A package of legislation called "The Civil Rights Act of
1963" now is pending in the United States Congress.
The title is a misnomer. This bill is but tM per cent
civil rights. The rest—90 per cent—is in extension of Fed
eral executive power created at the expense of individuals.
States, and municipalities. The bill is, in fact, the blueprint
for a controlled system of life; it would establish new princi
ples of law of drastic and far-reaching implications.
Consider the bill’s principal provisions;
Under the cloak of "Civil Rights"—if this bill becomes
law—the Federal government henceforth will dictate to whom
you may sell or rent your home.
If you are the proprietor of an establishment that offers
goods and services for use or hire—not just public accommo
dations (hotels, restaurants and such) but mf IlMll »wi»
that offers anything to the public-then, under tete «eJ,
business would be subject to Federal-Control.
In like manner, the bill coven aJI
contractors" in every program or activity where direct » m
direct financial aid is rendered by the government It win w
ply to yoo: If you borrow money from or deposit wwoy in 8
government-insured bank; if you haw an FHA, H Of Snw
Business Administration loan; if you are a realtor or developed
if you are a farmer who has financial dealings witl the farm
Credit Administration, the Commodity Credit Corporation, er
the Soil Conservation Service, or if you haw Federal crop
Insurance, or deal with the REA or participate in any agricul
tural program involving Federal funds.
EMPLOYERS & EMPLOYEES
Under this Act, all employers who participate in any 1
of these programs can be told by a Federal FEPC whom
they shall hire, fire, promote and demote, and how they
shall handle their employees.
Under this Act Federal inspectors would be empowered
to rule that racial or religious imbalance exists in a busi
ness. Thereafter, that business could not employ or pro
mote the people it might prefer but only such "racial” or
“neligious" individuals as the Federal inspector designated.
His ruling could require that “racial" or "religious” bal
ance be obtained and apply to all job classifications: to
common laborers, to skilled laborers, to the secretarial
staff, to supervisory employees and to vice presidents, all
alike. A Federal agency would be prosecutor, judge, jury
and executioner.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement of the Federal inspector’s findings would
be simple: failure to comply would mean the end of all
t participation in Federal programs. Your loan could be
called; you could be blacklisted for further loans from
banks or financial institutions insured by the government:
and you could be prevented from taking part in any
activity that had to do with Federal financing. In certain I
injunctive situations, an employer could be jailed without
the protection of a jury trial.
And that is only parr of it.
UNIONS
The bill goes on: In giving the Federel gorermr.,'nt
sew control over the hiring, firing, promot .1 r. demo.ing
and payment of employees, the Act also would give Fed
eral Commissioners new powers to destroy not only tie
seniority system of unions, but alio an employee's rights
within the company for which he works. Ttr> fr so be
cause the Act gives full and unlimited power Federal
inspectors to determine who shall be hired, pron.c'.ed, de
moted or fired, whenever a charge is mr.de that lacial
and/or religious imbalance (“discriminaticu”) exists.
•• •: v mmmmamm •-» . —
%
Momts
i .Nor h Co# oft. bill boldly seeks for the Justice
4 department wayreced.'ntod powers to gain Federal control
•I the electoral machinery.
In 1961. tho United States Commission on Civil Rights
recommended—contrary to express provisions in the Con
stitution—that tfie Federal government intpoae new con
trol over the qualification and registration of voters. "The
i. Civil Righto Act of 11)63" would implement these recom
mendations.
It follows. Coo, If this Act were mede law. a politically
minded Attorney General could go into an area where the
voting might bo «hn* and owing the election. See how R
would work: Tho luguago of the bill allow* the Attorney
General, at hit'own discretion, to file a “discrimination”
suit and, without proof of his allegation*, register tens
of-thousands of voter* The ballots, then, could be cut
and counted and the election won. even though the At
torney General's act’on, later, were determined by the
Courts to have beer »v;aiid.
AMD
S/VIALL DUSiNHSS
"The Civil Rights Act of 19C3” would also bring undbr
Federal control individuals and businesses never before
thought to l>e constitutionally subject 11 such regulations.
Under the bill's Title II, any person who pays a business
license to a State or municipality could be included.
Thus, the Act brings under Federal supervision almost
every profession and every business -lawyers, realtors,
small establishments, doctors, restaurants, gasoline sta
tions, theaters, hotels, motels and lodging houses. The
smallest “soda fountain” would be covered.
: - ■■■■.WTO'' SSJ-r.;;
EVERYONE !
A careful reading of .this Civil Rights Act of 19M. we
believe, will convince the impartial citlxen that the ad
ministration is here proposing, under aa emotional and
racist appeal to “civil rights,” to destroy age-old liberties
of the individual and to cast off constitutional restraints
upon Federal power. The bill would intiaaately and im
mediately affect every parent of sehool-age children, every
businessman, every professional man, every home-owner*
and every wage earner in the United Staten.
Many of the provisions of the Act. in ear view, violate
the Constitution of the United States. They arc also con
trary to existing decisions of.the Supreme Court of the
United States. But, no one can foretell what the 8upreme
Court would hold, if Congress were to make "a legislative
finding” in the areas mentioned—that is. If “The Civil
Rights Act of 1963 ' were passed by Congress.
d * >.
I SCHOOLS
P . Tht *!l1' even If this Act should become
law, between 100 and 200 statutes now in effect would !>e
Ip f4T^ridet1' i-'v<‘ryon* has dealings with Federal educa
tional programs, for instance. would be subject to new
requirements. Under the provisions of the Art th*
States Commissioner of Education eould lnfluenii ^
transfer of children from one achool to another_back and
forth—until racial balance and religious balance existed
l The correction of -racial imbalance” ia of such imo^r
tance to the sponsors that the phraae appears eight times
in a single brief section of the bill), P "*Bt 11
Under the authority proposed In connecUon with Fed.
financing, school lunch programs research
the building of schools, Hill-Burton' hoapitaU—dd !ui-h
eraf control"!1 °rKamzation* wou,d ** »»bject to new Fed
Hmmmmmmmm . ..
—..—.-.—. . "■ ■ •:-:-:---^^*Aa^^^«rfiiiwniiami
1 THE SO CALLED “SOFTENING AMENDMENTS” PROPOSED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNEDY DO NOT ACTUALLY
CHANGE THE EFFECTS OF THE BILL
V ,
If yaa da aat vraat sacb ceatrals ta apply ta yaa, if yaa
' da aat mat yoar persaaal liberties saatcbed frea yoa hi tbe
areas covered by tbe bin, if yaa vraat ta preserve liberty ai
der tbe taw, tbea write ta year Seaatars (both ef tbea) aad 1*
year Caapessaaa, today. Ut tbea, earaestly, ta veto acaiast
this leyislatiaa. Tell tbea tbe tratb, that N per ceat if “Tbe
Civil Rights Act it 1963” b act CbO Rights at all, hat Faltral
caatrai. Da thb aal yaa will stay this grab far pawer. Fail
te I. it an the legal faaalatba will hi tail fa the wart
malatbaary chain la aar ceaatry’s history. Yaa ban “ctoU
rights" tea. Pat thaw ta ase b a fght agaiast this hit!
The CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE for FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN FREEDOM
v Suit* S20 • 301 First Str*et, NE • Washington, D.C
, ,(wuiHIlift Murtulu 1«.. «U—. .10HMJ.aiHW.tlrtnm.ft. uncttr
»