Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

name of Federal Government and without the necessity of showing that aggrieved parties are unable to act.

It has been suggested that this law would be ineffective because it would be impossible for the Government to bring civil proceedings against all the thousands of enterprises to which it would apply that this would require a vast Federal police force. The same argument could be made against any Federal regulatory law. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of the enterprises affected by the law would comply with it because it is the law. The law would set a standard to which law-abiding persons would conform. Many hotels, restaurants, and other public places would find that the bill provided the incentive they needed to end a distasteful practice which they have continued only because of local custom or demand.

Nevertheless, there may be other proprietors, more recalcitrant, against whom stronger sanctions are needed. If a proprietor should wait until a court order was issued against him, under this bill that order would only provide for enforcement of the law. The proprietor who defies the law receives no additional penalty. We suggest that the bill include a provision for damages, to provide an incentive to comply with the law for those for whom avoidance of a lawsuit is not incentive enough.

S. 1732, as presently drawn, is very broad in scope, as it must be to meet the needs of the people it intends to protect. We urge that the coverage of this bill not be limited under the guise of concern for private property as represented by Mrs. Murphy's boardinghouse. The boardinghouse is, we believe, simply a red herring. The bill contains an exemption for bona fide private clubs, and this is sufficient to protect the legitimate interests of free association. Other establishments, open to the public and often licensed by the State are properly within the coverage of this bill.

CONCLUSION

The grave human problems created by discrimination in public accommodations urgently cry out for immediate correction. The Jewish organizations submitting this statement therefore urge this committee to recommend adoption of S. 1732 with the broadening amendments described above.

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL,
EPISCOPAL CHURCH CENTER,
New York, N.Y., August 29, 1963.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Last May the presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church sent out the enclosed statement. At the meeting of the House of Bishops in Toronto on August 12, 1963, three resolutions were passed.

We respectfully bring to your attention the deep concern of our church and its leaders as shown in these statements.

Very truly yours,

(The Rev.) GENE SCARINGI, Washington Representative.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS, PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, TORONTO, ONTARIO, AUGUST 12, 1963

I

Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church urges the Congress of the United States to pass such civil rights legislation as shall fairly and effectively implement both the established rights and the needs of all minority groups in education, voting rights, housing, employment opportunities, and access to places of public accommodation.

II

Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, mindful of the Church Assembly to be held in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963, in cooperation with the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, (a) recognizes not only the right of free citizens to peaceful assemblage for the re

dress of grievances, but also that participation in such an assemblage is a proper expression of Christian witness and obedience,

(b) welcomes the responsible discipleship which impels many of our bishops, clergy, and laity to take part in such an assemblage and supports them fully, (c) prays that through such peaceful assemblage citizens of all races may bring before the Government for appropriate and competent action the critical and agonizing problems posed to our Nation by racial discrimination in employment, in access to places of public accommodation, in political rights, in education and housing.

III

Resolved, That the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church commends to all people the presiding bishop's letter dated Whitsunday 1963, as appropriate and helpful in the present racial crisis; and that we support the presiding bishop in this wise and timely expression of Christian leadership.

A STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH Recent events in a number of American communities-Birmingham, Chicago, Nashville, New York, and Raleigh, to mention only the most prominent-underscore the fact that countless citizens have lost patience with the slow pace of response to their legitimate cry for human rights. Pleas of moderation or caution about timing on the part of white leaders are seen increasingly as in unwillingness to face the truth about the appalling injustice which more than a tenth of our citizens suffer daily. While we are thankful for the progress that has been made, this is not enough.

Our church's position on racial inclusiveness within its own body and its responsibility for racial justice in society has been made clear on many occasions by the general convention. But there is urgent need to demonstrate by specific actions what God has laid on us. Such actions must move beyond expressions of corporate penitence for our failures to an unmistakable identification of the church, at all levels of its life, with those who are victims of oppression.

I think of the words we sing as we hail the ascended Christ, "Lord and the ruler of all men," and of our prayers at Whitsuntide as we ask God to work His will in us through His Holy Spirit. And then in contrast to our praises and our prayers our failure to put ourselves at the disposal of the Holy Spirit becomes painfully clear. Only as we take every step possible to join with each other across lines of racial separation in a common struggle for justice will our unity in the Spirit become a present reality.

It is not enough for the church to exhort men to be good. Men, women, and children are today risking their livelihood and their lives in protesting for their rights. We must support and strengthen their protest in every way possible, rather than to give support to the forces of resistance by our silence. It should be a cause of rejoicing to the Christian community that Negro Americans and oppressed peoples everywhere are displaying a heightened sense of human dignity in their refusal to accept second-class citizenship and longer.

The right to vote, to eat a hamburger where you want, to have a decent job, to live in a house fit for habitation: these are not rights to be litigated or negotiated. It is our shame that demonstrations must be carried out to win them. These constitutional rights belong to the Negro as to the white, because we are all men and we are all citizens. The white man needs to recognize this if he is to preserve his own humanity. It is a mark of the inversion of values in our society that those who today struggle to make the American experiment a reality through their protest are accused of disturbing the peace. And that more often than not the church remains silent on this, our greatest domestic moral crisis. I commend these specific measures to your attention: (1) I would ask you to involve yourselves. The crisis in communities North and South in such matters as housing, employment, public accommodations, and schools is steadily mounting. It is the duty of every Christian citizen to know fully what is happening in his own community, and actively to support efforts to meet the problems he encounters.

(2) I would also ask you to give money as an expression of our unity and as a sign of our support for the end of racial injustice in this land. The struggle of Negro Americans for their rights is costly, both in terms of personal sacrifice and of money, and they need help.

(3) I would ask you to take action. Discrimination within the body of the church itself is an intolerable scandal. Every congregation has a continuing

need to examine its own life and to renew those efforts necessary to insure its inclusiveness fully. Diocesan and church-related agencies, schools, and other institutions also have a considerable distance to go in bringing their practices up to the standard of the clear position of the church on race. I call attention to the firm action of the recent Convention of the Diocese of Washington which directed all diocesan-related institutions to eliminate any discriminatory practices within 6 months. It further requested the bishop and executive council to take step necessary to disassociate such diocesan and parish-related institutions from moral or financial support if these practices are not eliminated in the specified time. I believe we must make known where we stand unmistakably. So I write with a deep sense of the urgency of the racial crisis in our country and the necessity for the church to act. Present events reveal the possible imminence of catastrophe. The entire Christian community must pray and act. ARTHUR LICHTENBERGER,

Whitsuntide, 1963.

Presiding Bishop.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL RETAIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., August 14, 1963.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: As the Congress considers the President's proposals in the field of civil rights, we wish to report to you the results of a recent survey by the association.

The National Retail Merchants Association is a voluntary association of department, specialty, and chain stores located in every State in the Union and in most communities. At the request of the Attorney General we asked our members to advise us what progress had been made with regard to problems relating to racial matters. The results of this survey indicated quite clearly that an overwhelming majority of our members had made substantial strides in integrating their operations.

Several of our Southern stores reported that for the past 3 years they have been hiring nonwhites in selling and nonselling capacities. One of the largest stores in a nearby Southern State reported that out of 3,000 employees, 400 are Negroes and that some 60 are employed in selling and nonselling functions, with several classified as junior and senior executives. These jobs were formerly held by whites.

On the basis of our study it would seem that a Federal statute such as the one being considered dealing with public accommodations is neither needed nor advisable.

Sincerely,

JOHN C. HAZEN, Vice President, Government.

PITTMAN & CROWE, Cartersville, Ga., August 27, 1963.

To the Chairman of the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: A few weeks ago my brother, R. C. Pittman, of Dalton, Ga., expressed views before your committee adverse to the civil rights program. My brother and I have different views on this question. On August 27, 1963, I was honored to make a speech before the Lions Club of Cartersville, Ga., on the question of civil rights. I send you herein an original copy of that speech. To my surprise, the speech was received favorably by the members of that club. It is the largest civic club in this section of Georgia. I send copy of the speech to the chairman of the committe for the reason that neither of our Georgia Senators are on the committee and they entertain a different view to what I entertain. If you think it worthwhile, I would appreciate your bringing this speech to the attention of members of the committee.

Respectfully,

C. C. PITTMAN.

SPEECH OF C. C. PITTMAN BEFORE THE LIONS CLUB OF THE CITY OF CARTERSVILLE, GA., ON AUGUST 27, 1963

Mr. President, I do appreciate this opportunity of talking to this group of fellow citizens. I was one of the organizers of this club and its first president. Many of my friends do not agree with all my views on public matters. At one time a most eloquent bishop of the Southern Methodist Church was preaching a sermon to a large congregation on the horrors of hell, one of his listeners rose up in the audience and said, "Bishop Pierce, do you believe that a just God would condemn a human soul to the hell you have described when that soul has never had an opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ preached to him?" The bishop hesitated for reply and said, "My brother, the question is not what God will do for the heathen who never hears the gospel preached, but what will he do with you and me if we fail to send the gospel to the heathen?" So, I sincerely believe, if I proclaim a true gospel, I will be saved whether my friends believe and heed it or not.

A President of the United States has many problems to solve and all good citizens should be patient with him in his efforts to solve them for us in this complex age.

The first shipload of 20 Negro slaves docked at Jamestown, Va., in the year 1619, and from that day for 200 years the slave trade was carried on in the colonies by the owners of foreign ships, and in 1808 the people of the United States outlawed the slave trade as a sin against humanity. After slavery was outlawed in the Federal Constitution, following the Civil War. many of our States ignored the Constitution, just as they ignore it now and many of our politicians hold their offices by encouraging violations of the Constitution and constitutional rights of our citizens. The first platform plank of a successful Georgia politician is "I am against civil rights for Negroes."

In the years immediately prior to our Civil War, two questions disturbed our Nation, one was the high tariff on agricultural products and the other was slavery, and these questions brought on the Civil War with its tragic results. The Southern States' leaders maintained that they had a right to control all internal questions in their respective States, including slavery, but the North, Northeastern, and Western States contended that the Constitution and laws of the United States were supreme. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, and Henry Clay of Kentucky, and President Jackson of Tennessee maintained that the Constitution was the supreme law. Hayne and Calhoun of South Carolina claimed that the State constitutions were the supreme laws, and could nullify Federal acts. In the great debate between Hayne and Webster, Hayne upheld States rights and Webster upheld "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable."

A meeting was held to celebrate the birthday of the great Thomas Jefferson. Both sides of the question hoped that President Jackson, of Tennessee, would take their side of this question. At an appropriate time, the President rose, fixed his eyes upon Calhoun and proposed a toast, "Our Federal Union-it must be preserved." And these words indicated to the guests that States rights must yield to the Federal Constitution and laws, and from then on down to this day, the North, East, and West have been arrayed against the Southern view of State rights.

When the Supreme Court decision on integration was rendered in 1954 by a unanimous court, our Southern Senators and Congressmen encouraged our people to ignore that decision, saying it was not "the supreme law of the land." A minority of our lawyers dared to stand up and say that it was the law and would finally have to be obeyed. After 9 years of strife, it now more clearly appears to all of our thinking people that it is the law, the supreme law, and that all prior decisions contrary thereto are null and void.

Many men and women live today who were required by their parents to go into the field and labor with members of the colored race, and with the exercise of a little reason we can see that laboring with Negroes in the fields is the same as laboring with Negroes in our public schools and universities and Armed Forces. Many men and women still live in the South who were fed from the breasts of Negro women and suffered no ill effects from that nourishment, and many of our white citizens are cousins to mulatto citizens, begotten by the immoral acts of their forebears. Since these things are true, it would seem to be wise that we should be more tolerant toward our brothers in black, and exercise the Golden Rule toward him.

In 1920, a resolution was proposed by the Federal Congress to all the States to permit women to vote, as the 19th amendment to the Constitution. This

resolution was submitted to the senate of Georgia, composed of 52 members, 43 years ago. Forty-seven members of that senate voted to deny the vote to women, and some of them argued that "Nobody is for women voting, except long-haired men and short-haired women; that women did not have the education or the intelligence to fit them for the ballot." Only five Georgia senators voted to allow women to vote, and those five were all liberal in their political views, and of these 47 opposing woman suffrage, a great majority were conservative in their views. I was one of these five senators. The white women of the United States in quest for the ballot conducted peaceful marches in many States of the Nation, in securing their rights to vote. When our Negro citizens do the same thing in many southern cities, they are arrested, hauled off to jail, tried and many are sent to almost private county chain gangs for their "crimes." Our able Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, recently said, "Whatever the reasons, it is wrong that Americans who fight alongside other Americans in war should not be able to work alongside the same Americans, wash up alongside them, eat alongside, or send their children to sit in school alongside children of other Americans." About the same time, President Eisenhower declared that he believed in civil rights demonstrations by Negroes to emphasize their rightful discontent. So, we have a President of the United States and a Vice President saying that Negroes have a legal right to peaceful demonstrations, but here in the South we have guardians of the law sending Negroes to their private chain gangs for doing that which other guardians of the law in the North, East, and West approve as constitutional rights. In the West we even have a Goldwater of Arizona saying, "I am utterly opposed to discrimination in any form," and our Georgia politicians say he may carry Georgia over Kennedy on that account. "Lord forgive them; they know not what they say." I don't agree with them. When the question of secession was being agitated in Georgia, the counties of Georgia had elections to determine whether we would secede from the Union or not. A majority of the voters in most north Georgia counties elected delegates pledged to oppose the Civil War, but the counties of middle and south Georgia voted for secession and war. Bartow County voted 2 to 1 against the war, yet we had many slaves. Bartow County does not restrict Negroes in their rights to vote, while many other counties think about Negroes just as they did about white women 40 years ago that they don't have sense enough to vote.

Our U.S. Senator Russell said that Kennedy sent the civil rights bill to Congress against his better judgment and that this is not the time to consider it. One hundred years ago, at the time the 14th amendment to the Constitution was adopted, they also said it was not the time to give Negroes equal rights with other people. If not so, why was it adopted then? The Senator also said, "I don't believe the difficulties of 20 million Negroes are any greater than that of 20 million whites, who are living at the bottom of the economic heap in this country." Those words speak a fearful truth. It is not the 20 million Negroes that present the greatest danger to our Nation, but it is the 20 million underprivileged poor white people that present our greatest danger. So, admittedly, we have at least 40 million underprivileged human beings in this rich United States that are a constant threat to our "liberty and our unity." It is the duty of Congress, Federal courts, and of the President of the United States to relieve these people of this slavery before relief is too late. The States are not relieving them, and we know will not relieve them.

In 1948, President Truman was running for a full term as President of the United States on a "Fair Deal" program and some of our Georgia politicians found it convenient to travel in all parts of the world to avoid the campaign, a new party was formed, "Dixiecrat," and it was freely predicted that Dixiecrat Thurmond, would carry Georgia and the South. Large campaign funds came into his headquarters in Georgia, the November election was held. I was honored by the Democratic Party to be one of its electors. The Dixiecrats got 85,000 votes, the Republicans 75,000, and Truman 256,000 Democratic votes in Georgia. Now, some of our Georgia statesmen are saying that a conservative Goldwater, a Republican, may beat Kennedy in Georgia. They forget that Goldwater, the conservative Republican, is also for civil rights, but condemn Kennedy for trying to carry out the "law of the land" which a Republican Chief Justice wrote, and which the oath of a President requires him to carry out.

Concluding, we find that the Declaration of American Independence proclaimed all men to be free and equal, the War Between the States confirmed, with much blood, that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law, as it is last construed by our Supreme Court, the proclamation of Lincoln freed the slaves from physical slavery and the administration of Jack Kennedy has done more to free the Negro and white slaves from unjust economic conditions

« AnteriorContinuar »