Mr. GRANT. I think you can reasonably say that that would be an effect.

Senator ERVIN. I believe that is all.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Slayman?

Mr. SLAYMAN. I have only a couple of technical questions about the poll tax, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Grant, what is the amount of the poll tax in Texas?

Mr. GRANT. It varies. In my county it is $1.75. I think it is not less than $1.50 and not more than $2. I am not positive about that but I know it is not over $2 and in most cases it is $1.75 depending on the county itself.

Mr. SLAYMAN. And for how far back does that have to be paid? What is the period of time covered?

Mr. GRANT. It is actually paid for the previous year, 1 year.

Mr. SLAYMAN. One of the complaints about a poll tax statute has always been that-where it is cumulative--it requires the payment of a sizable sum of money.

Mr. GRANT. No, sir; it is not cumulative in Texas.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Is it not in Texas?

Mr. GRANT. No, sir. You know, it is strange to me to hear so much talk about the poll tax. I never hear any complaints about the poll tax in Texas from anyone.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Have there been any complaints to your knowledge, as the Assistant Attorney General of the State, of denial of the right to vote by people who have paid their poll tax?

Mr. GRANT. No, sir. To be perfectly fair with you, I will say that we have had a few letters from people who had moved from one jurisdiction to another shortly before an election.

Sometimes they have a little difficulty in establishing their residence, in other words satisfying the election judges that they have met the residency requirements.

Of course you have to be a resident of the State a year and in the county 6 months before you are eligible to vote. I don't think we have any requirement, local requirement, that is, residents of the precincts in which you vote, voting precinct.

I heard one witness tell the committee yesterday that they had a requirement of 30 days in the particular political subdivision in which they vote. We have no such requirement in Texas.

To be perfectly frank with you, I don't even know the race of the people who complained. It was of no interest to me. We have over a million votes in Texas and we have received less than a halfdozen complaints and they were of that nature. There was not any accusation at all of any individual being deprived of the right to vote on account of their race, religion, or anything of that kind.

Senator ERVIN. I am not personally concerned about the poll-tax requirement because my State abolished the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting a great many years ago, but frankly I have never been able to see any use in shedding any tears over a failure to grant voting rights to a person who is not willing to contribute a couple of dollars to the cost of the Goverment which protects his life and his property and educates his children.

Mr. GRANT. We don't have any complaint that I know of. Of course I am an officer now there at the State capital, but before I left my home county I was a public official over there.

I don't recall a single person ever complaining, and I made several races and I solicited everybody's vote that I could get, and I did not hear one of them complain about having to pay that $1.75 to vote. They all know where it goes, and that is to the schoolchildren. Senator ERVIN. I realize there has been a lot of complaints by a lot of people and a lot of propaganda on it. I had the privilege of being in the House here in 1946 and I had a daughter 11 years old going to one of the schools and I used to help her across Connecticut Avenue because of the terrible traffic.

One day she came out of the school crying and saying: "Daddy, my teacher told us that southern people sure treat poor people bad. She said we don't let them vote because they have not got $1 to pay the poll tax with."

I have a statement to put in the record from Mr. Edward Scheidtthe North Carolina commissioner of motor vehicles.

(The statement is as follows:)

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO SO-CALLED CIVIL-RIGHTS BILLS, 85TH CONGRESS, 18T SESSION, BY EDWARD SCHEIDT, NORTH CAROLINA COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RALEIGH, N. C.

I speak to you as a law-enforcement officer with more than 25 years' experience and I say that this is a bad bill. It is worse than that. It is a Pandora's box which threatens to shake the very foundations of law enforcement in the United States.

The effect of this bill would be to create a national police force to supersede and sit in judgment upon the actions of local and State law-enforcement officers in almost any kind of case they might handle, regardless of the fact that it may be of a purely local nature and should not be of any interest or concern whatever to the Federal Government.

The tremendous strides which have been made in law enforcement in the United States have been based upon the fact that enforcement stems from the local level, where local matters are concerned, and branches out to the State and National levels where the nature of the offense makes State or National enforcement necessary. This has led to a splendid spirit of cooperation among the local, State, and Federal law-enforcement agencies in our country. In my judgment this bill would destroy this cooperative spirit. Instead of each type of law-enforcement agency operating in its own sphere, any arrest made by a local officer for a local offense could conceivably be subject to scrutiny by the Federal Government. Every officer making such arrests might well ask himself whether it would not end in his being investigated and tried by the Federal Government for an alleged violation of the civil rights of the person he took into custody. No matter how meticulous he might be in the enforcement of local or State laws, he would run the risk of being accused by persons arrested by him of having deprived them of some right under the Constitution. In fact, this bill would be an encouragement for any malefactor to divert attention from his own offense by calling upon the Federal Government to proceed against the local officer who had the temerity to arrest him. This is a bill to harass officers in the performance of their duty and impair their efficiency and morale by making them spend an inordinate part of their efforts in defense of their own actions in the protection of life and property.

The logical result of this type of legislation would be to undermine the pride of the officer in his work and the prestige of his organization. In the last analysis, he would not be judged by how well he enforced the laws of his community and State but by the interpretation placed upon his actions by someone in the Federal Government in Washington, D. C., for that is where the decisions would be made whether a local officer arresting a local citizen for a local crime would be tried in a distant Federal court.

The conscientious local officer doing his best and complying fully with the rules and regulations of his Department, local ordinances and State laws, would be placed under a sword of Damocles, knowing that his every act might be microspocally examined by the Federal Government at the instigation of criminals, psychopaths, pressure groups, or any one who wanted to make trouble for him,

no matter how correct the officer might have been in his actions. If the Federal Government is to pass judgment on any arrests which a local officer may make and substitute its judgment for that of the officers, prosecutors, and judges of a community and State, would it not be better to abolish State and local enforcement and let the Federal Government take over the entire job of policing the United States. The people of the United States would never stand for that and yet it would be more logical than this bill which places the control of local police work but not the responsibility for it in the hands of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government is to control all law enforcement, then it should have the responsibility for doing the job, too.

This proposed legislation in my judgment is an encroachment of the Federal Government upon the powers of State and local governments. This is a law to deaden the initiative of local law-enforcement officers. If the Federal Government is to peer over the shoulder of every local law-enforcement officer and drastically punish him if he does not conform to the concepts of a Federal official far from the scene, will not the officer hesitate to take needed action for fear that he himself would be made to suffer? The easier and safer way would be for him to attempt to avoid making arrests and thereby prevent such repercussions.

Not only does this legislation place the Federal police authorities in a supervisory capacity over local enforcement, but it also makes a direct invasion of local jurisdiction and undermines the existing authority of local enforcement to deal with local problems by placing such matters within the primary investigative jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It is an open invitation to any complainant to circumvent the local governmental facilities by dealing directly with the Federal authorities regarding violations of local and State laws without any showing that the State laws are inadequate or not properly enforced. This would create a situation as confusing as it is unnecessary since the question of whether a case would be tried in Federal or State court would depend not so much upon the facts as upon the agency to which the violation was reported. This feature of the law could easily result in persons being placed in double jeopardy; nowhere does the act contain any provision to exempt persons from prosecution in Federal court if they have been tried in State court for substantially the same offense.

This is a law to incite litigation and under its provisions persons are encouraged to bring suit for damages in Federal court without regard to the sum in controversy, notwithstanding the fact that if they had been injured or wronged, a cause of action would exist under State laws.

Let us examine some of the specific provisions of the bill: It would create a Civil Rights Commission, which among other functions, would appraise the activities of State and local governments with a view to determining what activi. ties adversely affect civil rights. Has not the Federal Government enough to do in appraising its own activities? What are the qualifications of the persons who will do the appraising? None is stated. Is it not the height of presumption for such a body to pass judgment upon State and local governments? What is the basis for the assumption that a Civil Rights Commission would be competent to do this? What is the basis for the assumption that such a body would have greater knowledge, ability, or integrity than local and State public officials? Is not this Commission by its very nature susceptible to becoming a creature and tool of pressure groups? It is noted that the bill provides that the Commission shall to the fullest extent possible utilize the resources of private research agencies in the performance of its functions. Finally, would not this Commission assume the status of a super law-enforcement agency?

By its provision that the personnel of the FBI shall be increased to the extent necessary to carry out effectively the duties of such Bureau with respect to the investigation of civil-rights cases under applicable Federal law, the bill reveals the fact that it anticipates a substantial increase in civil-rights investigations by the Federal Government. It is noted that no limitation whatsoever is placed upon the amount of increase in personnel and certainly if the Federal Government assumed jurisdiction of every case which this statute would permit it to do, the size of the FBI could be doubled and it would still not have enough men to handle all the investigations.

The bill provides that if any person threatens another in the free exercise of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States he may be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for 1 year. It is not necessary that the aggrieved person be injured or intimidated. Constitutional rights are so broad and cover such a multitude of possible situations that it is conceivable that the partici

pant in an argument or disagreement with no notion whatsoever that he was trespassing on someone's constitutional rights would be amenable to Federal prosecution under this law. This provision is moreover an open invitation to anyone so disposed to use the Federal Government for the ulterior purposes of annoying or embarrassing anyone against whom he has a grievance.

The wording in the bill listing numerous rights, privileges, and immunities which are not to be deprived under color of law or custom is so broad and allinclusive as to open the door to challenge the operation of laws and regulations which only by the wildest stretch of the imagination would have any bearing on civil rights. All that is necessary to subject an arrest, conviction, decision, or ruling to Federal investigation would be a contention by the effected person that in administering a valid law or regulation the authorities proceeding against him for some other reason (such as color, race, religion, or national origin) than the enforcement of the law or regulation. The fact that the allegation of discrimination was groundless would not prevent it from being made nor would it prevent a Federal investigation.

The bill would guarantee the right to be immune from punishment for crime except after a fair trial. This right is already guaranteed under existing State and Federal laws, and is inherent in any trial and where infringed would be a basis for appeal to higher courts. This provision would result in duplicating the reviews already being made by higher courts and in effect try the same case twice. The question might well be asked in the context of this farreaching bill as to what is meant by a fair trial. It is a well-known fact that many persons, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them, will maintain that they did not receive a fair trial if convicted of a criminal offense and will pursue to the nth degree efforts to have the verdict set aside. Penitentiaries are populated by individuals who think they ought not to be there. As has been said: "No man e'er felt the halter draw, with good opinion of the law."

The evil in the fair-trial provision as well as the provisions regarding other specific rights, privileges, and immunities, is that it is an invitaton to try the identical issues in a different tribunal an dto duplicate jurdisdiction over matters already fully protected under existing law and which by all logic and reason ought to be passed upon in connection with the trial of the substantive offense against the person who contends that his constitutional rights have been infringed.

There may be persons in the northern, eastern, or western parts of our country who feel that they need not be concerned over this bill under the complacent assumption that it is directed against the South. If such there be, their callousness and complacency is exceeded only by their naivete. This bill will bring the heavy hand of a national police force upon every community and State in the Nation. Its application is not limited to situations affecting race, color, religion, or a national origin. It is a frontal attack upon the police powers and responsibilities of all local and State governments.

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF EDWARD SCHEIDT

A. B. 1926, L. L. B. 1931, both University of North Carolina; admitted to North Carolina bar 1931; served with FBI 1931-53; during time with FBI was special agent in charge of its Charlotte, N. C., office 9 years, New York office 6 years, and Detroit office 6 months; retired from FBI after more than 21 years' service; North Carolina Commissioner of Motor Vehicles 1953 to present date; as commissioner of motor vehicles in charge of North Carolina State Highway Patrol; member of International Association of Chiefs of Police for 16 years; member of traffic committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and vice chairman for Eastern United States of the State and Provincial Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; also serving as chairman of the committee on enforcement and safety of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

Senator ERVIN. If there is no other witness who desires to testify, the committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3:45 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, February 27, 1957.)