Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-05-19
BY THOMAS C. JENNINGS, Jr.
Senator From Missouri

Senator From Missouri
Pending at the present time ia
congressional committees is legisla-
ton to authorize the Federal Gov
eminent to help American citizens
obtain. full enjoyment and use of
rights guaranteed, secured and pro-
tected by the Constitution Of the
United States.
One of the most precious VI these
is the right to vote, the very key
stone Of representative government.
There is national shame that some
Of our citizens today are excluded
from exercising their voting rights
solely because of their skin color
or race or national origin.
The legislation before us proposes
that the United States Government
be permitted to bring civil actions
to assist our citizens in the exercise
Of their rights.
Let's look at a few situations with
the voting process where the civil
remedy proposed could apply.
In a situation where there is
convincing evidence that an cleo
ton official Is about to remove the
names of qualified voters from the
registration books, the United States
could seek a restraining order from
the Federal Court in that district
to prevent this unlawful occurrence.
Or, where a registrar refuses to
register duly qualified potential
voters, the United States could seek
a courtNorder directing him to reg
lister them.
A lawful court order should in
duce most election officials to per-
form their duties In accordance
with the law and should help them
to resist any lawless elements in
the area who might be urging them
to violate the law.
Compliance Is Aim
But II the local official does will
fully violate the court order, con-
tempt Of court proceeding could be
maintained against him. Naturally,
he Is entitled to legal counsel, to
call witnesses and to employ all the
other constitutional. historical and
traditional safeguards Of our ju-
dicial system. OF course, even when
he is in contempt Of court, he can
always purge himself Of all civil
contempt by complying with the
cburt order or injunction-as. for
example. entering the qualified
voters names in the registration
books, II that was what he had re-
fused to do.
What about jury trials?
It may be stated categorically
that the constitutional right to trial
by jury. guaranteed in the Consti-
tuition Of the United States. is not
denied to anyone because of any
provisions of the pending bill.
There are no new crimes de-
fined. there are no amendments to
the criminal code. and the jurisdic-
ton Of the United States is not
broadened Substantially by the au-
thorization for civil remedies.
There has never been any con.
stitutional right to jury trials in in
junction or contempt Of court pro-
ceedings and the opponents Of this
legislation know that.
1t appears that opponents have
created IN issue to confuse popu-
lar understanding Of Federal pro-
lection Of basic rights Of all per-
sons in the United States. This
issue extends to confusion Of the
role Of juries themselves.
In old England. the mother
country Of practically all Of our
system Of Jurisprudence. the jury
grew TO take the place Of primitive
methods for determining facts in
criminal prosecutions and in private
legal controversies.
Then. as the regular law court
structure Of England was built, 1t
was found to be too rigid for deal
ing with many problems affecting
the rights Of British subjects, The
criminal law could not compel a
government ofiicial to perform his
duty in a specific instance. So new
courts. called equity or chancery,
came into being. and equitable re-
lief provisions have continued to
the present day.
One useful mechanism employed
by courts to accomplish equitable
results is the injunction-a court
order directing a person to do. or
refrain from doing. a particular act.
Courts similar to those prevailing
in England were established in the
American colonies. and these courts
recognized the basic rights OF Eng
lishmen.
The substantive and procedural