of the problems. Therefore, if, in the Attorney General's program, there should be programs with which you are unfamiliar whereby they are in fact performing the same functions as those which the Commission performs, would you favor continuing the duplication of the programs, or do you feel that one should be discontinued?

Mr. SACHS. Well, I don't favor duplication of programs. I do believe that the Attorney General's statement that the Civil Rights Division is and will continue to develop an understanding between State and Federal officials, about civil rights problems and the enforcement of the law, does in fact, serve a real purpose. I do not think, however, that contravenes the purpose or duplicates the purpose of the Civil Rights Commission, which is basically to ease racial tension, and to achieve dignity for Negroes and other minorities who are denied them.

Mr. CREECH. We have heard a great deal about easing racial tensions. Specifically, we talked about Birmingham, and we are all aware of the press reports, of the actions of the President, of the Attorney General, of the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Marshall. What exactly has the Civil Rights Commission done? Has your study of the Commission's function revealed the action the Commission has taken to reduce tensions in Alabama?

Mr. SACHS. I don't believe I can say that these events have occurred in relatively recent weeks.

Mr. CREECH. Well now, the Commission has been in existence for some 6 years.

In an answer to a question from the Daily Press, the Chairman, I believe, of the State advisory commission in Alabama, requested or urged that Reverend King not stage demonstrations in Birmingham, and his advice was ignored.

Mr. SACHS. Of course, the Commission has recommended legislation which would achieve for Negroes in the South and in the North and elsewhere, the rights for which they were demonstrating so that I would say that in this respect in answer to your question, that the Civil Rights Commission has in fact, been attempting to do something about it.

Mr. CREECH. Have we not had statutes on the book at least since 1870 that would do the same thing? Statutes provide that any State official, who denies any man any rights he has under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, can be sent to prison for as much as a year or fined $1,000 or both, and if he conspires with one other person to do that, he can be sent to prison for, I believe it is 10 years, and fined $5,000 or more.

Mr. SACHS. I would be in favor of enforcing that law, sir.

Senator ERVIN. So would I.

I think that is what should be done, and in this case, they would have to prove all of the allegations, and the man would be entitled to notice and the right to be heard. Guilty people would be sent to prison. That would be the orthdox, American way of doing this. Mr. SACHS. I cannot disagree with that.

Senator ERVIN. Instead of that, all these recommendations are that somebody be robbed of very precious rights, on the theory that that is the only way you can give other people rights. I think that is fallacious. I hate to think that the American system cannot be made to work without robbing some Americans of a basic right.

Mr. SACHS. We do however-I would certainly agree that the laws should be enforced and that laws that are presently on the books should be enforced to achieve these rights. The problem, I think, arises from both the lack of law enforcement, and from the tremendously broad posture of this problem which mitigates against huge masses of American citizens, in achieving these rights.

Senator ERVIN. Isn't it true that the broad question in the last analysis, can only be solved by men and women of good will and tolerance and mutual respect in the local communities where people live?

Mr. SACHS. Well, yes, I agree with that, sir. I also believe that one of the functions that the Commission could serve would be to try to achieve a milieu in these communities that would enable calmer feelings to dominate and that we could perhaps avoid some of the unpleasant riots and disturbances that have occurred.

The absence of a Commission, and the Attorney General's Civil Rights Division activities insofar as dealings with State officials are concerned, does not really serve this function. I think the Commission could and does serve this function.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, may I just comment on one point you made about the enforcement of the law?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. COHEN. ADA is really pleased to agree with you, that the law should have been enforced, which you refer to the existing statute. We would like to only go one step further and point out that the situation in Birmingham, that the situation in Greenwood, Miss., and other places, just demonstrates the need for additional legislation, the socalled famous part III, in which the Attorney General, on the basis of a signed complaint, or on his own initiative, could go in and enforce the constitutional rights of those whose rights are being denied.

Senator ERVIN. My own opinion is—and I have given a good deal of study to this subject that the passage of title III would be the worst thing that could ever happen to law in America, because title III gives nobody any rights; it gives discretionary power to an Attorney General. He can use the law for some people and refuse to use it for other people in exactly the same situation. He can use the law against some people, and refuse to use it against some people in another identical situation. Instead of establishing a government of law, it establishes a government of men, and I think all laws should apply to all people under like circumstances at all times, and no official of the Government should be given discretionary power to use the law for any purpose he sees fit, politically or otherwise. If a man has a right, every man in the same situation has that right, and we must not make the rights of a person dependent on the good will of the Attorney General.

Mr. COHEN. I agree with you, politics should not be involved in the administration of justice, but as the Commission has demonstrated in the past, in congressional hearings, in the areas of education, and in other areas, constitutional rights which people now have are not being enforced, and not being fulfilled, and the part III legislation would give to those people whose rights are being denied, a chance, an opportunity for governmental protection, and help in fulfilling their rights, without taking the rights away from anyone else.

Senator ERVIN. Well, we now have statutes on the books that cover that; both the civil actions, and the criminal prosecutions. If you have two sets of laws, why have another one to do the same thing?

Mr. COHEN. The situation is not whether they do the same thing. The question is how effectively will they meet the constitutional objective and with all due respect, Senator Ervin, I think since 1954, the Supreme Court has said separate educational facilities are inherently unequal; in 1955 they requested that school integration begin with all deliberate speed; and the fact is that school integration has not begun, and certainly, not with any sense of deliberate speed, and there is a great lag and great need to begin to fulfill constitutional rights.

Senator ERVIN. That is a position which is taken by those who would like to amend the Supreme Court decision, and have it say something it does not say. The Supreme Court decision does not require integration. It merely prohibits discrimination. Well, there is no use in getting into an argument on that.

Mr. COHEN. In any case, I feel obviously, that discrimination still exists.

Senator ERVIN. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. WATERS. May I ask you a question?

Mr. Sachs, you concede that the function of your organization is that of collecting information and disseminating that information through the community, so that instances will not arise which will wind up in court.

Mr. SACHS. Are you talking about ADA or the Advisory Committee?

Mr. WATERS. The State Advisory Commission to which you belong.
Mr. SACHS. Yes.

Mr. WATERS. And it is certainly not a prosecuting agency, is it?
Mr. SACHS. No; it is not.

Mr. WATERS. Have you been consulted by the Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division regarding your activity?

Mr. SACHS. No, we have not been consulted by it.

Mr. WATERS. And the fact is, that consultation with the Assistant Attorney General has not extended to your organization?

Mr. SACHS. We have consulted with the State civil rights bureau, of the State attorney general's office, but we have not as a State advisory committee, consulted with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

Mr. WATERS. And there was consultation initiated by your organization; not by the Attorney General's Civil Rights Division?

Mr. SACHS. That is right. The State civil rights bureau.

Mr. WATERS. Do you feel that there is substantial advantage in having the Civil Rights Commission so that its function is not disseminated through several various agencies of the Government, in various States? Don't you feel that a central clearinghouse is more efficient and necessary?

Mr. SACHS. I have no question about that. Yes, I do.

Mr. WATERS. And it is the belief of your organization that the extension of the Civil Rights Commission ought to be permanent, is it not?

Mr. SACHS. It is quite clear, yes.

Mr. WATERS. Is there any reason why you have not endorsed S. 1219 which makes it a permanent commission?

Mr. SACHS. The only reason is-I guess the codification of the administrative provisions in S. 1117 as opposed to S. 1219.

Mr. WATERS. And to what extent?

Mr. SACHS. I believe with respect to essentially the subpena power. Mr. WATERS. You understand that the provision in 1219 to allow the Commission to make rules and regulations is appropriate, is it not? Mr. SACHS. Yes, I do understand that.

Mr. WATERS. Do you feel that it also contemplates a freedom clause?
Mr. SACHS. I do not feel competent to answer that.
Mr. WATERS. Thank you very much.

Senator ERVIN. The Commission has rules and regulations by which it denies to a man who is investigated any knowledge of who his accuser is and what the accusation is; nor has he an opportunity to confront his accuser and cross-examine him. That has caused a great divergency of opinion in the Supreme Court in Hannah v. Larche in which Justices Black and Douglas said that the Commission's procedures are unconstitutional.

Mr. SACHS. Sir, I believe S. 1117 does have provision to achieve fair procedures through all administrative activities of the Commission.

Senator ERVIN. That certainly ought to be done.

Mr. SACHS. Yes. That is why we are supporting it.

Senator ERVIN. It is a rather curious thing, that a Commission, that is created for the purpose of enforcing constitutional rights, adopts procedures which Justices Black and Douglas very eloquently say, deny those rights.

Mr. SACHS. I guess the reason for the Commission-and I cannot read their minds and have not discussed it with them-but I would guess the reason the Commission did this is in order to protect the Negroes from retaliatory action in their communities.

Senator ERVIN. And that was the same reason which caused an agency of the Federal Government in violation of civil service laws, to refuse to reveal to the man who was discharged the name of the one who made the charge.

Mr. SACHS. I am not supporting the lack of confrontation, sir. Senator ERVIN. The committee is indebted to both of you gentlemen. Mr. SACHS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. The committee is recessed until 3 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee recessed until 3 p.m., on the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order.

Our next witness is Mr. Dale L. Button.

Mr. Button, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF DALE L. BUTTON, UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT E. JONES

Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dale L. Button. I am speaking on behalf of the Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, a national organization which represents the social concerns of Unitarians and Universalists.

I am accompanied by Mr. Robert E. Jones, executive director of the Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice.

We value highly the time of this subcommittee, and we ask that the brevity of our comments not be taken as a measure of the importance which we feel toward the subject, and toward the work of this subcommittee in respect to it.

In fact, we hope that our brevity may serve to magnify our expression of our position.

I will not comment in any detail on the feelings of our organization with respect to the enactment of specific elements of civil rights legislation, nor in a way that would entertain any question whether to have or not to have civil rights legislation.

Unitarians and Universalists, individually and as an organized body, support in every respect the enactment and implementation of meaningful legislation to make fully effective, in practice, the citizenship which millions of Americans have only in name.

We do not appear here to equivocate our support for civil rights legislation.

We are here only to express our concern that such needed legislation, and the administrative body created to implement it, shall be sufficiently strong to act effectively.

In that concern, the main thrust of our comments is to the effect that we support the legislation which would make the Civil Rights Commission a permanent body.

We do not view the creation of a permanent Civil Rights Commission as an expression that our problems in this area will never be solved, any more than we view the maintenance of a Defense Department as an admission of the inevitably of war, or of a Department of Justice, that we shall never attain justice.

Those bodies were created as necessary means to accomplish the objectives with which they were concerned, and we feel that creation of a permanent Civil Rights Commission ranks equally with them in importance.

I believe our international image would inevitably benefit if other citizens of the world were to see that we have a permanent body devoted to the attention of our own citizens' civil rights.

We further believe that creation of the Commission as a permanent body would inevitably lift the effectiveness of the body in its own deliberations and actions.

Although the analogy is far from complete, there is enough of a principle involved to make the point when I suggest that the wisdom is never seriously questioned in making our Federal judiciary and our Federal judges absolute in their tenure, is never seriously questioned.

We sincerely appreciate this opportunity for our organization to make its position known before this subcommittee, and we thank you. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Button, the committee is deeply grateful for your appearance and also to your associate for his appearance. Mr. BUTTON. Thank you.

Do you have any questions?

Senator ERVIN. Are there any questions?

Mr. WATERS. Just one, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Button, I notice from your statement that you feel that the Civil Rights Commission should be made a permanent body and, to that end, I would suppose that you support the principles of S. 1219