Senator HENNINGS. If I were the Attorney General, I know exactly what I would rule, but under the general proposition that every Senator has the right to ask questions that are not demeaning nor degrading nor insulting to the witness, the Chair is always in the difficult position in matters of this sort.

I have already expressed myself about what I think is the relevance or germaneness of this line of inquiry. I do want to say that I hope the gentlemen will conduct themselves and will direct their inquiries to matters of substantive and procedural law and not go so far afield as to bring into minds, into the ordinary minds at least, implications that we are going to have military districts set up in the South.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, neither Mr. Young nor myself has intimated that we think that President Eisenhower is going to call out the Armed Forces of the Nation to enforce decrees entered in the new type of proceedings which the Attorney General asks the Congress to authorize. But it is germane to this proceeding and it is a matter that ought to be considered seriously by the Congress, whether or not Congress is going to authorize a new type of suit to be brought by the Attorney General of the United States, while there is upon the statute books of the United States a statute which provides that the President of the United States has the power, regardless of whether he intends to exercise it, has the power to call out the Armed Forces of the Nation or the militia to enforce those decrees in the several States of the Union.

In fact, the statute is broader than that, but that is the part that is germane to this inquiry, and I as a Senator, when I go to vote on legislation, I am not concerned about what a particular occupant of an office may do under that legislation, but I am concerned about the power which the occupant of that office may exercise.

I think this is directly germane, that the American people should know whether this new procedure carries with it a power in the President to enforce the decrees which may be entered in the new proceedings by the Armed Forces of the Nation.

Therefore, it is very germane.

Mr. BROWNELL. Is there a way in which the committee can rule on this?

Senator HENNINGS. Does the Attorney General have any observation on that?

Mr. BROWNELL. I would ask that the members of the subcommittee

Senator HENNINGS. The Chair, Mr. Attorney General, I might say is not-according to my understanding of inquiries conducted by committees or subcommittees-is not empowered to rule as to germaneness or relevance.

Mr. BROWNELL. Is it proper for me to make a request of Senator Ervin?

Senator HENNINGS. We know in these investigations over the years. that discussions range very far sometimes. However, I think it is indeed proper for you to make any observation please, sir.

Mr. BROWNELL. Senator Ervin, I wonder in view of the danger of misunderstanding of this line of questioning, if I might request Mr. Young through you not to proceed any further within this line.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Attorney General, what is the danger of this line of questioning, because all this is calculated to do, as I see it, is to elucidate the truth with respect to what kind of processes are possible under the law for the enforcement of the decrees to be entered in the new type of proceeding which these amendments ask us to authorize. Mr. BROWNELL. I don't care to debate it, but I would like to press the request and have a yes-or-no answer, if I am entitled to that. Senator ERVIN. In other words, Mr. Attorney General

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Attorney General, you are entitled to that indeed, sir. You are a guest here and are a voluntary witness and we want to accord you every courtesy.

Mr. BROWNELL. Thank you, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. On the other hand, the chairman, or indeed the committee, according to my small experience in such matters, cannot rule as to germaneness or relevancy because that isn't the way we work. We don't operate as courts. By the same token, the Senator is entitled to ask any question he pleases, provided that it is within the general limitations of propriety and reasonableness, and not degrading or insulting in any way. That, of course, we wouldn't stand for and I would not preside over such conditions.

Mr. BROWNELL. Did Senator Ervin answer my question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator HENNINGS. Now may we go back, please, Mr. Reporter? I think the Attorney General asked a question of the Senator from North Carolina.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, I'd hate to refuse any request of the Attorney General, but all we are doing is asking the Attorney General about the laws of the United States which would be brought into operation or which could be brought into operation in this new type of proceeding, if we passed the amendments that have been urged upon us. On the other hand I consider it most important for the people. I have said all the time that all I want is an adequate opportunity to develop a case that the people of the United States will know what they are getting, and where the Senators and the Congressmen of the United States will know what they are getting if they pass these amendments. Now, I contend that it reminds me of Omar Khayyam when he spoke about the wine sellers. He said, "I wonder if what the sellers buy is one-half so precious as the stuff they sell."

I want the American people and the Congress to know that if these amendments are made, what it is they are getting, so that they may determine whether what they are to get is half as precious as what they are relinquishing. Therefore, I think it is very germane, and that this country is entitled to know and consider whether Congress ought to pass the law to create a new type of proceeding, judgments of which could be enforced by the Army and the Navy and the militia, and I think that is wholly germane. We want to find out if what we are getting is half so precious as the stuff we are relinquishing.

Senator HENNINGS. I think probably the learned Attorney General could answer that very briefly.

Mr. BROWNELL. I don't know as there is any question involved in that statement. I take it here

Senator HENNINGS. It was something about Omar Khayyam.

89777-57----15

Senator ERVIN. Also something about the proposed amendment. Also about section 1993 of title 42 of the United States Code as it now exists.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement, please?
Senator HENNINGS. You may, Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I believe I should withdraw from this cross-examination. I think it would be more appropriate if I got off later in the week or next week, off this podium up here and took the witness chair and testified perhaps as a witness. In that case the improprieties would be relieved. The Attorney General would not have to put up with this line of questioning from a staff member of a Senate committee. I believe it will suit better Senator Hruska, who has some reservations concerning this line of procedure.

I am sure it would please you better. The only propriety left, if I do that, will be-I'd be happy to do it.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Young, it isn't a matter of pleasing anybody.

Mr. YOUNG. I know it, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. It is a matter of eliciting certain facts. As long as you confine your examination, sir, to the relevant and pertinent matters at issue, I feel it my duty to allow you to continue.

I am sure the Attorney General is quite capable of taking care of himself. However, if Mr. Young would like to testify on this point, in order to obviate any further-may I have your attention, Mr. Young, please.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir; I beg your pardon.

Senator HENNINGS. If Mr. Young would like to, in order to obviate any further discussion on this point, present himself as a witness next week, of course, we will be very glad to hear from him, and I want Mr. Young to know that because he is a staff member; I do not mean that in any way to demean him or lessen his stature.

Mr. YOUNG. I would prefer to withdraw and reserve a right, if I may, to testify.

Senator HENNINGS. Very well. Is that satisfactory to the Senator? Senator ERVIN. That's entirely satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman, as far as the provisions of part 1 relating to the provisions to establish a commission, and part 2, the provisions to authorize another Assistant Attorney General, I have no questions to ask on that score myself. Senator HENNINGS. May I ask, is that satisfactory to you? Senator HRUSKA. It is satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HENNINGS. As we all know, in these proceedings we do have to go along with considerable latitude, and I just wanted to ask this question. The Attorney General has indeed been very cooperative, most patient. Will we require his presence next week?

Senator ERVIN. Not so far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman. Senator HENNINGS. Unless something unusual arises, we will try to accommodate the Attorney General.

Mr. BROWNELL. I appreciate very much your courtesies during the hearings.

Senator ERVIN. I would like to make this observation. I appreciate the patience of the chairman and the patience of Senator Hruska and the patience of the Attorney General with me, and I want to say that I hated not to accede to the request made by the Attorney General a

while ago, but I could not properly perform my duty as a Senator of the United States if I acceded to that request.

I am very much convinced, as I have said before-and this will be the last statement I have got to make today-that I am fighting to preserve the rights for the benefit of all Americans, and everything I have done has been done in good faith and in the honest belief that it was germane to the inquiry. Now it is possible that all of us sometimes may wander off.

Senator HENNINGS. I don't think anybody who knows the Senator from North Carolina has any doubt as to his sincerity and as to his honest convictions.

Senator ERVIN. I have no further questions of the Attorney General. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General was going to have his staff furnish us certain information. I prepared a memorandum for you. One copy might go in the record, without objection, and the other to Mr. Olney.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

FEBRUARY 16, 1957.

Memorandum to: The Honorable Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.

From: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel and staff director, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.

Subject: Significant data to be furnished by the Department of Justice for inclusion in the printed record of the Senate civil-rights hearings of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.

The following information would be helful in making the record of the present Senate civil-rights hearings inclusive of available pertinent technical data:

1. A copy of the remarks of A. B. Caldwell. Chief of the Civil Rights Section of the Department of Justice, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School (revised to January 1957): concerning activities of the Civil Rights Section,

2. Testimony of Warren Olney III, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, presented to the Senate Rules Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, in the 2d session of the 84th Congress; brought up to date.

3. Statistics on all the Federal statutes administered by the Civil Rights Section: together with numbers of complaints received by the Department of Justice under each statute, annually since 1940, by States, and ultimate disposition with regard to the complaints (i. e., complaints found frivolous; substance of complaints held not to involve Federal jurisdiction under the statutes; indictments sought; indictments obtained; convictions obtained; convictions upheld on appeal.)

4. History of civil rights statutes themselves:

(a) Original text of statute, title, and date of enactment.

(b) Subsequent amendments.

(c) Statutory construction by judicial decisions-principal cases (e. g., the "2d" Williams case, narrowly construing sec. 241, title 18, U. S. C.).

(d) Judicial decisions upholding the constitutionality of these statutes-principal cases.

(Subsequently, the following material was received from the Department of Justice, for inclusion in the record:)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr.,

Washington, March 5, 1957.

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: On February 16, 1957, at the close of the testimony given by the Attorney General, Mr. Charles H. Slayman, Jr., handed to Assistant Attorney

General Warren Olney III a memorandum requesting further information for inclusion in the record of the subcommittee hearings on civil rights legislation. The purpose of this letter is to respond to each of the four requests made in that memorandum.

(1) A copy of the remarks of Arthur B. Caldwell as requested is attached. (2) A copy of the testimony of Warren Olney III, Assistant Attorney General, as requested is attached. The most recent information concerning the incident about which Mr. Olney testified was contained in the prepared statement by the Attorney General which is now in the record of your hearings, and in the attached letter to Congressman Celler.

(3) The records of the Department of Justice do not give us a sufficient basis to furnish the statistical data requested concerning the operation of the Civil Rights Section. The task of going through the existing records to attempt to construct such data would be too great to permit our completing it in time to be included in the record of your hearings and we doubt that the results which could be obtained would be of sufficient reliability to justify the time and expense. (4) I am attaching a brief history of the civil rights statutes. Sincerely,

WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS SECTION-ITS FUNCTIONS AND ITS STATUTES

An address by Arthur B. Caldwell, Civil Rights Section, Department of Justice, before the civil rights class of the summer session of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., on July 16, 1953 (revised January 1957)

The Civil Rights Section was created as a unit of the Criminal Division in 1939. The Attorney General's order establishing the section constitutes a sort of corporate charter for the unit and is still broadly descriptive of its functions. The order reads in part as follows:

"The function and purpose of this unit will be to make a study of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress relating to civil rights with reference to present conditions, to make appropriate recommendations in respect thereto, and to direct, supervise, and conduct prosecutions of violations of the provisions of the Constitution or acts of Congress guaranteeing civil rights to individuals." (Order No. 3204, Feb. 3, 1939.)

The Section consists normally of 8 lawyers and 5 stenographers. One attorney deals exclusively with election law violations, and another devotes part of his time to this field. Another attorney deals largely in specialized areas involving the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kickback Act, and various railway labor laws. The other attorneys on the staff are assigned to civil rgihts and involuntary servitude and slavery violations. The head of the Section assigns cases, correlates activities, generally supervises the work, and is responsible to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division.

Federal civil rights enforcement involves a delicate and technical function. Almost all violations of the Federal civil-rights statutes are also violations of State law, and the important matter of accommodation between Federal and State interests is always lurking in the background. Under the substantive civil-rights statute, as will be more extensively discussed later, "a necessary party" defendant must be a State or local officer. (The statute also applies to Federal officers.) Many times the officer holds great power in his community, as is often the case with sheriffs or police chiefs, and sometimes he has statewide prominence. The head of an entire State police organization was tried and convicted under the civil-rights statute 1 for the brutal torture of a murder suspect, and the mayor of a large suburban community was among those tried for willfully permitting vicious race riots. Though, happily, instances of participation in civil-rights violations by such high officials are not common, they disclose an aspect of our work peculiar to the civil-rights field and are illustrative of its complexity-our defendants are usually not the criminal type; often quite the contrary. Conversely, the civil-rights victim, as is further noted a little later, is often not by any means a respectable or respected member of the community. Besides presenting the delicate question of the Federal-State relationship, civil-rights enforcement involves technical considerations such as are not usually present in other fields of law. The application of the Civil Rights Conspiracy

1 Apodaca v. United States, 188 F. 2d 932. 2 United States v. Konovsky, 202 F. 2d 721.