Here is a man who comes before this committee and tries to present to the Nation a charge that a lot of members of the colored race had been murdered and cast into the rivers of Mississippi.

When he is questioned about those matters, he claims that three cases occurred, one being the Till case, which of course had no reference to any matter of voting rights.

He has been unable to identify by name any other person, and when he is asked to return to submit to further examination about the identity of these parties and the identity of the auditor whom he alleges filled out his tax returns, he vanishes from the presence of the committee.

He was sufficiently desirous of casting aspersions upon the good people of the State of Mississippi to the extent of voluntarily appearing before this committee twice, but when he is asked to come back a third time and impliedly assures the committee that he will do so, he fails to return.

In this connection I want to call attention to the fact that the Reverend Gus Courts said he had a conversation with Mr. Paul Townsend, a banker of Belzoni, Miss., about voting-Mr. Townsend and two other persons, to wit: Hezikiah A. Fry and Percy Ferr, who he claims made certain threats or implied threats to him.

I want to offer into evidence at this point a telegram addressed to Senator James O. Eastland from Paul Townsend at Belzoni, Miss., dated February 28, 1957, at 1:02 p. m., and reading as follows:

I have never talked with Gus Courts individually or with others about voting. Our bank made him a loan of $300 in March 1955, paid in December 1955. We have never turned down his request for a loan.

(Signed) PAUL TOWNSEND.

Then in order that there may be no confusion about identity, I want to offer for the record a telegram from Paul Townsend, Jr., which was filed at Belzoni, Miss., on February 28, 1957, reading as follows:

Regarding testimony of Gus Courts this is to advise that I have had one conversation with Courts in my life. This conversation was held in my office in the lobby of the Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., of Belzoni, in the presence of Mr. Percy Ferr. I did not send for Courts and so far as I know he came in of his own free will and accord. The conversation was friendly and congenial and had to do with the organization of the NAACP in Humphreys County. It was my suggestion to Courts that in my opinion no good would come from this organization of the NAACP in Humphreys County and that possibly racial friction would develop as a result of it. No mention was made in the conversation of Negro registration or Negro voting nor was any suggestion or threat made to Courts regarding this by me. I am not an official of the citizens council and this conversation was not held at the suggestion or insistence of any officer or member of the citizens council.

(Signed) PAUL TOWNSEND, Jr.

I also offer in evidence a telegram from John D. Purvis, the sheriff of Humphreys County, Miss., filed at 6: 26 p. m. on February 28, 1957, and reading as follows:

It has been brought to my attention that Gus Courts testified that a Negro was murdered in Humphreys County in connection with an automobile accident. Diligent inquiry fails to disclose any such incident in past few years. Have contacted State highway patrol and all others who would be in position to have such information. Suggest that witness be asked name of the person murdered and when and where it occurred.

(Signed) JOHN D. PURVIS, Sheriff, Humphreys County, Miss.

I would like to state in this connection that one of the things I stated as the reason I wanted the Reverend Gus A. Courts to return here today was so he could identify the party he claims was murdered under such circumstances or any other circumstances.

I also offer for the record a telegram from L. S. Rogers, exsuperintendent of education, which was filed at Greenwood, Miss., at 4:13 p. m., on February 28, 1957, reading as follows:

I was superintendent of education in Leflore County for 36 years, retiring January 1, 1956. Statement of Courts in regard to Negro schoolteacher being thrown in lake in 1955 absolutely unfounded and untrue. I have never known of any reprisal against any Negro teacher or any Negro citizen. Such an incident did not occur in Leflore County.

(Signed) L. S. ROGERS, Ex-Superintendent of Education.

I also offer for the record a telegram from Charles W. Lee, sheriff of Leflore County, Miss., which was filed at Greenwood, Miss., at 2:47 p. m. on February 28, 1957, and reading as follows:

Statement of Gus Courts in regard to Negro schoolteacher being thrown in a lake in this county in 1955 for political activity untrue. Nothing of this nature has happened in this county.

(Signed) CHARLES W. LEE, Sheriff, Leflore County.

I also offer for the record a telegram from H. H. Dogan, sheriff of Tallahatchie County, Miss., filed at Sumner, Miss., at 3:56 p. m. on February 28, 1957, reading as follows:

In re statements made before your committee that a Negro's body was found in Tallahatchie River or Lakes during the year 1955 is false other than Till case. There were two incidents in 1956. One was Negro boy named Kelly Tyler accidentally drowned near Sharkey. His body was recovered several miles from scene. A coroner's inquest shows he came by his death by accidental drowning. Another case a Negro woman named Beulah Melton lost control of her car and was drowned in Black Bay. There were several Negro witnesses to same. A coroner's inquest shows accidental drowning. Other than these no bodies have been recovered from river or lakes to my knowledge. We have very little acts of violence in my county.

This was signed by H. H. Dogan, sheriff of Tallahatchie County. I will state this: I am advised that Tallahatchie County contains Glendora, the place identified by Rev. Gus Courts, as where he saw the bodies.

In my opinion this illustrates about how reliable some of the testimony is that we had in support of the so-called civil rights bills, and I want to call attention to another piece of evidence about Mississippi.

I want to offer for the record at this point a telegram filed at Jackson, Miss., at 7 p. m. on February 28, 1957, by James L. Barlow, justice of the peace, in the first district of Hinds County, Jackson, Miss.

Beatrice Young, colored female, paid fine of $12.50 including cost to charge of contributing to delinquent of a minor $8.75 including cost to resisting arrest $8.75, including cost to profane language total of $30 paid this court. Husband of Beatrice Young came into this court and plead his wife guilty. James Young, husband of Beatrice Young.

(Signed) JAMES L. BARLOW,

Justice of the Peace, First District of Hinds County, Jackson, Miss. During the course of these hearings it was testified that a man in Hayesville Township, Franklin County, N. C. had been denied the right to register because he was left handed.

In fairness to the executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who gave that testimony, I would

like to point out that it was stated by him at the time that he had no personal knowledge of the matter and based his testimony solely upon the statement found in the Carolina Times, a newspaper published in Durham, N. C.. which newspaper as I understand it is owned and edited and published by colored citizens of North Carolina.

In this connection I want to offer in evidence an affidavit. Which is purported to have been executed by R. G. Winn, registrar, of Hayesville Precinct, Franklin County, N. C., before Elwood Murray, a notary public, on February 26, 1957. Such affidavit reads as follows:

R. G. Winn, address: Route 3, Louisburg, N. C., being duly sworn, says that he is a citizen of Franklin County, N. C., 53 years of age, and for the past 30 years has been the registrar in the voting precinct of said county known as Hayesville Township; that on or about the 28th day of April 1956, John R. Green, a colored man who gave his age as 21 years, applied for registration as a Democrat; that, upon questioning the applicant, this affiant was of the opinion, that, due to his illiteracy and his failure to write legibly, the applicant could not at that time properly qualify; that the applicant stated to him that he was left handed, and that that fact partially explained his inability to write clearly; that, after a friendly discussion with the applicant, this affiant suggested that he wait and probably apply for registration at a later date; that the applicant returned on the following Saturday, bringing with him a copy of the constitution of North Carolina, and after further questioning and examining the applicant as to his ability, this affiant gave him the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to register on May 5, 1956, and his name now appears upon the registration books of Hayesville Precinct immediately preceding the name of Cora Virginia Green, a colored woman registered on the same date;

That subsequently the chairman of the county board of elections, as a result of some complaint, which this affiant feels was entirely unjustified, investigated this matter and declared himself satisfied with the action of this affiant;

That this affidavit is offered voluntarily, not for the purpose of apologizing or offering any excuse, but by reason of the fact that this affiant's attention has been called to references made in the press which apparently have been distorted, and which have probably left a wrong impression upon the public, and which this affiant believes is grossly unfair to the people of Franklin County; that this affiant verily believes that those who attempted to make capital out of this incident are motivated by no worthy or unselfish purpose, but to arouse dissension between the races in Franklin County, which county, within the memory of this affiant, has enjoyed a most friendly and cooperative relationship between the white and colored races.

(Signed) R. G. WINN,

Registrar of Hayesville Precinct, Franklin County. While I am on the question of inserting matters in the record, I will insert in the record an editorial from the Washington Star for February 27, 1957, entitled "Clinton Contempt Issue," and also an article from the Washington Star of February 28, 1957, by David Lawrence, entitled "Federal Action and Local Issues."

(The documents follow:)

[The Evening Star, Washington, D. C., February 27, 1957]

CLINTON CONTEMPT ISSUE

The American Civil Liberties Union has joined the ranks of those who believe that the Clinton, Tenn. school injunction is too broad, and therefore invalid. This is especially interesting since the ACLU supports the Supreme Court's school ruling and has urged all citizens to obey it.

The ACLU does not question the authority of the court to enjoin "overt acts" which “hinder" or "obstruct" the Clinton integration order. Those committing such acts, assuming proof is available, can be tried and punished for contempt. The injunction goes further, however. It prohibits all persons, acting in concert with certain named defendants, "from further hindering, obstructing, or in any wise interfering with the carrying out of the aforesaid order of this court, or from picketing Clinton High School, either by words or acts or otherwise."

In the ACLU view, as in the opinion of many others, this language is so sweeping, in the absence of a clear and present danger to the maintenance of peace, that it cuts across the first amendment. The difficulty, of course, is in determining where the line is to be drawn between protected free speech and speech which incites to violence. The ACLU points out, however, that the first amendment requires that such a line be drawn, and goes on to contend: "For the sake of our free society, whose freedom is preserved by the free exchange of all kinds and shades of opinion, curbs on the first amendment guaranties should be allowed only when the danger is clear."

If this view is sound, and we think it is, the difficulties which the courts will encounter in the Clinton case become self-evident. The major problem, however, concerns the constitutionality of the injunction itself, and the ACLU has suggested that the pending trial of 16 defendants should be deferred until this question is settled. This has merit in that it could protect the individuals against contempt punishment for violating an injunction which subsequently might be declared invalid.

[The Evening Star, Washington, February 28, 1957]

DAVID LAWRENCE: FEDERAL ACTION AND LOCAL ISSUES

NEW CRITICISM OF UNITED STATES COURT INJUNCTION IN CLINTON (TENN.) SCHOOL CASE IS CITED

It is a matter of news importance when the American Civil Liberties Union, known for its persistent defense of "liberal" causes, criticizes a Federal court injunction in a “desegregation" case.

After the Supreme Court of the United States issued its order throwing out State laws that permitted segregation, the school authorities of Clinton, Tenn., interpreted this to mean they had to bring about a forced association of the races, and they complied with the court's order. But various people in the town spoke in criticism, and some of them allegedly attempted to interfere with the school board's operation. A riot took place near the school grounds, which should have been handled by local police under State laws. But the Federal judge issued an injunction of such broad scope that the Department of Justice arrested 16 citizens and made them defendants on the ground that they had engaged in a conspiracy to violate the injunction. Some of them had merely criticized the injunction and the court decision. Others happened to witness the disturbance. One of them merely offered bail for a defendant and was promptly arrested as a coconspirator.

"Mere advocacy, in the Clinton case," says the American Civil Liberties Union statement, "urging the ignoring of the law or judicial orders, should not be prohibited. As we said at the beginning of this statement, the ACLU supports the Supreme Court decision and urges all citizens to obey it. But if some citizens choose to oppose the decision by peaceful means, through speech, they have the constitutional right to do so. Mere picketing to express a point of view, in the absence of intimidation, should not be enjoined. So we believe the blanket prohibition against picketing of the Clinton High School is invalid. Without direct incitement to definite acts of individual or joint obstructiveness or interference, coupled with a clear and present danger that these acts will take place immediately, the injunction is too broad and interferes with free speech.

"However, the prohibition in the injunction as to overt acts of 'hindering' or 'obstructing' the integration order is different. Such overt acts cannot claim the protection of free speech. Whether or not such acts have occurred is a matter of proof to be determined at the contempt hearing."

This correspondent a few weeks ago called attention to this very defect in the court's injunction and also to the unlawful usurpation by a Federal court of a duty and task that should be performed by local police agencies and State law. There is no evidence that the persons arrested exercised any influence whatsoever on the school board or attempted to interfere with its operations in bringing about a forced association of pupils. All the citizens did was to criticize the injunction and the Supreme Court decision. When an altercation occurred some distance from the school building, it was certainly a usurpation of authority for a Federal court to attempt to apply an injunction to every citizen in the school district as to what he might say in his own home to his friends in criticism of forced association in the schools.

There are some rumors that the Department of Justice now regrets the arrests ordered under the Federal judge's injunction. In the first place, if the judge at the contempt trial charges conspiracy, he will have to convince the public that the conspirators selected a point in front of a police station to carry out their conspiracy to do an unlawful thing. This would be difficult. If they did not all participate and the preacher was struck by a man acting impulsively and, as he claims, because he was shoved aside by the preacher, it will be a hard thing to sentence the bystanders and make such a decision stand up on appeal. In any event, it is difficult to see how the judge can tie up this incident, which occurred some distance from the school, with a violation of his order prohibiting interference with pupils who attended the school.

The American Civil Liberties Union has interested itself often in cases involving arrests for picketing in labor disputes and, as pointed out in these dispatches when the Clinton injunction was issued, precedents are being made which can rise to plague labor unions.

Under the 14th amendment, Congress is empowered to pass legislation to enforce the prohibition against abridgement by a State of the liberties and privileges of a citizen-the basis on which the Supreme Court denounced racial segregation in the schools. But Congress has never acted. The amendment is not selfexecuting but contains a specific grant of power to Congress. Hence, until Congress does act, neither the Supreme Court nor any lower court can do any legislating and at the same time obey the spirit of the Constitution itself. It is the obligation of the States to preserve order, and they have ample means to do so. Senator ERVIN. Does anybody want to ask any questions?

(No response.)

The first witness who is scheduled for hearing today is Mr. Hugh G. Grant, attorney at law, Augusta, Ga.

Mr. Grant, the committee will be glad to hear from you at this time. you an attorney or not?

Are

Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, I am not an attorney.

I was going to remark that I am highly honored to be invited to appear before this committee. I am also highly honored to be elevated to the legal profession.

Senator ERVIN. I will tell you how you happened to get inadvertently elevated or degraded to that profession.

Senator Sparkman called me and he was under the impression you were an attorney and I transmitted that misinformation to Mr. Slayman and that is the reason.

Mr. GRANT. My only remark in that connection, Mr. Chairman, I might say that I have been very closely associated with many attorneys for many years. I think a little bit of the legal profession has been rubbed off on me, but I am not an attorney.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Grant, we hope that you did not take offense at this misinformation.

Mr. GRANT. Not at all. As I said, I feel very highly honored. Senator ERVIN. You may have a seat. I understand you have a prepared statement which you may read or put in the record or supplement it with any oral remarks in any way you desire.

Mr. GRANT. Do you want to swear me in?

Senator ERVIN. No, sir.

Mr. GRANT. I might add, Mr. Chairman, to offset this lack of legal knowledge and legal experience, if the committee will indulge me I would like to give just a few details of my background.

Senator ERVIN. We would be delighted to have you do so, Mr. Grant.