stricting full and free debate on the part of our United States Senators, whom we send to Washington for the purpose of representing us and maintaining a position on any measure which is in accordance with the views of the constituency they are representing. Thank you very much for this opportunity of presenting these views to the special subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Administration. Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Bundy. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Bundy, we appreciate your very fine state ment. The next hearing will be July 2, at 10 a. m. There are a number of insertions for the record. The first one is for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Mr. Biemiller, furnishing certain information I requested. (Inserted in the testimony of June 24, 1957, at p. 80.) Senator TALMADGE. The second is a petition from St. Louis, Mo. (See appendix, exhibit 4.) Senator TALMADGE. The third is a letter from the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. (See appendix, exhibit 2.) Senator TALMADGE. Here is an individual letter from Wheeling, W. Va. (See appendix, exhibit 3.) Senator TALMADGE. Next is a letter from the Banner Council, No. 67, of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, Inwood, Long Island, N. Y. (See appendix, exhibit 2.) Senator TALMADGE. We also have a statement to be printed in the record from Dean Clarence Manion of South Bend, Ind. (See appendix, exhibit 2.) Senator TALMADGE. That is all the insertions at this time. I believe that completes the hearing at this point. If you do not have anything to place in the record, we stand in adjournment until July 2, at 10 a. m. (Whereupon, at 1:25 p. m., the hearing adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, July 2, 1957, at 10 a. m.) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1957 UNITED STATES SENATE, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:45 a. m., in room 155, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman E. Talmadge (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Talmadge (presiding) and Javits. Also present: Langdon West, special counsel to the subcommittee; Darrell St. Claire, professional staff member; Robert S. McCain, professional staff member; and Sidney Kelley, Jr., administrative assist ant to Senator Javits. Senator TALMADGE. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness on the agenda is Mrs. John Howland Snow, president, National Association of Pro America, New Canaan, Conn. Mrs. Snow, please sit here and proceed when you are ready. STATEMENT OF MRS. JOHN HOWLAND SNOW, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO AMERICA, NEW CANAAN, CONN. Mrs. SNOW. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee hearing testimony on proposed amendments to Senate rule XXII, I am appearing here on behalf of the board of directors of the National Association of Pro America to oppose any amendment to Senate rule XXII which would limit floor debate. We oppose limitation of debate on any specific question or legislation except, as presently provided in the rules, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of the Senate. Our opposition is based upon principle, and not upon the anticipation of debate or vote upon any particular or specific legislation introduced or pending before either of the Houses of Congress. Insofar as my research has revealed, the United States Senate is the only deliberative legislative body in the world today which has unlimited debate, and the freedom of its Members to express views which may happen to be minority views with resultant opportunity for the sovereign people to become informed about legislation, gives our Senate one of its greatest strengths. It is this opportunity to prevent precipitous and not fully considered action which lends to our Senate the prestige it has gained for protecting each segment of our population at all times. Our Founding Fathers well knew that it was essential for us to have a body such as this Senate, and in contrast to our House of Representatives provided that its Members have longer tenure of office, a change of but one-third of its membership in each biennium, graver attitudes and, as a whole, longer experience while still being responsible to the electorate. This gave a balanced stability to our two Houses, and we believe that the full and unlimited debate, peculiar to this body, is a priceless factor in that balance and in that stability. And equally, it is important and necessary that this particular body have its rules so arranged that any impetuous or occasional hasty decision may be forestalled, and that should any Member of the Senate feel that if a proposed action were sufficiently understood, the vote would or could be different, he may with the consent of his colleagues explain and explore all the avenues and evidence to insure such understanding. Believing wholeheartedly in representative processes, we, the National Association of Pro America, hold firmly to the wisdom and principle of complete freedom of discussion, not to be limited unless and until two-thirds of the Senate agree that debate has been sufficiently prolonged and adequately informative that it should be terminated for the purpose of voting; and that no legislation, however much subjected to hearings or debate in its assigned committee, should be brought out on the floor with debate of 96 Senators "limited under the rule." This may be proper in another body, where the large membership alone requires procedures not consonant with a body composed of no more than two spokesmen for each State; the Senate must, we feel, guard its peculiar procedures, which if not retained, could come to make of it little more than a smaller, but second, House. We know, as the distinguished Senators know, that a majority is by no means always right; but we believe, as we are sure you believe, that an informed majority is usually right, and we are ready to see our country's destiny in the hands of an informed two-thirds membership of the Senate. The National Association of Pro America is more than willing on occasion to see the price paid, the time lag which must be the inevitable result, in order to preserve untrammeled the right of unrestricted debate which distinguishes the Senate of these United States from every other deliberative body in the world. There have been, and no doubt will be, abuses of this right of unlimited debate. We of Pro America recognize, as do you Members of the Senate, that there are disadvantages in free debate equally as there are disadvantages inherent in proposals of limited debate. We ask to point out, however, that the disadvantages inherent in limitation other than that presently in effect may include the element of danger, as well; and we think they do. The danger will be disavowed, on the ground that it would never eventuate. We believe, however, it to be a dictate of wisdom that policy should not be amended in such a way as to, by such alteration, establish a principle which may at some time unforeseen make possible a situation of "clear and present danger." The great beneficiary of free debate is the momentary minority. There is a minority opinion on any and every given question which may come before the Senate or before another body. The personnel of the minority changes with the matter under debate. And the opinions of the "unpopular minority" today may become the premises of "accepted majority" tomorrow. The right of free debate has been established for these natural and ever changing minorities. The balanced stability between the two Houses of Congress rests in great measure upon the right of unlimited debate which for so long has been a principle of the one. This principle is expressed in Senate rule XXII. Senator JAVITS. I thought Mrs. Snow might like to spread on the record the number of members, dues paying, however you would describe them, of the organization. Mrs. SNOW. I do not have the exact number of members. I have this statement which we have mimeographed giving the address and when it was founded. Its membership is composed of women interested in the field of politics and political education, and includes members of both large political parties and women who have never been members of any political party. Presently, its national office is in Connecticut because its office follows the president. Senator JAVITS. But you do not have the number of your members. Mrs. SNOW. I do not have that. It is in the neighborhood, Senator, of 7,500, I think. I am not sure of that because that is not my responsibility. Senator JAVITS. Thank you. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much for your fine statement, Mrs. Snow. We appreciate your being with us. Mr. Deutsch, Senator Long wanted to come down and present you, but apparently he has been detained, so we will proceed, if you are ready. STATEMENT OF EBERHARD P. DEUTSCH, ATTORNEY, Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I am Eberhard P. Deutsch, of New I completed my studies in law at the Tulane University of Louisiana at New Orleans in 1925, since which time I have been engaged in active practice in that city. I served for 212 years in the First World War, and for some 42 years in the second, following the end of which I served further as principal legal adviser to Gen. Mark W. Clark in the military administration of Austria, and as member and chairman of the Allied Military Legal Directorate governing that country. I am a member of the American Bar Association and of its standing committee on peace and law through United Nations. I am also a member of the Louisiana State and New Orleans bar associations; of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; a director of the American Judicature Society; a member of the Maritime Law Association, of the American Society of International Law, of the International Law Association, of the Selden Society, and of other organizations in the same and related fields. I was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States in the appeal of the vast Texas City disaster litigation, believed to have been the largest litigation in the history of the world. 3 |