Conference to deal with emergency
postwar problems affecting the rescue and
rehabilitation of Jewish refugees.

It has been estimated that there are 3
million Jews in the Soviet Union. The meet-
ing's major concern is what is feared to be
a Soviet campaign to eradicate Judaism from
Soviet life.

A fact sheet, distributed to the delegates,
presented a long list of Soviet discriminatory
practices. It cited the closing of 396 syna-
gogues in the last 7 years, leaving fewer
than 96 open. The publication of prayer
books, Bibles, and calendars of Jewish reli-
gious holidays is banned. Emigration is

forbidden.

The fact sheet said Jews were forbidden
to have central religious organizations such
as those permitted the Russian Orthodox and
Baptist Churches.

It added that no book had been published
in Yiddish in 2 years and that the use of
Yiddish as a language of instruction was not
possible.

Jews are not permitted to teach classes in
Jewish history, even in the Russian language,
the document charged.

Justice Goldberg spoke of these reported
descriminations and made specific mention
of the publication of "Judaism Without Em-
bellishment," written by Trofim K. Kichko
and published by the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences.

The book, replete with anti-Semitic over-
tones, contains caricatures of Jews. Western
Communist parties have protested its pub-
lication.

The ideological commission of the Soviet
Communist Party denounced the book yes-
terday. The commission said statements and
illustrations in the book "may insult the
feelings of believers and be interpreted in a
spirit of anti-Semitism."

Justice Goldberg said he welcomed "what
appears to be a partial repudiation of this
book."

"In appealing for an end of governmental
discrimination against Jews in the Soviet
Union," he continued, "I am mindful that as
a nation our record is not perfect-we all too
often fall short of realizing the great ideals
of human liberty and equality embodied in
our great Declaration of Human Rights.

"I am also mindful, however, that our
Government policy is directed to ending
rather than extending discrimination.

Label A. Katz, president of B'nai B'rith,
who presided, said the appeal of the confer-
ence was for the "right of the [Soviet] Jew
to be Jewish, [his] right to be, not someone
else but to be himself."

Mr. Katz said the conference's purpose was
"without political overtones" and "removed
from cold war problems."

As delegates gathered, the Soviet Embassy delivered a statement by Soviet Jewish religious and secular leaders protesting the conference.

The statement, addressed to the conference sponsors, asserted that there was no discrimination against Judaism in the Soviet Union and protested "slanderous attack on our Soviet country, which has done so much for the Jewish people."

It was signed by Rabbi Yehuda Leib Levin, Moscow Central Synagogue; Rabbi Natan Olevsky, Marina Roshcha Synagogue, Moscow; Avraam Panich, Kiev Synagogue; Solomon Gerelik, chairman of the Minsk Jewish religious community; Nohem Paller, chairman of community of Moscow's Central Synagogue, and Gershun Lib,, chairman of community of Marina Roshcha Synagogue, Moscow.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1964] SOVIET DENOUNCES BOOK ON JUDAISM-SAYS "ANTI-SEMITISM" TAINTS VOLUME PRINTED IN KIEV

(By Theodore Shabad)

Moscow, April 4.-The Ideological Commission of the Soviet Communist party denounced today in strong terms an antireligious book containing caricatures of Jews.

The statement, adopted at a special meeting and published in Pravda, the Communist party newspaper, said the book, published by Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, contained statements and illustrations that "may insult the feelings of believers and be interpreted in a spirit of anti-Semitism."

The party announcement added that the book "contradicted the party's Leninist policy on religious and nationality questions and merely feeds anti-Soviet insinuations of our ideological foes, who are trying at all costs to create a so-called Jewish question.

The unusual condemnation by the party's ideological watchdog body, headed by Leonid I. Ilyichev, appeared less than 2 weeks after Communist parties in other countries had attacked the book and demanded that it be withdrawn from circulation.

IZVESTIA SEES UNDUE "FUSS" Izvestia, the Soviet Government newspaper, while criticizing some aspects of the book, played down the significant of its publication and described the uproar abroad as an "incomprehensible fuss." It was evident, however, that the party's ideological commission had considered the matter to be serious enough to convene a special meeting.

The 193-page paperback volume, written by Trofim K. Kichko, was published in Kiev last year under the title "Judaism Without Embellishment."

In addition to the usual antireligious propaganda found in Soviet books on atheism, it contains cartoons of beak-nosed men squabbling about money and collaborating with Nazis. Several passages in the text dealing with Jewish participation in black-marketing and other economic crimes have clearly anti-Semitic overtones.

The book was attacked by the Communist parties in the United States, Britain and France. The Soviet Union's first reaction to this was the publication of critical statements on the book through Tass, the official press agency, and Novosti, a feature syndicate.

"No matter what they [Jews] do, selling matzoth or parts of the Torah [religious literature], carrying out rites of burial, circumcision, wedding or divorce, they think above all of money and they despise productive work," one passage asserts.

A cartoon on the cover shows a man in a prayer shawl lurking behind lighted candles and holding out a big hand filled with gold coins. Another depicts a brawl among hooknosed men and carries the caption: "Money

grabbing servants of the synagogue often have brawls when they divide the profits."

Several cartoons are directed against Israel. In one, former Premier David Ben-Gurion crosses out the words "Do not" in the Ten Commandments to make them read "steal," "kill," "lie."

Pravda indicated that after the furor caused by the book abroad, the ideological commission was specially convened to review the entire question of antireligious literature.

Only last December the commission met to adopt a program for an intensified struggle against religion. A decree made public in March conceded that substantial sectors of the Soviet population remained believers.

USE OF TACT URGED

Antireligious propagandists have been urged to use tact in their campaign and to take care not to antagonize believers.

The Kichko book appeared after new publishing committees had been established throughout the Soviet Union to insure that newspapers, magazines and books conformed more closely to the party's ideological requirements. The committees are expected to examine every piece of printed material before publication.

The Novosti press agency, in its comments on the book, said that Mr. Kichko was "neither a spokesman for the Soviet Government nor an exponent of its views and that his pamphlet "cannot be taken as a basis for evaluating the policy of the Soviet Union toward Jews and toward Israel.

The ideological statement in Pravda reiterated official assertions that Jews in the Soviet Union "are all respected in the same situation as other people."

Actually, Jews, being scattered throughout the country, do not have the same opportunities for cultural development, including schools, books, and theaters in their own language, as do other nationalities living in compact areas.

PRAYER IN SENATE TOMORROW TO BE OFFERED BY CARDINAL FRANZ KOENIG, OF AUSTRIA

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, do Senators wish me to yield further?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield for an announcement?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield under the arrangement previously made.

Mr. HUMPHREY. This is an unusual announcement, but I know that many of our colleagues will appreciate the notice that, tomorrow morning when we convene, the prayer in the Senate will be offered by Cardinal Franz Koenig, of Austria, who is visiting in our country.

Cardinal Koenig is one of the great spiritual leaders of our time; as a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, he has been a moving and thought-provoking leader in the Ecumenical Council and has been closely identified with the socalled progressive or liberal school in his faith's deliberations.

His spiritual domain stretches along given him an opportunity to use his the Iron Curtain and its location has many talents to halt the Communist thrusts in Central and Western Europe and to alleviate the burden and hardships of many refugees. He was particularly active in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, when his Caritas organization took a leading role in looking after the Hungarian refugees. He worked

there, incidentally, with our our distinguished colleague the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL]. AS Senators may recall, the Senator from Rhode Island was later awarded the Caritas medal.

Cardinal Koenig is a man of broad intellectual attainments. His presence will be a high honor to the Senate and all of us.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1963

The Senate resumed the consideration of 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.

FEPC-POLICE-STATE METHODS

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, several of the highly objectionable provisions of the pending so-called civil rights bill present issues which have long been discussed and upon which the country has long been seriously divided.

As a member of the platform committee at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in 1960, I well recall the strong-arm methods which were used in the committee in the drafting of the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform which was adopted on July 12, 1960.

Many of the provisions in that civil rights plank of the platform were generally supported by all or practically all members of the platform committee. Without going into these fields of agreement, I note that one provision of the platform is:

We will support whatever action is necessary to eliminate * * * the payment of poll taxes as requirements for voting.

It is well known to every Senator that the Senator from Florida, continuing an activity which he had begun in 1949, and had pursued in every succeeding Congress since that time, introduced again in 1961 a proposed constitutional amendment which he regarded as the action which was necessary to eliminate the payment of poll taxes as a requirement for voting in Federal elections. The Senator from Florida was joined by a large number of his Democratic colleagues and likewise by a large number of his Republican colleagues in offering that proposed amendment which was submitted by the Congress to the States in 1962 and has become the 24th amendment to the Federal Constitution.

While the public well knows that this part of the civil rights plank is one of the items which has received positive action since that time, there are also other provisions which have been accomplished and which have had general approval, and which had the general approval of members of the platform committee.

There were, however, several provisions in that civil rights plank of the platform adopted at Los Angeles in 1960 which were highly controversial and which, both within the platform committee and on the floor of the convention itself, drew the strong opposition of many delegates, largely from the South, but including also some delegates from other parts of the Nation. For the record at this time, I mention three provisions in that platform which were most offensive to the South and to others, and which were strongly opposed both in the platform committee and on the floor of the convention.

These controversial provisions deal, first, with compulsory integration of public schools; second, with the so-called part III provisions of an earlier law empowering the Attorney General to use civil injunction suits in Federal Courts to prevent the denial of any civil rights; and third, with the commitment to support the Federal setting up of a Fair Employment Practices Commission. quote these provisions of said platform as follows:

I

A new Democratic administration will also use its full powers-legal and moral-to insure the beginning of good-faith compliance with the constitutional requirement that racial discrimination be ended in public education.

We believe that every school district affected by the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision should submit a plan providing for at least first-step compliance by 1963, the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.

For this and for the protection of all other constitutional rights of Americans, the Attorney General should be empowered and directed to file civil injunction suits in Federal courts to prevent the denial of any civil right on grounds of race, creed, or color.

That being the so-called part III of the earlier legislation which had been so hotly contested on the floor of the Senate.

The new Democratic administration will support Federal legislation establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission to secure effectively for everyone the right to equal opportunity for employment.

Those were the highly controversial portions of the civil rights plank of the platform adopted at Los Angeles in 1960 at the Democratic convention.

At the time of consideration and adoption of the platform, the strong opposition of southern delegates to these and other portions of the civil rights plank of the platform was voiced by ranking public officials and other delegates assigned by the the southern Governors, Senators, Representatives, and party officials to present the southern objections. I had the honor and responsibility of serving as one of the six southerners who presented our strong objections on the floor of the convention that night in Los Angeles. I believe it would be useful at this time to read into the record a transcript of my remarks at that time, which at one point were greeted by loud boo's of some members of the convention and some thousands of spectators who sat in the galleries. My statement at that time was as follows:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, fellow Democrats of this convention. This, whether you

know it or not, is a serious moment in the know it or not, is a serious moment in the life of America and in the life of the Democratic Party. The people who have spoken to you in the last 30 minutes are men who, as Governors of their States, or Supreme Court Judges, or U.S. Senators, have been elected time after time because their people believed that they would carry honestly and keep the faith. Mr. Chairman, I want every Democrat here to realize that nothing has caused this group of men to come before you so much as the effort to make it clear to you that what you are doing is, in our judgment, making it practically impossible to carry 10 States of the Southland in the election of November and it is only that fact, Mr. Chairman, which makes us come here to issue this caution as lifelong Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, this program is written around the sentiments "The Rights of Man." Too bad it is-that in pursuance of such a lofty objective this platform contains elements written by those who believe that the Federal Government can do everything and that anything done by the Federal Government is right no matter how it affects man. Let's look at this civil rights platform just a few minutes-the FEPC provision. I want you Democrats from this Nation to know that FEPC in the Southland is a term that is

almost an ugly word and no candidate could be elected upon a plank which included it.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to recognize that half of the States in the rest of the Nation have refused to adopt State FEPC programs and yet, notwithstanding that, these wellmeaning, socialistic reformers have brought in a plank here which half of the States outside of the South have never been willing to adopt.

I don't mind your booing, but just let me remind you that millions of people throughout the Southland, where live 50 million, mostly Democrats, are looking-and listening—and you are not helping the Democratic cause nor are you hurting at all your speaker by this kind of conduct.

I must say, parenthetically, there was no booing after that point.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what does the FEPC do? It destroys the right of selection of one's employer, of one's employees, and of one's fellow employees. Mr. Chairman, do you realize that hundreds of thousands of men who belong to labor unions in the Southland intend to continue to select their own fellow employees and they are operating now in unions under that rule? Mr. Chairman, there is nothing you can do which will more alienate the working men and women of the South than to adopt this general of the South than to adopt this general FEPC program.

Second thing, I want to remind you of what is happening in connection with the school integration program. Aside from the fact that it does not follow, and the drafters didn't understand the meaning of, the Federal Court decisions, I want you to know that you are dealing with a matter which involves the personal, deep, sincere convic

tions of women in the Southland-women

who are mothers and who have children and grandchildren in school and who will never forgive a party or a platform which calls upon them to impose a Federal judgment upon them to impose a Federal judgment from Washington in contravention of customs and traditions in matters of life which are dear to them. If you want to give affront to the good women in a part of the Nation where 50 million people live, just adopt compulsory school integration and a general FEPC program and try to put it through.

Third thing, this title III provision, in which you propose to give to every Attorney General, whether he be good or not so good, the power in his own discretion to bring injunction suits for any violation or threatened violation as he may see it of any civil right and to proceed on the equity side of

court with all of the forces of contempt proceedings and without jury trial. Mr. Chairman, in 1957, the Senate of the United States turned this down by a heavy vote and we have only 18 southern Senators there. Mr. Chairman, in the debates earlier this year the Senate of the United States turned this provision down three times.

Can it be can it be that you are overlooking the fact that Senators of conscience and convictions from throughout the Nation have decided in their wisdom-and I think they are eminently wise that no one man can be made the custodian of the morals and of the good sense of this whole Nation with powers so sweeping as is this.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is up. I wish-I wish that our party was not seeking now, under the guidance of ultra-liberal domination, to impose upon the Southland provisions which the Southland will not accept and which will make the South—in the humble judgment of men on this platform and elsewhere who represent the South-will drive the Southland out of the house of our fathers-out of the Democratic Party in November.

That closed my comment at that time on the convention floor. However, since I stated what I did there about jury trials and the absence of jury trials in criminal contempt proceedings, I believe it is appropriate to mention the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court today under which a bare majority of that Court, by 5 to 4, decided that former Governor Barnett, of Mississippi, and former Lieutenant Governor Johnson, of Mississippi, and now the Governor of that good State, did not have the right of a jury trial when they were subjected to trial for criminal contempt in the proceeding which came to a halt in the Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, when it was found that the court was evenly divided on that question. The Supreme Court also was as evenly divided as it is possible to be and still have a majority opinion; namely, 5 to 4.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Does the pending bill provide for a trial by jury in contempt cases?

The

Mr. HOLLAND. It does not. pending bill, in titles I and II, incorporates the provision for jury trial, under certain conditions, which was voted in 1957.

But as to the two most highly controversial parts of the bill, title IV, the public school desegregation title and the right of the Attorney General to bring injunctions at his sole discretion, not subject to review in any court, in regard to integration of the schools, and title VII, the FEPC title, which I shall discuss at some length tonight, there is no provision for jury trial. To the contrary, there is a complete absence of such provision. It is that point to which I shall call attention in reading parts of three opinions of the Supreme Court in the decision handed down today.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. When some of us make the statement that the pending bill is destructive of liberty, that it is unconstitutional in some respects, that

it would destroy freedoms that we have enjoyed, and that it would take away from us rights that are guaranteed to us under the Constitution, we are not at all exaggerating, are we?

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator, of course, is correct in saying that; we are not exaggerating that situation. Unfortunately, in today's U.S. Supreme Court decision it is made quite clear that a jury trial would not be a matter of right for anyone facing a criminal contempt proceeding as a result of an action brought under either title IV, the school title, or under title VII, the FEPC title, of the pending bill. I believe the distinguished Senator will agree that those are two of the most controversial titles, if not the most controversial, in the bill. Mr. MCCLELLAN. In view of such court decisions as that of today, and in view of the character of legislation provided in the pending bill, many of us believe there is a great deal of truth in the statement that our liberties are being gradualy whittled away. Does the Senator agree?

Mr. HOLLAND. There is not only a great deal of truth in the statement, but, so far as the Senator from Florida is concerned, he thinks that taking away the right of jury trial, notwithstanding the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court a bare majority in the Court-in a criminal contempt proceeding, is a vast step toward ignoring the constitutional right of trial by jury of

one's peers.

The Senator from Florida will quote from three of the learned Justices who handed down this decision, who unfortunately constitute a bare minority of our highest judicial tribunal.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Cannot acts of oppression and tyranny be committed by a court as well as by the Government itself, or by others?

Mr. HOLLAND. They can be, and they have been. Incidentally, it is a matter of interest that in the majority opinion read by Mr. Justice Clark, the Justice admits that in the recent past sentences by courts have been growing progressively higher in criminal contempt proceedings when trials without juries have occurred.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Does not the Senator agree with me that the purpose of debate at some length in connection with the pending bill is to acquaint the American people with the dangers which are inherent in this measure in its present form; that it is further imperiling their liberties; and therefore we oppose it with all the might and strength we have, to the end that the blessing of freedom that we have enjoyed and which the Constitution guarantees to us as individual citizens may be preserved.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is completely correct. When I read from the three opinions, it will be completely clear that four members of the Court almost a majority-held up the flag of warning to make clear that there was involved a surrender of a basic right, which they regretted, and to which they did not propose to be parties. By their minority opinions they made it very clear that they thought there were infrac

tions and violations of the constitutional under our Anglo-Saxon system of jusguarantee of jury trial. tice is the right to trial by jury?

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I thought so until the decision came down today. I was taught

Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield as a boy in law school and as a young to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HILL. The Senator referred to the section dealing with the desegregation of schools, and also to the FEPC section, title VII. Is it not true also that the right of trial by jury is denied that the right of trial by jury is denied in the so-called, misnamed public acin the so-called, misnamed public accommodations section?

lawyer practicing and appearing before all courts, from the lowest to the highest in the land, that that was one of the sacred rights, and that it came to us from law more ancient than ours. But apparently in the field of criminal contempt, a majority of the Supreme Court, five out of nine, thinks the matter is not

Mr. HOLLAND. I do not believe so. of such substance that a jury should be Is that not title II?

Mr. HILL. Yes. It is the title that deals with restaurants, motels, hotels, and so on.

Mr. HOLLAND. In title II there is an incorporation of a part of the 1957 act, which I understand would at least make it likely that the right of trial by jury in a limited way would be reserved as to title II.

Even under that section-because this is the meaning of the 1957 law-the judge could punish by imprisonment up to 45 days without trial by jury, and a judge could punish with a fine of up to $300, without the right of trial by jury. Notwithstanding the fact that the Senate very clearly expressed its disapproval of leaving out the clear and unqualified right of trial by jury in this field of civil rights, the other body, unfortunately, took the other position, and in conference, as the distinguished Senin conference, as the distinguished Senator knows, this compromise limitation emerged, under which a judge, trying a defendant for criminal contempt, committed against the jurisdiction of the court, would have the right to assess a penalty of up to 45 days and a fine up to $300, without giving the defendant the right of a jury trial.

It is only when he gets beyond that, which of course is a very limited thing, that there is the right of trial by jury under section 2.

Mr. HILL. Ordinarily, one would not expect for a violation under this section to have a penalty assessed of more than 45 days in jail. That is a month and a half. One would not be confronted with this situation. If he did not comply, he could get another 45 days.

Mr. HOLLAND. My understanding is that the criminal contempt would not be for noncompliance, but for a violation. For noncompliance there is no question about the court's authority to act. We are talking about a violation taking place, when there is a charge of criminal complaint. I agree with the idea advanced by the Senator that the 45-day sentence leeway and the $300 fine leeway would go a long way toward enforcing the demands and ideas and philosophy of a trial judge on probably 999 out a thousand citizens without allowing a trial by jury.

Mr. HILL. So the truth is, as a practical matter, that the right to trial by jury is very much delimited. Is that not true?

Mr. HOLLAND. It is very much limited under title II, and completely stricken, completely left out, under titles IV and VII.

Mr. HILL. Does the Senator agree that one of our most precious rights

called for.

Mr. HILL. The truth is that it is a right that was fought for and won and goes back as far as Magna Carta, in 1215, and to the petition of rights and the Bill of Rights, and therefore permeates our whole Anglo-Saxon history.

Mr. HOLLAND. It is one of the anchors of our Anglo-Saxon system of law. I invite the attention of the Senator to the fact, as shown by today's decision, that a bare majority, 5 out of 9 members of the Supreme Court, could make this decision; whereas if a defendant is being tried by a jury, the unanimous verdict of all 12 is required to convict. There is a considerable difference between the right to have a bare majority of a court pass on one's case and the right to have a jury of one's peers pass on his case, because in order to convict, those peers must unanimously say, "This man has wilfully and criminally violated an order of the court, known to him and applicable to him, and which he has violated in an effort to knock out completely the orderly process of our laws."

Mr. HILL. Is it not true that the jury of peers are chosen and selected within the judicial district in which the person lives? Are they not people who know him, know his standing, and know his general reputation in the community in which he lives?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct. If his reputation is good, it is fine for him to have such a jury summoned. If his reputation is bad, the jury will be summoned from the people of that very area, and who know more about what that bad reputation is.

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. HOLLAND. It is a fine institution in our system of law. So far as the Senator from Florida is concerned, he wants it preserved.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Does the Senator from Florida believe that this decision and the proposed legislation would have an effect on the burden of proof to establish guilt when a person was tried before a jury? In a jury trial, the proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Is that requirement or burden lessened or diminished by reason of the abolition of a jury trial in such cases?

Mr. HOLLAND. It is my strong opinion that it is. I am not able to quote the law on that point, I am sorry to say. But when a court as dignified as our highest tribunal hands down a decision

today, 5 to 4, it is quite evident that the question of whether or not there was a complete showing of guilt is evidently not clear even to highly trained legal minds.

There is quite a difference between being tried by a group of highly skilled lawyers and judges who can decide by a majority decision and being tried by a jury of one's peers, who must decide, if they find guilt, only by a unanimous decision.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Assume that one is found guilty of criminal contempt in a district court, the court that issued the injunction. On an appeal from that decision, what would be the issue? Would there be a trial de novo as to the facts?

Mr. HOLLAND. No.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Or would the court on appeal have the right to inquire into the facts and determine whether they were sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Mr. HOLLAND. I never heard of a trial on an appeal from the U.S. Supreme Court. That is the highest Court. The Supreme Court has now held in this case that the circuit court of appeals, having divided evenly on the case, the Supreme Court divided as evenly as it could, and that is the last word. There is no appeal. There cannot be any trial de novo. If there were a trial de novo, it could never be before a jury in the U.S. Supreme Court. So the Senator is correct in saying that denial of a trial when an offense is charged is a denial of a constitutional right which goes all the way up to the time of the final action. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct. The requirement and burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would no longer prevail in this type of case. Is that correct?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct.

On the majority decision written by Mr. Justice Clark, I am perfectly willing for any Senator to take this lengthy decision of some 42 pages and place any of it in the RECORD that he wishes. I shall put in the RECORD What I am stating now to the Senator is the gist of the decision of Mr. Justice Clark, as agreed to by four of his colleagues, so as to make it the decision of the Court.

At the bottom of page 1, note how he very carefully delimits the issue in these words:

We pass only on the jury issue and decide that the alleged contemnors

That is, Governor Barnett, and now Governor Johnson

are not entitled to a jury as a matter of right. The other quotation goes to the very heart of this matter. It is found on page 11 of this particular opinion. It reads as follows:

It has always been the law of the land, both State and Federal, that the courts, except where specifically precluded by statute, have the power to proceed summarily in contempt matters.

I call this to the attention of the Senator because even the slender majority of the Court throws out this information, that Congress as the legislative body has the right to specifically preclude the

laws of right to a trial by jury, by requiring a jury trial, just as the Senate did in 1957 when it adopted an amenddid in 1957 when it adopted an amendment which was cut down so sharply by the action of the other body.

So first the Court states in the majority opinion that there is no jury trial. In the second quotation, which I placed in the RECORD, it is made very clear that the legislative body has the right to specifically preclude a loss of right to a jury trial.

I quote that wording again: "Except where specifically precluded by statute

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. If Congress should fail to act by enacting a statute that would preserve the right to a jury trial, it seems to me that Congress would become a party privy to this decision of

the Court.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Arkansas is correct; and that is why I am emphasizing this point today, so it can be included in this debate, and so that Senators will have an opportunity to search their consciences between now and the time when voting begins, because I am quite sure that amendments to restore to these titles provision of the right of trial by jury will be offered, although at present such a provision has been carefully and deliberately omitted.

point can read the minority reports of Incidentally, anyone interested in that point can read the minority reports of the House committee on this matter; and he will find that, not once, but several times, attention was called to that fact. times, attention was called to that fact.

Mr. President, my second point is in connection with the dissenting opinion written by Mr. Justice Black. I wish Senators would listen to this, for I see some distinguished lawyers in the Chamber. So I wish they would listen carefully to this dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Black, in which Mr. Douglas concurred. I read now from page 4 of the dissenting opinion:

These defendants, nevertheless, like others charged with crimes, should have their cases heard according to constitutional due process, including indictment and trial by jury. Nothing less can measure up to the kind of trials which article III and our Bill of Rights guarantee. It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judgeinvented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury. It will be a fine day for the constitutional liberty of individuals in this country when that at last is done.

Mr. President, I am led to say "amen" and "amen" to that very fine statement by Mr. Justice Black, concurred in by Mr. Justice Douglas.

The third opinion-also a dissenting opinion-was written by Mr. Justice Goldberg; and Chief Justice Warren and Mr. Justice Douglas both joined in it. It will be noted that Mr. Justice Douglas joined in both dissenting opinions, so that although it might seem that five of the justices joined in the dissenting opinions, actually only four of them agreed in strongly decrying this bare majority opinion, and in saying the kind of things which make very clear how strongly they feel.

I now read from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Goldberg, in which, as I have said, both the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas concurred. I read now from the bottom of page 31. Senators may have access to these dissenting opinions. I am simply stating that, in my judgment, these are the gists of the several opinions. I read the following:

In sum, therefore, I conclude that defendants' trial should be by a jury. This would accord with the basic policy of Congress, that contempts which are also crimes should be tried by a jury. And it would accord with the fundamental policy of the Constitution, that contempts which are punishable as crimes must be tried by a jury.

I reject the Government's "necessity" argument, that "the independence of the Federal courts * ** would be seriously undermined if their orders could be nullified by an unsympathetic jury.”

Mr. President, from this very fine quotation from the dissenting opinion written by Mr. Justice Goldberg, the attitude of the Solicitor General in this connection is very connection is very evident. He was actually arguing, before the Court, that

defendants should not be allowed to have a jury trial, because otherwise, so he argued, "some fool jury" might undermine what the Court wanted to do.

Mr. Justice Goldberg is to be highly commended-and I do commend him and the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice

Douglas-for making that strong statement in their dissenting opinion.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Florida yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McINTYRE in the chair). Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Could not the same argument be made in connection with all criminal law trials-in other words, that a jury might not uphold a court's order? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, it could. Of course, some say it would be all right for a jury to refuse to believe certain statements made by laymen; but apparently those who support the Government's argument in that case think it all wrong that there be a possibility that a jury might disagree with a judge or a court.

I think the distinguished Senator will see that just that distinction was sought to be made by the Government officials in that case, when they took that position.

In my previous participation in the debate which is now underway in the Senate, I have discussed at some length the compulsory integration of the public schools as it would be provided under title IV of the pending bill. I have also discussed heretofore that portion of the so-called part III provisions of the earlier Civil Rights Act relating to the grant to the Attorney General of almost unlimited powers with reference to the bringing of injunction proceedings in school integration cases, including the right to bring criminal contempt proceedings without jury, trial which is also included in title IV of the pending bill. In other words, title IV of the pending bill, the public education title, relates to two portions of the Los Angeles platform

« ПретходнаНастави »