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.

We are now getting into factual matters, matters of transgression, I understand, upon these several gentlemen who appear here, and there is quite a distance between courts and congressional hearings.

Just this morning the Attorney General of the United States raised the point, raised the objection that he thought certain questions being asked of him were improper questions.

The Senator knows better than I do that a great many things are in the realm of opinion, a great many things are in the realm of fact. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman?

Senator HENNINGS. I would like all the guidance I can have from my learned friend.

Senator ERVIN. I was just going to make this observation: Having looked at the nature of these statements, it is going to be an impossibility to finish with a single one of these witnesses this afternoon, because there are some lengthy charges without specifications. I think the most important thing, as Senator Watkins suggested a while ago, is to find out whether there is basis for these alleged charges of discrimination. I am going to cross-examine-—

Senator HENNINGS. I might say to my colleague that I have not seen the statements before myself.

Senator ERVIN. I just looked at them now. For example, in one

of the statements

Senator HENNINGS. But are we away from the question now of matters of opinion, as to whether an injunction would lie in certain circumstances, or whether a legal opinion would or would not prevail? Are we away from that? Is the Senator reasonably satisfied as to that?

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, you are the chairman and whatever your ruling is, of course, I will have to abide by it, but I have never seen a case yet in which, no matter who the witness was, he did not get into matters of fact as well as matters of opinion. Lay witnesses sometimes get into opinion and they also have questions of fact. As far as I know, universally in court

Senator HENNINGS. Rather than belabor the point, Senator, since most of it during your absence has been purely in the judgment, interpretation of laws and statutes, I will now make the ruling, so that we will not waste any further time, that all witnesses be sworn under all conditions, whether it is necessary or not. There is no use quibbling.

Senator ERVIN. When we get past that, Mr. Chairman, I notice here, for example, in the statement made by Austin T. Walden, a statement such as this:

In some areas, registration and election officials have been conspirators in various schemes to accomplish the above objectives. Sometimes, when Negroes attempt to register, they are told that the books are out; that they are out of blanks; that they will have to come back on a designated day and, on returning, find the office closed.

Now I have long since learned not to accept general statements. Senator HENNINGS. That certainly amounts to a conclusion. Senator ERVIN. I am going to ask him about each specific case. Senator HENNINGS. The Chair is again confronted with the usual dilemma about the array of witnesses, and trying to be fair to all and trying to give all who want to be heard a hearing.

We have been sitting now for 3 days. I think it seems quite obvious, Mr. Mitchell, that you desire to be advocate for the several witnesses, which is well and good, but to me it seems quite obvious from these statements that this sort of testimony is going to take considerable time and a great deal of examination and cross-examination.

Mr. MITCHELL. Could I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

I think, Mr. Chairman, if we permit Mr. Gus Courts, who is formerly from Mississippi, to testify first, he would indicate what happened to him as the result of his personal

Senator HENNINGS. I am sure the committee would like to accommodate all witnesses, but there are only 24 hours in a day.

Mr. MITCHELL. I realize that.

Senator HENNINGS. It is a cliché, but true enough. That being as it may, some of this testimony is of a factual nature which may be subject to cross-examination and proper cross-examination. I would like to accommodate everybody.

How many witnesses have we, Mr. Slayman? I mean beyond this. Mr. SLAYMAN. We have about 20 more so far.

Senator HENNINGS. Twenty more so far. I would welcome a suggestion from my colleague from Utah.

Senator WATKINS. May I make a suggestion that we have an executive session of the committee and decide on how many days we are going to hear, and let the various groups represent their cases rather than have a lot of cumulative testimony?

We cannot hear everybody who wants to come here.

Senator HENNINGS. My good friend from Utah recalls that 3 weeks ago I made a motion that the hearings commence and last for a period of 2 weeks, at which time there should be a cutoff date. I don't recall how the Senator voted.

Senator WATKINS. I recall very well, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. I do, too.

Senator WATKINS. It was on the motion to report the bill immediately that I was voting against.

Senator HENNINGS. The Chair wants to give everybody an opportunity, but I am not prepared to stay here and I am sure the rest of these men who work all week from early morning to late at night, the members of the press corps and all others are not prepared to stay until midnight on cross-examination.

I presume that is I were representing one side or another set of circumstances such as this, that, or the other, I would want to study it, I would want to look at it, I would want to perhaps substantiate or make an effort to interrogate the witnesses on the statements.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I made a suggestion about an executive committee meeting to outline exactly what we want to do. Senator HENNINGS. Is there any objection to that?

Here we are at 4 o'clock Saturday afternoon.

We can't possibly complete it tonight.

Senator ERVIN. I should think not.

Senator HENNINGS. We cannot conceivably complete it tonight. Senator.

Senator ERVIN. It is not possible.

Senator HENNINGS. I think you would be first to admit that.

Senator ERVIN. I certainly will.

Senator HENNINGS. You are indeed a very thorough cross-examiner. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, could we ask to let the men summarize orally and briefly their statements, file them for the record, and thereafter return for cross-examination?

It is a great hardship.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Mitchell, you know that I am in an embarrassing position. I want to accommodate everybody but I cannot accommodate everybody.

Mr. MITCHELL. I understand that.

Senator HENNINGS. It is utterly impossible.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to explain, Mr. Courts

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Danstedt is over here. He wants to testify and has every good reason to testify.

There are many others here.

Mr. MITCHELL. In this situation, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Courts here, is a man who was shot in Mississippi because he was seeking the right to vote. He has come to Washington for a chance to tell the Senate of the United States what his problem is.

Mr. Austin T. Walden, a respected lawyer in Georgia, has come up to tell about his problem.

The Reverend Dr. Borders, who is pastor of one of the largest churches in the city of Atlanta, has come to tell how he as a clergyman was arrested simply because he was riding on a bus.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Mitchell, in no derogation of your assembled witnesses, I would say if the Attorney General of the United States were sitting here, or indeed the President, we would have no way of just going on and on and on and on because this sort of thing requires examination.

I think without objection I will adopt the suggestion of the Senator from Utah.

Is there any objection, Senator Ervin?

Senator ERVIN. I would suggest that we are going to have a meeting of the subcommittee Monday morning to set dates to hear witnesses? Senator HENNINGS. To try to work the thing out; we have had such an influx of witnesses that it is utterly impossible.

I would like to accommodate you gentlemen. I realize at what an inconvenience you have come here, and I am not unmindful of that. Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I make this request?

Of course I have commitments for next week, the first part of it which I cannot possibly avoid keeping.

I don't mind coming back, but I would like for it to be Wednesday or Thursday.

Senator HENNINGS. Then why don't we put the testimony over until some time that you can reach an agreement upon?

I don't like to set the time arbitrarily. You are all busy men. Mr. WALDEN. We will come back whenever you say-except that I could not be here Monday or Tuesday.

Senator HENNINGS. We are in this position: On Tuesday and Wednesday the so-called Eisenhower Doctrine is to reach the floor of the Senate and that will be subject to some debate I would assume, would it not, Senator?

Senator WATKINS. There is some suspicion that there will be some debate.

Mr. MITCHELL. Could I offer a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

Senator HENNINGS. I suggest that we now stand in recess until Monday afternoon, if we can get permission to sit, which we were denied last time, and the rest of us confer and see what we can work out.

Mr. MITCHELL. Could we file these statements in order that the subcommittee might have a chance to study them prior to the time the witnesses appear again?

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Mitchell, I do not think it would be proper to file the statements until they have been read under oath.

I am sorry. You can do as you please in filing your statements, but it does not have the color of testimony.

Mr. MITCHELL. I just wish the same rule would apply to the hostile witnesses who come before the subcommittee.

Senator HENNINGS. The subcommittee is now recessed. (Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the subcommittee recessed.)