When human rights are at odds with property rights, the choice is obvious and compelling: We must choose human rights. Property is not and cannot be made sacred. Property is power, and like all power in a democracy, we must regulate it to assure that it be used to ennoble man, not defile him.

Three-fifths of our States, including my State of Michigan, already have laws requiring nondiscrimination in public accommodations, yet those who fear for the rights of private property seem to be little bothered by these State laws. It should also be pointed out that, under this law, the owner of a business would be able to exercise his private property rights in the exclusion of disorderly or otherwise objectionable persons, but simply not on the illogical basis of skin color. Finally, it is a longstanding tenet of British common law that no keeper of a public accommodation may refuse any bona fide customer. This is an historic inheritance from the nation which gave us our legal framework and our regard for individual liberties.

We are a society of human beings not of things. It is time for our Federal laws to reflect this fact, and to give the same protection and consideration to human beings that they have so long given to property.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN L. H. FOUNTAIN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this committee to express my strong opposition to H.R. 7152, the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1963.

When I first requested an opportunity to be heard before this committee, I had fears that those of us in the House not on either the Judiciary or Rules Committees would have little opportunity to be heard concerning this, the most far-reaching legislation ever proposed in the field of civil rights. In the words of the minority report: It "is the most radical proposal in the field of civil rights ever recommended by any committee of the House or Senate."

I want to congratulate the chairman of this committee and this committee for making it possible for the House membership to thoroughly debate this legislation and all amendments which may be offered thereto.

In view of the time which, I understand, will be permitted for the debate of this legislation on the floor of the House, therefore, I will be very brief and, necessarily, general.

I simply want to say that I always have been and still am opposed to such a centralization of power in the hands of Federal officials as is provided throughout this legislation. In my opinion, the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1963 is an all-embracing program of unwarranted severity and unprecedented sweep. I do not believe it is the right and wise approach to the problems it is designed to help solve. In addition, I believe it is unnecessary and untimely, particularly in view of the intensive cooperative efforts which are now being exerted all over America by responsible local public officials and other community leaders of all races.

All over my home State of North Carolina and throughout America, responsible local people of both races who are closest to the problem and, therefore, know what can and in due time must be done, are solving the problem with a spirit and a will, with courage, conviction, conscience, and with commonsense and judgment that cannot be legislated.

Such as a living example of States rights and States responsibilities, and the responsibility of a State and each of its localities to handle its own problems. The cooperative efforts already demonstrated in North Carolina is proof positive that racial problems can and will be worked out on the local level in a way that is honorable and effective.

Notwithstanding the apparent urgency of solutions to racial problems, in some communities solutions will be faster or slower than others, depending upon important local factors and circumstances which are familiar only to the local people involved. Even the problems will vary from community to community. In my opinion, solutions must therefore be sought in a manner consistent with the best interest of and in fairness to all our people, white and Negro alike. The so-called civil rights crisis cannot be solved by the force of additional coercive laws, particularly laws which would give Federal officials dictatorial powers over the life and private property of every individual citizen.

As pointed out in an editorial in the North Carolina Greensboro Daily News last year, the greatest collective fault with the civil rights package is that "in

the name of the noble cause of racial justice," it would endow Federal officials with sweeping and unprecedented authority to invade and intrude in almost every area of local activity, public and private, superseding the rights of States and local governmental units and of private citizens, including even home authority.

I agree with Arthur Krock, of the New York Times, that such laws, and the provisions for their enforcement, would give Federal authorities discretionary powers over private property and its use and individual freedom of choice that would be "comparable in magnitude only with those exercised in time of war and during the post-Appomattox period of southern reconstruction." The proposals contain words, phrases, and sentences which could be interpreted to mean whatever the present or any future Attorney General of the United States, or his agent, desired.

Heads and hearts, wills and spirits, mutual respect and understanding simply cannot be forced or legislated. To attempt to do so, especially on the Federal level, in such a highly explosive area of human relations would further endanger the traditional feelings of good will between our races and seriously discourage and impair already evident cooperative efforts all over the country by responsible people of both races at the community level.

More Federal laws and power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats would simply add fuel to an already existing fire which can and will be put out by those closest to it.

In a proper climate, without outside interference or further Federal "force" legislation, local people of both races at the community level are best equipped to find, and will find, an honorable, reasonable and orderly aproach to and a sane and sensible solution of the problem.

STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SIXTH DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in view of my close and longstanding association with the cause of equal rights for all Americans, it comes as no surprise to any of you that may appearance here today is in support of a rule which will place H.R. 7152 before the House as expeditiously as possible. In my testimony on this bill before the House Judiciary Subcommittee last July, I said:

"Recent events make it abundantly clear that our civil rights chickens have come home to roost. The long-suppressed discontent over segregation and the frustration aroused by token racial integration has generated an upheaval of such intensity as to suggest a moral American revolution. Throughout the length and breadth of our land—in the North as well as in the South-American Negroes are demanding freedom now. The Negro movement against discrimination has become a nationwide surge of protest. From a handful of sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and a score of freedom riders attempting to desegregate interstate travel facilities, the movement against racial injustice has grown into mass demonstrations by tens and yes, hundreds of thousands. These are peaceful protests and lawful petitions against an injustice that too many Americans have unawaredly been taking for granted all these years."

Mr. Chairman, this transition to full freedom for every American must be a peaceful one; a transition within the law, not a transition through hatred and violence and destruction. Anyone who observed the Washington march for freedom on August 28 came away convinced-justifiably, I think that the Negro's quest for equal opportunity will be settled in the American tradition, which is to say, peaceably and with the Government of all the people in the forefront. I am convinced that the present time affords us the most auspicious moment in the history of this country for finally coming to grips with this problem. As pointed out by the NAACP in its annual report:

"For the first time since the Civil War the American people as a whole came to realize the desperate plight of the Negro, the basic justice of his demands, and the need for remedial action."

If, on the other hand, we allow the present moment to elude us, "if," in the words of Reverend King, "the Nation returns to business as usual," then a solution will again be sought in the streets. When the late President Kennedy pointed out this alternative many cried out from these Halls that he was attempting to

pressure the Congress into action. We all know, however, that the President merely stated a truism. When governments turn a deaf ear to cries of injusticewhether by casual indifference or in some callous "let them eat cake" fashionthe streets, not the parliaments, have become the arena for political action.

The only institution in American society that has the power to end this overly prolonged crisis is the National Government. Also, as recently pointed out in a leading editorial, the Federal Government, particularly the Congress, "is that actor in the situation with the widest gap between its expressed values and its actual performance."

The Judiciary Committee has taken the first step in righting the wrongs too long tolerated by favorably reporting a bill; not the strongest most effective civil rights bill, but a bill which while modest, portends genuine gains. For my own part, I would have much preferred a stronger civil rights bill, and I appealed in my testimony before the Judiciary Committee for that committee to not only avoid watering down the bill, but to actually strengthen it, and I cited passage after passage where I requested that the bill be so strengthened. Still. the bill before us is a good start. In the end the Nation will be the beneficiary. The Judiciary Committee in reporting this bill states as much :

"No bill can or should lay claim to eliminating all of the causes and consequences of racial and other types of discrimination against minorities. There is reason to believe, however, that national leadership provided by the enactment of Federal legislation dealing with the most troublesome problems will create an atmosphere conducive to voluntary or local resolution of other forms of discrimination.

"It is, however, possible and necessary for the Congress to enact legislation which prohibits and provides the means of terminating the most serious types of discrimination. This H.R. 7152, as amended, would achieve in a number of related areas.

"H.R. 7152, as amended, is a constitutional and desirable means of dealing with injustices and humiliations of racial and other discrimination. It is a reasonable and responsible bill whose provisions are designed effectively to meet an urgent and most serious national problem." (H. Rept. 914, 88th Cong., 1st sess., at p. 18.)

The next step in the legislative process rests with you. The issuance of a rule governing consideration of the bill on the floor of the House is your responsibility. I realize that not every Member of Congress, nor every member of this committee, for that matter, shares my enthusiasm for the bill. Although I regret the absence of unanimity in this particular instance, nevertheless I recognize that many members are genuinely concerned about certain provisions of this proposal. Again, while I do not share their doubts, I feel that these differences can and should be debated on the floor of the Congress.

No doubt, during the debate and consideration of this bill on the floor of the House, opponents of this legislation will exert every effort to amend and attach provisions which would nullify and render ineffective the purposes for which legislation is so necessary. No doubt, considerable effort will be made to amend this bill on the theory that Congress lacks the power to give content to the expression "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." As De Toqueville observed:

"Scarcely any *** questions arises in the United States which is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." ("Democracy in America," vol. I, ch. 16.)

I confidently predict that out of the crucible of floor debate will come a bill signifying to the world that this Nation is the chief sanctuary and refuge of human dignity and equal opportunity. But for this we need a rule-and I earnestly hope that this committee will approve such a rule promptly.

This bill is divided into seven principal parts or titles. Title I deals with the subject of voting rights. It is ludicrous, to say the very least, that in the 1960's and in light of the 15th amendment, we are still debating the merits of legislation to prohibit racial limitations on the franchise. Yet, the various reports of the Commission on civil rights contain ample proof that Negroes are discriminatorily denied this most fundamental right of all. As pointed out by the Attorney General, "if Negroes could participate fully in the electoral process in areas where racial discrimination is most prevalent, their grievances would secure attention and legitimate demands would be speedily met."

Title I attempts to remove artificial barriers created by continued use of literacy tests and similar performance examinations as a device for discrimination. It would make three vital changes in this regard:

First, in voting suits, it would raise a rebuttable presumption of literacy upon a showing that the applicant has completed six grades of schooling. This is in accord with the practice in my own State which administers a literacy test on the sixth-grade level of difficulty.

Second, it would require that if a literacy test is used as a qualification for voting in Federal elections, such test shall be in writing and the applicant shall be furnished, upon request, with a certified copy of the test and his answers. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the all too prevalent practice of using questions of differing degrees of difficulty depending upon whether the applicant is white or Negro, or the greater evil of refusing to register even though oral questions were answered correctly.

Third, it would specifically forbid denials of the right to vote because of trivial errors or omissions on applications for registration. In brief, the failure to insert a period or comma may not be used to keep a Negro off the voting rolls.

Title I also seeks to speed up the processing of voting rights cases in the Federal court. It would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1957 so as to permit voting cases to be tried by a three-judge district court. An appeal from a three-judge district court goes immediately to the Supreme Court obviating the intermediate court of appeals.

Does this bill undermine or usurp State powers in the area of voting? Not in the slightest. It simply sees to it that the States play the game according to the rules which the States themselves prescribe.

Title II deals, of course, with the problem of equal access to public accommodations. Many of the demonstrations that took place in 1963 were sparked by refusals to allow Negro Americans equal access to restaurants, movies, and the like.

Title II declares the right of all citizens, without regard to race or color, to the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities of inns, motels, or other establishments designed to furnish lodging to transient guests, restaurants, cafeterias, lunch rooms, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other places engaged in selling food for consumption on the spot if either their customers or their merchandise have moved in commerce; motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sport arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment.

This title would prohibit any deprivation or interference with the right to use the public facilities within its coverage. It would grant persons aggrieved the right to sue for an injunction. It would also authorize the Attorney General of the United States to bring suit whenever satisfied that the purposes of the bill would be materially advanced and when the aggrieved persons lack either the funds or legal representation to do so themselves.

This is the title that has provoked a veritable torrent of words. Are the fears which have been uttered about the public accommodations section justified? My own opinion is that the opposite is more nearly the case. That is, when we place property rights-incidentally no one has troubled to explain property rights and responsibilities-above human rights, then we shall truly have a fearful situation.

I will only add, that my State goes much further in this area, and provides criminal and civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief, and covers many more kinds of establishments serving the public.

Title III deals with discriminatory denials in connection with access to public facilities. Since facilities "owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof" fall within the scope of the 14th amendment, the purpose of this title is to authorize the Attorney General to enjoin denials to such places, as well as the right to intervene in equal protection cases generally. Title IV deals with the all important matter of segregation in public education. Ever since the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 declaring segregation of races in the Nation's public schools to be unconstitutional and directing school authorities to desegregate the schools with "all deliberate speed" our Nation has awaited with mounting impatience the carrying out of the Court's instructions. While there have been significant compliances in several States and in numerous communities, desegregation has, on the whole, progressed too slowly.

As the Supreme Court pointed out in one of the "sit-in" decisions of last June, these rights are "present rights; they are not merely hopes of some future enjoyment of some formalistic constitutional promise *** The decision in

Brown v. Board of Education never contemplated that the concept of 'deliberate speed' would countenance indefinite delay in elimination of racial barriers in schools."

Title IV of the bill has two basic purposes. First, it would authorize technical assistance to public school officials in preparing and carrying out desegregation plans. Second, it would grant authority to the Department of Justice to initiate civil suits in the Federal courts in cases involving discrimination in public schools and colleges.

Title V would make the Commission on Civil Rights a constitutent agency of the Federal Government. This agency has performed a remarkable research service in the most trying circumstances. Since even the enactment of this bill will not solve all our racial problems, we will continue to have need of this agency's invaluable service into the indefinite future.

Title VI deals with the serious and absurd problems of the use of Federal funds in programs which are administered so as to perpetuate racial discrimination. The Federal Government is under a moral, and as pointed out by the fourth circuit in connection with the Hill-Burton Act, a legal obligation to remedy this evil as soon as possible. The benefits of the programs and activities assisted by Federal funds are beyond question and should be available to all regardless of race or color. Title VI would enable Federal agencies to withhold Federal financial support from any program or activity administered on a segregated or discriminatory basis.

Title VII deals with the all-important area of equal employment opportunity. I am proud of my own State's tremendous pioneering efforts in this area. Although this proposal has been denounced in terms merited solely by the infamous Star Chamber, its only purpose is to remove any standard in connection with securing and maintaining employment which is extrinsic to job qualifications. This is the whole of it-not socialism, communism, prostitution of free enterprise, and similar scarecrows designed to produce much heat and little light.

This concludes my analyses-as much as reasonable time will allow. In urging once again your prompt attention in this manner, I would like to quote former Florida Governor, now head of the National Association of Broadcasters, LeRoy Collins.

Mr. Collins said that the principle "that all men are created equal" was not an empty cliche.

"It is a mighty idea that is the keystone of our Nation's whole meaning and perpetual commitment," he asserted. "It is the basic idea which supports the dignity of man as an individual. It is an idea that can never be stoppednot by custom, not by prejudice, not by hate, not by murder, not by armies, not by any mortal force.

"It may be thwarted, it may be delayed, its triumph may be at great cost and sacrifice, but it will keep coming on and on, for it has the invincibility of simple truth, justice, and right.

"*** it is the moral duty of our generation to plow under racial injustice everywhere in the United States, and to plant new opportunities for the generations which will come along after us and reside in this green part of our old planet."

Mr. Chairman, these thoughts echo my own precisely. I sincerely request that this committee grant a rule on this beneficial legislation in order that we may continue to move ahead in this country toward the attainment of full justice, equality, and dignity for all Americans.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before you today and expressing my views to the committee. I certainly appreciate the committee's time and sympathetic consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee continued into executive session.)