On January 17, 1956, there were approximately 4,000 persons of the Negro race whose names appeared on the list of registered voters of Onachita Parish as residing within wards 3 and 10 in that parish. It would appear that these persons were and are citizens of the United States, possessing all of the qualifications requisite for electors under the Constitution and the laws of Louisiana and of the United States, because a system of permanent voter registration, provided for under the laws of the State of Louisiana, was in effect in Ouachita Parish, and all of these persons had registered and qualified for permanent registration and had been allowed to vote in previous elections. As of October 4, 1956, the names of only 694 Negro voters remained on the rolls of registered voters for wards 3 and 10 of Ouachita Parish, the names of more than 3,300 Negro voters having been eliminated from the rolls in violation of the laws of Louisiana, as well as those of the United States. This mass disfranchisement was accomplished by a scheme and device to which a number of white citizens and certain local officials were parties. The scheme appears to have taken form as early as January of 1956, and its principal purpose was to eliminate from the list of registered voters of Ouachita Parish the names of all persons of the Negro race residing in wards 3 and 10, and thereby deprive them of their right to vote. On March 2, 1956, a nonprofit corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, and called the Citizens Council of Ouachita Parish, La., was incorporated. Among its ostensible objects and purposes, as stated in its articles of incorporation, are the following: "1. To protect and preserve by all legal means, our historical southern social institutions in all their aspects; "2. To marshal the economic resources of the good citizens of this community and surrounding area in combating any attack upon these social institutions." Notwithstanding these stated objects, subsequent developments have demonstrated that one of the principal objects and purposes of the Ouachita Citizens Council was and is to prevent and discourage persons of the Negro race from participating in elections in the parish. The names of the officers, directors, and members of the Ouachita Citizens Council will be made available to the subcommittee if the subcommittee wishes them. During the month of March 1956, the officers and members of the citizens council began to carry out their. plan to eliminate the names of Negro persons from the roll of registered voters. This scheme consisted of filing purported affidavits with the registrar of voters challenging the qualifications of all voters of the Negro race within wards 3 and 10, and of inducing the registrar to send notices to the Negro voters requiring them within 10 days to appear and prove their qualifications by affidavit of 3 witnesses. The scheme further consisted of inducing the registrar to refuse to accept as witnesses bona fide registered voters of the parish who resided in a precinct other than the precinct of the challenged voters, or who had themselves been challenged or who had already acted as witnesses for any other challenged voter. Of course it was a part of this scheme that none of the registered Negro voters would be able to meet these illegal requirements and upon the basis of such pretext, that the registrar would strike their names from the roll of registered voters. These people in the Ouachita Citizens Council appear to have succeeded either by persuasion or intimidation in procuring the help and cooperation of the election officials of Ouachita Parish. In April and May of 1956, the registrar and her deputy permitted the officers and members of the citizens council to use the facilities of the office of the registrar to examine the record and to prepare therefrom lists of registered voters of the Negro race. The citizens council was given free run of the registrar's office and was permitted to occupy the office and work therein during periods when the office of the registrar was not officially open to the public. Between April 16, 1956, and May 22, 1956, the members and officers of the Ouachita Citizens Council filed with the registrar approximately 3,420 documents purporting to be affidavits, but which were not sworn to either before the registrar or deputy registrar of Ouachita l'arish as required by law. In each purported affidavit it was alleged that the purported affiant had examined the records on file with the registrar of voters of Ouachita Parish, that the registrant named therein was believed to be illegally registered, and that the purported affidavit was made for the purpose of challenging the right of the registrant to remain on the roll of registered voters, and to vote in any elections. These purported affidavits were not prepared and filed in good faith, but were prepared and filed without regard to the actual legal qualifications of the registrants to whom they referred. Prior to the filing of the purported affidavits, there were in ward 10, 2,389 persons of the Negro race and 4,054 persons of the white race whose names appeared on the list of registered, voters. The affidavits filed by the citizens council challenged all of the 2,389 Negro voters and challenged the qualifications of none of the 4,054 white voters registered in that ward. In ward 3 the citizens council filed purported affidavits challenging the qualifications of 1,008 out of the total of 1,523 Negro voters, but only 23 of the white voters who were registered in that ward. The registrar, knowing that the pretended affidavits were not sworn to as required by law, and that the purported affiants had not in each case personally examined the records in the registrar's office pertaining to each challenged registrant, accepted the pretended affidavits for filing and mailed copies of them together with printed citations to the approximately 3,420 voters named therein, requiring them within 10 days to appear in the oflice of the registrar and to prove their qualifications. The citations and copies of the pretended affidavits were mailed to large groups of registrants at or about the same time with the knowledge that the ordinary facilities and personnel of the registrar's office would not permit the receiving of the proof of their qualifications from all of the registrants within the 10-day period. Of course it was intended that all challenged registrants of the Negro race who were thereby denied an opportunity to prove their qualifications would be eliminated from the roll of registered voters. However, registrants of the Negro race responded to these citations in large numbers. During the months of April and May large lines of Negro registrants seeking to prove their qualifications formed before the registrar's office, starting as early as 5 a. m. But the registrar and her deputy refused to hear offers of proof of qualifications on behalf of any more than 50 challenged Negro registrants per day. Consequently most of the Negro registrants were turned away from. the registrar's office and were denied any opportunity to establish their proper registration. Thereafter the registrar and her deputy struck the names of such registrants from the rolls. As to the Negro voters whose names have thus been stricken from the roll and who sought to reregister as voters, the registrar and her deputy, at the instigation of the citizens council and under the color of authority of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, required such applicants for registration to give a'"reasonable interpretation" of a clause of the constitution of Louisiana or of the United States and no similar requirement was ordinarily imposed upon persons of the white race. Regardless of the interpretations given, the registrar and her deputy declared them to be unreasonable. In this manner Negro applicants for registration, although possessing all the legal qualifications for voters under the laws of Louisiana and of the United States, were denied their right to register and qualify as voters. For this serious condition there is no adequate remedy presently available to the Department of Justice. A criminal prosecution begun after the election would not restore to the roll of registered voters of Ouachita Parish the names that have been unlawfully removed. It would not protect the integrity of the election of officers of the United States in the November election. The Department of Justice has not been blind to the possibility that this kind of unconstitutional disfranchisement of citizens of the United States might occur and that more effective legal remedies are needed. The Attorney General, in April 1956, presented proposals to both Houses of Congress for legislation which would authorize him to apply to the Federal courts for preventive relief by way of injunction in cases such as this. In testifying in support of these proposals the Attorney General pointed out to the Congress that although under present statutes the Department can prosecute after such deprivations of the right to vote have occurred, the Department could not seek preventive relief when violations are threatened. The Attorney General then illustrated his point as follows: "In 1952, several Negro citizens of a certain county in Mississippi submitted affidavits to the Department alleging that because of their race the registrar of voters refused to register them. Although the Mississippi statutes at that time required only that an applicant be able to read and write the Constitution, these affidavits alleged that the registrar demanded that the Negro citizens answer such questions as 'What is due process of law?' 'How many bubbles in a bar of soap?,' etc. Those submitting affidavits included college graduates, teachers, and businessmen, yet none of them, according to the registrar, could meet the voting requirements. If the Attorney General had the power to invoke the injunctive process, the registrar could have been ordered to stop these discriminatory practices and qualify these citizens according to Mississippi law." The events which I have recited in Ouachita Parish, La., demonstrate how justified the Attorney General was in his plea to the Congress for legislation permitting him to seek preventive relief in such cases from the courts. The disfranchisement of American citizens is by no means confined to Ouachita Parish or to the State of Louisiana. The Department is in receipt of a complaint under date of September 21, 1956, that a similar scheme using the same technique, is in operation in Rapides Parish, La., under the guidance of a White Citizens Council. It is alleged that within a 10-day period the council had wrongfully caused the elimination from the rolls of over 200 properly qualified and registered Negro voters. On September 22, 1956, a similar complaint was received from Pierce County, Ga., it being alleged that in August the qualifications of approximately 25 to 30 percent of the Negro voters of Pierce County were challenged while no challenges to any of the white voters were made. Thereafter most of the challenged voters' names were stricken from the list so that they cannot now vote, although properly qualified. The full facts of this complaint have not yet been ascertained. These developments should demonstrate to everyone who believes in the basic principles of the United States Constitution that it is indeed regrettable that the legislative proposals of the Attorney General seeking civil remedies to protect the constitutional right to vote should have been bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee after having passed the House. The failure of the Congress to act in this particular has left the Department of Justice and the courts without the remedies and means necessary to secure the honesty and integrity of elections for Federal officers. Under these circumstances, I respectfully suggest that a special responsibility rests upon the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. This subcommittee is that agency of the Congress most directly concerned with elections. It is now engaged in the study of political practices during the presently pending elections. If this subcommittee would hold public hearings concerning this unconstitutional disfranchisement of citizens of the United States, it would indeed be, to quote the chairman's letter of invitation, "in the interest of public enlightenment." It would also be of aid in the consideration of legislation in the next session of Congress. If such hearings were held in one or more of the places from which these complaints emanate, these abuses might well be stopped. I venture to predict that public hearings in these places prior to election would result in the names of hundreds of qualified voters being immediately restored to the registration rolls. Such a decision on the part of the subcommittee would be most helpful in contributing to a free and fair election. [For release February 25, 1957] The Department of Justice today made public the attached letters: FEBRUARY 21, 1957. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR MR. CELLER: On February 13 Mr. Jack P. F. Gremillion testified before your subcommittee. A part of his testimony related to a voter registration civilrights case arising in Ouachita Parish, La., and to the action of a Federal grand jury convened in Monroe, La., to inquire into that and other civil-rights cases. Certain facts which the Department of Justice has in its files suggest that Mr. Gremillion's testimony might have left a misleading impression in a number of respects. Accordingly, we feel obliged to provide you with information which we have which is inconsistent with the impression left by Mr. Gremillion's testimony. These facts have not previously been provided by this Department to Mr. Gremillion. We are, however, sending him a copy of this letter. We refer herein to Mr. Gremillion's testimony by subject matter and transcript page number. Interpretation of Constitution by registrant, page 662: "Mr. KEATING. Do you have an educational requirement of some nature in Louisiana in order to vote? "Mr. GREMILLION. The requirement with reference to education provides they shall be able to read and write and interpret one part of the Constitution, of their choice. “Mr. KEATING. One part of the United States Constitution? "Mr. GREMILLION. Yes. "Mr. KEATING. And they can choose it? "Mr. GREMILLION. Oh, yes. In other words, the registrar of voters cannot say, 'I want you to explain something' that is impossible to explain. They have the right of choice insofar as concerns the section or phrase of the Constitution they wish to interpret. They have their own choice on that, and nothing is foreplanned or forewarned." Comment In none of the 10 parishes in Louisiana which have been the subject of investigations by the Department is there any evidence that the registrar permitted the applicant for registration to chose which clause of the Constitution he wished to interpret. Specifically, in the case arising from Ouachita Parish, the investigation by the FBI disclosed that the registrar of voters in examining applicants for registration used a card on which was written an excerpt from the Constitution, which card was given to the registrar by the Citizens Council of Ouachita Parish. In one instance Mrs. Mae Lucky, registrar of voters of Ouachita Parish, asked an applicant for registration what our form of government is. The applicant replied, “A democratic form of government." The registrar said, "That's wrong-try again." The applicant said, "We have a republican form of government." The registrar then said that that answer, too, was wrong and that he applicant would have to return after the next election to reregister. Reply affidavit on behalf of challenged voters, page 667: "Mr. GREMILLION. **** When such a registrant is challenged, the registrar of voters is required, under the law, to forward a notice of the challenge, a complete copy of the same, together with a form which the challenged registrant has to execute by 3 bona fide voters registered in the same parish to the effect that the challenged registrant is a bona fide resident of that parish. This form is sent to the challenged registrant at the time that the noice of challenge is sent. "If the challenged registrant does not appear within 10 days, the registrar shall remove his name from the rolls. If, however, the challenged registrant appears with 3 bona fide registered voters to assert the authenticity of his residence in the parish before his registrar of the voters, or deputy registrar, the challenge shall fail and the voter's name shall remain on the rolls. See Louisiana Revised State [sic] of 1950, title 18, sections 132, 133, and 134." Comment In none of the 10 parishes which were the subject of FBI investigations did the registrar make it a practice to send a form of reply affidavit to the challenged registrant. On the contrary, investigations in Bienville, Caldwell, DeSota, Jackson, LaSalle, and Ouachita Parishes disclosed that the registrar in those parishes did everything to discourage the filing of reply affidavits in the statutory form and generally refused to accept them when offered. In Ouachita Parish the registrar refused to accept as witnesses on behalf of a challenged voter bona fide registered voters of the parish who were not from the same precinct as the challenged voter. She also refused to accept as witnesses bona fide registered voters who had themselves been challenged. She also refused to accept as witnesses registered voters who had already witnessed to the qualifications of another challenged voter. In Caldwell Parish the registrar refused to accept witnesses on behalf of a challenged voter unless they were accompanied by a law-enforcement officer and a member of the citizens council to identify them. He even refused to accept white persons as witnesses for Negro voters on the grounds that the witnesses were of a different race from the race of the challenged voters. In Bienville Parish, where 560 of the 595 registered Negro voters were challenged, the registrar consistently refused to accept affidavits on behalf of registered voters which were in the statutory form and, as a result, the names of every one of the challenged Negro voters were stricken from the voting rolls. In Jackson Parish, where 953 of the 1,122 Negro voters were challenged, the registrar also refused to accept for filing affidavits on behalf of challenged voters, which affidavits were in statutory form. As a result, all of the challenged Negro voters, with the exception of two who were physically disabled and therefore unable to fill out voter applications cards, were stricken from the voting rolls. In a number of parishes when challenged Negro registrants came to the registrar's office in responose to the challenging citation, they were told by the registar that they would have to see a private attorney in order to get the matter straightened out. Ouachita incident was “exceptional,” pages 670-671, 702–703 "The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Attorney General, I am reading from page 145 of the transcript of these hearings, where there was testimony given as follows: "In Louisiana the white citizens councils have conducted a campaign to purge as many colored voters from the books as possible. In Monroe, La., representatives of the councils have actually invaded the office of the registrar of voting for the purpose of purging colored voters. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice testified in October 1956 that over 3,000 voters had been illegally removed from the rolls of Ouachita Parish, in which Monroe is located.' "Would you care to comment on that, sir? "Mr. GRF MILLION. Yes. "I actually do not know anything officially, or nonofficially, about the activities of the citizens council in my State. I am not a member, and I actually do not know. But I do know that up at Monroe they did have some difficulty with respect to voting. But that is definitely not a general rule throughout the State, and I think that is more or less an exception." * "Please do not attach too much significance to this Monroe affair in Ouachita Parish about which you already received testimony. An occurrence like that is typical in any State where political battles are involved. I personally know that that was a fight between two candidates in the mayor's race, and one candidate had the Negro votes and the other used this means of getting them off until that election was held. I regret that that had to happen. But do not judge the State of Louisiana by it. It could happen in any other State in the Union where you have politics. See what I mean? "The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. "Mr. GREMILLION. So do not pay any attention to that Monroe affair. That is strictly politics, and that is why the people are back there today." Comment With respect only to cases which have been investigated by the FBI, the following numbers of Negro voters were challenged in each of the following parishes: "Mr. GREMILLION. Mr. Dalton, one of my assistants here advises me on something that we were talking about in the Ouachita matter, the Monroe matter, and I want to remind the committee of this: that there were two grand juries that investigated these alleged discrepancies or purging of the rolls. "The first returned an indictment, then the second one was convened, with Mr. St. John Barrett-I believe his name was-assisting, an assistant sent down from Washington. So that grand jury also failed to send down any indictments. "So let me remind you this matter was investigated by two Federal grand juries." Comment There has been only one Federal grand jury empaneled in Louisiana which has inquired into civil-rights violations. This was empaneled on December 4, 1956, and has not yet been discharged. It was in session with respect to civil-rights matters on December 4, 5, 6 and 7, January 29, 30 and 31, and February 1, 6 and 12. Witnesses were subpenaed and other evidence presented to the grand jury in |