Seldom has the U. S. Senate been so sharply and dogmatically divided on a major issue as it was on the jury trial amendment to the civil rights bill — and seldom has it been more difficult to determine which side had the most justice in its favor.
The jury trial amendment was approved early Friday morning by a vote of 51 to 42. The amendment was supported by 39 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Voting against it were nine Democrats and 33 Republicans. It was essentially a party-line vote, but there were some most significant exceptions. And the strangest thing of all perhaps was that the old Southern Democrat-conservative Republican coalition was shattered beyond recognition — but the southerners still won.
The political repercussions of the vote were more evident than the long-range legal and moral significance. For example. Sen. Henry Dworshak, a conservative Republican of long standing who voted against the amendment, told us yesterday that the amendment “practically scuttled any hope of getting an effective civil rights bill.”
Although we have been inclined to side with the Republican position in this matter, it must be conceded that the pro-amendment forces have vastly strengthened their arguments since Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) introduced in debate his idea that the jury trial method in cases of criminal contempt, as contrasted with civil contempt, was an essential ingredient of due process of law. We are not persuaded that Church’s distinction between civil and criminal contempt is as important as he contends it is—although this is technical legal ground where a layman must proceed carefully. We suspect, on the other hand, that Dworshak may have been over-simplifying in the heat of the struggle when he concluded that effective civil rights enforcement had been “scuttled” by the vote. President Eisenhower, we suspect, was likewise overstating the case when he declared that the amendment will make the bill “largely ineffective” in protecting the right to vote.
At any rate, we may be wise to weigh the workings of the amendment in actual practice, assuming that a civil rights bill can now be passed, rather than contend too vigorously just yet over who was most right or wrong. The most important thing, after all, was to get a start made on a civil rights bill. Once the start is made there will be other sessions of Congress to profit, we hope, from the lessons of experience.
On the political side a comment of one senator which Dworshak relayed is worth pondering:
“You know, we Republicans started this thing believing we not only were doing the right thing, but also that we were going to leave the Democrats hopelessly divided. Now, after the maneuvering of Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas, the Senate majority leader), the Democrats got their way without splitting their party and left the Republicans quarreling among themselves!”
Without endorsing this view, Dworshak conceded that Johnson had presented an “amazing” exhibition of marshalling Democratic strength behind the jury trial amendment. Thus the assignment that was expected in some quarters to “finish” Johnson has increased his stature, at least, among some of his opponents.
The political results are not as important on a matter of such key import as this one as the legal and ethical results. In this field, the contenders, whatever their choices, seem convinced that they are fully and finally right. There seems, at least, to be no monopoly upon sincerity in either camp. We suspect there is no monopoly on wisdom, either. The cause we have supported suffered a defeat, but time alone will tell how grievous it was.
— B. J.
This story was published in the Aug. 3, 1957, edition of the Lewiston Tribune.
