unwarranted interference with the processes of justice of our State court could take place. Senator HRUSKA. Is that the only instance where representatives of the Department of Justice came to your State? Senator TALMADGE. No; I am sure that it is not. That is the most recent and the most notorious. Here was a situation involving State law and State law alone, and yet the Attorney General sent agents of the Department of Justice to question the judge of the superior court about the administration of justice in his circuit. It was the most unwarranted interference with the operation of the State government and the administration of justice, to my knowledge. Senator WATKINS. When did this happen? Senator TALMADGE. The agents of the Department of Justice made their investigation about a year ago. The rape took place 5 or 6 years ago. Senator HRUSKA. Either there was some charge made or some issue involved, Senator, whereby the State sought to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; there would lie jurisdiction of Federal agencies, wouldn't there? Senator TALMADGE. Not unless it was a matter of official cognizance by or jurisdiction of a Federal court. Here was a voluntary act on the part of the Attorney General of the United States in which the Department of Justice assumed jurisdiction of a matter relating purely and solely to a State court. Senator HRUSKA. But the 14th amendment to our Federal Constitution forbids a State from depriving any person of life without due process of law. If that issue were involved, it would require Federal jurisdiction and it would be a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Senator TALMADGE. The 14th amendment, Senator, is aimed only at State action. Senator HRUSKA. The trial of a man and sentencing him to death would certainly be a State action, would it not? Senator TALMADGE. It certainly would be, but it would be through Government operation. If we are to have agents of the Department of Justice swarm into every State in this Union on the imagined complaint of any individual, then the best thing we can do is dissolve the 48 States and turn their functions over to the Federal Government. Senator HRUSKA. How many other times did they swarm into Georgia besides the instance you mention? Senator TALMADGE. I do not have the exact number. Senator HRUSKA. Have any instances arisen where investigations of this type have been made by the Department of Justice on account of voting or registering of voters, that you know of? Senator TALMADGE. Not recently. Senator HRUSKA. In more recent years, have they done that? Senator TALMADGE. They came into the State immediately after the colored people had the right to vote. Senator HRUSKA. That is many decades ago. Senator TALMADGE. That was some 10 years ago. Senator HRUSKA. Is that when the colored people got their right to vote? Senator TALMADGE. They started voting in primaries at that time, Senator. We used to have in Georgia what was known as the white primary, in which the white citizens nominated their candidates and offered them in the general election. Senator HRUSKA. That has since been changed? Senator TALMADGE. Has since been changed by Federal action; yes. Senator HRUSKA. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Cairman, I would like to make one observation. Senator HENNINGS. The senior Senator from North Carolina. Senator ERVIN. I am very much interested by the statement of the distinguished Senator from Georgia as to the place of origin of most of these charges against our particular area of the country, and I would just like to say this: that I have lived in North Carolina all my life, that as a superior court judge I have held superior court in approximately 45 of our 100 counties, and that I have also sat upon the State supreme court for something over 6 years, and at other times I have practiced law, and during that time I never knew or heard of a single person, either white or black, being denied the opportunity to register or vote until the Attorney General came here the day before yesterday and told us about some case down there in the courthouse precinct in Camden County where 2 colored men were allegedly denied the right to vote, and he gave 2 other instances of alleged misconduct on the part of 2 others; that makes a total of 3 out of the 7,500 election officials in North Carolina. That is all. Senator HENNINGS. Did the senator complete his statement? Senator HENNINGS. I doubt whether it would be proper for the chairman as a judge might,to declare it a matter of universal knowledge that the Negro in the South is entitled to the full privileges of the franchise so I only make that as an observation and not a declar ation. Senator ERVIN. I think, Mr. Chairman, every citizen who is of the proper age and possesses the qualifications is entitled to vote in the South and everywhere else, provided he registers, and I think there is no question about that. Senator HENNINGS. There seem to be no further questions. I want to thank you very much for having taken the time and for your patience. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, before calling the next witness, I would like to make a preliminary statement which I hope may save some prolonged questions about some of the matters. The statement is simply this: that outside of Members of CongressUnited States Senators and United States Representatives-the Attorney General of the United States was the only person who has been specifically invited to appear in person and testify before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate. But we have had many, many requests for permission to testify from people, individuals, and organizations, and some of these requests we have not yet been able to comply with, in scheduling witnesses. Some of these people have come at their own expense from hundreds of miles away, and have been in Washington, D. C., now waiting for 2 or 3 days. It has been suggested that we might put on three of them at the same time so that if there is cross-examination, they might be questioned en banc or individually, in connection with their general testimony which is to the point of individual, firsthand factual instances of alleged deprivations of Federal constitutional rights. None of these people has been invited in the sense that we contacted them. They have in each case asked to be heard. There has been no solicitation or canvassing carried on by the committee or the staff, and of course as everyone knows, there are has not been any subpena issued for any witnesses to appear. Senator HENNINGS. I understand that this is to be more or less factual testimony? Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator HENNINGS. In that case, I would suggest that each witness either severally or collectively may be sworn. Mr. SLAYMAN. I was going to recommend that, Mr. Chairman. Senator HENNINGS. I also regret very much, and I say this in deference to all who are appearing here, you can see how the time schedule is running, and we do not want to, in any wise, foreclose any witness from making any statement the witness desires to make under any circumstances. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am a little at a loss to understand how three men can testify at the same time. Senator HENNINGS. That presents a rather complex problem, I think, Judge. However, I understand that there are three statements here. They have just been handed to me. I pressume we will take them seriatum. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, with regard to this last point of your ruling, I was going to suggest that although all the witnesses we have heard thus far in the hearings, and most of the witnesses still to be heard, are presenting what is generally regarded as opinion testimony, these people are going to testify from first hand, personal experience in alleging that their civil rights have been denied, and for this type of witness, I believe that we are on the soundest ground by placing them under oath for their testimony. Senator HENNINGS. May I say to counsel that that is the invariable procedure followed by the committees I have served upon. I now get back to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina's question. What is your suggestion, Mr. Counsel? Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have not seen their statements, but I would suggest all three be sworn at the same time and sit out there at the witness table. I have cautioned them I think nearly a dozen times that we are running out of time, that we hope their statement in each case will be brief. But because this is a collection of alleged violations of constitutional rights, the same fundamental question is presented to the subcommittee, so that I would suggest, subject to whatever the committee may want to approve, that they appear for 2 or 3 minutes apiece. Senator HENNINGS. May I suggest to my colleagues on the committee that they be sworn jointly if there is no objection? Senator ERVIN. I have no objection to their being sworn jointly but I certainly would be to their testifying jointly, sir. Senator HENNINGS. You don't want a chorus, in other words. Senator WATKINS. I think what counsel has in mind, when a Cabi net official testifies he has a half dozen people with him and they all testify before he gets through. Senator HENNINGS. Or they all tell him what to say. Senator WATKINS. Maybe that is it. Senator HENNINGS. Will the witnesses please come forward and present themselves. Will you please raise your right hands and repeat after me: I do solemnly swear that the testimony I am about to give before this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Mr. WALDEN. I do solemnly swear that the testimony I am about to give before this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Mr. COURTS. I do solemnly swear that the testimony I am about to give before this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Dr. BORDERS. I do solemnly swear that the testimony I am about to give before this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence may I identify myself for the record and just explain this situation in about 2 minutes? Senator HENNINGS. You may indeed, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. We have sought an opportunity for these individuals to appear before your subcommittee on our own initiative. No one invited us. Because of the deep concern that these gentlemen, and others, have about civil-rights problems, they are here today. We have sought in the House of Representatives to expedite the hearings by not having individual witnesses appear. We were challenged by a number of State authorities who said that these were not actual instances of violations that we presented. They said they were fabrications which organizations located on the eastern seaboard had dreamed up for the purpose of creating political fire. Therefore, I prevailed upon these gentlemen to come out of their busy lives and report to this subcommittee. I have asked two of them if they would include, for the benefit of the subcommittee, personal references to themselves. I make that explanation because these gentlemen were modest. They did not want to include it. They resisted it. I insisted that they do it in order that you members of the subcommittee could know what they are like in their communities. The third gentleman, Mr. Gus Courts, was not present at the time. I made that suggestion. However, I have a one-page biographical statement on him that I would like to offer to the subcommittee. is simply this: that Mr. Courts-I will read it It Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Mitchell, you are reading from a statement? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir; this is a biographical statement. Senator HENNINGS. I am afraid that under the rule as invokedMr. MITCHELL. I am happy to testify under oath, if you wish. Is that what you are getting at? Senator HENNINGS. I will ask you to be sworn, too. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. MITCHELL. I so swear, Mr. Chairman. TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON BUREAU OF THE NAACP-Resumed Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to add this for the record: I here and now make the charge that the attorney general of the State of Louisiana has deliberately and falsely misled the Congress on issues of voting in his State. I urge that, if he comes before this subcommittee, he, too, be placed under oath, because his testimony before the House of Representatives is in direct contradiction to testimony submitted to this subcommittee and to the House committee on the issues of voting in the State of Louisiana. I also urge respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that every single official of the southern States who comes before this subcommittee to testify on specific Senator HENNINGS. May I suggest, Mr. Mitchell, that you be good enough to make note of your suggestions and hand them to Mr. Slay man. Mr. MITCHELL. I will certainly do that. Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, it is the rule, is it not, if one witness is to be sworn, they are all to be sworn; isn't that right? Senator HENNINGS. I don't think the rule is invariable. I might say that when the Attorney General of the United States and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina engaged in a colloquy about the interpretation of certain laws, that was only opinion evidence. Senator WATKINS. It does not make any difference, opinion or otherwise. They have to be sworn. If one witness is sworn, they all have to be sworn. I don't see any reason for Senator HENNINGS. Does the Senator suggest, then, that we go back to the last 3 days and have the Attorney General and all of the various witnesses sworn? Senator WATKINS. No; I do not, but I think from here on they ought to be sworn. You cannot correct what you did before. Senator HENNINGS. I have no objection whatsoever, except opinion testimony is opinion testimony. Senator WATKINS. That is true, but they are sworn nevertheless. Senator HENNINGS. Well, sometimes, but this is not a court. We have often heard testimony before committees of the Senate and the Congress predicated upon opinions. That does not require that a witness swear to his understanding or his knowledge or interpretation of a given statute or law. Senator WATKINS. Maybe I am unduly belaboring this, but I have been in court for several years and, whether it is opinion or otherwise, witnesses were all required to take the oath. Senator HENNINGS. May I respectfully remind my good friend and colleague from Utah that we do not require the taking of oath, by and large, on opinion testimony. If a man reads an opinion relating to legal matters and his interpretation of legal matters, that is not based upon other than his own interpretation. |