00:00:13.140 - 00:00:31.160

on today's report from Washington, Senator Smathers discusses domestic and foreign problems of interest to the people of Florida and the nation. Now here is the first question. Well, Senator Smathers first, I'd like to have your comment on your reaction on Governor Wallace is showing in Wisconsin that surprised many.

00:00:31.840 - 00:00:52.750

I would say that it is a surprise. Secondly, I would say that it demonstrates clearly that the people are beginning to understand how really bad this so called Civil rights bill is. I think they're beginning to understand that it interferes with cherished and long established constitutional rights of the majority.

00:00:53.340 - 00:01:16.850

I think they're beginning to see that what this bill really seeks to do is to give superior rights to a minority group of citizens under the name of equal rights. I think that they're beginning to thoroughly understand that it would set up in the federal government bureaucracy, which would have control over the business decisions of all businessmen, be they large or small.

00:01:17.440 - 00:01:39.360

I think they're beginning to understand that it takes away from the right of people their right of choosing what neighborhood they want to live in, possibly because they want their Children to go to school in a neighborhood school, and under this bill they're beginning to understand that there are provisions which permit bussing and would allow busing of students from one section to another.

00:01:40.010 - 00:02:04.240

I think that had had the election going on or had the campaign going on for another two weeks, Governor Wallace would have got even a larger percentage of the vote. I cannot help but think that the more this bill is being discussed, the more that people are coming to realize that it is a very dangerous bill, a far reaching bill, a bill which strikes at the very foundations of our democratic society Now.

00:02:04.250 - 00:02:21.560

Originally, we understood F PPC as being a fair employment practices commission. Now they have a new title for it. But it's the same thing, isn't it? It's exactly the same thing they call it Title seven. They go the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, but it's still an f e p C.

00:02:22.040 - 00:02:44.990

And while it's true that some states I think they're 25 states today which have an FTP see bill and some of them are even stronger as I have argued on the Senate floor many times, what they seek to get away from is discrimination. And yet, in the states where they have the most discrimination, for example, in New York and Illinois, they have the most segregation.

00:02:44.990 - 00:03:08.650

Even the Civil Rights Commission, the civil rights. The commission itself for 1959 stated that the two most segregated cities in the United States were New York and Chicago. They have more laws against those things there than they do anywhere else, and I think it's pretty well demonstrates that you can put a lot of laws on the books, but you don't change people's hearts or minds.

00:03:09.340 - 00:03:37.060

This F E P. C. Is a very dangerous thing. They have the state law and Illinois and a Motorola company here. Not long ago, some people applied for a job there. The F. P. C examiner ruled that the Motorola company had been discriminatory toward a Negro citizen, and because the questions were unfair, that did not take into consideration that this man came from a culturally deprived area.

00:03:37.680 - 00:03:54.750

Secondly, the BBC rule that he came from a disadvantaged groups well, when they begin to look into that kind of a basis as to whether or not a man should be hired or fired. It takes away from the employer the right to his higher man solely on the basis of ability.

00:03:55.540 - 00:04:22.410

And there should be no discrimination against anybody. It should be on ability. But when he has to begin to consider whether or not a man comes from a culturally deprived area or a disadvantaged groups, and then he's going to have to hire a full time psychoanalyst and sociologist in order to work on his payroll in order to determine who when they come before him, whether or not it is a fair examination.

00:04:22.410 - 00:04:45.150

This is so far reaching and it ought to be done away. Does this F PPC regulation deprived the union of having any say as to whom they shall work with this? It destroys seniority with respect to unions. They have grown up over the years developing a fine seniority system, and the unions have done exceptionally well with respect to giving to those men who were entitled to work work.

00:04:45.160 - 00:05:09.320

But this f e p C law will destroy that seniority system within the unions. Thank you very much, Senator Smathers, I'll return you now to your station announcer. Senators matters I'd like to ask you about title to which covered his public accommodation. How do you feel about that?

00:05:09.320 - 00:05:45.280

Are you as strong on that as you are against the? I think I'm against that, too, because very frankly, let me put it this way. I'm against discrimination, and I'm against legal segregate. That is where the law says there's got to be segregation. But I am not for saying to a man who builds his own business that he cannot in fact do with this business what he wants to do it if he wants to go broke, if he wants to serve only redheaded people, if he wants to do whatever it is he wants to do, whether he's right or wrong.

00:05:45.290 - 00:05:59.750

I think it's a basic, fundamental American tradition that he had the right even to be wrong, that he had the right even to make a mistake. If it's with his own money and in his own interest, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, as long as it does hurt anybody out.

00:06:00.340 - 00:06:17.310

Now, as as I have said previously on this matter, I don't think it's a case of property rights and rights versus human rights. I think it's all human rights. It's whether or not the human being has a right to own property and they're after owning property.

00:06:17.310 - 00:06:34.460

Does he have a right to do with it? What he wants to do now, as far as the moral issue of it is concerned, I cannot help but agree with those people who say that if you're going to morally advertise, I mean, you're not morally, but you're going to commercially advertise that you want everybody to stop and stay at your place.

00:06:34.840 - 00:06:57.540

I don't really believe that you more as a moral issue that you should then say Wait a minute, I didn't mean you and I didn't mean you and I didn't mean somebody else Unless you put that in your sign now, therefore, I think it's it's a moral issue, and this is the way it should be answered through teaching, through understanding through biracial committee through things of that character.

00:06:57.540 - 00:07:19.520

But legally, I don't think that we have a right in the Congress just take to interfere with the use of a man's property. Even under a strained interpretation, the commerce clause to say to that man that he's got to give, use his property or give to people certain rights that he doesn't want to give to him.

00:07:19.520 - 00:07:36.470

I think actually the 13th Amendment is a is an injunction against involuntary servitude. Now there are some barbers who have, who have said they don't want to cut the hair of certain. Puerto Ricans will say there are certain barbers who said, We don't want to cut the hair of of Negro citizens.

00:07:36.470 - 00:07:54.250

I presume there's hurting barbers who say that they don't want to cut anybody but women's hair. And so they've got They have a right, I think, to do it now to make them do it on the basis that they're sort of an interstate. Commerce requires a man to give his personal attention and labor to something that he doesn't want to do.

00:07:54.640 - 00:08:11.960

And you either say you can. You've got to do it under this law or you've got to go out of business. And so you take a man who has grown up and been trained to be a barber, for example, And yeah, this is the way he makes his livelihood, and you're going to say you've got to serve all of these people, irrespective of what your own wishes are.

00:08:12.340 - 00:08:31.870

I think it's contrary to the Constitution. I think the weakness of the is even admitted in the bill, where they say that if public accommodations will not include, as far as entrenches are concerned, they describe anybody. Entrenchment is commerce, and everybody would agree. But they don't say how long.

00:08:32.300 - 00:08:47.390

My sons, they go to school in states other than this, and they just live up there temporarily. But they stay there three or four months. I don't know whether they're considered intransigence or not. But in any event, that's not very clear as to what the bill really means of what they actually intend.

00:08:47.400 - 00:09:03.250

Further than that, they say that Mrs Murphy, if she has her own boarding house and she lives in it and has less than five rooms to rent, then she doesn't apply to her Well, if the principle is right, if they're right in the first instance, it ought applied to Miss Murphy.

00:09:03.640 - 00:09:35.490

Whether she's got one room or whether she's got 50 rooms, there's no logical or legal basis and drawing a distinction. So I think the whole thing is about what it is actually they're trying to accomplish is a sociological goal, which can only be accomplished, as I have many times said through education, through better understanding, through biracial committees and through the appreciation on the part of everyone that we're all American citizens and that we should, where we should try not to hold in our hearts.

00:09:35.490 - 00:09:53.060

And our minds are feeling that any one group is superior to another group because, after all, nobody chose the color to which they wanted to be born or to religion into which they wanted to be born or anything of that character. We're all here as the brotherhood of man, and we should so respect that.

00:09:53.120 - 00:10:12.060

Does the increasing support from the Republican side of the aisle, as evidenced by the minority leader, indicate they might continue to support your side of the story? Well, they are for a public accommodations bill, but they want to amend it and drive many material respects. And I think possibly they will be successful in doing that.

00:10:12.540 - 00:10:25.440

Thank you very much, Senator George Smathers, until next week I return you to your station announcer. Yeah,