Senator George Smathers Radio Broadcast 152

take one over to 89. Smith, ladies and gentlemen, I'm proud to have is my guest at this time the senior senator from Georgia, Dick Russell. As we all know, Senator Russell is the leader of those who oppose this so called civil rights legislation and without further pleasantries and so that we can get right into it.

I would like to ask you, Senator Russell, why is it that you think this proposed civil rights bill is so dangerous? But this bill is so far reaching that it will change our entire system of government. It demolishes the Euro system of government between the federal powers and those exercised by the States.

It disregards the balance of the division of powers between the three branches of the federal government, the legislative, the executive in the state. By making such a massive delegation of power to the Attorney General and other executive officers as to completely upset this very delicate mechanism upon which our rights and liberties have depended since the foundation of the Republic, it confers more pilots on the attorney general than any president of the United States has ever possessed it from a tree, um, to invade the social area.

If he regards, it's been in discrimination and enforce social equality by the use of federal power and without the defendant having an opportunity to appear before a jury of his peers, as Anglo Saxon law has always ordained it. Uhh. Not only that, it's a long step down the road to socialism because of the title of the bill that gives the federal government the power to prescribe hiring practices and promotion practices within private industry and in the name of equality.

It contains a vast number of discriminations against the average garden variety. American citizen. What chance would the average garden bride the citizens have of, uh, in a contest with one of the members of the minority groups for a job off a promotion, even if all things were equal, if the employer knew he could be dragged through the courts or if he decided against the member of a minority group?

Uh, business men don't like to get into the court. They have to hire their lawyers. They have to lose time, and it will discriminate against the ordinance with a massive the ordinary garden variety American in a very great way uhh! In this my field of social equality and using federal compulsion to enforce people to associate with those of other races or other groups against their will.

It all but wipes out the Dominion that a man has over private property that he has been able to accumulate as a result of honest toil. The attorney general can force people to associate with those that they do not wish to associate with in every area of business life in this country in every field of entertainment, swimming pools, motels, hotels, restaurants, any public place where men and women gathered together that's licensed to do business by state or by a municipality.

Did you kill me? I interrupted to ask you this question. How do you feel about this one section, which seems to be highly dangerous, where if there's a claim, discrimination and the department or the federal government will cut off any program that it's got in conjunction with the state?

Well, that's what I call the genocide of the ladies provisions of the bill. If any little bureaucrat decides that there's been discrimination by one individual in a program, he can visit the wrath of the federal government on all the recipients of the program say all those are drawing welfare checks all of those drawing veterans compensation in a state or in an area because of the act of another man.

While these liberals are pushing this bill talk about guilt by association, this prescribed guilt and punishment by mere fact of residents. And it would punish those who might be in favor of this wretched, far fetched, an unconstitutional, misnamed civil rights bill. Well, thank you very much, Senator Russell, for those very clear expressions is to your views on this particular civil rights bill.

And I must say, any great measure I share them. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for looking and listening. And I hope you'll looking again at the same time next week should be guilty of discrimination with respect or one principle with respect to a school lunch program, for example, in high school, with this there, with this law authorized there after some department here in Washington to cut off the whole school lunch program for the whole state of Florida, it most assuredly would if the bureaucrat decided that that was the area that should be encompassed in the section from which federal benefits would be withdrawn.

There's never been any such a complete abdication of legislative responsibility and delegation of legislative power, as this bill provides. In this section, we leave it up to the bureaucrat to decide first place where there's been discrimination without any definition of what discrimination amounts to and then to extend to the limits of the area from which federal benefits will be withdrawn.

Hitler and his our greatest I was never had any more sweeping power than we are undertaking to give to the bureaucrats in dealing with federal programs why they can go back and appeal any act of Congress, for example, the Land Grant College assistance program they see fit.

And the Congress would then have to repack reenact it again over the veto over president. Presumably presumably, uh, we're requiring a two thirds vote. It's an admission everybody votes for it, that the Congress is a useless appendage in our modern day government and should be abolished.

Well, if it's as bad as you say it is, and I think it is, I share your beliefs on it. Why would it not be unconstitutional? Well, it would be unconstitutional if, Well, I don't like to say this, but if we had a court that had any familiarity with the Constitution But of course the present Supreme Court has not.

He did the specific mandates of the Constitution the 10th Amendment reserving to the States and to the people. All the powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a part of that document Apart as far as they president Supreme Court is concerned.

The rule of stare decisis says Never worry them. They, uh we are told that the Brown case is now part of the Constitution that is the integrating schools and that we must be Yeah, and now people are, though they don't like it. But when it comes to this public accommodation section the same Supreme Court with different judges decided in 1883 that the Congress did not have the authority to force one man to do business with another if he didn't wish to.

But they are undertaking to overturn that by just by a simple statue That's not a part of this constitution, because it's too old. It came along before they Supreme Court consulted psychologists and free knowledge ists and psychiatrists and crystal ball gazers and everybody else before, and they can make a decision that vitally affects their lives and welfare.

The American people Let me said to you, son, this mouth is that if we had a court composed of lawyers, the statute of, uh, Chief Justice Taft and BRANDEIS and Stone men of that statute, this bill wouldn't wear me one moment. I would let it pass because I'd know the Supreme Court would strike it down.

And they would do it with a scathing rebuke to all the members of the Congress who had voted to Bill that was so offensive to our system of government. Now, Senator Russell, as the leader of the anti civil rights so called civil rights legislation, what is your judgment as to whether or not this bill will finally be passed?

Well, I would be less than Frank if I did not say that the drums propaganda have been beaten so loudly and so long in behalf of this bill has been painted as great moral issue. Uh, thousands of people are supporting it because of the label that it bears of civil rights without ever having read it and seeing the impact it has on their own lives.

If we can get the contents of this bill and its back across to the American people, we will defeat it. But if it is continues to proceed under this furious title, with all of the agencies of propaganda and dissemination of use news behind it, we have the fight of our lives.

All right, thank you very much. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for listening. And I hope you're listening again at the same time next week. Well, Senator Russell, do I understand you correctly to say that if, for example, one person in the state of Florida should be guilty of discrimination with respect or one principle with respect to a school lunch program, for example in the high school with this there with this law authorized there after some department here in Washington, to cut off the whole school lunch program for the whole state of Florida, that most assuredly would if the bureaucrat decided that that was the area that should be encompassed in the section from which federal benefits would be withdrawn there's never been any such a complete application of legislative responsibility and delegation of legislative power.

As this bill provides in this section, we leave it up to the bureaucrat to decide in the first place where there's been discrimination without any definition of what discrimination amounts to and then to extend to the limits of the area from which federal benefits will be withdrawn.

Hitler and his our greatest I was never had any more sweeping power than we undertaken to give to the bureaucrats in dealing with federal programs why they can go back and appeal any act of Congress, for example, the Land Grant College assistance program they see fit.

And the Congress would then have to repack reenact it again over the veto of the president, presumably presumably at requiring a two thirds vote. It's an admission everybody votes for it, that the Congress is a useless appendage in our modern day government and should be abolished Well, if it's as bad as you say it is, and I think it is, I share your beliefs on it.

Why would it not be unconstitutional? Well, it would be unconstitutional if, well, I don't like to say this. But if we had a court that had any familiarity with the Constitution, But of course the present Supreme Court has not. He did the specific mandates of the Constitution, the attempt amendment reserving to the states and to the people.

All the powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution is not a part of that documents part as far as they present Supreme Court is concerned. The rule of stare decisis says Never word them. They, uh, we're told that the Brown case is now part of the Constitution that is the integrating schools and that we must see to it and how people are so they don't like it.

But when it comes to this public accommodation section, the same Supreme Court for different judges decided in 1883 that the Congress did not have the authority to force one man to do business with another if he didn't wish to. But they'll undertaking to overturn that by just by a simple statue that's not a part of this constitution, because it's too old.

It came along before they Supreme Court consulted psychologists and free knowledge ists and psychiatrists and crystal ball gazers and everybody else before taking to make a decision that vitally affects their lives and welfare. The American people Let me said to you, son, this mouth is that if we had a court composed of lawyers the statute of, uh, Chief Justice Taft and BRANDEIS and the Stone men of that statute this bill wouldn't wear me one moment.

I would let it pass because I'd know the Supreme Court would strike it down. And they would do it with a scathing review to all the members of the Congress who had voted to Bill that was so offensive to our system of government. Now, Senator Russell, as the leader of the anti civil rights so called civil rights legislation, what is your judgment as to whether or not this bill will finally, uh, the past?

Well, I would be less than Frank if I did not say that the drums propaganda have been beaten so loudly and so long in behalf of this bill has been painted as a great moral issue. Uh, thousands of people are supporting it because of the label that it backs of civil rights without ever having read it and seeing the impact it has on their own lives.

If we can get the contents of this bill and its back across to the American people, we will defeat it. But if it is continues to proceed under this furious title with all of the agencies of propaganda and dissemination of use news behind it, we have the fight of our lives.

All right. Thank you very much. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for listening. And I hope you're listening again at the same time next week.