shall have the "qualifications requisite for election of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that any bill purporting to accomplish this purpose or to circumscribe the State's power to prescribe qualifications for voters must take the form of a constitutional amendment. This was true in the case of the 15th amendment and was also true in the case of the 19th amendment, relating to suffrage. We may conclude, therefore, that from a strictly legal and historical standpoint the constitutional amendment is the only constitutional route to follow in matters concerning enfranchisement or matters concerning qualifications for electors.

Senator KEFAUVER. We have had some discussion before the committee and in past years some efforts have been made, particularly in the House of Representatives to eliminate the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting for Federal officials by statute rather than by constitutional amendment, on the theory, I believe, that a poll tax is not technically a qualification within the meaning of the Constitution. But you disagree heartily with that?

Senator STENNIS. I certainly do. We have debated those matters before the Senate many times, as the Senator will recall. And I think, when you get right down to the practical side of this matter, that the payment of a poll tax or some small tax is nothing more than a reasonable regulation. And some regulation is certainly necessary-a reasonable regulation of the exercise of the privilege of voting. We all agree, I think, that voting is a privilege and not a right. Most all States exclude a large segment of their very finest citizens from voting at all because they are not 21 years of age.

Others preclude them from voting if they are less than 18. But there is direct prohibition, they don't let them vote under any circumstances unless they have attained that age.

So I think that conclusively shows that it is not a right that goes with citizenship-because citizenship starts long before a person is 21-it is a privilege.

And these matters of registering, requirements to live in an area for some specified time, the payment of a small token of contribution to the operation of government, all are very, very reasonable regulations of this privilege. And that is the way it is used in these States that have the poll tax.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, with emphasis that though I agree with the theory supporting the procedure proposed here, I most emphatically disagree that there is either necessity for or desirability for enactment of a constitutional amendment on this subject, or a statutory amendment, as mentioned by the chairman. I think if you are going to the vitals of the rights and privileges of the States, and it does not make any difference whether you use a stiletto or a dirk, you are killing one of their privileges and one of their rights whichever method you use so far as the practical end result is concerned. The push for elimination of the poll tax is more an emotional question than a practical consideration of political life. Actually, the poll tax lists provide a most usable and convenient list for county and local government affairs. In addition it provides a small source of revenue for operation of schools in my State of Mississippi. It is fairly operated and administered, and there is no substantial, creditable

evidence to the contrary. It does not serve to deprive any group of the right to vote. And I speak with practical knowledge on those matters. In days when the economy is as vigorous as it is now, any person with any earning capacity at all can certainly get the means together to pay this small token of taxes for this privilege. Of course, the tax does not apply under our law to certain persons who are disabled.

The poll tax has been abandoned voluntarily by several States who previously had employed it as one of their constitutional rights. In each instance, it was the privilege of the State to require such a tax. or not to require it. Actually, the right of my State to make its own decision on this subject is all that I am asking. The people of the States affected themselves should decide whether or not this tax should be abolished. The States who have never had such a tax, together with those who have chosen to eliminate it, should grant to States. who have the tax the same right of choice which they themselves have experienced.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said about the poll tax. A great deal is misunderstood about the poll tax. It is thought of, in some circles, as being a tax on the right to vote, or is loosely called that. A poll tax is a tax on the person. Like other taxes such as a tax on a piece of property, or a tax on income, it is a head tax. The word "poll" comes from the word meaning people. That is the basis of the taxation. It is based on the simple proposition that everyone who enjoys the fruits of the government should pay some tax. That is the origin of the tax-that there should be a tax upon each person. It is nothing new in American history.

Other States as well as Southern States have employed a form of poll tax. I understand that several New England States use the poll tax for very much the same purpose as is employed in the South. This system provides a list of adult residents, those who are eligible to vote. It can also provide valuable statistical data necessary for the operation of local government.

I don't mean to say, Mr. Chairman, that I understand that any New England State now uses a poll tax as an absolute prerequisite for voting, but it has been a long time intermingled with the poll list and other procedures. I understand that according to the interpretations of their present law, payment of a poll tax is not an outright and essential requirement for voting. I discussed this years ago with Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, and would not attempt to say just what points he made about it, except I recall that that was his conclusion. And I do not mean to contradict his views. But it has been a part of their system with reference to their list of the citizens, and the like.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, I think the record shows that in times: past there have been a great many States, and most of the New England States do have either some poll tax or property tax.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

In addition, it provides a stable source of local revenue, usually earmarked for a specific purpose such as schools or similar community affairs. Further, it serves as a method of identifying persons appearing and asserting that they are qualified to vote at a given election. Now, that is a common problem throughout the United States, as I understand it, as a qualification or identification at the time of

actual voting. Our laws require the person to bring with him his poll tax receipt. The date that he voted is stamped on the back of that receipt. That not only identifies him, but it certifies that he actually voted in the particular election.

Mr. Chairman, the payment of any lawful tax could be made a prerequisite to voting at the present time. Certainly the poll tax is a lawful tax. If it operates fairly, it cannot be an instrument of discrimination. In my State, it is fairly administered, and perhaps more people are disenfranchised because they forget to pay the tax than because of any financial burden it imposes upon them. It is an emotional and unfounded claim that this tax operates to disenfranchise a large number of otherwise eligible voters.

Senator KEFAUVER. The committee's chairman is delighted that Senator Keating, who has always been very diligent in attendance here, is with us for the hearing now.

Senator STENNIS. I am glad to see you, Senator.

Actually, the problem is of small proportions. It does not deserve the attention it has been given, nor deserve the dignity of passage as an amendment to our organic charter. It is doubtful that it will enfranchise anyone. It is doubtful that a single additional qualified voter would be registered as a result of the passage of this constitutional amendment. I do not say that it would be illegal, but I do say that it is unwise. It would have effects outside five States in which it is primarily aimed, and would cause a major readjustment in the method of conducting local affairs in New England States where the charge has never been made that it operated to discriminate against any group of voters.

Enactment of these resolutions would prescribe, for the first time, restrictions on the State's power to qualify presidential electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires the State to adhere to any formula in its "appointment of presidential electors." The only reservation is that no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector. Thus, for the first time, the method of the State's determining its representation in the electoral college would be affected by constitutional language.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, it has always been characteristic of our Government to require every person to pay some tax. Many States and many of the colonies at the time of the American Revolution, and afterward, required the payment of a property tax or poll tax, or some kind of a contribution to the costs of government, before citizens could enjoy the privileges of government.

I want to add another use of the poll tax list that has been practiced for a long, long time; namely, the selection of our jurors, in both the Federal and the State courts. It is the list of voters that is used by the local authorities in drawing these names.

I have never believed otherwise than that the poll tax involves a sound principle of government. I do not know that I have had many greater thrills in life than that which I felt at the time I cast my first vote. I had the thrill of knowing that I was participating in the Government directly, and I was also paying some tax, and therefore was sharing a part of the privileges and had a part in carrying some of the responsibility.

power

I have never believed otherwise, especially in view of the fact the right to vote is a privilege. Voting is a privilege; it is not a right. It has never been a right. I hope in our form of government it never will be a pure right. The casting of a vote is a privilege, and that privilege arises from the States of the Union, not from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has never had the to confer the privilege of voting upon anyone. That privilege arises from the States, and not from the Federal Government. There is written into the basic law of the Federal Government itself the direct provision that the Congress shall never shall never-undertake to create the qualifications of electors. The privilege of voting comes from the States, and therefore, the Federal Government adopts the qualifications the States prescribe.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I have just been reading a brief book entitled "George Mason, Reluctant Statesman," by Robert A. Rutland. As you recall, this Virginian lived next door to George Washington. His old home has finally been restored and is now open down on the highway just beyond Alexandria. I recommend to anyone that he go down and walk around. You remember, he was the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights that predated the Declaration of Independence. It was the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. George Washington said of him that he had the most superior mind of his generation, or words to that effect. There is nothing in this book regarding Mason's views on electors, the qualifications of electors. But his basic, fundamental views on government are presented there clearer than I have ever before read. Reading the book impressed me with just what did give birth to this Nation and where the power came from.

Senator KEFAUVER. George Mason's part in the creation of our basic form of government and our Constitution has never been fully appreciated as it should have been until recent years.

Senator STENNIS. Correct. I remember two things that he saidhe did not sign the Constitution, and thereby missed a chance to be far better known and his contribution to be better known-among other things, he said that it did not make clear the reservation of the State's powers. Of course, that was before the 10th amendment. And he said further that it did not do anything about slavery, and, therefore, left within itself the germs of secession. Mind you, George Mason said that, now, in 1789.

And, by the way, he passed away in 1791. He was offered a place in the U.S. Senate, but declined on account of his health.

Senator KEFAUVER. It was also because he never held a Federal office that he is not as well known as Jefferson, Washington, and some others.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with all deference to anyone's name that is on this resolution, I think when we get right down to the fundamentals of it, it is unintentional, but at the same time an assault on the States and the reserve powers of the States. That is the practical effect of it. It is probably due in part to conditions of the times, but there is no state in the world now, so far as I know, that is shown as little consideration as is a State of the United States.

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?

I

Senator STENNIS. I know, we would not have any jurisdiction. But 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 thẹ 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