Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Senator Keating, sir, these letters to which I have reference, the Republican National Committee offering their tacit support to the

move.

Senator KEATING. And that letter from Mr. Mitchell is the basis for your saying that the National Committee gave their tacit approval to what you were doing?

Mr. IRWIN. In part. Plus these other replies. And I have one more I would like to read, sir.

Senator KEATING. But the one you largely base it on is this one from Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. IRWIN. This letter would have to speak for itself, sir, and the words are there.

Senator KEATING. I am asking what the operation of your mind is. You said you had the tacit approval of the Republican National Committee. I want to know what it is based on.

Mr. IRWIN. I take for face value the statement, "I took this question up with some of the leaders of the Republican National Committee level and found that while everyone was in favor of the move," and the additional statements.

Senator KEATING. In favor of what move?

Mr. IRWIN. The topic in discussion, sir, was with reference to my telegram, the contents of which I read.

Senator KEATING. You mean in favor of the move for the Republican electors to vote against Mr. Nixon. Is that the way you interpret it?

Mr. IRWIN. NO. The Republican electors to exercise their constitutional duty in giving us exercising their constitutional duty, sir. Senator KEATING. In other words, voting as they saw fit.

Mr. IRWIN. For the good of our country, sir, parties notwithstanding.

I took for face value its further statement that

I was persuaded to go along with the decision of the Republican National Committee on the matter

the pointed question being a public statement releasing the electors from any moral obligation to support the Republican nominee. I took that for face granted.

I have a letter from John W. Tyler, Oklahoma.

DEAR HENRY: Upon my return yesterday I found your telegram at my home concerning the Oklahoma electors.

To begin with, the presidential electors are elected by the State at large and are legally under no obligation to follow any lead that I might suggest. As I have attempted to indicate to you in the past, I feel that the progress we have made politically in Oklahoma would be severely damaged by any statement that I would make suggesting that the electors be released from their moral obligations and considering that as of this time we have little chance of throwing the election into the House, which would be necessary before Byrd and Goldwater could possibly be elected.

If there is any change within the next few days, I would certainly make any statement that I felt would be effective.

Senator KEATING. Well, I am certainly glad that my colleague, Senator Tower, recognized the moral obligation of State of Oklahoma, and I commend him."

Mr. IRWIN. I did not so construe his letter, sir. That is John Tyler, T-v-l-e-r.

Senator KEATING. I beg your pardon.

Mr. IRWIN. Who is national committeeman.

Senator KEATING. Anyway, my comment goes for Mr. Tyler.

Mr. IRWIN. I offer these letters as the committee wishes to receive them.

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well. You have read them. We will keep the originals or photostats.

(The documents referred to are in the files of the subcommittee.) Senator KEFAUVER. I want to say what I think your assumption there, of any substantial part of the Republican leadership, the national committee, being willing to go along with such an idea, is pretty farfetched, and is not in my opinion sustained by what you have read.

Mr. IRWIN. Very well, sir. The point I would make is that they were all apprised of my activities and no one by letter to me or otherwise to my knowledge took exception to the possibility and desirability

of the success of such a coalition.

Senator KEFAUVER. You have read a number of letters and given names. The rule of this committee is, and I want the public to know, anybody whose name has been mentioned can send in a statement to the committee in explanation, or if they want to, come here personally and make any explanation or testify; we will welcome them immediately to do that.

Mr. IRWIN. My object was to relate the information I received, sir, and no further object in my mind.

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I concur completely with the Chairman's conclusion that there is nothing in any of these letters, including Mr. Mitchell's, that gave any justification whatever for the original statement of the witness that the Republican National Committee tacitly approved running out on Mr. Nixon. This has rarely occurred in our Nation's history-most electors have recognized the moral obligation, although under the Constitution the elector has a free choice of whom he will vote for. It may well be that we should make it a matter of law that the elector is required to vote, if we retain the electoral college, which, as you know, I am not very keen for, but if we do, in support of the choice of the people who elected him and should not arrogate to himself the choice of someone else for a candidate for President.

Mr. IRWIN. I have no objection to any interpretation which anyone wishes to place on the communications which I have just read. They need not necessarily agree with mine. It is perhaps significant that this has not happened many times before. It happened once when our Republic was quite a young Republic, in the election of George Washington. One elector declined to vote as he was expected to vote because he did not wish George Washington or anyone else to be elected by unanimous consent.

The second occasion occurred shortly after the Civil War when an elector from the South refused to support a Republican nominee and voted instead, I believe, Senator Kefauver, for one-it wasn't Beauregard but an equally influential family name from Tennessee. To my knowledge this is the third occasion. Perhaps when we are faced with a change in direction, shall we go this way or shall we go that way?

If I may continue, sir

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

Mr. IRWIN. November 22. On November 22 I wired Senator Goldwater's office as follows:

I am polling Republican electors for support of Byrd-Goldwater conservative coalition ticket. Over half replies indicate willingness but for moral obligation. Sufficient southern Democrats refuse to support Socialist Labor nominee to make plan workable. Would advance cause if Senator would state in speech tonight electors should feel no moral obligation and feel released from any moral obligation for good of country. Nixon used this in television debate. Please convey to Senator and urge incorporation.

To which the following reply was received:

Senator Goldwater on vacation. Unable to be contacted. He is not making any speech tonight.

December 13: I was apprised that the unpledged southern electors were meeting in Mississippi to choose their candidates. I wired the Governor of Mississippi that I believed sufficient votes available to elect a coalition ticket of Byrd-Goldwater. It was comforting to me and perhaps presumptive that the unpledged electors agreed to support Senator Byrd for President and declined to name a Vice President

at that time.

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I assume our colleagues, Senators Byrd and Goldwater, will also have an opportunity to appear here if they desire to do so in connection with their interests.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senators are always welcome and immediately recognized.

While we have a break-it is 1:25. Obviously, we are not going to be able to finish before lunch. About how much more of your testimony do you have?

Mr. IRWIN. I would say I have these three pages, sir, if I might continue.

Senator KEFAUVER. I know counsel has a number of questions to ask and Senator Keating will have some and I will have some. I believe it would be best that we finish up this afternoon.

Mr. IRWIN. Very well. As you wish.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess until 3 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 3 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator KEFAUVER. We will proceed now, Mr. Irwin.

TESTIMONY OF HENRY D. IRWIN-Resumed

Mr. IRWIN. Where was I, please? I believe I had advised the committee that I had sent a wire to Senator Goldwater.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.

Mr. IRWIN. And I read the reply from his office.

Senator KEFAUVER. For the information of the press and for the record, Senator Keating and I have discussed further the matter of the telegrams. The substance of the telegrams will be placed in the record, but they were sent to Mr. Irwin on his statement that they would be confidential. That, of course, does not bind us, but I do not think it serves any particularly useful purpose to reveal the names, so it is our decision not to do so. You go ahead, sir.

Mr. IRWIN. I was apprised that the unpledged southern electors were meeting in Mississippi to choose their candidates.

I wired the Governor of Mississippi that I believed sufficient votes available to elect a coalition ticket of Byrd-Goldwater.

It was comforting to me and, perhaps, presumptive, that the unpledged electors agreed to support Senator Byrd for President and declined to name a Vice President at that time.

On December 15 I wired each Republican elector as follows:

We must rise above false morals and petty politics. In the West Point tradition of duty, honor, country, there is never conflict. Poll indicates Kennedy 240, Nixon 28, conservative coalition 270. You must vote Byrd-Goldwater. The only written reply I received was from Albuquerque, N. Mex.: My vote is Byrd, President and Goldwater, Vice President.

Mrs. EARL L. MOULTON, Elector.

Prior to the election of the electoral college, it should be noted that although the State of Georgia went Democratic, that after Mr. Kennedy was nominated, the voters, by referendum, overwhelmingly voted to free their electors, and should they vote for Mr. Kennedy they would be going against a mandate of the citizens of Georgia. This they did December 15.

On this date the electors of Oklahoma had agreed to and did caucus in Bartlesville to consider the following resolution:

In view of the impossibility of electing Richard M. Nixon, President, and considering the fact that Senator Kennedy failed to obtain a majority of the popular vote cast, and in addition to the feeling that the Democratic platform and control of the Government by Socialist Labor bosses is a threat to our Republic, and because the success of a compromise conservative coalition appeared likely, the Oklahoma presidential electors met to consider their constitutional duty in choosing the next President of the United States.

After due consideration, we, the Oklahoma presidential electors, do hereby call on the National Republican Party leadership, each national committeeman and each State chairman, collectively and individually, to issue a public statement releasing their electors from any feeling of moral obligation to vote for the Republican nominee.

And, further, we call on all Democratic presidential electors, who fear for the future of our Republic under Socialist Labor bosses, to join with us in electing a conservative coalition President and Vice President.

And, further, we call on all presidential electors to discharge their duty to our country by voting for the conservative Coalition ticket of Harry F. Byrd for President and Barry Goldwater for Vice President.

I had previously determined by telephone that the resolution would carry. After caucus the following news release was issued:

The Oklahoma presidential electors, meeting in a minority, agreed to adjourn and reconvene in Oklahoma City at the call of the State chairman for the purpose of caucusing prior to the vote on Monday.

December 16: About the 8th of December the leaders of the Louisiana Legislature decided to call a meeting of the Southern Governors and southern Democratic presidential electors to discuss the election situation. The object was to force concessions from Mr. Kennedy in his presence, which he was unable to make, thereby freeing the electors to support the conservative coalition of Senators Byrd and Goldwater.

The Louisiana Legislature was to pass a resolution issuing the call on the 12th of December, and the call was to have been for Friday, December 16, 3 days before the electors were to meet. I had been

assured that there were sufficient votes in the legislature to pass this resolution.

The source of that information is a letter dated December 30 from R. Lea Harris which I would propose to insert.

Senator KEFAUVER. Let it be made a part of the record at this point. (The document referred to is as follows:)

RE RESURRECTION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE: (1) FUTURE PLANS (1964);
(2) POSTMORTEM (1960)

MONTGOMERY, ALA., December 30, 1960.

To the Many Friends of This Movement:

First, I wish to thank all the many wonderful people from all sections of America who worked and offered their assistance for this possible coalition movement. It is truly refreshing to know that there are so many citizens who would unselfishly work for the best interests of their country. Please consider this a personal letter in reply to your communications.

Important.-Let me assure each of you that your communication with me, either by letter or telephone, will be kept in the strictest confidence, as some may, for business or political reasons, prefer not to be known working for a coalition ticket or the elevation of the electoral college to its rightful position in the Constitution.

The world will never know exactly how close the southern electors came to upsetting Mr. Kennedy's election.

POSTMORTEM

You are entitled to know some of the inner workings of this "tug of war" for the southern electoral votes prior to December 19. So far as the public knows, not much was done, but in private there was a mass of activity by long-distance telephone, political maneuvers, and the like.

Louisiana. The key to the whole election lay completely in the hands of the Louisiana Legislature and Governor Davis, for if the Legislature of Louisiana, under the present circumstances and turmoil in New Orleans, had called this southwide meeting in Baton Rouge of presidential electors and southern Governors, it would have been political suicide for the southern Governors to have refused to attend. I was in direct contact with influential members of the Louisiana Legislature. About the 8th of December, the leaders of the Louisiana Legislature decided to call this southwide meeting of southern Governors and presidential electors to discuss politics in general. The Louisiana Legislature was to pass a resolution issuing the call on the 12th of December, and the call was to have been for Friday, December 16, 3 days before the electoral college was to meet. I asked them if they had the sufficient votes in the legislature to pass this resolution and they replied that they had more than enough. However. between the 8th and the 12th, there was "a sharp reversal" in the legislature. Had the legislature proceeded to call this southwide meeting, southern Governors such as Alabama's Patterson, Georgia's Vandiver, South Carolina's Hollings, North Carolina's Hodges, Arkansas' Faubus, and Texas' Daniels would have had no alternative but to accept this invitation to meet and talk. With even half this delegation at the meeting, Senator Kennedy would have had no alternative but to have attended or forfeit his victory in the electoral college. Had he come, Kennedy would have had to agree to (1) eliminate the present sizable foreign aid we presently give to the Communist economy; (2) adhere to the spirit of the 10th amendinent; (3) appoint one of these southern Governors Attorney General.

This southwide meeting could have changed the entire course of the election regardless of what was later done in Illinois or Texas. From all the reports I had from Louisiana, on Thursday, December 8, I was supremely confident that this meeting would materialize and I further knew that from the interest in the Southern States, this meeting would unquestionably be a great success, and I was making my plans to go to Baton Rouge. My fine friends in Louisiana and I were keenly disappointed when the "reversal" took place. I do not know the reason for the reversal and probably will never know. If any deals or compromises were made with Mr. Kennedy, I feel these compromises would be more effective if they had been announced to the public.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »