STATEMENT OF GEO. WASHINGTON WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, BALTIMORE 2, MD. The Peril of the White Race-a Black death. A People without vision-meaning a sense of perspective and cause and effect-perish, which is the long history of the world.

The Real and End-Result fight of the whites is not to hate or harm anybody, but to Protect their Race from amalgamation to the Point of Suicide, which is now being done through the Brainwashing Process, for which we have so soundly damned the Reds and Nazis. This, I am sure, at least a bulk of our people do not want to happen to their own, but all too many of them are indifferent or afraid, for one reason or another, to support those who are making their fight. I am sure that this also applies to the Clergy, fear of something-jobs, etc. I firmly believe that neither the clery nor the bulk of the whites will initiate this suicide process in their own families, except under some type of compulsion like Arkansas and Mississippi bayonets. Hamilton, in Art. 27 of the Federalist, expresses this palpable truism on man. "A thing that rarely strikes the senses will generally have but little influence upon his mind." It has to hit one's nose to get him to act-then too late.

I challenge every decent, particularly thinking white person to deny this and refute the following part of this public challenge. We shall see if anybody (with emphasis on the Press) will dare to abuse and vilify those quoted.

The 17th of May will mark the Tenth Year since the so-called Segregation Decision by the Supreme Court, and one of the Press Associations says that "Segregationists" labeled that day 'Black Monday'. Others call it the "Second Emancipation" and thus this integration movement is associated with Lincoln, and implies that Lincoln would be for this integration program, which I dispute. The Emancipation proclamation itself was not general, but covered only the actual war area, a war measure only.

Lincoln worked on three hypotheses, namely: (1) in Holy Writ, it is said that a House Divided against itself cannot stand, and (2) he said that the country could not exist half slave and half free, that it would have to be all one or the other, and (3) he was, himself, working on the last item when he was in the White House, namely, that the country could not live in peace half Black and half White, and therefore, he was hoping to arrange for either a repatriation or a colonization in Central or the edge of South America. As to the third item, see the Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, Vol. 1, page 150, et seq: Summer 1862. I quote a couple of items therefrom to support my statement: (1) "The President was earnest in the matter of wishing to send the negroes out of the country." Defense of Race and hatred are not synonymous. Speech, Congress, December 1, 1862, re colonization.

(2) "Thought it essential to provide asylum for a race which we emancipated but which could never be recognized or admitted to be our equals."

(3) See Lincoln's First Inaugural Address as to the importance of our once dual system of government. In the Lincoln-Douglas Debates he said that he was not in favor of Negroes voting or serving on juries, as he knew, as did Jefferson, what the ultimate consequence would be-Race Conflict and amalgamation.

(4) Attorney General Bates "desired that deportation, by force if necessary, should go with emanicpation." p. 158.

The Great Emancipator had previously made the following declarations: At Ottawa, Illinois, in the Douglas-Lincoln Debates, on August 21, 1858 “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality."

When a Delegation of Negro Preachers, et al, called upon him on August 14, 1862 he, interalia, stated that: "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated."

At Springfield, on December 12, 1857, he said that "A separation of the races is the only perfect prevention of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, then the next best thing to keep them apart where they are not already together."

21-544-63-pt. 2- -38

Prof. Allan Nevins, Professor of American History at Columbia University and author, tells us in the U.S. News and World Rep., Nov. 14, 1958, page 72, that amalgamation will be the result, as things are now going: "As a historian, I do not for a moment believe that, in our mighty American river of many nationalities, two currents can flow side by side down the centuries without ultimately becoming one" and he says that "any sociologist could cite a dozen reasons why it is inevitable" and that he "could cite a dozen analogies from history to prove that such a process is inexorable, irresistible."

Thomas Jefferson says, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free, nor is it less certain that these two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government." Letter to Holmes, April 22, 1820 says he hopes "a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected, and gradually with due sacrifice, I think it might be done." What is the answer to all this?

Many quotations sustaining the above expressions could be supplied, and I do not like to see Lincoln and Jefferson misunderstood and libeled as they have been down through the years and such people become Judas Goats by associating them with the current integration movement. If I am an evil person I am in good company. This presents a challenge to all integrationists.

Yours sincerely,

The EDITOR, THE BALTIMORE SUN, City.

(S) GEO. WASHINGTON WILLIAMS.

BALTIMORE, MD.

DEAR SIR: Those who have at least taken a peek at the "Beacon Lights of History," by Prof. John Lord (1888), will doubtless recall that what is now gradually developing was portended by him in "Old Pagan Civilizations," where he refers to the progress of mechanism and science and their culmination, he remarks that "the human mind may" then "seek some new department, an age of new wonders may arise-perhaps after the dominant races shall have become intoxicated with the greatness of their triumphs and have shared the fate of the old monarchies of the East. But I would not speculate on the destinies of the European nations, whether they are to make indefinite advances until they occupy and rule the whole world, or are destined to be succeeded by nations as yet undeveloped--savages," and refers to the past in that respect.

That was followed up by Spengler's "Decline of the West" (1890) and at about the same time by Stoddard's "Rising Tide of Color," all of which seems to be in the limbo of most people's memory, yet they still ring down the corridors of time, but it is said that none is so blind as he who will not see, nor so deaf as he who will not hear, and that seems to be, and, so, we will have to pay the price of our combination of ignorance, momentary interest, self-seeking politicians, indolence and public cowardice, as all other people have had to pay. Such statesmen as Jefferson and Lincoln, among others, and now such as Prof. Allan Nevins, professor of history emeritus of Columbia University, support them now, anticipated what is happening today, and neither was willing for such effect nor what the end result will be, to ever happen. It appears that futility has overcome most people and they have no fight left in them, and this is no kin to the spirit that kept the Revolution going 8 years. That is the spirit that is the mortar of nations and peoples, without which I prefer to make no prophecy, but leave it to those familiar with the story of nations and peoples to do it. We are told that a people without vision perish-history proves it-we are now being hit in the nose-will we wake up and respond?

Yours sincerely,

(S) GEO. WASHINGTON WILLIAMS.

STATEMENT OF THE YOUNG DEMOCRATIC CLUB OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The 850 members of the Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia submit this statement in favor of S. 1732, the public accomodations civil rights bill.

One hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and 9 years after the Supreme Court held unconstitutional compulsory segregation in public schools, the United States. in 1963, is faced with a civil rights crisis, a crisis arising from one basic cause the refusal by some Americans to treat other

Americans as equal human beings. We have come a long way since 1863 and since 1954, but we cannot simply look at how far we have come but we must keep in mind how far we still have to go.

The events of the last year have made clear that existing legislation is not adequate to guarantee equal rights to all Americans. The lawless actions of State and local officials in denying Negro Americans their constitutional rights has helped to create a situation in which additional Federal legislation is needed to enforce constitutionally protected rights. The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia urges enactment of S. 1732 which we believe is an important step forward toward the equal rights to which all Americans are entitled.

The bill provides injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, at the suit of an individual, or in some cases, the Attorney General.

Many businessmen express a personal desire not to discriminate but say that they are afraid to treat all customers equally because they fear they will lose business to competitors. The bill would put all business affecting interstate commerce on an equal nondiscriminatory footing. The burdens on the free flow of interstate commerce resulting from discrimination would be relieved. The efforts of local authorities to impose segregation by police enforcement of unconstitutional laws, and ordinances would be checked.

We oppose any legislative limitation which would say, in effect, that big business may not discriminate but that little business may discriminate. Both Mrs. Murphy and the Murphy Corp. of America are subject to the Constitution. If there is to be any limit on the scope of the bill (e.g., because of inability to act on all complaints) we suggest that the Attorney General can set such limits by publishing standards he will use in determining when he will initiate action, just as, for example, the National Labor Relations Board has done in specifying certain cases as to which the Board does not take jurisdiction. Questions of the constitutionality of the bill have been raised, based upon The Civil Rights Cases, in which the Supreme Court, in 1883, held the Civil Rights Act of 1875 not to be constitutionally authorized by the 13th or 14th amendment. In the first place, it would appear that the bill is constitutionally authorized by the commerce clause. Second, a constitution is not interpreted in a vacuum. The meaning and scope of a constitutional provision in 1883 is not necessarily its meaning and scope in 1963. Thus, for example, while the Supreme Court, in 1869 declared that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce" (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 183), by 1944 the insurance business had grown to the point where the Supreme Court held that Federal legislation regulating insurance was within the ambit of the commerce clause. United States v. Southeastern Underwriters Assn. (322 U.S. 533). Similarly, in the area of civil rights, the nature and scope of State action designed to perpetuate and encourage segregation has expanded sharply since 1883. Indeed, the Supreme Court holding in The Civil Rights Cases is merely that the 14th amendment does not reach individual acts "unsupported by State authority in the shape of laws, customs or judicial or executive proceedings." Recent years have demonstrated substantial efforts by State officials to encourage or at least to support discrimination. Such State actions may well have created constitutional support for the bill, under the 13th or 14th amendment, even under the theory of the 1883 decision. It is an interesting historical footnote that the views of Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting, in Plessy v Ferguson (1896) became the law of the land in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). It may be that his lone dissent in The Civil Rights Cases (1883) will have a similar history.

The bill has been opposed by some upon the basis of an alleged (but mythical) right of a businessman to run his business as he pleases. We say mythical because such a right plainly does not exist. The Government, in the public interest, limits the right of a businessman to run his business in many ways: Maximum hours, minimum wages, health and safety requirements, licensing requirements, and so on. All rights, including doing business, have counterpart responsibilities. When the Government calls upon a citizen to serve in the Armed Forces it does not limit this burden of citizenship to whites only. Similarly, the benefits of living in America should not be limited to whites only. An American who is required to give years of service and perhaps his life for his country should be entitled to equal rights in public accommodations. The businessman who obtains many benefits from the Government, starting with a license to operate and including police protection, should not complain if his

bundle of rights and responsibilities include a duty not to discriminate against other Americans.

This statement has emphasized two points: (1) The proposed legislation is needed in part because local officials have not enforced the Constitution and existing law; (2) the additional duties which will be imposed by statute are simply an example of restrictions which the law imposes so that the freedom of everyone is greater.

(1) S. 1732 has been greeted with outcries about States rights and claims that this legislation embodies excessive Federal interference in matters which are the responsibility of local governments. Here, as in many other instances of Federal legislation, precisely the opposite is true. If local officials had properly performed their obligations this legislation might not have been necessary. It is largely the refusal of local officials to enforce the Constitution of the United States, including the decisions of the Supreme Court and orders of Federal courts, which has produced the current civil rights crisis. The demonstrators have turned to the streets because they had no real recourse with local officials at the ballot box. The demonstrations are simply exercises in the rights of free speech, free assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. They are an effect of the current crisis, not a cause. The cause is essentially the insistence of some of our citizens-including, regretfully, Government officials-in discriminating, even though such discrimination by Government action is both unconstitutional and morally and ethically indefensible.

(2) The white businessmen who operate their businesses relatively freely today are able to do so in part because all Americans have together defended our freedom. Negro Americans are entitled to their fair share of this freedom. When the citizens of the United States, including these businessmen, acting through their Government, issued the call to draft men to defend the freedom of all there was no "white only" sign on the draft notice. There are no "white only" signs on the graves all over the world where lie those who died to defend our freedom. There should be no "white only" signs on the businesses whose freedom those men died to protect.

The Young Democratic Club of the District of Columbia strongly supports enactment of S. 1732. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. JOHN J. SEXTON, President.

STATEMENT OF THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, U.S. SECTION

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the legislative office of which is at 120 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., is gratified to have the privilege of presenting to your committee our views on the civil rights legislation currently before it. For 48 years the league has been concerned about civil rights and liberties.

The league, believing that peace in this country and in the world is inseperable from the protection of individual rights and freedom, is gratified whenever legislation is designed to secure and protect the civil rights of U.S. citizens. Gradual change and progress in the civil rights field, however welcome, does not mean that we have reached perfection. Indeed, the failure to adequately protect the civil rights of our Negro citizens has resulted in shocking injustices which have filled most Americans with shame and dangerously damaged our reputation among the nations of the world. There is no time to be lost in improving our practice of the democracy we preach.

The U.S. section of the league, in its recent annual meeting, urged support and early passage of the President's proposals for civil rights legislation. This bill we consider illustrative of the broad Federal enforcement powers in civil rights which are necessary and imperative to guarantee equal treatment for all. We are concerned especially with title II-in many ways the most important section of this legislation.

To be arbitrarily denied equal access to facilities and accommodations open to all white citizens is an intolerable insult. After 100 years of supposed emancipation it should hardly be necessary to demonstrate for so fundamental a right. As the President noted, "No action is more contrary to the spirit of our democracy * or none rightfully resented by a Negro citizen who seeks equal treatment * * * than the barring of that citizen from restaurants, hotels, theaters, recreational areas, and other public accommodations and

facilities." The Federal Government legally can and should put an end to such practices not only because they hurt the national economy and impede the flow of interstate commerce but also because Congress is empowered under the 14th amendment to pass legislation guaranteeing that all State laws prohibit unequal protection or treatment of any citizens.

Some argue that a public accommodations law might interfere with private property rights. However, the general welfare of the country supersedes this concern. Thirty-two States already have laws prohibiting discrimination in business places. Furthermore, Congress has in the past regulated business concerns to relieve the burden from the national commerce.

The league believes that title II can be served by both the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment. There is direct precedent for combining these as the constitutional underpinning for the President's civil rights program. The Holding Company and Security Exchange Acts were both based on the commerce and postal powers of the Constitution. In addition, a Federal statute requiring equality of treatment without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin is a means of preventing unconstitutional State action and assuring equal legal protection to all.

The league recommends that:

1. The operating section not be written in terms of the Commerce Clause, as now, but rather covering everything that is open to the public.

2. If exceptions are necessary they be predicated on the right of privacy and not on size.

3. There not be added a dollar limitation on the public accommodations covered by the bill.

The league, in conclusion, supports the bill, particularly title II, whose passage is essential. It is the section whose implementation will effect the greatest and most immediate good in ending the racial strife and burying the resentment and gross injustice in our land. As the Attorney General noted:

"We have a need, and for this need there exists a remedy. Whether this remedy will be supplied is up to Congress ***. No issues are more urgent today than those with which this legislation deals. And there is no better way to begin resolving those issues than through the prompt enactment of this legislation into law."

COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
New York, N.Y., August 5, 1963.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We write in response to your kind letter of July 27. 1963, addressed to Lawrence Speiser, Esq., director of our Washington office. We have been privileged to see the eloquent statement made by Mr. Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, made before the Senate Commerce Committee on July 22, 1963, dealing with the public accommodations bill now being considered by that committee. As a member organization in the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, of which Mr. Wilkins is chairman, we associate ourselves wholeheartedly with and in support of the views expressed by Mr. Wilkins.

This provision is the heart of the President's civil rights proposals. Its passage is essential. If adopted and enforced enthusiastically, it will accomplish the purpose which Congress first intended to achieve in its 1875 public accommodations law which was held unconstitutional in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 835 (1883). The administration bill is based both upon the Commerce Clause and the 14th amendment. We believe there is authority for grounding this provision on either or both sections of the Constitution. We agree with the administration officials who, in testifying on this bill before Congress, have stated their belief that it is not unlikely that the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of this provision as appropriate legislation under the 14th. In addition, it is hardly open to dispute that Congress, through the Commerce Clause, has the authority to enact legislation which prohibits discrimination of facilities engaged in or affecting interstate commerce. Even in the Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court was constrained to note that