not have a road but 5 of us decided the opposite, I think the 15 who represent the majority should prevail. Now, there are certain rights which individuals have and which need protecting. The President as a check on Congress, or Congress as a check on the President, and the country as a check on either or both, I believe, are sufficient to give the rights which he has coming to him if democracy is working. I will grant you, democracy is not working, and I do not think that simply eliminating the cloture is going to make democracy work. I think it is only one of the few steps which will help it work. Senator HAYDEN. There is no question but what the whole political life of Senator La Follette was primarily devoted to fighting what is known as big business, monopolies, and great concentrations of wealth. He realized that those groups of men who control great wealth exercised great influence on the Senate and he believed that, as a champion of the people, he would be in a much better position to defend the common man by having the unrestricted right to talk against legislation which he considered to be wrong. For that reason, based upon a long legislative experience, he expressed the views that I have read to you. The remarks that I have quoted were made back in 1917. Organized labor supported him throughout the United States when he ran for the Presidency in 1924. His views on cloture were not held against him at all. I know that in my own State, when he was a candidate for President, the result was that Mr. Coolidge received about 30,000 votes, Mr. Davis received about 24,000, and Senator La Follette about 17,000. I argued in vain with the workers in Arizona in 1924 that they were throwing their votes away by supporting Senator La Follette instead of Mr. Davis, but, as elsewhere throughout the Nation, his principal following was organized labor as voters who believed in his progressive ideas. The Senator was firmly convinced that it would be a terrific mistake if cloture prevailed in the Senate because it would prevent him, and others like him, from protecting the worker and the common man as against the influences of greath wealth. Mr. HADDOCK. Senator Hayden, I will agree, as I think most Americans will, that Senator La Follette was one of the most outstanding Senators that has ever sat in the Senate. I personally disagree with his point of view on cloture. Perhaps at that time, I do not know; I was not politically conscious, I will say, back in 1917, so that I do not know what all of the forces were. Certainly, there have to be, in my opinion, definite checks against control of our political, social, and economic life by monopolies. I would agree with Senator La Follette that the organized trade-union movement is the only organized force in our country to counteract the force of monopoly in attempting to take over the political, social, and economic life. His efforts in strengthening the trade-unions were, I think-if you will read some of his histories and biographies-definitely angled for that one thing. Senator HAYDEN. You speak for the CIO Maritime Union. You well know that nobody ever rendered any such service to the workers represented by your organization as was rendered by Senator La Follette. Mr. HADDOCK. He came closer than any other man or group of men to freeing maritime workers from abject slavery, so we know him as a real friend. He did a real service to the merchant marine and the men who do the work in it. I wish we had a few men like him, although I do disagree with him on the idea that one man preventing a group of Senators, 96, from voting upon a question is not what I call democracy, and that is what this one thing is aimed at. In your questioning, Senator, you indicated that the CIO's primary interest in the elimination of this cloture rule was the poll tax. I want to be sure that that is corrected. As far as I am concerned, if the poll tax were the only question which the filibuster would ever kill in this country, I would say forget about it. I do not think it is that important. I think there are many more questions which will arise before this great body that will be far more important than the poll tax, although that is another important step among many which, in my opinion, needs to be taken if we are to have a real political democracy in our country. Senator HAYDEN. That is all. Senator IVES. Well, Mr. Haddock, before you leave, I think you will agree, will you not, that majorities are not always right? Mr. HADDOCK. I certainly will. The majority frequently makes errors. Senator IVES. I think you will agree also that that very recognition by the founders of our country was undoubtedly the thing above all else which occasioned the checks and balances which were placed in our Government by the Constitution of the United States. Mr. HADDOCK. Not only that, I think our founding fathers realized that the dignity of the individual was the one test which could determine whether or not a nation could live and that the dignity of the individual up to that time had been systematically set aside for the propertied class or owners. In other words, it was property against the individual up until that time. Recognizing that and recognizing that the majority could be wrong, they certainly wanted to establish these balances and checks. Senator IVES. I take it you are satisfied that there should be those checks and balances? I want to get you back here on the track before you leave. Mr. HADDOCK. Yes. Senator IVES. You have no quarrel with the checks and balances in the Constitution of the United States? Mr. HADDOCK. I think there should definitely be checks and balances. Whether these are correct I do not know; I have not gone into them. As a matter of fact, this is the first time that I have ever given any serious thought to whether or not these checks and balances were all correct, one in relation to the other. Senator IVES. Well, they worked pretty well over 150 years? Senator IVES. All right. Then, the criticism which you are raising is not with respect to anything of that kind. It is with respect to a procedure in the United States Senate which is something outside the Constitution and outside of any constitutional restriction or limitation, something which slows things up even more above and beyond that which was contemplated by the founders of the country; is that it? Mr. HADDOCK. Not only slows things up, but takes away that real dignity of the individual which our Constitution is supposed to protect, or prevents him from having the dignity which he is supposed to have. Senator IVES. There is not an analogy, is there, between the philosophy between the checks and balances and another situation such as we face in the United States Senate where the Senate imposes upon itself certain additional restrictions to retard the restriction of legislation? Mr. HADDOCK. I do not think there is. Senator IVES. I think that line should be drawn very definitely. Mr. HADDOCK. I might say the Senate does not only draw these restrictions on themselves, they draw those restrictions on the people whom they represent. Senator IVES. Well, let us leave out the people in this. Is there anything further? Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you. Senator IVES. Who else wants to be heard this afternoon? At 2:30 next Tuesday, February 11, the committee will meet again for the purpose of what we hope will be the final hearing on this subject, at which will appear those who are opposed to the legislation which would eliminate the filibuster or is intended to eliminate the filibuster. (Whereupon, at 4:20 p. m. an adjournment was taken until 2:30 p. m., Tuesday, February 11, 1947.) AMENDING SENATE RULE RELATING TO CLOTURE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met pursuant to recess at 2:30 p. m., in room 104-B, Senate Office Building, Senator Kenneth S. Wherry (chairman), presiding (later). Present: Senators Wherry (chairman), and Ives. Also present: Senators Knowland, Connally, Overton, Byrd, and Holland. Senator IVES. The committee will be in order. There have been received the following telegrams and letter with attached statement, all in favor of one or several of the resolutions before us. (1) Telegram from Earl B. Dickerson, president of the National Bar Association, dated February 7, 1947. (2) Telegram from Arthur Garfield Hays, general counsel, and Roger Baldwin, director of American Civil Liberties Union, dated February 6, 1947. (3) Telegram from A. Philip Randolph, representing the officers and members of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, dated February 6, 1947. (4) Telegram from Frank L. Stanley, president of Negro Newspaper Publishers Association, dated February 10, 1947. (5) Letter from Anna L. Strans, president of the League of Women Voters, enclosing a statement of that organization. Unless there is objection, the above four telegrams and statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The telegrams and statement referred to are as follows:) Hon. KENNETH S. WHERRY, [Telegram] CHICAGO, ILL., February 7, 1947. Chairman, Subcommittee on Antifilibuster Resolutions, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: In my capacity as president of the National Bar Association, an organization composed of approximately 2,000 members of the bar covering all the States of the Union, and as a private citizens interested in the improvement of our Government processes, I urge you to exercise your personal influence to secure favorable action by your Subcommittee on the Antifilibuster Resolutions of the United States Senate. In the past it has always been a source of consternation to me to observe the tactics with which a pernicious minority abuses the fundamental principles of free speech, and makes the floor of the United States Senate an arena for the prostitution of one of the most fundamental concepts in our democracy. The policy of the National Bar Association as reiterated at its convention in Detroit, 1946, is to contribute its influence to abolition of the technique of the filibuster in the United States Senate. Past history has shown that the filibuster has been used by a willful minority to defeat progressive and needed legislation. The unfavorable reflection which is cast by this abuse of the power of free speech falls more on the majority that tolerates it than on the minority that use it as a last resort to avoid defeat of their own point of view. It is with these thoughts in mind that I ask you to lend your influence to obtain favorable passage of the resolutions abolishing the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. I respectfully ask that this telegram be made a part of the official record of your subcommittee. [Telegram] EARL B. DICKERSON. Senator KENNETH S. WHERRY. NEW YORK, N. Y., February 6, 1947. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: As chairman of subcommittee considering resolutions to amend Senate rules to stop filibusters we trust that a favorable report will be made to insure majority control of debate and disciplinary action against obstructionists. While we support as a great attribute of democracy the Senate's freedom of debate its abuses obviously should be curbed in the public interest. The present rules clearly are opposed to democratic principles. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: In the name of the officers and members of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters I wish to urge strongly favorable report of antifilibuster resolution. The filibuster is a totalitarian instrument which nullifies our American democratic process and is as much a menace to American democracy as Hitler was to world peace. May I request that this telegram be made a part of the official record. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH. [Telegram] LOUISVILLE, KY., February 10, 1947. Senator KENNETH S. WHERRY, Washington, D. C.: True democracy will never be attained so long as a few can stifle progressive legislation through unlimited filibustering. Truly representative government will be possible only when the entire filibuster resolution is favorably passed. Respectfully urge you and all other progressive representatives of the American people to end the filibuster menace now. Kindly make this telegram a part of the official record. FRANK L. STANLEY, President, Negro Newspaper Publishers' Association. |
