Of course the power of supena in this sovereignty commission is no more than the power that any legislative committee would have.

The only trouble is our legislature just sits once every 2 years. It is not constantly in session like most of the time the Congress of the United States is.

Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission-Governor, I think it would be helpful to the constitutional rights committee to have a copy of that statute.

Governor COLEMAN. I will be happy to furnish it and I might sugbest that only last week Arkansas enacted a similar statute and possibly somebody could furnish that to you.

They copied it from our State sovereignty law in Mississippi.
Mr. SLAYMAN. Thank you very much.

Governor COLEMAN. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Governor, I would just like to say in this conection that, one of the things which disturbs me, especially in this area, is the appparent attitude of a lot of people that all of us must conform our thoughts to theirs.

I am told, for example, that I must not speak critically of the Supreme Court of the United States even though I believe from what I learned sitting at the feet of Eugene Wambaugh, a great constitutional lawyer from Ohio in the Harvard Law School, that the Supreme Court has departed many times in recent years from its proper role as a judicial tribunal. But I think that every American citizen, whatever may be his race or his creed, still has the right to think and to speak his honest thoughts concerning anything on the face of the earth, including the decisions of Supreme Court majorities.

I am frank to state that if we are to have government by injunction that that right is going to be seriously curtailed.

Governor COLEMAN. If I could comment on that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I spent 4 years of my life as a trial judge on a court of general jurisdiction and then later was promoted to the supreme court of the State by appointment of the Governor.

I have never supposed that the official acts and deeds of a judge were beyond just criticism, and I would like to point out that in the last meeting of the National Governors Conference in Atlantic City, that we passed resolutions which could be considered of a critical nature, at least we looked with great concern on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in such matters as the Pennsylvania case and others.

Senator ERVIN. I might add

Governor COLEMAN. That was the governors conference-what it

did.

Senator ERVIN. I might add that the Association of Chief Justices of the State Courts of the 48 States have done practically the same thing. They have passed a resolution asking Congress to enact a statute to end the absurd system sanctioned by the Supreme Court by which the lowest Federal courts nullify the decisions of the highest courts of the States. Consequently, those of us who may be critical of some of the actions of the Supreme Court in recent days find ourselves in the same boat with the chief justice of all of the State courts in America.

Governor COLEMAN. I have never made it my business to, you know, go out of my way just to criticize and heave rocks at the Supreme

Court of the United States, although I very definitely disagree with the correctness of their school decisions.

I have commented when I thought it was right and proper and my place to do so. I have made television speeches on the subject in Mississippi. At the same time we have this situation right now. We have a white man down in Mississippi, and we also have a Negro, both under conviction of murder. The convictions are about 4 years old. They have already been up to the Supreme Court of the United States twice, and only the other day when the hangman was seen to approach with his noose, they went over to the United States district court and applied for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied. They went down to the court of appeals and tried to get a certificate of probable cause which was denied, and then they came up here to Washington on the day before the execution, and when the State of Mississippi was not present and not notified and unheard, they gave a stay of execution.

That leads any man who has it in his mind to commit murder in my State, and both of these parties have been convicted of that, 1 white and 1 Negro, it gives them the idea that if they can get a smart enough lawyer who is possessed of sufficient dilatory equipment, that they can just whip the law forever, and they have done it for 4 years in these cases.

That is not said by way of criticism. It is just a statement of fact, and the results may speak for themselves.

Senator ERVIN. Illinois, North Carolina, and other States have had to pass statutes called post-conviction hearing acts, recently to satisfy recent decisions of the Supreme Court. These statutes provide, in substance, that after the State courts have tried the defendants, the defendants can try the State courts.

I would like to have incorporated in the record an article by David Lawrence, entitled "A Flagrant Abuse of Civil Rights," which appeared in the Washington Star for March 4, 1957, and an article which appeared in the U. S. News and World Report for December 1, 1955, entitled "FBI's Role in Mixed Schools."

(The documents are as follows:)

[Washington Evening Star, March 4, 1957]

DAVID LAWRENCE: A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

QUIET MOVE BY GOVERNMENT VIEWED AS IMPERILING JURY TRIAL GUARANTY Maybe there is no need for civil rights legislation after all. Congress will certainly be interested to discover how the Department of Justice just a few days ago, in a move that has gone unnoticed generally, simply substituted the words "the United States" for the names of a local school board as a party to a law suit in Federal court. By that device the 18 defendants arrested for allegedly hindering the Federal injunction at Clinton, Tenn., can be deprived of a trial by jury and put in jail as unfairly as if they were living in some totalitarian country. While the laws of the land under the Constitution of the United States do permit Federal judges to punish for contempt certain offenses committed in a courtroom, or even outside, when the principals to a controversy refuse to obey a court order, a jury trial can usually be obtained on request. But it is something novel when a lawsuit has been started by private parties to find the Department of Justice petitioning the Federal court to amend the original petition and substitute the words "United States" for those of the complainant. This automatically bars a jury trial.

If the Federal judge in Knoxville, Tenn., approves this request and it is snstained on appeal by the courts it will not be necessary for the Congress to legislate

on "civil rights." All that will be needed is for the Department of Justice to write out the orders and the courts will uphold them.

This is a flagrant abuse of power-much worse than any cited in the recent hearings before the House Judiciary Committee by the critics of the proposed "civil rights" legislation.

It is ironical that the American Civil Liberties Union-which on February 26 made a commendable statement criticizing the Federal court injunction issued at Clinton, Tenn., as being too broad-didn't know that on February 25 the same Federal judge was being asked by the Department of Justice to deprive citizens of a chance for jury trial. The Civil Liberties Union statement had rightly criticized the injunction as too broad and had said that "to the extent that it enjoins speech in opposition to or advocating ignoring of the order, or peaceful picketing for these purposes, it is invalid."

In that same statement, moreover, the right to jury trial was vigorously upheld by the ACLU even for those defendants who had been charged with actually "hindering" or "obstructing" the operations of a court order. The ACLU said: "Under the Federal law a person in contempt of a Federal court order enjoining acts which are also in violation of the Federal or State law is entitled, if he requests it, to a trial by jury. This protection of individual rights was originally written into the law to guard against possible biased judicial decisions in labor injunction cases and now covers contempt issues.

"Similarly, as the acts charged against the 16 persons now facing trial allege violations of Federal and State laws, these defendants can ask for a jury trial. Therefore, no civil liberties issue is raised unless the jury trial is denied, which is unlikely in view of the clear instruction of the law."

But what the ACLU didn't know when it issued that statement, and what most people throughout the United States didn't know because it wasn't reported in the press generally, was that the Department of Justice had resorted to a stratagem by seeking to make the "United States" a party to the suit, which-according to a law of Congress governing contempt cases-eliminates trial by jury.

Some critics not long ago pointed to the case of John L. Lewis as a precedent because he was fined once for contempt by a judge and was not given a jury trial. But those same critics failed to notice that the United States itself was a party to the suit. This was because the Government, acting in accordance with a wartime statute, had seized the coal mines and hence any action taken by a union or its leaders to defy a court order was a defiance of the United States Government itself.

There is no such parallel here. The school board officials at Clinton, Tenn., were whole-heartedly complying with the desegregation order of the Federal court when they found certain persons in the town were “organizing a movement" to discourage attendance at an integrated school. Hence these school officials asked the court to enjoin anyone attempting to "interfere" with the school board's operations. But a local school board is not a part of the Government of the United States and it is difficult to imagine any Federal court judge consenting to the substitution of the "United States" for a local school board.

Even, however, if this strange petition does not win the approval of the court, the amazing thing is that anyone in the Department of Justice would try such a trick of circumvention in the very week when prominent lawyers from various States were warning Congress that to pass the civil rights legislation now being proposed would lead to grave abuses of power.

IU. S. News & World Report, December 21, 1956]

FBI'S ROLE IN MIXED SCHOOLS

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN CLINTON, TENN., CLASSES REOPENED

High-school students in Clinton, Tenn., were called together in
their s hool auditorium last week for this unusual procedure:

A county attorney read to the students an injunction issued by a
Federal court.

Students were warned that they face Federal arrest if they violate
that in 'unction.

Teachers were told to report to the FBI any violations by the students.

89777-57-49

The county attorney said, "To my knowledge, in all of American
history," such a procedure had never before been necessary.

Purpose of this procedure: to enforce racial integration of Clinton
High School.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said the instructions given Clinton
students and teachers "were not issued at the request of the FBI nor
would the FBI issue such instructions."

(Following is text of the proceedings of a general asembly at Clinton High School, Clinton, Tenn., held upon the reopening of the school, December 10, 1956 :) D. J. BRITTAIN (principal, Clinton High School). Students, this morning we are meeting for the first time since, I believe, Tuesday of last week, and we desire to have all situations cleared up so that there will not be any misunderstanding or confusion.

Now, naturally, there is and has been, as I told you at the beginning, worldwide interest in what is going on here in Clinton, Tenn. Therefore, there are a number of photographers here. * * * They wish to get pictures of the student body. When the lights come on, they are going to be real bright, and we hope that you will react normally. ***

This program, the first part of it, will be taken of you. We want you to listen to what is said on the stage because it will be most important. *** So we hope that you will pay attention to what is being said.

At this time, it is my pleasure-not my pleasure, either-it is my duty to introduce Mr. Eugene Joyce, who is the county attorney for Anderson County, so that we cannot have any misunderstandings about future things. Mr. Joyce. [Applause.]

Mr. JOYCE. Students, I am here this morning in my official capacity as county attorney for Anderson County. In that capacity I have been asked and directed by the board of education of this county to come before you and tell you what the board of education and what the faculty of this school expect of you in the future. It is not my intention to tell you what to think in the future, nor is it my intention to tell you what to believe in the future; but it is my duty to tell you how to act in the future so long as you remain students at Clinton High School.

During the past weeks, several acts of misconduct in this school have gone unpunished, acts that normally would call for severe and drastic action and, because things have changed now and because in the future these acts will be dealt with severely and swiftly, I have been asked by the board, in all fairness to you, to tell you exactly what to expect.

No one, believe me, no one wants to see any student here involved in any difficulty, and the board of education and the faculty-and it is a wonderful faculty-have done its best in the past to prevent that.

However, situations have developed to make this course no longer possible. The board has directed the faculty to not only institute procedures through Mr. Brittain to expel any student that is guilty of misconduct, but they have also instructed the faculty to pass on to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any actions on behalf of the students that might be construed as violations of he injunction.

Now, I have here with me the injunction that so many of you have heard so much about. I want to read this document. It is a long, not very exciting, type of thing, but it is a very, very important instrument.

I is from the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division, signed by Judge Robert Taylor. This injunction, in part, reads as follows:

"In this cause, it appearing from sworn petition [of D. J. Brittain, Jr., J. M. Burkhart, W. B. Lewallen, Sidney Davis and Walter E. Fischer] that John Kasper, Tom Carter, Max Stiles, Ted Hankins, Leo Bolton, and Mabel Currier, and others whose names are not known by the petitions at this time, are hindering, obstructing and interfering with the carrying out of a memorandum order issued by this court on January 4, 1956, in that, among other things, they have requested and urged the principal of Clinton High School and the members of the County School Board of Anderson County to refuse to carry out the aforesaid integration order of the court; that they have formed and caused to be formed picket lines in front of Clinton High School of Anderson County and on August 28 and 29, 1956, caused a large crowd to form near the entrance to Clinton High School, and threatened and caused to be threatened several of the Negro students attending said high school, causing them in a least one instance to become afraid

to attend school, and causing the parents of the students to become frightened and alarmed, one of whom caused a child to be removed from school; that anonymous letters have been written to parents of the students threatening them for permitting their children to attend school; that John Kasper has been one of the leaders in what appears to be a concerted movement to intimidate the parents, or some of them, who are sending their children to school, in an effort to prevent a continuation of school attendance; that on August 27, 1956, a crowd of people agitated by John Kasper attacked one of the Negro children of the school; that Kasper stated on various occasions that the court had no authority to issue the aforesaid order of desegregation in the Clinton High School, and that it should not be obeyed;

"It further appearing to the court that the unlawful conduct of Kasper and the other named parties herein will continue unless a restraining order is issued prohibiting such acts, words and conduct, and that, if continued, complainants will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, in that the Clinton High School will not continue to operate in an orderly manner and some of its students may suffer physical harm-"

And here is a key paragraph I want you to pay particular attention to

"It is ordered and decreed by the court that the aforementioned persons, their agents, servants, representatives, attorneys, and all other persons who are acting or may act in concert with them, be and they hereby are enjoined and prohibited from further hindering, obstructing, or in anywise 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."

This document was signed by Judge Taylor and, as you all know, it has been an object and the instrument that has caused so much publicity and so much enforcement here in the last few years.

Questions have been asked of me and other law-enforcement officials as to the enforceability of this injunction. I think the actions of the past few weeks or the past few days, particularly, speak in unmistakable language that this injunction is enforceable.

The other question so frequently asked is: Will this injunction apply to students under 21 or to acts inside the high-school building? The answer is that this injunction has no limits; it applies to everyone, everywhere, be they minors, adults, inside or outside any building in this county.

Now, so that there will be no misunderstanding as to precisely what the board or education and what the faculty expect of you, I want to recount some of the acts of misconduct in the past that will not be tolerated by the board or the faculty in the future.

I have been told that there have been gatherings outside of the school over here [indicating] during the early hours of the morning when some students are coming to school. This will no longer be allowed. The throwing of ink on books, books belonging to the State of Tennessee, the messing up of lockers, the threatening notes to teachers, the filthy language to fellow students, pushing and shoving other stndents-and to avoid any difficulty of any type, I would suggest you students refrain from wearing any type of buttons or anything of that nature. To my knowledge in all of American history it has never been necessary to read an instrument such as this, a Federal injunction, before an especially called assembly of a student body. And I want to say it certainly is not a pleasant task to me and not a pleasant assignment for me to be assigned to. On the other hand, I know it is a source of embarrassment to a great majority of the students in this assembly, students who have handled themselves and conducted themselves as model students and exemplary citizens during the difficult weeks in the past. To you students, the board of education has asked me to pass on a special word: They have asked me to tell you that they are grateful and they are gratified for your conduct.

While this is a matter of concern to you and embarrassment, we hope also that it will become a challenge to you; we hope that you will be challenged to assist the faculty, and so that soon we may return to normalcy.

With the act of assistance of everyone in this room, students together with the faculty, it is my fervent hope that within a few hours these grinding TV cameras, these lamps and lights will leave Clinton, that there will be no more misconduct, that the spotlight of public attention will remove itself from Clinton, and you students can return to a happy and carefree student life like you all so richly are entitled to.