Civil Rights Giving Kennedy His Biggest Political Fight

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30176, 6 July 1963, Page 11

Civil Rights Giving Kennedy His Biggest Political Fight

[Specially written for the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER] WASHINGTON, July 4. The President is back from his European tour and the civil rights fight is on. This is the biggest political fight John F. Kennedy has ever engaged in. His reputation and prestige are at stake, and so are peace and order in the United States.

The outcome of the civil rights fight will have important effects on the Presidency of Mr Kennedy and the fight and the outcome will help to carve out the niche in history which Mr Kennedy eventually will fill.

Those Liberals who have criticised the President for not being progressive enough during the first two years and a half of his term are behind him. He is now definitely on the progressive side with civil rights and social legislation and by taking that stand he has solidified the opposition in his own party and the Republican Party. But a strange temper is arising in the country and before long the President may

be echoing the words: “I can take care of my enemies, but God save me from my friends.” Some negro leaders are saying loudly thait neither the President nor the AttorneyGeneral are fully aware of the problem that faces the country, that what is being suggested does not go half far enough. There is an attitude in some negro circles best summed up in the words: “Shut up white man, and listen." There are white officials who feel so strongly about the issue that their attitude is whites must be colour conscious, not colour blind Redressing Past Wrongs By this, they explain, they mean that when it comes to hiring w’orkers the employer should consciously seek to hire far more than a propor-

tionate number of negroes in order to try to redress the wrongs that have been wrought against the negro during the century since the emancipation proclamation. Cool heads think none of these things are going to help the Administration to get civil rights laws, which have the South up in arms. The “public accommodations” provision which, if passed, would make it impossible for anyone in private business to refuse entry or service to anyone, is being attacked as an unlawful invasion of personal rights and liberties. There are two routes to "public accommodations” aims by the Administration, the inter-State commerce clause of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The Administration is using both routes.

The inter-State commerce clause gives Congress the “power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Potent Clause This mild-sounding phrase has became in course of time one of the most potent in the entire Constitution, for it has been so interpreted as to permit the Federal Government to exercise broad influence over the country’s economy. It started 140 years ago when Chief Justice John Marshall rule that it gave Congress power to regulate, “that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.” Under this ruling Congress hag passed laws concerning child labour, trusts, labour, securities, minimum wages and the regulation of industry. The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War. forbids States to use their powers to discriminate against individuals and practically all Federal action concerning racial discrimination is taken under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Eighty years ago Congress sought to strengthen the Amendment with a law which made it a crime for any person to deny another “the full and equal enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theatres and other places of amusement.” Ways Round Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled, this unconstitutional because the amendment said "no State shall" and the 1883 law said “no person shall.” This Supreme Court decision has never been reversed, but

ways round it have been found quite recently. Courts have been finding more and more State action imbedded in the activities of private business; they have found private citizens acting in conformity with State laws. In the fight for “public accommodation” provisions, the Administration seems to be basing its stand on English common law, which imposed special obligations on innkeepers and common carriers to serve the public. Thus the bill as drawn would permit the Attorney-General to bring suit against business establishments on behalf of individuals who claimed they had been discriminated against because of race.

The businessman concerned would not be subject to penalty unless he refused to obey any Court order that came out of such action. A businessman could still turn away customers for other reasons which are established by law. Wide Scope of Bill It is clear that the bill as drawn would cover hotels, motels, cinemas, athletic meetings and other things clearly based on inter-State commerce, but the bill also seeks to include retailers, petrol stations, restaurants and other public places open to business to a “substantial degree” to inter-State travel-

lers or which stock goods that have moved in inter-State commerce.

Small businessmen everywhere seem to be objecting to the phrase “to a substantial degree,” which is obviously open to wide and varying interpretation. In the South, in particular, this section of the bill has aroused intense resentment and bitter anger. Southerners feel it would be used to horse-whip them into accepting any and all customers regardless of their condition or purpose.

It, is on this provision that the Southerners in Congress will stage their filibuster. Judging by the sentiment of legislators outside the South it will be hard and probably impossible for Administration forces to gather enough votes for closure to break such a filibuster.