by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. All civil rights matters are processed by the Department of Justice first with regard to recommending prosecution, and not by the local United States Attorney.

This is the only type of action (civil rights) that is handled by the FBI in this manner. The two cases that I recall arose with regard to voting were complaints from the same registrar and the Justice Department did not require filing of complaints.

In conclusion, in our heaviest Negro-populated areas in North Carolina over a period of 2 years and involving several hundreds of registrars in the precincts in this area, there was not a single instance that I can recall where a complaint processed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice resulted in a recommendation for prosecution for violation of the civil rights section of the United States Code.

With assurances of my high regard, I am

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS F. ELLIS.

The above may be used in any manner you see fit, including presentation of any portion thereof as evidence before your committee.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WATKINS. For tomorrow, we have two witnesses listed, Mr. Charles J. Bloch, Esquire, Macon, Ga.; and the Honorable Eugene Cook, attorney general of Georgia.

I have been instructed to recess this hearing until tomorrow at 10:30 a. m., and the hearings tomorrow will be held in room 155, Senate Office Building.

The committee will be in recess.

(Whereupon, at 11: 55 a. m.. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m., Wednesday, February 20, 1957, in room 155, Senate Office Building.)

CIVIL RIGHTS-1957

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1957

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:45 a. m., 155, Senate Office Building, Senator Sam Ervin, presiding. Present: Senators Ervin (presiding) and Johnston.

in room

Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee.

Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order.

The committee is scheduled to hear this morning the Honorable Charles S. Bloch, Esq., of Macon, Ga., and the Honorable Eugene Cook, attorney general of Georgia. On behalf of the committee I welcome Mr. Bloch, who is now present.

I have known of Mr. Bloch by reputation for many years. I have had the privilege of knowing him personally for approximately 10 years. I welcome you, Mr. Bloch, because I know you to be one of the ablest lawyers and one of the finest citizens of our country. We are very glad to have you here.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission and the permission of Mr. Bloch, before we get started today, I have three announcements to make as chief counsel of the subcommittee.

Actually, I would like to have Mr. Bloch make the third one, and put something in the record with reference to the other witness.

The first is that the regular chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri, had to be at the White House for a special meeting this morning on foreign affairs, and as we have remarked several times, a person is not able to be in two places at the same time.

The second announcement is in terms of the schedule ahead. We have a South Carolina delegation scheduled for Monday, March 4, and we have two witnesses scheduled tomorrow.

We have three witnesses who were about to be heard Saturday, when a question of time and cross-examination came up, so they were not able to be heard on Saturday, but are to be heard at some time in the future.

Aside from those people, we have a large number of people who have expressed interest in testifying, but who have not established a definite date with us; so in those terms, next week is pretty thoroughly open for the scheduling of witnesses.

Senator ERVIN. I might state that I have contacted the folks who had asked me for the privilege of testifying and urged them to let

me know as soon as possible when they could appear. I suggested to them that they make their arrangements to appear next week.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. I have wired some of those at your request but I have not heard from them yet. Next week would be highly desirable to hear them, especially since the subcommittee agreement is to terminate all of the hearings on Tuesday,

March 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. You have been requested by Mr. Slayman, our chief counsel, to make an announcement in behalf of Attorney General Cook.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. BLOCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW,

MACON, GA.

Mr. BLOCH. Yes, sir, I have a telegram from the attorney general saying:

I regret exceedingly that I am confined in the hospital with a minor virus and am unable to appear before the Senate committee on proposed so-called civil-rights bills. Please express my appreciation to the committee for the opportunity.

Which I do and there has been filed with the committee a copy of the attorney general's statement.

Senator ERVIN. Without objection, the copy of the attorney general's statement will be included in the record:

(The statement submitted by Mr. Cock is as follows:)

IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CIVIL-RIGHTS LEGISLATION, BY EUGENE COOK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA

Mr. Chirman and gentlemen of the committee, it has been my singular pleasure to appear before a committee of the House almost 2 weeks ago to discuss proposed so-called civil-rights legislation pending before that body. It is no less a pleasure for me to appear here today to discuss similar bills now being considered by the Senate.

While I have received no less than 13 of these bills, my remarks will be confined to 2 of them, S. 83 and the subcommittee print, which contain in more or less omnibus fashion, the major provisions of most of the others.

Section 101 et seq. of S. 83, and section 201 of the subcommittee print provide for creation in the executive branch of the Government a Commission on Civil Rights, to be composed of six members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

As pointed out by Congressman Walter in the hearings on a similar bill last year, it is contradictory for this measure to recite the need for study, evaluation, and recommend tion as to remedial legislation, while contemporaneously therewith are submitted accompanying provisions which go about as far as conceivably possible in enacting the same legislation about which it is said further study is needed.1

Enactment of this legislation would result in creation of a Federal Gestapo which would hold needless investigations, pry into the affairs of the States and their citizens, and intimidate a majority of our citizens solely to appease the politically powerful minority pressure groups inspired by the communistic ideologies of the police state.

For example, as noted in the minority report on H. R. 627, which was before the House last year, it was pointed out that the Commission would have a right to hold hearings in some far-off remote place and require attendance of witnesses at their own expense, as no travel or per diem expenses are provided for. Similarly, the report noted that this bill (as do the ones now under considera

1 See Transcript of House Committee of April 10, 1956, p. 19.

tion) authorizes the Commission to utilize the "services, facilities, and information of other Government agencies, as well as private research agencies," and concluded with the observation that these "private agencies" would probably be the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other leftwing, partisan, political-action groups.

Thus, the situation would be created where governmental powers would be delegated to these private groups to investigate and harass other citizens and organizations. The awful power of the State would thereby be given to a few as against the many.

No one can imagine what this Commission will cost the taxpayers, as no limitation is put upon its expenditures, but on the contrary, the Commission is authorized "to make such expenditures as in its discretion it deems necessary and advisable." Presumably, the Commission might donate public money to the Communist Party, if it determined that such would promote the cause of racial amalgamation.

Before the Congress authorizes the Government to enter into such an unholy partnership with these minority groups, it would do well to study some of their pronouncements.

Save only the Communist Party, with its "Southern Manifesto" of 1929, the most aggressive proponent of these civil-rights measures is the NAACP, and while this self-proclaimed pious group fervently crusades against prejudice and race bigotry out of one side of its mouth, it conducts a conspiracy against the white man out of the other.

In its national publication, The Crisis, volume 62, page 493 (October 1955), quotes are made gleefully predicting the downfall of the white race, and urging the colored people to revolt and take up arms against their white brothers. was said, specifically:

It

"Give him a little more time and the white man will destroy himself and the pernicious world he has created. He has no solutions for the ills he has foisted upon the world-none whatever he is empty, disillusioned, without a grain of hope. He pines for his own miserable end.

"Will the white man drag the Negro down with him? I doubt it. All those who he has persecuted and enslaved, degenerated and emasculated, all of whom he has vampirized will, I believe, rise up against him on the fateful day of judgment. There will be no succor for him; not one friendly alien hand raised to avert his doom. Neither will he be mourned. Instead, there will come from all corners of the earth, like the fathering of a whirlwind, a cry of exultation: 'White man, your day is over! Perish like the worm! And may the memory of your stay on earth be effaced!'"

In its issue of November 1955 (vol. 62, pp. 552–553), the magazine vehemently justifies the merciless slaughtering and raping of innocent white French inhabitants in Qued-Zem by the colored Berber tribesmen on the ground that the French inhabitants deserved such treatment.

The Commission is authorized to hold hearings and subpena witnesses, subject to pain of contempt, merely on the basis of "written allegations." There is no requirement that the charges be sworn to, or that they be based on firsthand knowledge. Our English system of jurisprudence has traditionally required that a person should not be subjected to prosecution except on the basis of sworn charges. Rank hearsay could, under these bills, be accepted as sufficient cause for inquiry.

The same subsection of these bills would authorize the Commission to investigate "allegations ** that certain citizens *** are being subjected to unwarranted economic pressures by reason of their sex, color, race, religion, or national origin."

Just what is meant by "unwarranted economic pressures" is not stated, but by the use of carefully drawn language the section is careful to avoid tramping on the hallowed ground of labor union pressures. In other words, a person can be subjected to all types of pressures and intimidation because of nonmembership in a labor union, and his plight would be no concern of the Commission.

Moreover, the authority of the Commission is not limited to any form of State action, but unquestionably embraces private individuals as well. So recently as 1955, in Quinn v. United States (349 U. S. 155, 161, 99 L. ed. 964, 971, 75 S. Ct. 668), it was said by the Supreme Court:

"But the power to investigate, broad as it may be, is also subject to recognized limitations. It cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose. Nor does it extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate."

27714 O-58-22