Senator HENNINGS. I understand that.

Mr. BROWNELL. And that we are very anxious not to do.

That is the reason we ask for specific congressional authority to do this important job.

Now, there are one or two points I would make on this bill to create a commission. I referred to them briefly, I think, at the outset of my

statement.

The Commission proposed by the President would present the means of securing this vitally needed information.

At the outset of my statement I noted that S. 83 contained with reference to the proposed Commission some provisions additional to those recommended by the administration.

One of these, the addition of the word "sex" on line 7, page 11, would make it the duty of the Commission to investigate allegations that citizens are being subjected to unwarranted economic pressures by reason of their sex.

This provision is not germane to the purpose of the legislation and should be stricken. If it is felt that there are serious problems of discrimination based on sex which should be investigated, they should certainly be dealt with separately from discriminations based on color, race, religion, or national origin.

Mr. SLAYMAN. General, may I interrupt there?

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Is it your understanding that those discriminations you have just named are those that we have come-at least, by general agreement to regard as civil rights?

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Matters that deal with discrimination based on color, race, religion, or national origin?

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.

Mr. SLAYMAN. But not including the one that you have just referred to-discrimination based solely on sex?

Mr. BROWNELL. That is my understanding and belief. In fact, I believe there is another bill that is before the subcommittee which would propose to add to this duty of the Commission the right to go into the area of discrimination based on membership or nonmembership in labor unions.

We would feel the same way about that that we do about adding the discrimination based on sex; that it is a subject apart from the civil rights area, and it would be an inappropriate provision to tack on to this bill.

Mr. SLAYMAN. As important as that might be for legislation, it is your understanding that that is not what we are trying to deal with in narrowing things down

Mr. BROWNELL. That is right.

Mr. SLAYMAN (continuing): To traditional concepts of civil rights? Mr. BROWNELL. That is exactly right.

Senator HENNINGS. I think Mr. Slayman and I talked about that yesterday or the day before and reached the same conclusion.

Mr. BROWNELL. Is that so!

Now there is one other addition to S. 83 that I would like to make special reference to and that is the provision for rules of procedure contained in section 102 on pages 2 to 10 of S. 83.

These rules of procedure are considerably more restrictive than those imposed on regular committees of the House and Senate. There is much in them which clearly would be desirable. We have not as yet had any experience with the use of rules such as those proposed here and we cannot predict the extent to which they might be used to obstruct the work of the Commission.

Favoring as I do the imposition of proper rules of procedures upon all governmental committees and commissions which conduct public hearings in order adequately to protect the individuals called before them, I am reluctant to take a stand opposing the imposition of the rules here involved.

Yet I feel that the task to be given to this Commission is of such great public importance that it would be a mistake to make it the vehicle for experimenting with new rules which may have to be tested out under the courts and this is only a 2-year Commission and you might have to spend those 2 years studying the rules instead of getting at the facts.

Another reason why I think perhaps the substance of these rules should be eliminated from this particular bill is that the caliber of the men whom the President would appoint to the Commission would be such that they could be counted on to give the fairest opportunity to witnesses and protect all of their legitimate rights.

So for these reasons I would suggest the deletion of those rules from the bill.

That concludes the part of my statement, Mr. Chairman, which deals with the so-called four proposals in the administration bill, but I would like, and you have invited me, to comment on other legislative proposals that are pending before the subcommittee.

There are several of them dealing with voting rights, on which I would like to comment in response to your invitation.

S. 427 and S. 500 and also title I of the bill in subcommittee print form contain provisions, as I say, dealing with the protection of voting rights. But we are inclined to favor the draft contained in S. 83 rather than that contained in these other bills for the reason that the S. 83 draft is limited to filling the important gap now present in the laws covering voting rights.

Private citizens, as I think I have mentioned before, have long had civil remedies against persons acting under color of law in voting cases.

Therefore we see no pressing need for statutory amendments that are directed to private litigation.

As to the amendment of the criminal sections, our experience has been that criminal sanctions are at best of limited value in civil rights voting cases. Therefore we recommend that at least until we have had experience

Senator HENNINGS. Of limited values in the tax field?

Mr. BROWNELL. That is very different, that is right.

Senator HENNINGS. Nor in other offenses violative of the Federal statutes?

Mr. BROWNELL. That is right; and they are an important part even in this field, but I think we all recognize they have limited value, and that at least until we have had experience to determine whether we can fully vindicate you might say the Federal interest in voting

cases by the use of the civil remedies, we recommend that we leave the criminal statutes as they are.

That is a matter of judgment of course, but to shoot at the bull's eye and not try to cover everything at once, we believe that that would be the best course to follow.

These other bills that I speak of also have some provision regarding the Commission on Civil Rights. The ones, for example, contained in title II of the subcommittee print are substantially similar to that supported by the administration, with the exception that I mentioned above, that it adds to the Commission's duties the investigation of claims of discrimination based on sex.

Mr. SLAYMAN. However, the subcommittee print does contain the improvement, General, doesn't it, which you are here recommending but which has not been made in the administration bill itself, S. 83, yet which would remove rules of procedure as presently written? Mr. BROWNELL. That is correct. I am glad you brought that

out.

Mr. SLAYMAN. I think this other item should be taken out in marking up the bill.

Mr. BROWNELL. I am glad you brought that out. Then with reference to the appointment of the new Assistant Attorney Generalthis is the point that I was going to make a minute ago, Mr. Chairman-and I perhaps am just repeating myself when I say this nowwe believe that the language contained in the subcommittee print and in S. 428 and S. 502 is unnecessarily detailed because historically it has been given to the Attorney General to use his discretion in the assigning of responsibilities within his Department in the manner which from time to time seems most useful.

Also, we did not mention but perhaps should at the same time mention the fact that the subcommittee print bill has a provision about the duties of the FBI in this area, and we are inclined to think it is not necessary to put that in.

We have had of course the fullest cooperation from the Bureau in civil rights cases, and to the extent that new personnel is needed to keep up with increased civil rights activity, I am certain that Congress would appropriate the necessary budget requests for that purpose.

Mr. SLAYMAN. You would not see any objection to that being stated for legislative history in the committee report?

Mr. BROWNELL. I think it would be a good idea in fact to do that. I not only see no objection but I think that would be the proper way to handle it.

Senator HENNINGS. General, I wonder if you would be so kind as to have a study made to see whether there has ever been division established by law rather than by executive action on the part of the Attorney General himself?

Mr. BROWNELL. All right. I am not prepared on it but I will be glad to have that study made and filed with you.

Senator HENNINGS. Neither am I. I would appreciate it very much and I am sure the committee would.

Mr. BROWNELL. The only division that has been created during my term of office which I could describe was the Internal Security Division and that was set up in the manner that we recommend here. Congress authorized the creation of an Assistant Attorney General, and

the scope of the authority was left to the discretion of the person in the Department.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Attorney General, wouldn't the fact that this section providing for the appointment of another Assistant Attorney General, being found in the fabric of an act of this kind, carry the necessary and almost inescapable connotation that that would be the scope of his duties and the purpose for his appointment? Mr. BROWNELL. That is my opinion, yes.

Senator HRUSKA. Was that about the background and the setting in the case of the Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Internal Security?

Mr. BROWNELL. I believe that to be the case, but I will follow up with a study which the chairman suggests, to verify that.

Senator HENNINGS. General, I wonder if you would be good enough while you are having that study made, to have the background of the establishment of all of the divisions within your department presented?

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.

Senator HENNINGS. It will be a good thing to have in the record. It will be very helpful.

Mr. BROWNELL. Now I come to the antilynching proposal so-called involved in the various bills.

Title IV, for example, of the bill in subcommittee print and also S. 429 and S. 505 would set up a Federal Antilynching Act, and certainly I think it is clear, I hope at least from our record, that we are not opposed to any legislation which would bring a complete end to anything that is so repugnant to all of our principles of law and justice as lynchings as that term is ordinarily understood.

But I would point out that the bill goes to the extent of making it a Federal crime, and here I quote from the bill:

Whenever two or more persons shall knowingly in concert commit or attempt to commit violence upon any person or persons or on his or their property because of his or their race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, language, religion or for any other reason which denies due process of law.

As you know, serious constitutional objections have been raised by responsible authorities to such an extension of Federal power over private citizens, and also doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of such an extension of Federal jurisdiction, apart from constitutionality. Now no doubt all of us in this room are shocked by such cases asSenator HENNINGS. What do you thing about the constitutionality General, just offhand?

Mr. BROWNELL. I have always felt, Mr. Chairman, that the most lawyerlike way to proceed in this area would be a constitutional amendment.

I would make reference here to such cases as Emmet Louis Till down in Mississippi where it was charged that two private individuals seized a Negro teen-aged boy and killed him because he had wolf-whistled at the wife of one of them.

All of us too have been shocked by the situation in Montgomery, Ala.

Senator ERVIN. If I may interrupt at this point?

Mr. BROWNELL. Yes, indeed.

Senator HENNINGS. The Senator from North Carolina.

Senator ERVIN. During the last Democratie administration I had the privilege of sitting on the platform-drafting committee for 5 days in the city of Chicago, and during those 5 days a great many organizations came before us and deplored the Till murder case, which was an atrocious murder case. But during the time we were sitting and hearing of this atrocious case, 2 murders happened in the city of Chicago just as atrocious as the Till murder case, and yet nobody came before our committee to express any regret over those 2

matters.

Mr. BROWNELL, I think that that is correct. The Till case was used as propaganda on a worldwide basis. It had tremendous publicity, and damaged the interests of the United States, I am sure, because of that publicity.

But I agree with you, and the point I am going to try to make here is that we should consider the consequences very carefully when we are considering any such extension of this, of putting the Federal Government's jurisdiction into what are essentially murder cases.

There must be literally thousands, as you say, Senator, of cases each year, North and South, which involve violence to persons or property, in which the claim could be made that two or more persons conspired to commit the violence because of prejudice based on race, religion, or national origin.

Senator ERVIN. I might point out in this connection, Mr. Attorney General, while on the point that in the year 1955 there were 6,850 murders and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the United States. There were 19,100 rape cases, there were 57,490 robbery cases, and 92,740 cases of aggravated assault, and 492,530 cases of burglary, and 1,360,980 cases of larceny, and 227,150 cases of automobile theft, those being cases involving injuries to persons and property.

Mr. BROWNELL. Thank you for that bill of particulars Senator, which emphasizes the point I am trying to make, that if the Federal jurisdiction were extended in this way, the FBI would have the duty of investigating all these complaints.

The complaints would be larger than the numbers you have mentioned and ultimate Federal jurisdiction would turn on an issue of fact which would be, to put it mildly, exceedingly difficult to determine, that is whether the defendants knowingly in concert committed the violence because of antipathy based on race or religion or national origin.

Senator HENNINGS. That is a jury question.

Mr. BROWNELL. A jury question, so that we believe, we fear at least, that such Federal interference with local law enforcement would greatly disturb Federal and State relations throughout the country, and I think too it should be remembered that we have to depend on local communities to enforce the laws regarding violence to persons and property.

Senator ERVIN. Please pardon another interruption at this point. If such a bill were enacted and the jury should have a reasonable doubt as to whether the crime of violence grew out of a difference on a matter of race or color, the jury would have to acquit in the Federal court, no matter how atrocious the crime may have been?

Senator HENNINGS. May I say to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina that that also applies to murder in the first degree.