Mr. SECREST. I see what you mean. I would rather withhold judgment on that. I just really don't know. Mr. WATERS. Mr. Secrest, perhaps, while you are withholding your judgment, I might suggest to you the rest of the opinion which has been cited to you. It is the case of Hannah v. Larche, and while you heard about the dissenting opinions of the Court, the majority of the Court held and ruled that it was perfectly all right for the Commission to make that type of ruling. They held the Commission had power to promulgate the rules in question, and that the rules were constitutional. The Commission exercises an investigatory and not a judicatory function. It was suggested in the course of the opinion that Congress authorize the Commission to promulgate the rules because legislation establishing the Commission specifically mentions certain safeguards, which must be given to witnesses, and confrontation and cross-examination are not included; and that a bill embodying these rights was defeated by the Congress at the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It further went on to say that the requirements of due process vary with the type of proceeding involved; that historically, investigatory hearings are not surrounded by confrontation and cross-examination, and this is true in legislative, executive, and administrative hearings. Would that tend to establish a judgment on your part? Mr. SECREST. Yes. That sounds very reasonable to me, but I don't imagine the Justice Department is too concerned about what I think on that matter. That sounds more like a legalistic decision, and I would just rather the Justice Department would make that decision. It does not upset me. Mr. CREECH. Would it not upset you if you were accused of some heinous crime, of something for which you might be prosecuted criminally and not have the opportunity of knowing who was accusing you; not have the opportunity to confront that person and cross-examine him? Mr. SECREST. That would very well upset me. Mr. CREECH. Well, those are the rules under which the Commission operates, and Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, notwithstanding the majority opinion, indicated they felt this was a serious deprivation of due process. As I said, when I read the dissenting opinion, these are the rules the Supreme Court has upheld; these are the rules by which the Commission operates. I am asking you, as a member of the State advisory committee, as a private citizen, and as an American interested in civil rights, if it does not distress you to hear that there is a proceeding in which Americans find their reputations being attacked, in which they are accused of committing heinous crimes, and yet not given an opportunity to know who is accusing them of these crimes, and without being given an opoprtunity to confront those persons and cross-examine them? Mr. SECREST. Well, if I measure that against what the majority opinion, which was what? Seven to two in favor? I cannot help but think those seven men must have had pretty good legal basis on which they based their decision, and it did not sound that bad when they advanced their reasons for it so I would just rather they speak for themselves. When I hear what you read to me and realize that other legislative investigations of this sort go by those rules, I don't see why this particular Commission should not abide by the same law, if that is the way they all operate. Mr. CREECH. I don't think you can say they all operate that way, because the situation is not analogous. Mr. SECREST. Then I would rather not comment. Mr. CREECH. I was interested in having you tell me, as a member of a State advisory committee, advising a Federal agency concerned with civil rights and civil liberties, whether you feel it is desirable for an individual to have the right to know who is accusing him of committing a crime, and to have the opportunity to cross examine. Mr. SECREST. Well, I just don't know that I am really equipped to answer that question to my own satisfaction. If I cannot answer it to mine, I should not probably answer it to yours. I do think that that, in itself, would not lead me to vote against extending the life of the Commission 4 years. Mr. CREECH. Would you feel, though, that it would be desirable for the Commission to have rules which would permit individuals to know who accuses them of crimes and to give them an opportunity to cross examine? Mr. SECREST. Well, I would rather study the way the Commission operates before I answer that question. I might say "yes" now, and then find out later that I did not think that at all, after I studied it, so I think I ought to reserve my judgment on that. Mr. WATERS. Mr. Secrest, in the course of your meetings, if any adverse information is suggested, reflecting any activities of any other person, I assume you make this information available to the person affected; you give them a chance to tell their side of the story? Mr. SECREST. Oh, yes. We always do that. Any complaint about our being unfair of course, he says this is not an analogous situation, because they are not sworn, when they come before us, and all that. That has bothered some of us at various times; probably there is no ideal answer to that, but what we always do is extend an invitation to the person who has been accused, to appear before us, preferably at the same time, to answer at the same time face to face. If that cannot be done, then we always ask them to appear before us at the next meeting, and give them an equal opportunity to answer. You could say that anytime anybody said anything unfavorable about somebody else, and it hits the headlines, that we are taking unfair advantage of people, and it is our hope that through publicity, that we can help shed light on the situation; the State by itself, might be subject to character defamation and whatnot. But I don't know any perfect answer to that. Mr. WATERS. Your organization works on the principles of persuasion, does it not? Mr. SECREST. Yes. Mr. WATERS. And education, rather than a prosecutive arm. You find that elements of persuasion and face-to-face contacts with individuals have been working effectively in your area? Mr. SECREST. I think it has been effective, and, as I say, no one is complaining that they have been mistreated or misused. Mr. WATERS. A great many of your staff-I think you stated you are here at your own expense? That your people were not paid? Mr. SECREST. That is right. We are reimbursed for actual expenses. Mr. WATERS. This would tend to eliminate any possible duplication with the Civil Rights Division because, of course, these people do get paid. Mr. SECREST. Yes. Mr. WATERS. You feel you serve a useful purpose in that connection—whatever information you get filtered out, that you can make it available to them? Mr. SECREST. Right. Mr. WATERS. Or to the Civil Rights Commission? Mr. SECREST. Yes. I am not quite sure I follow you about who you said did get paid. I thought he was speaking about advisory committees in the Justice Department. I assume they would be paid. Does the law provide they be paid? Mr. WATERS. It is a thing that might be set up. We don't know what provisions would be made for them. Mr. SECREST. I see no reason, really, to go into that, if the proposition is working very well, as it is. I see no reason to change it or repeal it. Mr. WATERS. I think you pointed out, at least in your situation, the Civil Rights Commission or the Committee is the only place available for many of these people to go to? Mr. SECREST. It is the only place I know of. Mr. WATERS. Would you prefer that the Civil Rights Commission be retained as a permanent body of the Government? Mr. SECREST. Ideally, I think it should be retained on a permanent basis, permanent in the sense of as long as it is needed; but from a practical point of view, this particular bill we are talking about, S. 1117, provides a 4-year extension, and that might be very wise to take what you can get. Mr. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Secrest. Senator ERVIN. All the witnesses having been heard, this committee will be adjourned until June 5, 1963. (Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned until Wednesday, June 5, 1963, at 10:30 a.m.) CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:40 a.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Ervin (presiding). Also present: William A. Creech, chief counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Call the first witness. Mr. CREECH. Mr. Chairman, the first witness this morning in the Honorable Clifford P. Case, U.S. Senator from New Jersey. Senator Case. STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator ERVIN. Senator, we are glad to welcome you to the subcommitteee. Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appear in support of the extension of the life and the broadening of the functions of the Civil Rights Commission. I believe the Commission should be made permanent, as provided in S. 1219, of which I am cosponsor. At the very least, it should be extended for the 4-year period, which would be provided in S. 1117, and as requested by the President. The events of the last few weeks, in the North as well as the South, are, I believe, compelling testimony to the need for the Commission. As Vice President Johnson recently put it: One hundred years ago the slave was freed. One hundred years later the Negro remains in bondage to the color of his skin. The Negro today asks justice. We do not answer him *** when we reply to the Negro by asking "patience." As The Vice President went on to point out that the solution to the dilemmas of the present do not rest on "the hands of the clock." he said, "The solution is in our hands. We must set about," he warned, "the business of resolving the challenge which confronts us now." The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Mr. Chairman, has, in my view, an important role to play in achieving that solution. Set up to investigate complaints, we make studies, and to appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution, the Commission was directed to advise the President and Congress of its findings and recommendations. Pursuant to that responsibility, it recently issued an interim report recommending, among other things, that the President and the Ĉongress "consider seriously whether legislation is appropriate and desirable to assure that Federal funds contributed by citizens of all States not be made available to any State which continues to refuse to abide by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and, further, that the President explore the legal authority he possesses as Chief Executive to withhold Federal funds from the State of Mississippi, until the State of Mississippi demonstrates its compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States." In all the circumstances outlined by the Commission, that recommendation seems to me eminently reasonable and justified. Indeed, as I think the chairman knows, I have myself repeatedly joined in introducing legislation which would withhold Federal funds from specific federally assisted programs where State and local officials refuse compliance with the law. It is unfortunate, I think, that the initial reports, indeed the President himself, interpreted the recommendation of the Commission as a request that the President cut off all Federal funds from the State of Mississippi. I believe Commission spokesmen have since testified to the intent of the report, which was simply that the President explore his authority to withhold Federal participation from specific programs operated on a segregated basis. I also concur, Mr. Chairman, in the Commission's belief that "there is an overriding constitutional obligation to make certain that Federal funds are spent in a manner which will benefit all citizens without distinction." The Commission's report cited a graphic example of failure to discharge that obligation in the Federal Aviation Agency's grant of $2,180,000 for the construction of a jet airport to serve Jackson, Miss., without questioning the airport's plan to build separate eating and restroom facilities. In pointing out such weaknesses and failures in carrying out national policy the Commission has performed a most useful service. Further, the Commission in its broad inquiries into discriminatory practices in voting, education, housing and the like has illumined some less pleasant aspects of American life. That they are discomforting is itself an indication of the need for attention to them. In this connection, I point out that the Commission has held hearings in the North as well as the South, the East as well as the West. From personal contact with Commission officials in connection with a hearing in Newark, N.J., I know how carefully and how responsibly they have gone about them. This factfinding function, I believe, should be strengthened so as to permit the Commission to serve as a national clearinghouse for information and to provide advice and technical assistance to government agencies, communities, industries, organizations, or individuals in such fields as voting, education, housing, employment, the use of public facilities, transportation, and the administration of justice. Finally, the Civil Rights Commission is a vital conduit in com |