DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Civil rights and race relations materials, 1957-1964 | 1964-06-11 Des Moines Register Article: "Landmark on Civil Rights"

Transcribe
Translate

Civil rights and race relations materials, 1957-1964

1964-06-11 Des Moines Register Article: "Landmark on Civil Rights"

Thurs., June 11, 1964
The Des Moines Register
Founded 1849

Landmark on Civil Rights
The vote in the Senate to end the filibuster against the civil rights bill clears the way for action. It demonstrated the determination of the nation to move forward in the drive to end racial injustice.
The strong majority, 71 to 29, for ending debate is a good yardstick of the support for the bill itself. We are glad that Iowa's two senators, Bourke Hickenlooper and Jack Miller, lined up on the side favoring action on the legislation. We hope they also will vote for the bill.
The bill has been hammered out in long debate. It will be further improved by amendments which have been worked out in sessions between administration leaders and the Republicans let by Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. It is based on long and painful experience and cradle study of the problems by the Civil Rights Commission and others. We agree with Senator Dirksen that:
"The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here."

The outcome of the earlier voting in the Senate on four amendments aimed at restricting enforcement of the law provides a good omen for the fate of the entire bill when it comes to a vote.
Three restricting amendments were defeated, the two most crippling by the most overwhelming votes. These two were (1) an attempt by Senator Sam Ervin (Des., N.C.) to eliminate the equal employment opportunities section, and (2) a proposal by Senator Norris Cotton (Rep., N.H.) to remove 8 million workers from its protection by limiting it to firms employing more than 100.
The votes against these amendments were 63-33 and 63-34. Senator Miller voted with the majority, but Senator Hickenlooper favored both amendments. The Ervin amendment would have been a tragic blow. Equal opportunity in employment offers the best hope of relieving the economic plight of Negroes. Without opportunity got jobs, the guarantees of equal access to public accommodations, equal voting rights and other rights often are meaningless.
Hickenlooper's own amendment, that would have eliminated provisions for training school personal in handling desegregation problems, aroused more controversy, and the vote was closer, 56 to 40. Miller supported this amendment.
The reasoning used by Hickenlooper was that federal aid in such programs would be an opening wedge for a much broader program of federal aid to education. He said there is little difference between the government paying people to study the problems of desegregation and paying them to study languages.
We see a very large difference. The need for general federal aid to schools may be debatable. But the need for federal help to schools in meeting desegregation problems surely is clear. Many states refuse to accept their responsibility for helping schools comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation.

The only amendment that passed, by a thin margin of 51-48 (plus one announced against), was the jury trial amendment of Senator Thruston B. Morton (Rep., Ky.). This amendment had been the most discussed in advance, and was conceded to have strong support even among those who will vote for the bill.
The Morton amendment weakens the power of the federal government to enforce the law, by requiring jury trials in cases of criminal contempt arising out of any part of the rights law except the section on voting. Not often will a Southern jury be as willing as a federal judge to find a public official guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order.
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for minor offenses, although some civil liberty supporters advocate it in all criminal contempt cases whatever their cause. Justices Black and Douglas recently argued that in such cases it should be a constitutional right.
Under the circumstances it is not surprising- or discouraging- that a bare majority of the entire Senate favored this one restriction. Generally, the results of Tuesday's voting promise quick passage of a strong and effective civil rights bill now that the filibuster has been broken.

Republican Disaster Forecast
[not a complete article]

Saving...

Thurs., June 11, 1964 The Des Moines Register Founded 1849 Landmark on Civil Rights The vote in the Senate to end the filibuster against the civil rights bill clears the way for action. It demonstrated the determination of the nation to move forward in the drive to end racial injustice. The strong majority, 71 to 29, for ending debate is a good yardstick of the support for the bill itself. We are glad that Iowa's two senators, Bourke Hickenlooper and Jack Miller, lined up on the side favoring action on the legislation. We hope they also will vote for the bill. The bill has been hammered out in long debate. It will be further improved by amendments which have been worked out in sessions between administration leaders and the Republicans let by Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. It is based on long and painful experience and cradle study of the problems by the Civil Rights Commission and others. We agree with Senator Dirksen that: "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here." The outcome of the earlier voting in the Senate on four amendments aimed at restricting enforcement of the law provides a good omen for the fate of the entire bill when it comes to a vote. Three restricting amendments were defeated, the two most crippling by the most overwhelming votes. These two were (1) an attempt by Senator Sam Ervin (Des., N.C.) to eliminate the equal employment opportunities section, and (2) a proposal by Senator Norris Cotton (Rep., N.H.) to remove 8 million workers from its protection by limiting it to firms employing more than 100. The votes against these amendments were 63-33 and 63-34. Senator Miller voted with the majority, but Senator Hickenlooper favored both amendments. The Ervin amendment would have been a tragic blow. Equal opportunity in employment offers the best hope of relieving the economic plight of Negroes. Without opportunity got jobs, the guarantees of equal access to public accommodations, equal voting rights and other rights often are meaningless. Hickenlooper's own amendment, that would have eliminated provisions for training school personal in handling desegregation problems, aroused more controversy, and the vote was closer, 56 to 40. Miller supported this amendment. The reasoning used by Hickenlooper was that federal aid in such programs would be an opening wedge for a much broader program of federal aid to education. He said there is little difference between the government paying people to study the problems of desegregation and paying them to study languages. We see a very large difference. The need for general federal aid to schools may be debatable. But the need for federal help to schools in meeting desegregation problems surely is clear. Many states refuse to accept their responsibility for helping schools comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation. The only amendment that passed, by a thin margin of 51-48 (plus one announced against), was the jury trial amendment of Senator Thruston B. Morton (Rep., Ky.). This amendment had been the most discussed in advance, and was conceded to have strong support even among those who will vote for the bill. The Morton amendment weakens the power of the federal government to enforce the law, by requiring jury trials in cases of criminal contempt arising out of any part of the rights law except the section on voting. Not often will a Southern jury be as willing as a federal judge to find a public official guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for minor offenses, although some civil liberty supporters advocate it in all criminal contempt cases whatever their cause. Justices Black and Douglas recently argued that in such cases it should be a constitutional right. Under the circumstances it is not surprising- or discouraging- that a bare majority of the entire Senate favored this one restriction. Generally, the results of Tuesday's voting promise quick passage of a strong and effective civil rights bill now that the filibuster has been broken. Republican Disaster Forecast [not a complete article]