St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1944-05-26


reopening of the poll tax bat
tie by the Republican Party
this week through submission
of a constitutional amend
ment was being interpreted as po-
litical strategy to capture the Negro
vote and "steal the ball" from the
Democrats, Senator Wherry (R. of
Neb.), minority whip, told the
NNPA that "the action of the Re-
publicans was really voluntary" He
added, however, that from polit-
ical point of view, he thought it
"smart move" for the Republicans
to make, but that it did not come
about from that consideration. The
move has thrown a bombshell into
political ranks here.
Less than a week before, the SEN
ate killed the poll tax bill CHR y
by failure to adopt a motion for clo-
ture to limit debate. The vote was
A to So. Thirteen Republicans and
81 Democrats voted against cloture.
The proposed constitutional
amendment was introduced by Sen.
Wherry following meeting of the
Senate Republican Steering Com
mittee. His action was backed by a
petition signed by "a of the 81 Re-
publicans in the Senate. The COM
mittee decided to seek action at
once by the Judiciary Committee
and to fight for passage of the
measure this session.
Sen. Taft (R. of Ohio) told the
that he was sure the meas
ure would be favorably reported by
the Judiciary Committee. He point
ed out that some of the RepubH-
cans on the Committee had voted
against the constitutional amend
ment proposed by Sen. O'Mahoney
ID. of Wyo.) because they felt at
the time it was being used to defeat
HR z, but that they would go along
with the present amendment pro-
posal since HR z had been defeated.
Sen. Taft, when asked what
chance the constitutional amend
ment might have of adoption by
the states, said: "Our one doubt was
the possibility of getting it through
the states. But our feeling was that
we might get enough of the South
ern states to go through with it.
There are only 8 poll tax states;
and state like Florida, which has
abolished the poll tax, and North
Carolina, which has done the same,
and Tennessee where the people
voted against the poll tax, and the
border states like Kentucky, etc.,
might go along"
ut seems the most practical way
to get rid Of the poll tax" he said.
The National Committee to Abol-
ish the Poll Tax did not agree on
this point with Sen. Taft, however.
The Committee believes the consti-
tutional amendment method very
impractical because of the apparent
hopelessness of getting adoption by
three-fourths of the states. Thirteen
states failing to ratify the amend
ment would defeat it.
They point out that the three non
poll tax Southern states would I'M
doubtedly go along with the 8 poll
tax states. Then, they say, there
are the six New England states,
which are definitely identified with
the Estates rights bloc" That would
make IT states as possible oppon-
ents to the T a tiff C t ion of the
amendment.
The National Committee has ask
ed Sen. Mead to reintroduce HR 7
for consideration of the Senate.
They maintain that the maintenance
of a Republican form of govern
ment is a federal responsibility and
should not be shifted to the states.
Leaders of the Southern opposi-
ton to the recent House bill indi-
Gated they would oppose the resolu-
ton for constitutional amendment,
even though the Republican move
has deprived them of their chief ar
gument against passage of an anti
poll tax statute-the constitution
atty of the measure. Their only
method of opposition, of course, is
through a filibuster, or a threaten
ed one.
Sen. Wherry was reminded that
IL Republican Senators had voted
against cloture. He was asked if
their views on cloture could change,
in event of a fiibuster against the
new resolution.
He said that in as much as most
of the Republican minority had
signed the new resolution, he did
not see how they could fail to do
everything in their power to bring
it to a vote.
Sen. Taft told the NNPA that he
thought cloture would have better
chance in such an instance, though
he did not know whether it would
receive a two-thirds majority. He
pointed out that even if all the Re
pubicans had voted for cloture on
HR z, it would have failed Of adop-
ton. But he was sure a cloture vote
to limit debate on the constitutional
amendment would receive more Re
publican votes than was the case IN