Here in such a vital, fundamental function as passing on who shall be State electors, the resolution before this committee would just sweep away a valuable State prerogative. It is ironical to me that the very States which created the United States of America, this Government which has risen in such short time to assume responsibilities ande powers in world leadership, that those States who are the mothers and crators of this Nation should find themselves so forgotten and so trod upon and spurned and under attack here. Even though it is by legal method, it is an assault upon the States themselves and their reserved privileges.

As I say, I just think about it in comparing our own States with new states throughout the world, all these new states and small states and weaker states throughout Asia, the Middle East, Africa, or anywhere else. They are given more consideration-there is nobody here trying to take any of their powers away; we are trying to help them, strengthen them. We send them aid, we have given them all kinds of privileges in the United Nations, we have given them a Peace Corps, we are giving them technicians. And at the same time we are sponsoring matters here that cut the jugular vein of the States of the United States on fundamental reserve powers.

I just cannot reconcile the two approaches on these two matters; even though I say this is a legal method, a legal way of going at it, it nevertheless strikes at the very vitals of States' powers.

Senator KEATING. It would be difficult for us in an amendment to the Constitution to take any rights away from these other smaller nations in the United Nations; would it not?

Senator STENNIS. I know, we would not have any jurisdiction. But I say the attitude, the approach, is different. It is to help them with their problems and encourage them and give them United Nations membership. And we are a bountiful Nation and generous with them, whereas with our own States the trend is to cut them down and hit at their vitals.

Senator KEATING. It is difficult for me to understand, Senator, how the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Holland, the chief sponsor of this amendment, would have the attitude of cutting at the vitals of our States. That would be out of keeping with his record on other issues.

Senator STENNIS. Well, I make no reference to any sponsor-any man's name that is on the resolution. But this is a practical matter and a matter of judgment. Sometimes we are swept away by our own argument.

Senator KEATING. But the Senator is contending that we are taking the vitals out of the States.

Senator STENNIS. Yes, sir.

Senator KEATING. That we are trying to attack certain States. Senator STENNIS. I say that with emphasis. And I say this with great humility.

I think that my lifelong years in Mississippi, along with 30 years of public experience and responsibility, qualify me at least as well to know what is vital and what is reasonable there and what is best, certainly as well as the Senator from Florida. And I speak on my own responsibility as a U.S. Senator, I am not making a comparison with him. You are making the comparison. But I do not know that he

has ever been in Mississippi. I hope he has. But he certainly does not speak for our problems in this matter. And I have told him so. And he understands my attitude.

Senator KEATING. The Senator realizes that there did come a time when we decided that States should not be permitted to disenfranchise women, and we did pass a constitutional amendment with regard to that.

Senator STENNIS. That is correct.

That was more in the nature, though, of creating a new group and extending to it this privilege.

Senator KEATING. The women are a pretty old group; they have been with us for a long time.

Senator STENNIS. I mean creating a new group that was eligible to exercise this privilege.

You were a little quick on the last there, and I was slow in talking. We were creating a new group of people eligible for this privilege. And that is quite a distinction here from an affirmative act of that kind and the sweeping away of a regulation.

I explained before the Senator from New York came in that the practical effect of this poll tax is merely a regulation, and a very, very reasonable one, of keeping a list of those that are qualified to exercise this privilege of the franchise.

Now, in the first place, some token of contribution to the Government is mighty good evidence of good citizenship, and of attending to it and being willing to is a part of it.

Another is, as I said after you came in, the identity of the person. And we use this list with reference to jurors, a responsibility under our Government. We start with the list in my State, and I think many States have additional qualifications. But the poll tax is a token of responsibility, a token of meeting the requirements of citizenship.

Senator KEATING. How much is the poll tax in Mississippi? Senator STENNIS. $2 in my State. I recited this in the beginning. Two dollars. It does not apply to those who are 60 or above. It does not apply to a person voting in his 21st year. But then it does apply to all alike without any exception but for certain disabled ones. Senator KEFAUVER. I have the Mississippi constitution here.

Senator STENNIS. There are a few exceptions in the constitution. Senator KEFAUVER. It is people who are deaf and dumb or blind or maimed by the loss of a hand or foot. It is also expressed that it is not cumulative more than 1 year.

Senator STENNIS. If a person is off the list, say, for 10 years, he would not have to pay the back taxes beyond $4.

Senator KEATING. In other words, in order to get onto the list, if they were more than 2 years in arrears, they would only have to pay for 2 years?

Senator STENNIS. That is right.

Now, as I said, I do not know whether the Senator was here or not, the people bring poll tax receipts with them. When one votes in an election it is stamped on the back of the tax receipt.

Gentlemen, I ask you to consider this matter just on the merits. There are several names on this resolution. I do not know to what extent, but I know it was circulated on the floor of the Senate, just like one would circulate a resolution to honor Mr. X or the like. 'Ånd I think it was thought at that time that it was being sponsored by

Senator Mansfield. I do not know just how far that went. I mentioned it to him and we talked about it in the early part of the session. But this proposal is cutting at the very vitals of a fundamental principle expressly reserved to the States.

As I have said, there is no nation in the world in which we would try to regulate and control their internal affairs. And I ask you not to do this to these States of the United States.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator, you are talking about nations. Is it applicable to talk about nations in the United States, for instance, as distinguished from states of those nations?

Senator STENNIS. States of those nations; you mean states within the nation?

Senator KEFAUVER. I mean, you were talking about states in the United Nations, as analogous to States of the United States.

Is not the difference that they are each a sovereign nation rather than just a state?

Senator STENNIS. Well, there is some difference there, of course. The States of the United States do not have complete sovereignity. They did have it; they gave up a portion of it. But they expressly reserved all other powers they did not give up.

Now, I say for the Federal Government to turn around and attempt to go into the reservoir of reserve powers, is not a small thing to do; it is a very serious thing to do. It is in effect an assault on the State itself.

As I said, we just would not think of turning upon our fellow members in the United Nations and attempting to restrict them in vital local matters whereas some rather glibly say, "We do not like the power this state has; take it away from them." And that is what this resolution does.

There is nothing unreasonable about the poll tax and there is no penalty connected with it. It is regulation of a privilege of exercising one of the most sacred rights in our form of government. And the practical operation of it is just that. It is a reasonable regulation.

Senator KEFAUVER. I do not know how it is in Mississippi, but in Tennessee when we had the poll tax it was quite true, as you said here, that more people probably-that more people were disenfranchised because they forgot to pay their tax than because of the financial burden.

Senator STENNIS. That happens sometimes.

Senator KEFAUVER. I noticed in the Mississippi Constitution that it is required to be paid on or before the 1st day of February; is that right?

Senator STENNIS. That is right.

Senator KEFAUVER. And then when are the primary elections? Senator STENNIS. The primaries for Federal offices are in June, and for Governor and county officers in August. All taxes are delinquent after the 1st of February, taxes for the preceding year.

Senator KEFAUVER. So when you go to pay your taxes you should pay them all?

Senator STENNIS. That is right. That was the original idea. But as a prerequisite for voting, only the payment of a poll tax applies. You could have land taxes, a tax on your automobile, or anything else and be delinquent in that, it would not affect your right to vote.

But February 1 was set as the day on which the books are closed for voting list purposes, you might say.

I want to mention one other thing.

I have heard it charged that some would pay the poll taxes of others, and use it as a means to control votes. And I suppose that does happen sometimes. But it is certainly not a general practice. It is not on a large scale. It was an abuse that, to whatever extent it was ever true, has gone on out with time. It is not the practice at all now.

Senator KEFAUVER. Is that legal to do?

Senator STENNIS. Well, it is not strictly illegal, but it is irregular. The idea behind it was that a fixer could go out and get up poll tax receipts and have 40 or 50 votes in his pockets. It just does not happen that way.

Those who pay the poll tax pay their own tax, and they are proud to have their poll tax receipts. The receipt is a badge of approval, of citizenship, and it is a passport for them, of course, in all elections, not just Federal elections.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Kirby, do you have any questions of Senator Stennis?

Mr. KIRBY. Just one or two brief questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Stennis, I notice that the constitution authorizes an increase of the tax by any counties to $3 for local school purposes. Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. KIRBY. Do you know of any county which has done that? Senator STENNIS. No, I am almost certain that no county has ever increased it beyond the $2.

Mr. KIRBY. I notice also the constitution provides that the delinquent poll tax is not enforceable by criminal proceedings. Is it a lien on land?

Senator STENNIS. I think not.

Of course, the other taxes are. But my recollection is that it is not a lien on anything. And it is for exercising the privilege. No one goes out and tries to force payment of it, not in my State. And I do not think there is any way to collect it at all. It is the person who decides whether or not to pay it. That is a good point.

Senator KEFAUVER. It says no criminal proceeding shall be allowed to force the payment.

Senator STENNIS. That is right, no proceeding of any kind against the person. It is up to him.

We have another regulation, I suppose most States have it, that you have to live a certain time in the district or county of the State.

I notice the discussions of that here in the new election law in the District of Columbia. It is another regulation, reasonable regulation of the privilege of voting.

Senator KEFAUVER. I am looking at the Mississippi constitution. The residence requirement is 2 years except for a minister of the gospel, and he is entitled to vote after 6 months' residence. I guess that would take care of the Methodists who have to move.

Senator STENNIS. I was going to say, I guess that is to take care of the Methodists and the presiding elders who have to move away. But those things have a good purpose; they are written in there by the hearts of the people as well as the minds.

Senator KEFAUVER. There must have been some Methodists at the Mississippi constitutional convention.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Well, I had an older brother who said that the people of the South owed more to the Methodist circuit riding preacher than any other person following the War between the States during reconstruction, that he ministered to the people, and preached to them, and prayed with them, he encouraged them and gave them hope more consistently than any other one. And he said that when the time came for him to move he seldom had enough money to pay the freight on his furniture to the next assignment. But, nevertheless, as a man of faith he kept trying.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much. You have made a very carefully prepared and reasonable statement.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you.

Senator KEFAUVER. That completes all of the witnesses for this session. We will, however, leave the record open for 5 days to receive any other statements or pertinent material from anyone who wishes to submit them.

We stand adjourned.