be referred back. Nowadays, it is clear to all citizens that there is nothing in the supreme political authority that by the greatest stretch of the imagination could be thought of as divine or even noble. As long as political centralism permits victorious parties to create special privileges for themselves or their supporters, the racial element that is dominant in society becomes important. But as soon as the American doctrine is accepted; namely, that the creation and maintenance of rights is an equalitarian function, it will become unconstitutional to create special privileges and the racial problem will become a thing of the past. The American alternative to political centralism is to be found in the Declaration of Independence where the task of safeguarding rights that are equal and held in common by all is entrusted to the Government of the newly conceived American society. If this concept had been followed, it would have limited the governmental function to the field of common rights, leaving education and business to develop freely on the basis of general rights. This separation and independent operation of the cultural, political, and economic functions of social life is functional decentralism. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Courtney, I want to commend the excellence of your statement, which, as I construe it, gets to the essentials of what America was intended to be, and that is a land where all men would have equal rights, and special rights would be granted to none. Mr. COURTNEY. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And, as I construe your statement, it is a very fine reflection of that American dream. And you put your finger on the fundamental defect in legislation of the character that we have been discussing. This legislation does nothing more or less than this: It picks out certain peoples of America solely upon the basis of their race and undertakes to give them special privileges which had never been sought by, or granted to, any other group of Americans in our history. And whenever we get away from that or whenever we allow the Congress to convert itself into a legislative body which undertakes to pick out any group of Americans on the basis of race or any other peculiar quality and give them special privileges not granted to any other American in the history of our Nation, Congress is doing more to put an end to the American dream and destroy the American Government than any other body on earth can do. Mr. COURTNEY. Yes, sir, that is absolutely correct. Senator ERVIN. We certainly appreciate your coming here and speaking on behalf of your organization. Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. CREECH. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is the Reverend Cornelius C. Tarplee. Mr. Tarplee is representing the national council, Episcopal Church Center. us. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee is delighted to have you with STATEMENT OF REV. CORNELIUS C. TARPLEE, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY FOR INTERGROUP RELATIONS, NATIONAL COUNSEL, PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH Mr. TARPLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real privilege to be allowed to come before you, sir. My title, sir, is associate secretary for intergroup relations, and I speak as a staff person for the Right Reverend Frederick Warnecke, who is the chairman of the Department of Christian Social Relations of the Episcopal Church. This statement of Bishop Warnecke's, I would like to have the privilege of presenting to you, sir. Senator ERVIN. Yes, sir. Mr. TARPLEE (reading): The purpose of this statement is to urge that you lend your support to the extension of the existence of the Federal Civil Rights Commission. All the major religious groups in the United States have stated their conviction that discrimination on racial and religous grounds is contrary to the will of God as revealed to them in tradition and Scripture. Authoritative statements published by the various official bodies of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish persuasions move from such a basic assertion to calling specifically upon their membership to work both corporately and individually for the abolition of all the social manifestations of prejudice. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, through the action of its general convention, conceives it to be the role of Government under the Federal Constitution to establish and preserve in the various orders of community life that justice which religion perceives to be commensurate with man's needs. The Federal Civil Rights Commission has provided the information, the moral persuasion and the evaluative function basically necessary to peaceful progress in the quest for racial accord and human rights. Its termination at this critical moment in our history will, in our judgment, seriously hamper both private and governmental agencies in their work for the resolution of racial controversy. Should it not be continued in existence, the disillusioning effect on the minority groups and all the people of our Nation would be enormous. We ask you to report favorably on Senate bill (S. 1117), an extension and strengthening of the Civil Rights Commission. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Cornelius Tarplee, the committee is grateful to you for your appearing here and giving us the views of the organization for which you speak. Thank you very much. Mr. TARPLEE. Thank you, sir. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee's next scheduled hearing is June 6. We will take a recess until 10:30 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, June 6, 1963.) CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess and subsequent postponement, at 2:10 p.m., in room 318, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Senators Ervin and Kennedy. Also present: William A. Creech, Chief Counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. CREECH. Mr. Chairman, the first witness this afternoon is Dr. John Hannah, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Dr. Hannah will be accompanied by Mr. Berl Bernhard, Staff Director of the Civil Rights Commission, and Mr. William Taylor, Assistant Staff Director. Senator ERVIN. Dr. Hannah, the subcommittee is glad to have you with us. You have a written statement. Dr. HANNAH. Yes, sir, Senator; if it is agreeable it is not very long-I would like to read it. Senator ERVIN. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN A. HANNAH, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS; ACCOMPANIED BY BERL I. BERNHARD, STAFF DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION; AND WILLIAM TAYLOR, ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR, CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Dr. HANNAH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate your invitation to add to the testimony already presented on behalf of the Commission my own views on legislation which would extend the life of the agency and revise its functions. The testimony this committee has received from Commissioner Griswold and Mr. Bernhard fully states the reasons for a long-term extension of the Commission on Čivil Rights and an amplification of its authority. I would add only a few personal reflections, based in part upon my experience during the past 5 years as Chairman of the Commission. It is clear to me that we are in the midst of a revolutionary change in race relations in this Nation. When our Commission was established in 1957, the national policy of equal opportunity was already firmly embedded in the law. The principle had been eloquently stated long ago in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the Constitution. It had been implemented in a series of judicial decisions, particularly the Supreme Court's opinions in Brown v. Board of Education and the cases following, which said without qualification that segregation in all aspects of public life violated the Constitution. Yet, as the Commission was to learn in a series of investigations and hearings in all sections of the Nation, there was widespread disregard of these basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Commission learned, too, in its hearings and investigations that the denial of equal opportunity had inflicted deep wounds upon the Negro community, wounds which were keenly felt by the great majority of its citizens. This last fact was perhaps not very apparent to most of the American public. There were, of course, a number of organizations of standing which had been working over the years to secure equal rights for Negro citizens, employing such traditional methods as litigation, legislation, political, and community action. But the deep discontent of the average Negro citizen had not manifested itself in the kind of overt action dramatic enough to compel our attention. Thus, it was possible for some people to conclude that the activities of the NAACP, the Urban League, and other organizations did not reflect any strong dissatisfaction on the part of the Negro community. The events of recent weeks have shattered any such illusion. It is a measure of the desperation of the Negro people of Birmingham that they were willing to see their children go to jail in the hope that it would contribute to a better future for them. And the deep feelings of Birmingham have been echoed in demonstrations in North Carolina; Philadelphia; Jackson, Miss. and other cities all over the Nation. These actions and the feelings which prompted them must be understood. Instead of being overly critical of leaders who now demand action, we should be grateful to American Negroes for their patience, forbearance, and tolerance over the long years of slow progress. Violence cannot be condoned, but we should understand why some feel that they are driven to it. In this connection, I would ask those who plead and argue for a gradual alleviation of the Negro's miserable lot to put himself in the place of a Negro and ask himself how patient he would be if, 9 years after the Supreme Court's desegregation decision, he saw fewer than 8 percent of Negro children in the South attending integrated schools, and in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama none; if he saw equal opportunities for employment denied to him; if he saw himself still without a vote 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation; if he saw good housing denied him even if he could afford it; and if he saw his fellows receive a different kind of treatment by police officers than that accorded whites. Philosophically, a slow tedious advance toward equality in education, employment, voting, housing, and justice may be best, but the individual Negro cannot afford to be that philosophical. He has but one lifetime; who can blame him for wanting to enjoy his rights within that lifetime? The turmoil will continue. Out of it, I am sure there will come an end to many of the racial practices that violate our Constitution |