of analyzing the situation, the problems that face those of us who live in a large metropolitan industrial center. Senator ERVIN. Leave one with the reporter. Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you very much. Senator ERVIN. It will be received and printed in full. Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. Senator ERVIN. Thank you for coming before us and giving us the benefit of your views and experience. Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you. Senator HART. Thank you. Senator ERVIN. The record as presented by Senator Hart shows that you have done a very fine job in the life of the city of Detroit. Senator HART. Thank you for that comment, Mr. Chairman. (The booklet by Francis A. Kornegay will appear in the appendix.) Senator ERVIN. We will take a recess until 3 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 3 p.m. on the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator ERVIN (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order. We will have printed in the record at this point a letter written by Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Justice; and a letter written by Andrew J. Biemiller, director, department of legislation, AFL-CIO; and a letter written by Mike Masaoka, Washington representative of the Japanese American Citizens League; and a letter written by McNeill Smith to Senator Philip Hart. These will be printed in the record at this point. The last letter is inserted in the record at the request of Senator Hart. (The letters referred to follow :) Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department on S. 1117 and S. 1219. S. 1117 would extend the life of the Civil Rights Commission for 4 years, while S. 1219 would make it a permanent agency in the executive branch of the Government. Both bills would give additional duties to the Commission, as suggested by the President in his message on civil rights of February 28, 1963. Under these bills the Commission would serve as a national clearinghouse for furnishing advice, information, and technical assistance with respect to equal protection of the laws to private or public agencies requesting such service. The subject areas would include voting, education, housing, administration of justice, employment, and use of public transportation and accommodations. S. 1117 also contains several technical amendments relating to the subpenaing of witnesses and compensation of personnel. The Department favors the assignment of the additional clearinghouse functions to the Commission. This is a logical development and expansion of the work thus far accomplished by the Commission. It will enable useful and effective correlation of the activities of various governmental agencies directed toward equal protection of the law in these various areas. The Department also favors extension of the life of the Commission. It was originally intended to terminate in 1959. Congress has twice extended it for A 2-year periods. Under present law it will terminate September 30, 1963. meaningful extension of 4 years will enable adequate followup of activities already undertaken, and will allow sufficiently long-range planning for further activity in the additional areas proposed by these two bills. To feel, however, that a permanent Commission is needed would, as the President has suggested, seem to indicate too pessimistic an attitude toward solution of our problems. For these reasons we recommend the adoption of S. 1117, rather than S. 1219. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report and enactment of S. 1117 would be in accord with the program of the President. Sincerely yours, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH. Deputy Attorney General. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with the current hearings of your subcommittee on S. 1117, a bill to continue for 4 years the Commission on Civil Rights and to broaden the scope of the duties of the Commission, I wish to express the support of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations for this bill. The AFL-CIO supported establishment of the Civil Rights Commission in 1957. We believe an extension of the Commission and a broadening of the scope of the duties and activities of the Commission is an urgent necessity to meet the problems and responsibilities that face the United States in the area of civil rights. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that this letter be included in the record of hearings on S. 1117. Sincerely yours, ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation. JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: On behalf of the Japanese American Citizens League, the only national organization of Americans of Japanese ancestry, may we go on record with your subcommittee as urging the extension of the existence of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and expanding its duties and responsibilities. We prefer that the Commission be established as a permanent and independent agency of the U.S. Government. If this is not possible at this time, we urge that its existence be continued for at least 4 more years beyond its present expiration date of November 30, 1963. We believe that at the minimum its powers and authority and staff should be increased so that it may serve as a clearinghouse for civil rights information and may provide technical assistance to Government agencies, communities, industries, organizations, and individuals in respect to equal protection of the laws. Beyond this, we would like to have the Commission provided the power and the authority to enforce the civil rights of all Americans through court and other appropriate action. Others have explained the scope and the success of the current and past activities of the Commission, as well as to urge the necessity for both an extended and permanent existence and enlarged authority and staff for the Commission. May we associate ourselves with our fellow organizations and individuals of good will who would have the Congress legislate that all Americans may have equal opportunity and dignity. The time is long past due when the legislative caught up with the judicial and the executive branches in dealing with this very important aspect of our national life. Inasmuch as we understand that these hearings are to be limited to the consideration of legislation relating to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, we shall not in this letter indicate our concern that your subcommittee and the Congress consider and pass other civil rights legislation too during this session. On the other hand, we do wish to make clear that, although the Negro American is the largest minority subject to the deprivation of civil rights at this time, there are other American minorities too who have an important stake in the continued life of the Commission. These include, among others, the Spanish Americans, the American Indians, the Jewish Americans, and the Asian Americans. As your subcommittee is aware, we Americans of Japanese ancestry know from personal experience during World War II the meaning of the loss of the many and great immunities, privileges, and opportunities of American citizenship, as well as the respect and dignity to which all Americans should be entitled as a matter of right and decency. Had there been a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate the facts and to recommend appropriate action to the executive and legislative branches of Government, we might have had hope that, in spite of the hate and hysteria fomented by war and the historic prejudice of some against those of Japanese ancestry on the west coast, truth and justice would prevail and the constitutional rights of all native-born citizens protected. And, the possibilities are that these American rights and privileges would have been preserved even for our small nationality minority. Respectfully submitted. MIKE MASAOKA, Washington Representative. SMITH, MOORE, SMITH, SCHELL & HUNTER, Re S. 1117 Senator PHILIP A. HART, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Thank you for your letter expressing the hope that it might be possible for me to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in support of continuing the important work of the Commission on Civil Rights. The hearings have been scheduled for May 21, 22, and 23 and it will not be practicable for me to attend on any of these dates. However, I would want to be recorded as favoring an extension of the life of the Commission. From January 1959 to December 1962 I served as Chairman of the North Carolina Advisory Committee to the Commission on Civil Rights. The collection and publication of information by the Commission was generally well received in North Carolina and this service met a definite need which, in my opinion, still continues. This need is not confined to North Carolina or any section of the country. No other agency, insofar as I know, is in a position to collect information concerning legal developments which constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution, nor to appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. In order to support sound policies of government, whether local or National Government, the citizens need a great deal of information. What is needed is light, not heat. In all the charges and countercharges concerning equal protection of the laws there has been a great deal of heat and an insufficient amount of light. As an agency of the Federal Government, the Commission on Civil Rights is in a unique position to provide light. It would be a mistake in my opinion, to have this source of light shut off. This is not to say that every suggestion and recommendation of the Commission must be approved and adopted. There is room for wide differences as to what action should be taken by Government in this as well as in other matters, but because we may disagree with this or that proposal as submitted in the past by the Commission, we should not on that account abolish the Commission. That would stop the collection of information which we all need in order to decide on what is a proper course of action. The aspect of the work of the Commission with which I have been most familiar has been that of the Advisory Committee in North Carolina. From its inception in 1959, this committee followed a policy of meeting in the principal cities across the State. All the meetings were open to the public. The press coverage was fair and adequate. The editorial approval of the work of the committee was generous. Many persons from all walks of life in North Carolina, both in and out of government, have expressed appreciation for the very existence of the committee, composed entirely of North Carolinians, representing the various geographical, racial, and political interests of the State. This was a ready forum in which interested citizens could raise questions of current concern about equal protection of the laws; that is, about how fairly and impartially government was serving all the citizens of the State. In the view of many, this forum for public discussion allowed the citizens generally to consider these questions more calmly and reasonably than in the courtroom in a contested suit, in the halls of the legislature or in executive offices or in the midst of picketing of governmental facilities. This local forum, having an official auspice because of its establishment pursuant to an act of Congress, yet without any enforcement powers, is in my opinion a most useful civic institution. No voluntary private organization can serve the same purpose as well. Whatever the private auspices, both accessibility and representation are open to suspicion. In addition to the open forum service performed by the State advisory committees, these committees have (as indicated by the experience of the North Carolina Advisory Committee) secured valuable cooperation from State and local officials, as well as Federal officials operating in the State, in supplying needed information not otherwise available. A copy of the collected reports of the North Carolina Advisory Committee during the period 1959-62 is being sent to you, under separate cover, to illustrate the type of information that was collected both from public hearings and independent inquiries made by the committee and the manner in which the information was presented to the general public of the State. The reports on the various subjects were released from time to time as they were made and widely circulated in the public offices, press, and the schools and libraries of the State. The requests from many sources throughout the State for further studies indicate the continuing need for this service. Senator Jordan spoke most graciously of the work of the North Carolina Advisory Committee in his remarks on the Senate floor August 30, 1961. I concur in the view often expressed by Senator Ervin that how local governments deal with their citizens, as well as how human beings respect each other outside of their governmental relations, must ultimately depend upon the will of the people where they live, move, and have their being. The Commission on Civil Rights and the State advisory committees in each State, have performed and in my opinion will continue to perform, if Congress continues their existence, a valuable function in providing the people of each locality, as well as the wider community of the Nation, channels of communication, and sources of current information not otherwise available. Both these functions are needed for the understanding and support of a wise consensus. Very truly yours, Senator ERVIN. Call the next witness. MCNEILL SMITH. Mr. CREECH. Mr. Chairman, the first witness this afternoon is Mr. Ralph Courtney, representing the Liberty lobby. Mr. Courtney. STATEMENT OF RALPH COURTNEY, ON BEHALF OF THE LIBERTY LOBBY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. WOOD, GENERAL COUNSEL, LIBERTY LOBBY Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I am John Wood, general counsel of the Liberty lobby. I would like to introduce Mr. Courtney of Spring Valley, N.Y., who is head of the Threefold Institute for Social Decentralization and also a board member of the Liberty lobby. He is a former Paris correspondent for the New York Tribune and a former head of the New York Tribune in Paris. Senator ERVIN. We are glad to have both of you gentlemen with us. You may proceed. Mr. COURTNEY. I need these magnifiers because my sight is failing. The Liberty lobby is a national organization of over 25,000 patriotic Americans who are seriously concerned with the increasing trend toward Federal centralism. We view these bills as vividly representative of this dangerous trend and strongly oppose them and urge their defeat. It is the conviction of those who share the decentralist point of view that whenever a proposed bill singles out a group of citizens and proposes to do something for, or against, this group, then this bill aims at something that is contrary to the spirit of the American Constitution. For the United States was not to have second- or third-class citizens; nor is there any justification in the Constitution for classifying citizens as workingmen or employers, or as anything else such as blacks and whites. All were to be full citizens, entitled to common and equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, when any bill to extend or add to the rights of groups of citizens points to groups inferentially, such a bill may be suspected of subverting the Constitution. The so-called rights which this bill proposes may actually deny common rights on which this country was founded by creating special "rights" or, better said, special privileges to be given to groups in seeking their political support or for other reasons. We have in America a politically centralized society. Thus, a politically centralized society, which, in reality, is a hangover from a former and more aristocratic view of social life, is still with us today. Instead of respecting common and equal rights, this type of society continues to hand out special favors. The corruption to which this method of handling public affairs has opened the door is bound to continue until social functions are decentralized and the powers of government can be limited to the safeguarding of equal rights. Social decentralism draws a sharp distinction between the cultural, political, and economic functions of society. The cultural life of society will be the richer the more it is free from political direction. The political life of rights will be satisfactory to the extent that it maintains the principle of equal rights. The economy will be efficient and healthy when conducted on the basis of common rights, especially equal rights, in the pursuit of economic happiness. The politically centralized social form which society has not been able to outgrow or shake off originated hundreds of years ago when the needs of men were very different from those today. The peoples of that time believed that the earth as well as the heavens was actually ruled by the Divinity Himself with the help of His angels, archangels, archai, et cetera. Therefore, the earthly rulership, with its governments and their ministers, was planned as a faithful reflection of this arrangement in the heavens. Such is the outmoded social form that we still follow today. Certain members of this basically aristocrate setup were considered to be superior to others, and there was presumed to exist within this complex a supreme authority to which everything could, if necessary, |