Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I am glad to note is coming daily under greater and greater fire from all parts of the country.

The United States Government made a great mistake right after the Civil War in attempting to force the Southern whites into subjection to the Negroes. It was one of the cruelest injustices ever perpetrated in a country that claimed to be free.

If these pending measures pass, the country will simply revert to the days of reconstruction.

The National Economic Council has been thoroughly opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in the so-called segregation case in May 1954. That was not a legal decision; it was a social welfare decision that threw law and Constitution to the winds.

Prior to that decision whites and Negroes had learned to live together in the South in the only way that people of different races can learn-namely, by mutual patience and by the passage of time. I have been in all of the Southern States, Mr. Chairman, many times over a period of 50 years, and I think I have had an opportunity to observe the progress made.

Does anyone suppose that they would have learned to live together in the South had there been a continuance of reconstruction? No more will they learn under a continuance of forced desegregation.

In the preamble of the Constitution the crowning objective was stated to be

to *** secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

This meant not only the perpetuation of national liberty but also of personal liberty-always under reasonable laws that are in the interest of the people as a whole.

The passage of these now-proposed laws would still further curtail the liberty of individual Americans. To a degree that only time would tell, it would put them under the tender mercies of bureaucrats.

It would not be merely the bureaucrats now holding office; it would be a fresh bunch of bureaucrats, which never would be less numerous than at the start, and whose continued livelihood would depend on carrying further and further the process of intimidation and tyranny.

The people in the United States are fed up with new laws and additional taxes to enforce those laws. We have just about reached the breaking point.

The President has stated the great objective of his administration is peace. But most of the courses taken by the United States since the end of World War II have provoked war—or at least tensions— rather than peace.

It is our contention that while peace is of great importance the primary objective is liberty-the continuance of the liberty we inherited from our forefathers.

If we drive our citizens more and more with regulatory legislation, under which certain neople will be penalized while others become wards of the State, we will not further peace. Instead we will so weaken our country that in event of serious war the chances of our losing would be enhanced.

While the first effect of these pending measures would probably be in the Southern States, yet ultimately they could be used to stamp out the rights of the majority anywhere in the country, and in my opinion they almost certainly would be so used.

Any minority in America has a right to set forth its ideas for its own improvement and advancement. But if the Congress and the administration are to mold their laws and their policy to suit these minorities, then the vast majority of Americans will find their rights infringed upon, restricted, and eventually destroyed. That is precisely what has been brought about in the Southern States by the antisegregation decision.

Civil liberties must be for the majority at least as much as for minorities.

The people of the several States want their State's rights respected. They want to decide themselves these personal questions that so greatly affect their liberty. They do not want them decided for them by experts in Washington, some of whom are international Socialists with little knowledge of and no interest in the American form of government.

We urge that these measures be defeated.

Senator ERVIN. I am forcibly struck by several of your observations, mainly the one that so much of the present trouble grew out of the fact that there was an effort at one time-that is, during reconstruction-for Congress to take charge of the Southern States. My State of North Carolina, when it was allowed to govern itself in some kind of fashion, rejected the 14th amendment. Then we were told that we could not have any representation in Congress until we ratified. the 14th amendment and adopted a State constitution which Congress found to be in harmony with the 14th amendment. We had an election for a constitutional convention. I have heard older men of my community tell that many of them were disfranchised by the Reconstruction Acts, that the disfranchised sat on fences and watched others, including recent slaves, go to the polls between rows of Federal bayonets and cast their ballots, and that by an election of that kind a convention was called to draw a new State constitution. One of the strange things about this convention, particularly with reference to the decision of May 1954, was the fact that this very convention which adopted a constitution that was found by Congress to satisfy the 14th amendment provided by resolution that the schools for the white and colored races should be segregated.

This action satisfied the then existing Congress, many of whose members participated in the drafting of the 14th amendment. It has taken several generations for the South to dig out from under the situation brought on us by reconstruction. As you point out so well, I think we have made remarkable progress.

I think that, so far as North Carolina is concerned, the races have learned to live together in peace and harmony, side by side. We are making remarkable progress.

I am rather proud of the progress North Carolina has made under difficult situations. I also take pride in the fact that thus far we have been able to go along without any violence of any kind growing out of these matters.

I share your grave concern for the trend of the country. If I hadn't, I would not have relinquished my comparatively peaceful life as an associate justice of my State supreme court for the turmoil of the Senate. I observed the trend of the Nation toward centralization and toward the confiscation of the earnings of our people by Federal income taxation. As a consequence, I accepted an appointment to

the Senate in the hope that I might assist in preserving local selfgovernment in America. When the people of the Thirteen Original Colonies drafted their constitutions, they put in first place declarations to the effect that the Colonies had the exclusive right to regulate their own internal affairs. They put these declarations in first place because local self-government was the political concept nearest to their minds and hearts.

I judge that you share my conviction that these proposed so-called civil-rights bills threaten to destroy for all practical purposes the power of the States to regulate matters which can only be handled on the State level.

Mr. HART. That is my belief entirely.

Senator ERVIN. I think you also share my conviction that these so-called civil-rights bills, if enacted into law, would curtail the civil rights of all American citizens.

Mr. HART. All the people.

Senator ERVIN. And you can't take away the civil rights of all Americans without taking away the civil rights of the very group in whose name these bills are advocated.

Mr. HART. Very likely, many of those who are proposing and pushing these bills may find themselves, perhaps fairly quickly, victims of the same engine that they have set up.

Senator ERVIN. I think that our experience in the past has shown that there is nothing more dangerous than what has been called government by injunction. Is that not true?

Mr. HART. Yes; I think that is true in a number of cases.

Senator ERVIN. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee, Mr. Hart, for coming here and giving us the benefit of your views on this most momentous legislation.

Does Mr. McLean wish to testify?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, he is here. And at the committee's pleasure, I have some material in my office, I could get it in a taxicab and bring it back.

Senator ERVIN. I am ready to take his testimony, providing somebody doesn't send a sergeant at arms to restrain me.

I don't know whether he wants to go back to North Carolina or would just as soon wait until tomorrow.

How long will it take you?

There is an

Mr. MITCHELL. It won't take more than 10 minutes. other witness here. I won't take more than about 10 minutes. Senator ERVIN. We will wait for you.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER FAISON, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES T. BLUE, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator ERVIN. What is your name?

Mr. FAISON. My name is Alexander Faison.

Senator ERVIN. You are from Durham County?

Mr. FAISON. Northampton County.

Senator ERVIN. What is your name?

Mr. BLUE. I am James T. Blue. I am director of the American

Council on Human Rights.

Senator ERVIN. What is your address, for the record?

Mr. BLUE. Here in Washington, 1130 Sixth Street NW.
Senator ERVIN. Proceed.

Mr. FAISON. I am presently a student in North Carolina College, second year.

On May 11, at approximately 11 o'clock, I presented myself to the registrar at the Seaboard precinct for registration. At the time I arrived for registration, Mrs. Sarah Harris was in for registration. She was held for approximately an hour before she was let out. When she was let out she was advised that she had failed the examination.

After Mrs. Harris, another young lady went in, and she was registered. And after about 45 minutes, my brother was admitted, James H. Faison, Jr., who is also a student at North Carolina, and he was registered. After he was out, another fellow went in, and he was held for approximately 40 minutes to an hour, and during that time he was given a long, legal sheet, onion skin, carbon copy-not the original copy-of parts of the constitution of North Carolina to read. And he was turned down.

After his departure I went in. It was about 2 o'clock, or possibly a little after. I was given the same legal sheet of paper with the parts of the constitution written on it. I was asked to read it. I read it through. And after I had read it the registrar, Mrs. Helen Taylor, said that I mispronounced some of the words on the sheet.

At that point she pointed out the words on the sheet, and asked me to pronounce the words again. And I did. After pronouncing the words, she asked me for a definition of the words. I gave that, also. After giving the definitions, she asked me to interpret-to give her a general idea of what the sentence meant that the word appeared in. And she said, "I am sorry"—and I asked her, I said, "Do you mean to say that if I don't change the definitions of the words I have given and the interpretation that I get from this that I have failed?" She said, "That is right."

So I said, "Well, there is no need for me to go any further." So, at that point I departed. And approximately 2 hours later I had retained a lawyer. And I went back to the Seaboard precinct for registration.

At that point, Mrs. Maggie Garrison also had retained the same lawyer with me. And we both entered with Attorney Walker.

Attorney Walker, when we walked in, was asked if he wanted to register. And he said, "No." He was asked if he wanted to see the registrar, and he said, "Yes." And he started to identify himself. And she said, "No, I know you," and told him to wait outside. And he said, "No: I will wait in here." At that point, the discussion between the two, Mrs. Taylor and Attorney Walker, began as to why Mrs. Garrison and I were turned down for registration. And she stipulated that we were turned down for not reading and writing to her satisfaction.

However, I never did any writing, because I refused, after I had been turned down on the reading proposition.

And there were words passed between Attorney Walker and Mrs. Taylor about why I was turned down and Mrs. Garrison was turned down.

And as a result, Mrs. Taylor asked Attorney Walker out. And he asked her he said, "Are you going to register my applicants?

And she said, "No." He said, "O. K., then, I will see you in court." Well, approximately an hour later, maybe-it might not have been that long-Attorney Walker was going back to Weldon, where his office was, and he was stopped by a county sheriff. And he was told

Senator ERVIN. Where were you? With him?

Mr. FAISON. No; I was behind.

Senator ERVIN. All you know about that is hearsay?
Mr. FAISON. No; I was trailing Attorney Walker.

So I passed Attorney Walker, and I was going to Weldon-I didn't know that he was a county sheriff, because he was driving an unmarked car. I was later informed that Attorney Walker had been arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing, and had been taken to the jail in Jackson, which is the county seat of Northampton County. He was out on bond, I believe it was $250, I wouldn't say definitely, I believe that is what it was.

Ard on the following Wednesday, a trial was held where Attorney Walker was found guilty of disorderly conduct and trespassing. And he was placed-I don't recall what the bond was, but he was placed under the bond, but he appealed the case to the superior court.

And on coming up to the superior court, the charges were changed from disorderly conduct and trespassing to assault on a female. He was found guilty of an assault on a female. And he appealed the case to the North Carolina Supreme Court. And he is under a thousand dollar bond.

During the summer I filed a case in the Northampton County Superior Court challenging the validity of the State legislation of North Carolina. And January 29, I believe it was, we had trial. And I was found living out of the precinct, because my father, who had been a registered voter in the Seaboard precinct since 1932, had moved from one location to another in 1935, I believe it was, and it was across the road.

And my brother, James H. Faison, Jr., was registered on the same day that I was registered in the Seaboard precinct. Johnny Jordan, who lives down the road on the same side of the road that I live on, was registered in 1932 in the Seaboard precinct. But in the case they argued that the precinct lines and the township lines were the same-not on the ground of maps or documents saying that the precinct lines and the township lines were the same, but on the grounds of hearsay.

They presented four witnesses who testified that they had always heard that the precinct lines and the township lines were the same. Yet, my father had been recognized in the Seaboard precinct since we moved to this location in 19:35.

The court also found that I could read and write, but not to the satisfaction of the registrar, Mrs. Taylor. And the case is now pending in the North Carolina State Supreme Court.

As a result of my attempt to register on that day-on December 27 I wrote a check to a local filling station in town. I had a banking account with the Mechanics & Farmers Bank in Durham. This bank had two check forms, a regular checking form and a check or service form. And the check or service form, you buy the blank checks in advance, and you aren't charged for service. But on the regular

« AnteriorContinuar »