Of necessity, I can only speak for myself; however, our experience in this field has been very limited. We do have civil rights statutes in force and there have been a few successful prosecutions. This leads me to the conclusion that we, in North Dakota, do not have the problems that some sister States might; consequently, I see no compelling need for a Federal authority in this area. Of course, merely setting up the Commission does not solve the problem and the ultimate decision lies with the Congress. I trust that this information might be of service to you. HELGI JOHANNESON, Attorney General. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: I am pleased to submit my views with respect to Senate bills 1117 and 1219 relating to the extension of the Commission on Civil Rights. I strongly recommend the continuation of the life of this Commission, and particularly favor Senate bill 1219 which would make the Commission a permanent agency in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The most serious and insidious denial of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution result from political, economic, and social discrimination. Making the Commission on Civil Rights a permanent part of our Federal Government would be a great step forward in overcoming the abuses and denials of the equal protection of the law because of a person's race, religious, or racial origin. Although I urge the enactment of these statutes, it is my opinion that the authority contained therein should be extended to permit the handling of specific complaints in areas other than those involving voting. Although both bills would empower the Commission to provide advice and technical assistance with regard to equal protection of the law in all civil rights areas, they are silent on such vital and important matters as the right of Government officials to intervene in civil rights cases. They are also silent with respect to such matters as housing, employment, public accommodation, and education. There should be provisions for hearings on these subjects with the right to issue orders enforceable in the courts. Sincerely yours, WALTER E. ALESSANDRONI, Attorney General. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Providence, April 30, 1963. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 24, 1963, together with copies of the two bills introduced in the U.S. Senate with reference to the Commission on Civil Rights. At your request, I have studied both bills in detail and while in no way professing to be an expert on the question in issue, it is my opinion that S. 1117, the administration bill, appears more desirable and more effective than Senator Saltonstall's bill, S. 1219. As I have indicated to you in prior answers to your correspondence, I am firmly convinced of the necessity of guaranteeing to every citizen of this Nation, the right to the secret ballot. I realize fully some of the practical difficulties attendant upon the passage of legislation to accomplish this purpose and for that reason, I would respectfully suggest that S. 1117 can certainly be termed a step in the right direction. You, of course, have my consent to the insertion of my comments in the published record of the hearing to be held on either or both of the bills in question. Very truly yours, J. JOSEPH NUGENT, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. Senator, STATE OF UTAH, Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 24, 1963, relating to S. 1117 and S. 1219. I have examined S. 1117 and favor the continuation of the Civil Rights Commission. I feel that for the most part the Commission is the best instrumentality to serve as a clearinghouse for civil rights problems. The administrative aspects of S. 1117, such as increasing compensation of Commissioners and other matters, I would view with favor. I further would view with favor the power of the Commission to adopt necessary rules and regulations. There is, however, one aspect of the operation and jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Commission which I feel needs some congressional inquiry. As you are aware, in the case of Hannah v. Larche, 80 Sup. Ct. 1502 (1960), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the necessity of the Commission to afford persons who appeared before it under adverse circumstances the right to rebut, crossexamine, or make inquiry into the substance of a complaint before the Commission. I have some substantial doubts as to whether this decision has not unduly narrowed other constitutional rights. I recognize that the Supreme Court might have been motivated by a need to protect certain racial minority leaders from harassment. However, in doing so, it appears they limited the rights of other persons whose conduct was under inquiry to properly protect themselves. Your attention is invited to a note in 7 Utah Law Review, 402 (1961), in which a similar conclusion is reached. I do not feel that the executive session provisions of S. 1117 provide a suitable alternative to the right of reasonable appraisal of the substance under inquiry. Essentially is this so because, to some degree, the Civil Rights Commission operates quasi-judicially. It appears to me that there is some inconsistency between the decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases involving the right to administrative hearings and the decision in the Hannah case, and, therefore, I feel that this one aspect of the operations of the Civil Rights Commission should, in the interest of civil rights, be examined as to the need for appropriate changes. I strongly favor increasing the scope of obligation and function of the Civil Rights Commission, and, if in the discretion of Congress, the provisions of S. 1219, making the Commission a permanent function of the executive branch of the Government, is deemed necessary, then it should be carried out. Sincerely, A. PRATT KESLER, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Your letter of April 24 addressed to the attorney general of Virginia was turned over by him to me, and has received the attention of more than one member of our commission and staff. We are in accord with your view that the greatest single danger is giving to the Commission on Civil Rights the right to set up its own rules and regulations. I hope that that will be severely limited by the Congress itself. Otherwise, we are going to have another governmental agency going high, wide, and handsome. Sincerely yours, DAVID J. MAYS, Chairman. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., STATE OF WYOMING, Cheyenne, July 3, 1963. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This letter is in reply to your inquiry concerning the views of this office with reference to the two pending bills relating to the Commission on Civil Rights-S. 1117 and S. 1219. We would like to submit the following statement and hereby authorize you to insert it in the published record: "With reference to S. 1219, we do not favor making a Commission on Civil Rights a permanent agency of the executive branch of Government. New agencies should be created when a need is conclusively established. We are confident of the capabilities of the judicial branch of our Government in administering justice as to these areas of constitutional rights. "With reference to S. 1117, we believe that the rule and regulation making authority of the Commission is too broad in scope. Caution should be exercised in this delicate area of opportunity for administrative fiat." We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to make our thoughts known. With best regards. Sincerely yours, Hon. BURKE MARSHALL, DEAN W. BORTHWICK, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MARSHALL: During hearings on S. 1117 and S. 1219, bills to extend the life of the Civil Rights Commission, a recurring concern on the part of the members and witnesses has been the extent to which the Commission's work may duplicate that of your Division. During hearings on the Justice Department's budget requests for fiscal year 1959, the following statement was made on behalf of the Department: "In addition to the enforcement of the civil rights statutes it will take on a program of liaison and consultation with law-enforcement agencies and other officials of the States in order to promote understanding of the problems and to place the State and Federal responsibilities in their proper perspective." Commenting on this, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, W. W. White stated: "We have in mind the great importance of the collection of far greater information-both factually and legally, in the whole civil rights area ***. We think that without such activity we just cannot do the job." In January 1962, testifying for appropriations for 1963, Attorney General Kennedy stated: "In the field of civil rights the Department's basic policy is to seek effective guarantees and action from local officials and civic leaders, voluntarily and without court action where investigation has disclosed evidence of civil rights violations." It would appear from these statements that the clearinghouse and technical assistance functions proposed for the Commission are already being performed by your Division. Please outline for the subcommittee specifically what your Division has been doing in the areas of factfinding, advice, and technical assistance, the number of staff members engaged in such duties, how much time is devoted to their work by the Department, and express for the subcommittee your judgment whether there is or would be duplication of work between the Commission and your Division. With all kind wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman. JULY 9, 1963. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: In your letter of June 14, 1963, you raise the question of possible duplication between the work of this Division and the clearinghouse and technical assistance functions which would be given the Commission on Civil Rights under S. 1117 and S. 1219. As you know, the omnibus administration bill, S. 1731, contains the same provisions as S. 1117. I can assure the members of your committee that the duties and functions of the Commission and the Civil Rights Division would be quite distinct. I should like also to relate these duties to those of the Community Relations Service which the administration has proposed in S. 1731. The Division's primary responsibility is to conduct litigation to enforce civil rights statutes. Current and cumulative information, both factual and legal, on such matters as bombings, sit-ins, police brutality, rejection of Negro voters, private desegregation suits, and local and State legislation affecting civil rights, is basic to this work. The Division, therefore, maintains files of pertinent newspaper clippings and legal case materials which are then used in connection with litigation. These files have, on occasion, permitted us to provide information to other Federal agencies and to Members of Congress, and we have been happy to do so. But this is incidental. The real purpose of the information compiled is to provide the Division with the kind of specialized "library" which it needs for its specialized legal work. It is not a "clearinghouse" and it is not prepared to act in that capacity. Our work with local officials, to which the Attorney General referred, is also closely related to our primary duty of litigation. As the Attorney General stated, “*** we have reopened and maintained communication with Negro and white leaders in the South and the North. As a result, we have been able to use our good offices effectively to mediate a great number of disputes, permitting considerable progress toward ending discrimination." These efforts have enabled us to avoid litigation in many instances. But we do not provide "technical assistance" and we have no staff members who are regularly assigned to mediation or advisory duties. The administration has therefore proposed not only the expansion of the duties of the Commission on Civil Rights but also the establishment of a Community Relations Service which could enter into racially troubled areas and carry on the tasks of mediation and extrajudicial settlement of local problems. The proposed legislation expanding the duties of the Commission on Civil Rights would authorize that agency to provide information, advice and assistance upon the request of a private or public agency. This would be a logical extension of the present investigative and reporting duties of the Commission. The Commission has held hearings, collected a large amount of information, and published useful and valuable reports concerning many facets of racial discrimination and civil rights. The Civil Rights Division, on the other hand, does not hold hearings and does not publish reports or compile extensive bibliographical material. We find the publications of the Commission most helpful in our work. The functions of our agencies, as I have stated, are separate and distinct and the proposed extension of duties of the Commission has no counterpart in the Civil Rights Division. If I may be of any further assistance to your committee, please feel free to call upon me at any time. Sincerely, BURKE MARSHALL, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. JULY 9, 1963. Hon. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I would appreciate your apprising the subcommittee of the total number of complaints referred by the Commission on Civil Rights to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Specifically, the subcommittee would like to know the nature of the complaints and the action taken upon the complaints by the Department. The subcommittee will appreciate your prompt attention to this request. Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN : This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1963, requesting information concerning the number and nature of complaints referred to this Department by the Commission on Civil Rights and the action taken upon such complaints by this Department. I have examined the statistical records kept by the Department to determine whether information you seek would be available, and have concluded that in order to provide the information you seek it would be necessary to review in detail each of the files relating to the more than 3,000 complaints received annually from various sources. This is due to the fact that our machine listings contain only a single source for each complaint whereas, in fact, many complaints are received simultaneously, or approximately so, from more than one source. To provide you the statistics obtained from the mechanized records would be misleading; to obtain them by individually researching all our files would greatly overburden our limited staff and interfere with essential functions. While I would like to be of assistance to you in this matter, practical difficulties make that impossible. Sincerely, BURKE MARSHALL, Civil Rights Division. 42. U.S. CODE § 1975 CHAPTER 20A.-CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION 1975. Commission on Civil Rights. (a) Establishment. There is created in the executive branch of the Government a Commission on Civil Rights (hereinafter called the "Commission"). (b) Composition; appointment. The Commission shall be composed of six members who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three of the members shall at any one time be of the same political party. (c) Chairman and Vice Chairman. The President shall designate one of the members of the Commission as Chairman and one as Vice Chairman. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence or disability of the Chairman, or in the event of a vacancy in that office. (d) Vacancies. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner, and subject to the same limitation with respect to party affiliations as the original appointment was made. (e) Quorum. Four members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. (Pub. L. 85-315, pt. I, § 101, Sept. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 634.) SHORT TITLE Section 161 of Pub. L. 85-315 provided that Pub. L. 85-315, which enacted sections 1975-1975e and 1995 of this title, and section 295-1 of Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, amended section 1971 of this title, and sections 1343 and 1861 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and repealed section 1993 of this title, should be popularly known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1957." 20-982 0-63-23 |