Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, would you permit me to make a brief observation?

Senator ERVIN. We will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. WALDEN. I listened very attentively to what the Senator said. In fact I admire him very greatly because a few years ago I did my best to help try to make him vice president of the United States so he knows how I felt toward him personally. But I want to say this. With reference to some of his observations, of course, we realize that you can't change human nature by legislation, but legislation can make it impossible for some people to carry into execution feelings and attitudes that they have with reference to their fellow men and that is all we are asking for. We know this: In order to get the right to serve on juries, that required many years of litigation in different courts. In order to obviate segregation where you live, we had to go through the United States Supreme Court to do that.

That was in the Kentucky case. In order to get the right to sit as jurors we had to go into the courts to do that.

In order to get the right to vote we had to fight the grandfather clauses years ago and then later the white primaries. But for having gone to the courts to do these things, Negroes would be totally disenfrancised under the laws despite the existing law.

We feel that those who are objecting to this type of legislation seem to be more concerned about the feelings of some group than they are about the rights of the others. And these laws are intended primarily so that we could equalize the situation, so that our country can't be accused of preaching one thing in Europe and practicing another thing here.

And the question of race relations, they never arise except in those instances when we are convinced that we have got to insist upon the law in order to get them, and the attention comes on the parts of those people who don't want us to have them.

That is a fact. You have been in the South. I have been in the South all my life, and I know what I am talking about. Senator ERVIN. Have you finished?

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. What you have stated tends to prove what I have maintained, namely, that the civil rights of everybody can be enforced under existing laws, which preserve the great constitutional and legal safeguards established by the Founding Fathers to secure all Americans against bureaucratic and judicial tyranny. The proponents of these bills propose to vest in one public official, to wit, the Attorney General, the arbitrary power to determine in the first place whether the proposed new proceedings are to be invoked at all. He is to have the absolute power at his uncontrolled discretion or caprice to grant the supposed benefit of the proposed new remedies to some Americans and withhold them from others. And this is to be done in a land where all men are said to stand equal before the law. If the Attorney General should elect to institute the proposed new proceedings, he would automatically strike down all State laws prescribing administrative or other remedies. And he would do this in the name of equity despite the equitable principle that equity will not act in aid of those who have other available remedies. Litigation is a poor way to promote good personal or racial relations.

This observation finds illustration in an old North Carolina story of the colloquy between two neighbors, A and B, who quarreled about the location of the boundary between their adjoining farms. A said to B, "If you don't concede that my boundary is located where I say, I will bring a suit against you in the superior court."

B said, "That is all right. I will be there when the case is tried.” A said, "If I lose that case in superior court I'll appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina."

B said, "All right, I'll be there when that appeal is heard." Then A said, "If I lose that case in the Supreme Court of North Carolina I'll appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States." B said, "That is all right, I'll be there when that appeal is heard." And then A said, "Well, then if I lose that case in the Supreme Court of the United States, I'll take it straight to hell." B said, "I won't be there, but my lawyer will."

Mr. WALDEN. Lawyers do sometimes have to go there.

Senator ERVIN. Is Reverend Courts able to stay until tomorrow, because I have to get a little information? I have been requested to ask him a couple of questions.

Mr. MITCHELL. We can do that.

Senator ERVIN. That seems to complete the list of witnesses.

On behalf of the committee I want to thank all the witnesses who have come here today and given to committee the benefit of their views on this very important subject and also observe, I think, it is a fine thing that folks can sit down and discuss these things as we have.

We can disagree as in some cases we do and without getting disagreeable about it.

Mr. MITCHELL. That's true.

Senator ERVIN. I thank all the witnesses for taking the trouble to come and give the committee the benefit of their views.

Mr. MITCHELL. There is one technical question I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman. Several times during Reverend Courts' testimony, you mentioned that he was testifying under oath. As I remember at the adjournment of the committee on last Saturday, there was an agreement that all the witnesses who testified on matters, such as he was testifying on would testify under oath.

I strongly recommand to the committee, after having heard some of the officials who came up to testify before the House, that everyone who comes up here to testify ought to be subjected to that rule because there is a very clear case that the attorney general of Louisiana has given testimony which is in direct conflict with testimony submitted by the Department of Justice. It does seem if this rule were to apply to him, it ought to apply to everybody.

Senator ERVIN. I agree as to those who are giving factual information. Some of this information is opinion, some is factual.

I am a great believer in that. I am a great believer of feeding everybody out of the same legal spoon.

Mr. MITCHELL. I am sure you do.

Senator ERVIN. That is the only security we have. If there's no further witness we will stand in recess to 10 o'clock tomorrow. Mr. SLAYMAN. We switch again to another room.

Senator ERVIN. We do?

89777-57-38

Mr. SLAYMAN. 457.

Senator ERVIN. That is where we started.

Mr. SLAYMAN. No, sir; we have not been in that room, yet.

Senator ERVIN. That will be our sixth room. We have Mr. Hugh Grant, attorney from Augusta, Ga., and Mr. Leland Perez and some ladies, Mrs. Bussey, Mrs. Goss and Mrs. Whitney and Mrs. Renfro from Arlington County, Va., and Mrs. Buchholz from Arlington County, Va. And we will hear Reverend Courts again in the morning. (Whereupon at 3:45 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Friday, March 1, 1957.)

CIVIL RIGHTS-1957

FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1957

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 11:40 a. m., in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator Sam Ervin presiding.

Present: Senator Ervin (presiding).

Also present: Charles H. Slayman, Jr., chief counsel, Constitutional Rights Subcommittee; and Robert Young, professional staff member, Judiciary Committee.

Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order.

I might let the record show that on yesterday the Reverend Gus A. Courts was requested to return this morning for further testimony, and further that the Reverend Gus A. Courts is conspicuous by his absence.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I had a letter delivered to me by Senator Hennings' administrative assistant, addressed to him by the Director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People which relates to the appearance of Gus Courts.

Now, either you or I could read it into the record.
Shall I read it?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. SLAYMAN. This is dated February 28, 1957:

Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: The Reverend Gus Courts, formerly of Belzoni, Miss., now living in Chicago, presented testimony before the subcommittee today on circumstances surrounding an attempt to take his life while he was still living in Mississippi. He also presented substantial evidence on the specific actions of persons in Mississippi who opposed his right to vote.

As you know, I requested an opportunity for the Reverend Mr. Courts to appear and he has done so at no expense to the Government, although it was necessary for him to make two trips to Washington from Chicago.

It goes without saying that we appreciate the opportunity given him to present valuable testimony on shocking violations of civil rights in Mississippi. During the period when the Reverend Mr. Courts was examined, Senator Ervin asked a number of questions about his income tax. I respectfully submit that the questions asked were not related to the matter on which he appeared for the purpose of presenting testimony.

Senator Ervin requested that he remain for the afternoon session of the subcommittee to answer further questions. The Reverend Mr. Courts was present but Senator Ervin suggested it would be better to reexamine him on the following day, March 1.

Mrs. Courts is paralyzed and the Reverend Mr. Courts has a heart condition which was caused by the injury he suffered in Mississippi. Because of these things, it has been necessary for him to return to Chicago and cannot be present on March 1.

I would like to suggest that if the subcommittee wishes to have the Reverend Mr. Courts return to Washington some arrangement be made to assure him that his stay will be brief, that his expenses will be paid, and that the questions will be relevant to matters within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights.

Sincerely yours,

CLARENCE MITCHELL,

Director, Washington Bureau.

Mr. SLAYMAN. I have been directed by Senator Hennings, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, to say that he knew nothing about this matter before receiving the letter this morning, and directed me, if any question was raised about the appearance of Mr. Courts, to read it into the record, with Senator Ervin's permission.

I have the further impression from Senator Hennings that, not being able to be here at this point in the meeting, he did not himself want to make any ruling in absentia about the matter.

Senator ERVIN. I understand that perfectly because I know Senator Hennings was prevented from attending the sessions of the committee on yesterday by other senatorial duties.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. I wish to make these observations concerning the letter.

On yesterday I requested the Reverend Gus Courts to return for further examination this morning, and I was at least impliedly assured by his silence and by the silence of those who had produced him as a witness, that he would return this morning for further examina

tion.

In order that he might not be taken by surprise, I gave the reasons why I desired him to appear for further examination today.

I stated that I desired to ask him the name and address of the auditor who he claimed made out his tax returns.

I also stated that I wanted to ascertain from him the identity of the schoolteacher whose body he asserted had been taken from a lake in Mississippi.

I stated that I had information that the person to whom he apparently referred had been accidentally drowned when an automobile in which she was riding passed out of control and ran into the lake.

Now with reference to the contention that it was not germane to ask the Reverend Gus Courts about his income tax return, I want to point out that Rev. Gus Courts prepared at least 10 days ago a written statement in which he claimed that he had been compelled to leave Mississippi and forsake a business-a $15,000-a-year business.

I did not bring the $15,000-a-year business into this matter. It was brought into this matter by the Reverend Gus Courts and those who assisted him in preparing his written statement.

Whenever a person appears to give evidence, it is always proper to ask him about his evidence for the purpose of eliciting facts bearing on his credibility as a witness, and certainly a man who has a $15,000a-year business ought to be making income-tax returns to the Federal Government.