THE DOMINICAN CRISIS AND THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
24
Document Creation Date: 
December 15, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 22, 2003
Sequence Number: 
19
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
May 26, 1965
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4.pdf4.4 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE Tell the President if he has any poverty left over from some other place to please send it down here. It's better than us moun- tain folks has been used to. And the man lives in the heart of the Appalachian area. CORRECTION OF VOTE Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, on May 25 I requested unanimous consent to correct a rollcall. I asked that I be re- corded as being present and voting "yea" on rollcall No. 104. I was referring to rollcall 105 on final passage of H.R. 8122 authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission for which I was present and voted "yea" and not referring to rollcall 104 for Which I was not present, having been temporarily and unavoidably called away from the House Chamber. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the permanent REC- ORD and Journal be corrected accord- ingly. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. land [Mr. MATHIAs], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. REaI. We have been, as many Americans have been, deeply concerned with the situation in the Dominican Republic, and have conscientiously sought to anal- yze the situation in a constructive way which might contribute to the national good. As a part of this effort, the state- ment which we have prepared was taken by myself and the gentleman from Kan- sas [Mr. ELLSWORTH] yesterday, to the Department of State where we gave a top official of the Department an opportunity to review it. It is highly coincidental that the re- port which appears in this evening's Star followed so closely on the heels of the meeting of last evening at the Depart- ment of State. But I would like to point out clearly that if the anonymous State Department officials were referring to my colleagues and myself in this state- ment of justification, they missed the mark. First, we have not criticized, nor do we intend to criticize, the adminis- tration on any of the grounds set forth in the story in this evening's Star which I oted for the RECORD. We do not state the OAS should have been con- sulted. ~~tlilaut We do suggest that the OAS THE DOMINICAN CRISIS AND THE should have been informed. INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM ' Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? The SPEAKER. Under previous or- der of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MORSE], is recog- nized for 30 minutes. (Mr. MORSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago I obtained a copy of this evening's Washington Star, and on the front page of the Star are two stories of particular relevance to the remarks that I shall make in a few moments. The first is a report of a background briefing, attributed to key U.S. officials without further identification, in which they seek to explain the conduct of the United States in the Dominican Repub- lic, and indicate that criticism is unin- formed. In the course of this particular report it is stated: The critics have attacked the American actions on three main grounds: (1) That the OAS should have been consulted and there should have been no unilateral U.S. inter- vention; (2) there was no need for such a large force as the more than 20,000 marines and paratroopers sent to the Dominican Republic; (3) the intervention was impul- sive. On the same page there appears a re- port of an interview conducted by Secre- tary of State Rusk in which he told the news conference "that the question of a standby military force for the OAS would be discussed by a meeting of for- eign ministers of the hemisphere which convenes here tomorrow." I bring these, stories to the attention of the House because they have relevance to the remarks I will make. I would like to go into a little bit of background of this matter. I speak on behalf of some of our colleagues, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ELLS- WORTH], the gentleman from New York [Mr. HORTON], the gentleman from Mary- Mr. MORSE. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts on this report, and join with him in his remarks. I think the key point he is alluding to here, in the first place, is not critcism of the actions that the administration took in regard to the Dominican Republic, but a criticism of how they were carried out. Specifically he is alluding to the failure, which in my judgment was indefensible, to inform the OAS of the action that the United States was planning to take with regard to the landing of troops in the Domini- can Republic. I would ask the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts if he could not comment on information which I believe he has touching on the point of whether or not the U.S. Government informed the OAS before taking action. It is my under- standing that our Government did not do so. Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In this regard I can only say that our statement that the OAS was not informed before the opera- tion got underway was based on a re- liable report by a top official of the U.S. administration. Mr. REID of New York. Has there been any report that led you to believe there was any substantive reason why we should not or could not have informed the OAS particularly in light of the fact that President Kennedy not only was able to inform the OAS with regard to cer- tain projected actions relative to the Cuban missile crisis but was able to ob- tain actual agreement? Is there any reason that you, know of why we could not at least have picked up the telephone? Mr. MORSE. In this regard, let me say to the gentleman that an explanation of the failure was made but it did not 11275 seem to me to be a satisfactory explana- tion. However, I point out to the gentle- man that in my view, the two situations are somewhat different-the October 1962 missile crisis and the present Do- minican situation. However, I do feel strongly as the gentleman does, that it would have been proper and feasible to have notified the OAS before the troops landed. The second criticism to which the ad- ministration has responded is that there should have been no unilateral U.S. inter- vention. In this regard, let me make it clear that we do not dispute the necessity of the intervention. We agree that the United States, indeed any nation, would be justified in extending protection to their own citizens who are in danger in foreign uprisings. We also agree that in view of the statements made by the President as to the imminence of a Com- munist takeover, our action, the action of the United States, was a necessary response. Third, the administration claims that its critics have attacked American ac- tions on the ground that there was no need for such a large force of more than 20,000 marines and paratroopers in the Dominican Republic. We do not criticize the number of troops. Rather we criti- cize the failure of the administration properly to explain to the American peo- ple and to the world why that number was necessary_ Last, a criticism which is referred to in this article is that the intervention was impulsive. It is not our suggestion that the intervention was impulsive. Quite to the contrary. We indicate that the ac- tion was justified and certainly immedi- ate action was essential if the lives of American citizens were to be protected. So with this background, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House the thoughts of the five Members, my four colleagues and myself, on the Dominican crisis and more especially on the effect that the Dominican crisis will have on our inter-American system and our re- lations with our sister Republics in the Western Hemisphere. I will also discuss what are, I believe, hopefully constructive recommenda- tions which have, in part, been endorsed by the Secretary of State, and the de- vices whereby the Organization of American States can be strengthened so as to avoid the kinds of situations we are presently experiencing. The current Caribbean crisis has two vitally important aspects. The first is the search for a stable, progressive, democratic and independent govern- ment in the Dominican Republic. This aspect is dramatic and well-publicized. The second and equally important as- pect of the Dominican crisis has been less publicized. It is the impact of the crisis on the Organization of American States and the future of collective se- curity in the hemisphere. The drama and pace of events in the Dominican Republic must not be al- lowed to obscure the most vital long- range need of the hemisphere-an inter- national structure within which the growing political and economic strength of the Latin American nations can ac- crue to the benefit of tile hemisphere as Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 11276 a whole. The greatest immediate test of V.S. statesmanship is whether it can prevent preoccupation with the crisis of the present from undermining its com- mitment to the future of the hemisphere. The Inter-American Conference of the Organization of American States, Which was to have met last week in Rio de Janeiro, and has been postponed, will nonetheless convene in the wake of the Dominican crisis whenever it does meet. That crisis and the part that the United States was required to play in it will in- evitably affect the progress in inter- American relations which.has been so painstakingly promoted over the past 30 years, unless the administration acts to make a new, lasting and unequivocal commitment to a mutual system of hemispheric defense. At the Conference, and in prep- arations for it, the administration will have an excellent opportunity to em- brace the concept of an OAS strong enough to remove any reason for future unilateral action in the hemisphere on the part of any American nation. The fundamental principles of the inter- American system demand the true com- mitment of all to collective security. Never should the OAS be treated as an instrument which any of its members can use or ignore at its own convenience. The United States and all nations are justified In extending protection to their own citizens endangered in foreign up- risings. The first phase ' of U.S. opera- tions in the Dominican crisis reflected this just concern. Neither the United States nor any nation of the Organization of American States can afford the establishment of another Communist dictatorship in this hemisphere-nor can any member of the OAS afford to stand idly by while an effort is made toward that end. Its quick action in the face of potential Communist conquest in the chaos of the Dominican revolt demonstrates' that the administration understands this. And even though their position has occa- sionally been obscured, the Latin Ameri- can nations also know that the spread of communism cannot 1;?e tolerated in this hemisphere. Their votes and their comments in the OAS have reflected a genuine understanding of the need for action in the Dominican crisis. But on the other hand the adminis- tration can help to build the strength of the inter-American system only if it fully appreciates the depth of and the reasons for the equally genuine Latin. Americah concern over recent U.S. ac- tions in the Caribbean. The most valu- able asset in hemispheric relations is the capacity to see ourselves as others see us-to view, our policy from Latin eyes. From this perspective there are at least; five legitimate concerns over U.S. policy in the Dominican Republic or, more par- ticularly, over the implementation of U.S. policy. Each may directly effect the confidence with which Latin govern- ments will greet U.S. professions of sup- port for collective security in the hemi- sphere. First. The failure to inform the OAS of U.S. intervention before it was under- way was an insensitive oversight. The Approved For Releas 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 CONG]3ESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE adninistration has repeatedly stressed tha?; time was precious and that it could not afford to wait for an OAS decision. Let it be agreed that this made OAS agreement to the U.S. action impractical befsrre the fact. Although President Kennedy was able to ecure OAS support for the naval quarantine in the 1962 Cuban missile cruses in less than 24 hours, it is clear tha; the administration could not have wat;ed this long in the current crisis. But' at the very least, it could have in- formed the OAS of its intentions before the:' were implemented. The OAS could have been told that we were going to send the Marines in, that we would prefer to wa.i; for an OAS decision but time did not `allow, and that we hoped that a force authorized by the OAS-which in all likelihood would have included U.S. forties-could assume responsibility at the earliest possible moment. This course might not have been fully satisfactory either, but it would have pro Aded evidence of our good intentions. The= course the administration followed seemed, to many Latin Americans, tan- taur:ount to saying to the rest of the hemisphere that we did not really care what they thought. N]r. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, will'the gentleman yield? Ntr. MORSE. I yield to the gentleman, from New York. IVr. REID of New York. Would not the gentleman agree there were perhaps two courses of action we could have fol- low,-d: one, we discussed the importance of informing the OAS of the action we were going to take; and a second pos- sibl- course in addition to the first would have been to request the OAS to send observers with our forces as they went ashore. This could have been done very promptly. Mr. MORSE. I think either one of the suggestions of the gentleman would have been a more correct course of act: on. The difference between notification anc: nonnotiflcation may seem subtle to many but it is of paramount importance in maintaining the psychological atmos- phe re of mutual trust and confidence witiin which real political and economic progress is possible throughout the hem- isplsere. E econd. The vast number of U.S. troops used seems disproportionate to the need. The latest reports indicate that there have been 23,000 U.S. troops in 3anto Domingo. Latin Americans understandably tend to equate the contemporary U.S. actions with U.S. intervention in the Caribbean area earlier in the century-interven- tion broadly resented throughout Latin Air.: rica. The United States landed sizable contingents of troops in Panama in 1903, in Cuba in 1906, in TAexico in 1914, in Haiti in 1915, in the Dominican Republic in 1916, and in Nicaragua in 1919 7. On some occasions the troops re- mained for many years. But there were fever U.S. forces used in all of these epi- soc s combined than in the current Do- minican crisis. It has not been made clear why a force of this size is necessary. Perhaps the May 26, 1965 immediate threat demanded it; perhaps the administration has desired to deter other Castro-backed efforts through a determined demonstration of purpose. Some, but certainly not all, of the 23,000 were required to facilitate the withdraw- al of the 4,000 civilians evacuated from the island. during the first phase of U.S. operations. In any event, further clari- fication of the need of a U.S. presence in such numbers is essential. Without a persuasive explanation Latin American fears will persist. We must always re- member that the exercise of North American' military strength which serves as a protective shield for the hemisphere may, to Latin Americans, be reminiscent of a paternalism which they had hoped had ended long ago. Third. The U.S. presentation of the imminent: dangersof Communist capture of the Dominican revolution has not been sufficiently documented to gain full and unquestioning support. Latin Americans frequently 'relieve that the United States is unduly anxious to ascribe Communist direction to any popular manifestations of the social and economic revolution in which the entire continent is absorbed. it is vital, therefore, for the United States to document with precision the evidence which proves its case in any instance where it either asks for multilateral ac- tion or feels it must act alone in the face of Communist efforts in the hemisphere. The implementation of administration policy in the Dominican crisis has created questions in Latin. America-questions which more careful explanation could have avoided. The suddenness with which the purpose of U.S. intervention was changed from protecting U.S. lives to preventing a Communist takeover in- evitably raised some doubts in Latin minds. Identification of 58 Communists in the rebel movement, including some with Cuban training, certainly justifies the need for concern, but it does not serve as proof to skeptical eyes of the need for a massive intervention by the United States. It is neither necessary nor possible to convince all who doubt U.S. motives or wisdom of the factual basis of our pol- icies. But the public presentation of the case should be made-and it should be full, consistent, and unemotional. Fourth' U.S. Policy has regrettably been accompanied by occasional ten- dencies toward the patronizing attitude to which the Latin American have be- come understandably sensitive through the long history of hemispheric relations. Particularly in times of stress U.S. spokesmen must be doubly careful not to use ambiguous language which may lead to misunderstanding. During, the Dominican crisis official U.S. pronouncements have permitted two unfortunate interpretations: First, that because crf Latin Insufficiencies, only the United States can adequately protect the hemisphere and its peoples; second, that there is something noble about U.S. in- tervention. Two examples will suffice. First, when Ambassador Harriman, one of our Nation's most highly respected states- men, left. Santiago, Chile, on May 7 he was reported to have said: Approved For Releaso-2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11277 President Johnson should never again be ? After the arrival of both the U.N. and minican Republic to an OAS "presence" put in the position of having to act unilat- U.S. missions, the OAS mission resigned. may be a natural prelude to further in- erally to protect the security of the The Eisenhower, Kennedy hemisphere against Communist subversion. , and John- stitutional steps to strengthen the son The choice of language was unfor- st engthen the machinery of the OAS to Organ The United States should welcome and tunate because it allowed, by inference, deal with the subtle but very real threat support OAS reforms which might in- unintended criticism of the Latin Amer- which Communist subversion presents to elude the following: leans-in the sense that they had some- the hemisphere. The Dominican crisis, First. The Foreign Ministers could be how placed the U.S. President in this by demonstrating the need for greater required to meet at least annually and unenviable position. What appears to speed in the reaction time of the Organi- not only under crisis conditions. At be an effort to fix blame is one of the zation, may in one sense have had a present they meet in emergencies or in most common obstacles to agreement positive effect in this direction. But the very infrequent Inter-American Confer- when crises occur.. In Inter-American implementation of U.S. policy, as de- ences. The last regularly scheduled In- relations the result can be disastrous. scribed above, may have had the opposite ter-American Conference was in 1954. On May 3, at the AFL-CIO building, effect by raising serious doubts in Latin Second. The existing Inter-American the President nostalgically referred to a America over our sincerity when we Peace Committee could be given ex- favorite quotation of his childhood from plead for a strengthened system of cal- panded authority to act to avoid the use the 19th century Massachusetts Senator, lective security. of force between members through the George Frisbie Hoar. The We feel confident that the people of the peaceful settlement of disputes. At read: passage United States will support the adminis- present this Committee, which operates I have seen the glories of art and archi- tration at the forthcoming Inter-Ameri- only to moderate between members in tecture, and mountain and river; I have seen can Conference in its efforts to minimize dispute, cannot even do this without the the sunset on the Jungfrau, and the full the long-range effects of the unilateral approval of both disputing parties. It moon rise over Mont Blanc. But the fairest U.S. intervention in the Dominican Re- might be beneficial to make its opera- vision on which these eyes ever looked was public and to maximize the opportunities tions more flexible by permitting its in- the flag of my country in a foreign land. to build a stronger Inter-American sys- .volvement upon the approval of any The President, no doubt, meant only tem.. single member, by encouraging its in- to convey his pride in the willingness of If the United States is passive and volvement in situations where disputes U.S. boys to risk their lives in a just apathetic toward proposals to strengthen can be anticipated and by providing it cause. But the statement, in the im- the capacity of the OAS to meet threats a modest operating budget. mediate context of the Dominican crisis, to hemispheric security through collec- Third. A new permanent Security may give rise to the fears and fearsome tive action, the Latin American nations Committee could, be created to act with memories of Latin peoples. To them the may lose all confidence in U.S. inten- speed and authority in any instance thought of the U.S. flag in a foreign land tions. The results would be cata- where elements external to the hemis- is vividly reminiscent of the gunboat strophic. Every aspect of U.S. relations phere, a ' dispute between members, or diplomacy of U.S. policy in the first part within the hemisphere would be sub- events within any member's territory di- of this century. Today's pride in coup- ject to the most profound suspicion and rectly jeopardize the security of the try has little in common with the less distrust. Most importantly, the United hemisphere. The existing Peace Com- try restrained has little of a less romper States might deny itself the opportunity mittee serves only to encourage the raed age, nut on must of not a assume that to be identified with the broad social peaceful settlement of disputes between this cleax to - cat is age, but t all. and economic revolution throughout the two members. There should also be a Fifth. The administration has n_ hemisphere and might no longer have permanent committee which represents tention The encouraged the impression the opportunity to encourage that revo- the OAS foreign ministers, and which, that it has only limited confidence in lution in directions which conduce to- working in conjunction with the Secre- the OAS, even after the Organization ward stable and progressive democracy. tary General, can claim jurisdiction in had assumed significant rin If, on the other hand, the United any crisis which threatens the security the Dommid s crisis. After landing responsibility t its States welcomes proposals to strengthen of the hemisphere. It could act in ad- the D the i icaned sis. encouraged the the capacity of the OAS to meet threats vance of a full meeting of the Foreign OAS to act. The OAS did act encouraged the to the peace of the hemisphere through Ministers and subsequently could super- OAS a to in g special t. mission So Santo by send- a system of mutual security, the adverse vise the execution of their decisions. , but subsequent Domingo effects of the Dominican situation may Such a committee might have obviated tto work for may have led stability, Latin nt ag ac- be minimized and the capacity to meet the U.S. conclusion that the OAS could tans to question the depth of U.S. sin- future crises increased. Many Latin not have acted with sufficient speed to caty in encouraging the OAS to under- Americans construe U.S. policy in the prevent a calamity in the Dominican t ke responsibility encouraging in the OAS. Dominican crisis as a lack of commit- Republic. ca ment to the multilateral approach to Fourth. The Secretariat of the OAS First. On May 14, in the U.N. Se- problems in the hemisphere, as a lack of could be greatly strengthened in author- eurity Council the United States voted confidence in our Latin American part- ity and function, including the right of in favor of a U.N. mission to the Domii- ners. The United States must leave no the Secretary General to help initiate can Republic In the eyes of many Latin doubt that its commitment to the multi- limited action in the peacekeeping field Americans, including most of the mem- lateral approach is unabated and unqual- in advance of a meeting of Foreign Min- bers of the OAS mission, there was no iied. We must embrace the concept of isters. At present the powers of the need for a U.N. mission because the OAS a much-strengthened OAS with the ca- Secretary General and the Secretariat had assumed responsibility. A U.S. ab- pacity to act, to act swiftly, and to act are extremely limited. The requirement stention at the U.N. might have been decisively. better evidence of the faith of our Gov- for speed, which was so evident in tu- ernment in the regional defense system The Inter-American Conference will Dominican crisis, suggests greater au- ernment an extraordinary opportunity to thority for the permanent staff to act in of the hemisphere. do so. In fact, the Conference was orig- conjunction with a new Security Com- Second. On May 16, the United States, inally called at the initiative of Latin mittee in anticipation of early approval without prior consultation with the OAS, Governments to discuss changes to by the Foreign Ministers. Obviously the sent its own mission to the Dominican strengthen the OAS in the field of eco- office and person of the Secretary Gen- Republic to seek stability. While the nomic matters. The meetings of the eral must retain the full confidence of presence of Messers. Bundy, Mann, OAS Ministers on the Dominican crisis each member that his actions will be in Vance, and Vaughn no doubt under- have indicated clearly that the Latin the interest of all. scored the determination of the admiis- Americans desire to strengthen the Or- Fifth. A small, permanent OAS peace- tration in finding a just and lasting set- ganization so that no nation will feel keeping force could be created for use in tlement of the crisis, it also may have required to act alone to preserve hemi- disputes between members or, even more further undermined the effectiveness of spheric security. In fact, the process of importantly, in cases where elements the OAS mission. changing the U.S. "presence" in the Do- alien to the hemisphere threaten the Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 Approved For Release -2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 11278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE May 26, 1965 security of any member. Such a force would have been ideal in the Dominican crisis; and an OAS force formed to re- place U.S. troops in Santo Domingo can be a natural predecessor to a permanent force. The force would best be fully in- ternationalized and on a standby basis under OAS command. The force would be under the ultimate command of the OAS Foreign Ministers, but the Secretary General and a new Security Committee, under the revised structure described above, might be 'given the authority to order its limited use where time was of the essence and the Foreign Ministers had not had the opportunity to meet. Sixth. Long-range OAS reform could reflect a separation of economic and po- litical issues. A plethora of bureaucratic institutions serves no useful purpose, but the artificial centralization of vastly com- plex and essentially distinct programs may work to the disadvantage of each. The present highly centralized OAS structure may not distinguish adequately between political and economic concerns. Many Latin Americans advocate separate and major OAS structures for each, and the United States should welcome moves in that direction. If a decentaralization of OAS functions were to come about it might be possible and desirable to take the centers of OAS economic and social activities out of Washington and estab- lish the appropriate institutions in Latin America itself. Not all, and perhaps none, of these major changes can be fully explored and given effect at the Inter-American Con- opportunity to make a new commitment lie senikto New York and Milwaukee and to the principles of mutual security and New Orleans to protect these victims of multilateral action. For the United mob role. But those who shed crocodile States the opportunity is a necessity be- tears over the violence stirred up by out- cause it has risked not only its prestige side agitators in Alabama and Mississippi but the hemisphere's capacity for col- astxsngely quiet now that the shoe is lective security through its necessary re- are r the other foot. bean. to recent actions in the Carib- I have waited patiently, too, for those anMembers, particularly in the other body, The long-term Interests, U wellnited as the Who have been so vocal in their cry for to a larger and larger sums for larger and favor-term interests of nation, the U commitment to a States favor a new nal l The relations within larger police forces to repel some of these the Weestestern Western Hemisphere .e e in the attacks. None of them have, as far as I decades will provide a continuing a con next test two know, deplored the manhandling of this thcapacity of the polices nan in New York mentioned in the the capacity the ththroes United States - first story. It causes one to wonder what Nations in nomic hepreservation e and d eco- the purl a of higher police budgets is nomic freedom. The revolution v facing this sif, at he same time, these mobs are en- country is whetherwe cha the halleng e rapincourat ed to take to the streets and obey and only ';hose laws that suit their whim welcome the country tgrowing ?a independence prepared to and fe.ncy. political maturity of the developing Latin The professional agitators in CORE, Nations as "a new source of strength with- the N, i.A.CP, SNIC, and SCLC and others in the Western World. have l Predicted another long, hot summer The United States cannot shut its eyes of th(Ir racial violence. If these three must encourage and to the future the progress Is storict are harbingers of what is to come, mot encourage change e and will, sincerely regret it but I will be, at of others. the same time, glad these pigeons are thriving It must and strong nrecognize that a vital Americta, is and an not co ming home to roost because of any impetus to an even more vital and thriv- a,ctioa:I have taken. Ing and strong hemisphere. If we choose Under unanimous consent, I insert the to embrace the future we will seek hems- three stories I have mentioned. spheric institutions which reflect the po- MOB ATTACKS POLICEMAN, FREES ARRESTED tential strength of the Latin Nations. We - NEGRO must encourage the day when mutual NEW YORK, May 22.-A chanting, shouting hemispheric security provides precisely mob of 200 Negroes surrounded and attacked a white policeman in the Bronx last night and released a Negro prisoner the policeman had apprehended. A white grocer who tried to help the policeman was stabbed in the back and critically wounded. Four persons were arrested as a result of the assault and later attacks on other police- men and detectives stemming from the incident. The mob surrounded Patrolman Philip Siegel, 43, and hit him with a pop bottle before his prisoner fled from the scene. Later, two detectives and a patrolman, seeking witnesses, were attacked by two men scene, the mob scattered ant Negron was found sprawled on the sidewalk with a stab wound. Edward Collins, 18, whom the policeman identified as one of his attackers, was among the arrested, charged with felonious assault. MILWAIIXEE At least 50 persons looked on without help- ing as youths armed with a switchblade knife, a nail-studded board, and a chunk of concrete beat three motorcyclists Friday night, police reported yesterday. Samuel Hicks, 43, suffered a broken jaw and was knocked unconscious during the attack. Donald Peterson, 29, was cut and bruised and his wife, Margaret, 23, was also bruised. The victims are white. They said the four teenage boys who attacked them were Negro. NEW ORLEANS A fist fight between a group of young whites and Negroes at a bus stop in New Orleans early yesterday resulted in the fatal stabbing of one of the white men. Frederick Riehm, 21, New Orleans, died in a hospital a short time after being stabbed in the chest. The white teenagers said they were in a car with Riehm and drove past a bus stop where six young Negroes were standing when, they said, one of the Negroes threw a rock through the car's rear window. They got out of the car and the fight followed. (Mr. BERRY (at the request of Mr. QUILLEN) was granted permission to ex- tend his remarks at this point in the Approved For Release-2003/10/15_: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 that. T5-hasten that day, we must seek common; policies on common problems through dedication to the common cause of all w. io cherish freedom. Mr. ILLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would litre to say that I heartily concur in what the gentleman from Massachu- setts ha3 said and want to associate my- self wits his very constructive and re- sponsible remarks in this critical area of our national life and of the life of the internallonal community, particularly complin lent the gentleman for the really The trouble started when Siegel spotted outstanding job which he has done in two Negroes breaking the window of a shop bringini these matters and problems and and caught one of them after a chase. positive suggestions to the attention of He took the' youth back to the furniture store and telephoned police station for a the House. patrol car. Mr. MORSE. I thank the gentleman Soon the mob milled around Siegel and be- from Kansas. gan chanting, "Let him go." When the policeman tried to put hand- cuffs on the suspect, he was struck from NEGRO VIOLENCE AGAINST WHITES behind and shoved to the ground. The The i EAI+R pro tempore (Mr. AL- suspect starter to run. Siegel drew his gun, BERT). -Under previous order of the fired a warning shot in the air and again caught the suspect. House the gentleman from Louisiana Once again the mob closed in on Siegel and [Mr. VTAGGONNER] is recognized for 10 chanted, "Why did you shoot?" and "Let minute3. him go." Mr. 'IVAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, in One of the ;mob, armed with a soda pop last Simnday's Washington Post there bottle, stepped forward and. told Siegel, were three stories printed under a single "'re going U) -bake him away we hit Siegel on the a d viithmthe bottle h.eading, all dealing with incidents in and the prisoner broke free and fled. which mobs of Negroes, armed with Siegel, his gun pointed at the mob, was switchllade knives, nail-studded boards backing away when he heard a voice behind and rocks, attacked whites in widely his saying, All right, officer, ".I'm with you." scattered areas of the Nation. One of "I didn't turn because I wanted to keep these attacks was upon a policeman facing the crowd," Siegel said. While he was performing his duty. He explained that the voice was that of the grocer, Enrique Negron. Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 11312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE color~ It is a matter of going into court ,griU-having these statutes enforced. Fenet, the French statesman, in mak- ing a report for the revision of the law of France and the adoption of a civil code, and having in mind the failure of the French Revolution in its effort to take leave of past thought and achieve- ment and to set up a new social and governmental system based upon sup- posedly new ideas, gave expression to a maximum which should not be forgotten. It recites: It is better to preserve what it is not neces- sary to destroy. I ask you to think of this maxim for a moment- It is better to preserve what it is not neces- sary to destroy. For this is the basic proposition that must be resolved in your minds and in Your hearts before a vote is cast on the proposal before us. It is better to pre- serve the freedoms and the liberties the Constitution guarantees us, as long as it is not necessary to destroy it. It is an endless process, Mr. President, to preserve liberty. Liberty cannot be forced by the bay- onet nor granted by the rash act of a legislature. True liberty is gained through the orderly process and can only be preserved by it. This has always been and always will be. The overriding issue at stake here is whether we are going to uphold the or- derly process, or whether we are going to succumb to those who teach civil dis- obedience and call for demonstrations and street scenes to provide it. The question is whether we are going to take the low, dangerous road of ap- peasement and expediency, or the high road of reason and orderly process. The question is whether we are going to continue to live by the Constitution, or whether we are going to abandon it to meet the demands of the hour. The question is simply whether we are going to nullify and amend the Con- stitution by statute, or whether we are going to adhere to the provisions of it that provide the orderly way for change. And this is the question, Mr. Presi- dent, that each of us must answer be- fore we cast our vote on S. 1564. For this legislation, by its enactment, would nullify and repudiate vital provisions of the Constitution and destroy many of our legal institutions. The Constitution of the United States has often been called "a divinely inspired creation." I think the hour is here for us to pause and rededicate ourselves to it and to "pledge our lives, our fortunes, and sacred honor" to preserve it. And in the solemn moment that we do, we take renewed meaning of the wisdom and warning expressed in that immortal Farewell Address in 1796: Should a modification of the Constitution be necessary it should be made by an amend- ment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation., Mr. President, the United States is a constitutional system of government. It was by the Constitution that it took life. It has been by the Constitution that it has survived. It will be by abuse of the Constitu- tion that it dies. Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. A Nevadan wrote those words nearly 100 years ago. They became the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nevada was the first State to ratify this amendment, and it has been a part of the Constitution since 1870. Yet today these historic words are the focal point of one of the major issues before Congress-and before the people. Without question this amendment has not only been ignored but brazenly abused in some areas of our Nation. Its basic guarantees have been willfully de- nied to the Negro of the South and to other racial groups elsewhere. Efforts to correct this flagrant wrong in State and Federal courts and at local govern- ment levels have failed. Now Congress has turned at last to the second para- graph of the 15th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Our duty is clear. We in Congress must take every necessary step to guar- antee the right to vote to every American equally. This is why the voting rights legislation proposed by the President and now before the Senate will be enacted. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAss in the chair). The Senator from Missis- sippi is recognized. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGzx] on his own time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Missis- sippi for yielding to me at this time. PROBLE111 c!)rTHE DOMINICAN ' REPUBLIC Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wish to address myself to a column that was published last evening in The Evening Star. Since the subject is not germane, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed to speak on the question at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McGEE. The column by Mr. Charles Bartlett is entitled "Problems in `Casting' Dominicans." The burden of Mr. Bartlett's article is that many of the reports of the crisis in Santo Domingo have stemmed from efforts on the part of some making those reports to pick out the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and contrast them with one another, when, May 26, 1965 as Mr. Bartlett aptly points out, neither are all good or all bad, and one is not clearly distinguishable from another. It is in the pattern of that complexity that the American people have been asked to formulate their judgments in regard to what is transpiring in the Caribbean. In the conclusion of his column, Mr; Bartlett, writes- Preconceptions of American clumsiness in Latin affairs persist from the days before 1958 when few of the problems and realities had been recognized. The crisis in Vietnam has encouraged an hypothesis that reporters may be more perceptive than the officials on the scence. . But the lesson of Fidel Castro, on whom many of us erred, was that the United States cannot afford to be mistaken on the nature of the men who -seize power in neighboring republics. This lesson should inspire deep patience with the President's wariness in forming a coalition to govern this pulverized country. Mr. President, there are those of us who can criticize and freely criticize. We ought always to be able to do so in this country, and we can even criticize with the luxury of not being responsible for our criticisms. We can criticize with sincerity, and if we are wrong, there is no major disastrous consequence. But the President of the United States and those directly responsible to him cannot enjoy that luxury. They must be right, if possible, the first time. That is the essential difference between critics and those who carry the frightful burden of decisionmaking both in the Dominican Republic and in Vietnam, as they seek the wisest possible courses of action that will survive the tests of the future and the reflections of hindsight. Therefore, I would hope that we could do a great deal more than we have been doing until now to get before the people of our country the real complexities and the contradictions and the befuddle- ments of the many overlapping and in- tertwined issues in both of those areas of the world in order better to understand the need for the kinds of decisions that we ultimately make. The attitude, all too prevalent, that any person who runs casually through those torn countries can make a better judgment and a better decision than someone whose neck is really on the block and who has to bear the conse- quences of the decision, is one of the failings that we find in our midst at this time. I should like to believe that we could find a way to correct some of the misstatements that have been made or some of the partial statements that are being made at this time. I have encouraged the Secretary of State to consider accepting questions in a more public way than he has until now from whomever he designates, or whatever segment of our critics would seem appropriate, and to respond to those questions in a better way, more than merely in print-preferably in one of the communications media of the air, on radio, TV, or both-in order that the difficulties involved can be eliminated and the separation of fact from fiction can likewise be more accurately made. Such a course would contribute a great bit in the sense of public information, Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 May 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1.1311 future demagogues on any issue what- ever who, through manipulation of mass emotion and hysteria, force the enact- ment of measures which similarly flaunt our basic constitutional provisions? What then will happen to our constitu- tional rights-to the Constitution itself- and what then will be the course toward which our Government and our country will be directed? These are the questions that I ask each and every one of us to seriously and con- scientiously ponder. I ask Senators this as an American. I ask Senators this in appreciation of those before and in con- cern for those ahead. I ask Senators to take a long look at the road ahead and see where all of this may lead us. I would remind the Senate that delay is preferable to error. The easy course today may be appeasement and even sur- render to the emotional demands for leg- islation which clearly repudiates the Constitution; but may I say that we do this at an exorbitant and dangerous cost to the generations of Americans who will come after us and we breach a trust to those who, came before us-who gave us our constitutional system-and to those who have given their lives to preserve it. For, when we leave a system of govern- ment of laws for a government of men in response to the clamor and expediency of the day, we give open invitation to the dangers and possible destruction of which we have been warned. Two thousand years before the Vir- ginia Convention of 1788, where this abiding truth was to be more eloquently expressed, Aristotle warned of the dan- gers that arise when a government of laws is corrupted by a government of men. In his "Politics," Aristotle praises the rule of the law and says this: Therefore, he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. The law is reason unaffected by de- sire, Aristotle declared-unaffected by mass hysteria and emotion, by demon- strations and sit-ins, by political thirst and political power and, above all, by expediency. Mr. President, every Member of the Senate knows, regardless of his per- sonal feelings on the subject, that the Constitution clearly reserves to the States the authority to establish quali- fications for voting. This authority is expressly provided in article I, section 2, and confirmed in the 10th and 17th amendments of the Constitution. Under this reserved power the States have for 175 years determined the rules and re- quirements for voting by their citizens. But now in this bill the Federal Govern- ment proposes to u urp this authority and take over the fuhetion of establish- ing voter qualifications. If Congress can so blatantly ignore and nullify a specific, unqualified provision of the Constitu- tion in this instance, what other parts of the Constitution can _ever again be re- garded as Inviolate?. Not only would this bill usurp the constitutional powers of the States, but No. 95--15 it would do ifunder a formula designed gress has the power to fix and regulate so that only . of taln selected States will voting qualifications in the indlV dual " be brought v,Fithin its application, and States. It pretends to justify any action, tates excluded. The Attorney by the Congress on the basis of the ap- other States' General of The United States admits propriate legislation clause of the 15th this. He admits that while the bill is amendment. supposed to be a bill for the entire In fact, Mr. President, S. 1564 can pre- United Statet it just so happens that tend no such thing. History shows that the standard; set forth in the formula the 15th amendment does not justify any of the bill apply only to a few States. such contention that Congress has any The Attorney General admits that it such power under the 15th amendment. just sohappens that these States are, as The history of the 15th amendment and he put it in' his testimony before the the debates and the proceedings in Con- Senate Judictary Committee, a part of gress at the time it was adopted make the "old Coidederacy." I submit, Mr. clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that President, that these are indeed weird the proponents and sponsors of the standards, by those who are supposed to amendment had no intention of giving represent all of the people of the United Congress the authority to fix and regu- States, and the Attorney General's own late voting qualifications in the indi- testimony prts us on guard as to the vidual States. The 15th amendment real purpose and meaning of the bill simply declares that "the right of cit- before us. izens of the United. States to vote shall The bill would give one Federal offi- not be denied or abridged," by either cial, the Attcrney General, the power of State or Nation, "on account of race, decision in ruard to which States may color, or previous condition of servitude," or may not 4inforce their existing voter and it gives Congress the power to en- qualificationlaws, and which are to be force this provision for impartial suf- taken over by Federal registrars. The frage by "appropriate legislation." bill would prevent any State seeking re- There is an assumption only of the po- lief from ar'itrary enforcement action tential right to vote. There is no as- by a Federal -officer from going into any sumption of a vested right to vote. The U.S. court, oilier than the District Court potential right to vote can become actual for the District of Columbia. This un- only by a law of the State, or in a terri- precedented restriction is an insult to tory by a law of Congress. There is no the integrity, of the Federal judges in mandate that the actual right shall be the Southerii States, and impugns the conferred in either case. The only man- honor of the' entire Federal judicial sys- date is that, in conferring it, the grant tem. The bill would by legislative fiat must be impartial among all citizens. determine and declare that the right to The plain import of the amendment, vote is bein?;- denied in four States be- therefore, is that when the right to vote cause they t-pllect a poll tax as a pre- is granted, it must be impartially grant- requisite to ;noting. It would provide ed; State but to it declare is that always "when." competent to the that if the constitutionality of poll taxes As we see, Mr. ]President, it is abun- is sustained by the courts, the Congress dantly clear that the 15th amendment shallthen ba.empoweredto override the was not intended to give Congress the court's decisions and regulate the pay- power to strike down State literacy tests, ment of poll taxes in the four States to set voter qualifications, or to regulate involved. Envision by provision, the State poll taxes. A long line of Supreme bill goes on in the same harsh, punitive Court decisions have confirmed that the and discriminatory way. power to set voter qualifications, by the I may say; Mr. President, that in my language of the Constitution, rests with last speech on the bill I discussed the the States and confirm that neither the matter of the poll tax. What an incon- 14th nor the 15th amendment gave the sequential, vanishing phenomenon it is Congress the power to change this by today. As ]d said, in my State of Ala- legislative flat. bama the pall tax is $1.50. We cannot The proponents of S. 1564, however, go back for more than 1 year in the col- argue that in some States, literacy tests lection. of it The maximum, therefore, and other means: are used. to exclude is $3. Ever 9' cent of the dollar and a Negroes from voting in violation of the half goes tcl the public schools for the 15th amendment and, therefore, that education a.. the youth of the State of this legislation is necessary to protect Alabama. certain constitutional rights. They ar- The bill is entitled "A bill to enforce the gue then that we :must destroy the Con- 15th amendment to the Constitution of stitution in order! to preserve it. the United States, and for other pur- I contend again, however, that there poses." is a lawful and orderly way to accom- The truth is, Mr. President, that S. plish any desired result through amend- 1564 was n)t drafted with the idea of ment to the Constitution in accordance dealing wit a a constitutional problem. with the procedurces outlined in article I contend i~; was drafted primarily for V. I contend again that it is not neces- "other purloses," that is, to satisfy the' sary to destroy the Constitution or any mass demor ftrations blocking our streets provision of it in order to preserve it, and highways, and to stop the invasion and that if it is, a requiem at this time of public buildings with lie-ins and sit- would be more appropriate than a vote ins. The bill pretends to be "appropri- at this time. ate legislat Cop" to prevent the voting In one of my : last speeches on the rights of citizens of the United States bill I cited not one, not two, not three. from being denied or abridged by States not four, not five, but a number of cases on account f race or color. It pretends which guarantee that a person shall have that under the 15th amendment Con- the right to vote regardless of race or Approved For Release 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 ,,~.. Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 -gay 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE and thus lic understanding, of what is t ring in both of those areas. I am firmly convinced, after pursuing the subject as closely as one can from this position, that the President has followed the problem with extremely great patience and insight, and that our policies are beginning to show their real substance and strength. But it will re- quire a little more time than some of the quick reactions that we have been reading about or are being told about would allow for. So I call special atten- tion.of the Members of this body to the column by Mr. Bartlett in the Evening Star of yesterday, and I ask unanimous consent that the column be printed in- tact following my informal remarks. There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star May 25, 19651 PROBLEMS IN "CASTING" DOMINICANS (By Charles Bartlett) The roots of the discord between the John- son administration and segments of the press over the crisis in the Dominican Republic are tangled and deep. The Government officials in charge of the Dominican nettle do not cloak their anger and dismay at the tendency of some impor- tant reporters in Santo Domingo to portray the United States as the suspicious party, the rebels as the heroes, and the junta leaders as the villians In the messy situation. The anger is goaded by instances in which these reporters appeared to be stretching Isolated instances to support a contention that U.S. policy is aimed in fact at crushing the rebels and installing rightwing au- thority. This is a shortcut that some have urged and that President Johnson has doggedly re- sisted, It Is the answer that is no answer but it attracted those whose concern with the larger consequences was dwarfed by the drama on the scene. This outlook, infected many Americans in Santo Domingo, particularly those who had watched American boys fall to snipers. One wrote last week, "If the fools who sit and deliberate what must be done and how wick- ed intervention is could see their own blood spilling out, they might decide that drastic action is necessary." Johnson's need to avoid the trap of this emotionalism led him to supplant the diplo- mats on the scene with John Bartlow Mar- tin and to direct Secretary of Defense Rob- ert S. McNamara to put the U.S. forces under a general "who didn't wear his stars too heav- ily." The President has reflected an aware- ness throughout the crisis that he must jus- tify his intervention by Installing a broad- based government. His show of support for Gen. Antonio Im- bert Barrera was criticized as a move to im- pose a strong man. Some insist that he was only diverted from this course by the flurry of press criticism, Imbert performed the useful function of replacing Gen. Wessin y Wessin, and some, including Martin and the papal nuncio, believed he might become a rallying point. When this possibility faded, the President dispatched the Bundy-Vance mission. In covering these developments and the subsequent moves to establish a coalition weighted toward the rebels, the reporters who flew into Santo Domingo were seriously handicapped, They were largely strangers to the incredibly complex Dominican scene and they could not be kept closely informed on the delicate maneuverings that were un- derway. The most insidious myth that confronted them was the idea that the contenders could be divided into good and bad men. All the major figures on both sides have been badly warped by the long dictatorship and they defy any ready classification. Juan Bosch had the opportunity, for ex- ample, to become a heroic figure by assert- ing his leadership in the chaos created by his followers. But his courage failed him and he remained in Puerto Rico. He must now defend his self-respect by denouncing the United States. Rafael Fernandez, a Bosch favorite whose death last Wednesday added new bitterness to the crisis, will almost certainly become a martyr. He was a promising and popu- lar individual. But curiously he served as deputy director in the Trujillos' secret po- lice in the period after the dictator's assas- sination when these police was imposing brutal revenge in many quarters. Later as- signed to the Dominican Embassy in Spain, he became involved with a Communist cell. It is difficult to gage such men. Preconceptions of American clumsiness in Latin afi?airs persist from the days before 1958 when few of the problems and realities had been recognized. The crisis in Vietnam has encouraged an hypothesis that reporters may be more perceptive than the officials on the scene. But the lesson of Fidel Castro, on whom many of us erred, was that the United States cannot afford to be mistaken on the nature of the men who seize power in neigh- boring republics. This lesson should inspire deep patience with the President's wariness in forming a coalition to govern this pul- verized country. VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1564) to enforce the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remain- ing? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 32 minutes remaining. Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair. I believe it is a fair summary to say that instead of devoting a little time to the application and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which fully covers, many fields, including voting rights, the pending bill was put together hurriedly, without caution, because of the pressure of the marchers. It is a bill that was introduced as a matter of political expediency. It has, had that tone and tenor all the way through. Another aspect of the matter relates to the far-reaching provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was a revolutionary act. There has not been enough time since its passage for people in many areas of the country to adjust to it and for the rank and file leadership at the various political levels of govern- ment really to understand how it ap- plies to them, what their duties are, and what they can do as a practical matter to stand behind the law of the land. Whether the people like the law or not, almost everyone is willing to abide by it. It is a double tragedy that even though we already have that law, and this rush order, as I,have already mentioned, has been given to meet the marchers' de- mands, even without allowing time to ap- 11313 ply the law, the actual provisions of the proposed law invade some of the most sacred and most important and essential parts of the Constitution of the United States. I come quickly to the part that I be- lieve is most vital; that is, the part that invades the provisions of the Constitution with reference to voter qualifications. The bill provides for a downgrading and a degrading of voter qualifications; an outlawing of some of the most vital and essential parts of voter qualifications, including one on which there should not be any real difference of opinion; that is, a simple literacy test. I am impressed by the fact that the Senate in 1 week passed a bill with reference to extending the educational processes in the Nation, even in the ele- mentary schools, and only a few weeks later, by a meat-ax method, is consider- ing a bill to abolish literacy tests in large areas of the country, even to the extent of the ability to read and write. I have also noticed in all that has been said, from the White House, from the Attorney General's office, from the floor of the Senate by the proponents of the measure, and in the press, that nothing has been said about the responsibilities of citizenship with respect to voting. That has not been emphasized. Every- thing that is emphasized relates to rights-so-called rights. Nothing is said about obligations. Everything is said about rights; nothing is said about re- sponsibilities. Nothing has been said to the people about self-improvement in matters of citizenship. Nothing has been said about the lessons to be learned from self-denial in order to improve oneself as a citizen. Nothing has been said about the under- lying principles of self-control and self- improvement. I believe in citizens voting and exercis- ing their basic privileges. But I believe that in order to protect those persons, there must be some kind of regulation, some kind of control, some kind of quali- fications established to regulate the vot- ing privilege. It is not a right; it is a privilege. In one of his writings on self- government, the great Woodrow Wilson, a man of strong moral courage and intel- lectual capacity, and having a spiritual reservoir that lent strength and judg- ment to his every act, said : Self-government is not a mere form of institutions, to be had when desired if only proper pains be taken. It is a form of char- acter. it follows upon the long discipline which gives a people * * * the habit of or- der and peace and common counsel and a reverence for law which will not fail when they themselves become the makers of law, Any comment by me, upon those mar- velous words of wisdom from the pen of that truly great man would be su- perfluous. I shall only say that he summed up in those words the meaning of self-government, It depends upon a form of character that results from proc- esses of self-denial. That should be the watchword today, rather than the- gen- eral idea that everyone's salary will be increased, everyone's welfare payments will be increased, and that poverty will Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 11314 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500120019-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE May 26, 1965 be abolished without any attempt at self- help. The abolishment of qualifications for electors, of literacy tests, and of other requirements that I have mentioned is a myth. It Is a myth that will lead us down the road to self-destruction. The worst feature of the bill is that It undertakes to suspend the Constitution. It does not meet head-on the contention that the qualifications of voters must be valid; that the literacy tests are valid. The courts have recognized their valid- ity. A former Attorney General can be quoted to that effect, and so, I think, can the present Attorney General. The bill does not meet that proposition head- on but seeks to suspend the Constitution of the United States. Under the guise of enforcing one provision, the bill proposes to suspend the Constitution in other par- ticulars. One provision of the Constitu- tion cannot be suspended on the ground of enforcing another. The bill sets the most dangerous of precedents for the future by providing that the Constitu- tion, including the 15th amendment, can be enforced by letting Congress write the remedy. I verily believe we have already written that remedy by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The operation of the remedy must be through the judicial processes, through the courts. The courts must be kept open. The pending bill literally would close the doors of the courts to a large segment of the citizenry of our country. It is essential that in a republican form of government the courts remain open to the people. We propose, in effect, to close even the Federal court with the exception of this small avenue of remedy which would be available in the courts of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is more than 1,000 miles from the place where the litigation may arise. I believe that it is absolutely essential to due process of law that the courts re- main open. The due process of law, men- tioned in the 14th amendment, is essen- tial in a republican form of government. The courts must be kept open to the litigants, to the people, and to the Gov- ernment. It is essential in a republican form of government that, under due process of law, the legislative processes of the vari- ous States be kept open. The pending measure would literally close the door on the State legislatures which might be affected by the application of the bill. It is unthinkable. It is unheard of. I do not believe that it would be tolerated here for 10 minutes on any subject except on a voting rights bill. The pending measure demonstrates the sadness of the situation that we have got into in our country. It illustrates what can happen when there is an emo- tional wave engendered by the marchers and the groups with political demands of expediency, even before there was an opportunity for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to begin operation. Perhaps I am too strict in my interpre. tation of the Constitution. I do not be- lieve that I am. However, one of the minor atrocities of the pending bill is that, sailing along here under the guise of enforcing the 15th amendment, we launch f iut into a wholly different terri- tory ant f argee to what I call the New York State amendment. On the other hand, V ;e propose to go Into a State in which t iere is no charge of any kind of racial discrimination and dip down into the net very deeply, to check the quall- fication,i they have established for citi- zens tc register and vote and their literacy -tests. in the pending measure, we undifrtake to overrule the great State of New ? York on an extraneous matter to this bill, on a subject that is irrelevant to the :-5th amendment to the Constitu- tion. Mr. President, only by the broadest stretch ? of the imagination could the matter be related to any part of the Con- stitutien as it pertains to voting rights. If the 'amendment amendment pertaining to the State (tf New York were to be upheld, it would mean that the Constitution would be gone and that there would no longer be any provision of the Constitution rel- ative to voting qualifications that would have any meaning whatsoever. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senat,)r has 17 minutes remaining. Mr.' STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Ct'lair. I believe there is an error there. ThE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Chair will check the time. Mr.STENNIS. I thank the Chair. I thought I had 32 minutes remaining. This PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 28 minutes of his time on yeste:?day and 15 minutes today, which leave i exactly 17 minutes. Mr, STENNIS, I thank the Chair very much: Mr. President, for the second consecu- tive 3 ear the Senate has seen fit to invoke cloture on a measure which presents graves and far-reaching constitutional issues. The debate limitation thus im- poseil will prevent full and adequate con- sideratiozi of the proposal now before the Senate, even though that proposal refieits a philosophy foreign to many traditional concepts of constitutional government in this Nation. I believe that S. 1564 is unreasonable, unwise, and unn