New York Times Civil Rights Bill Passed, 73-27; Johnson Urges All To Comply; Dirksen Berates Goldwater

Action By Senate
Revised Measure Now Goes Back to House for Concurrence
By E. W. KENWORTHY

Washington, June 19--The Senate passed the civil rights bill today by a vote of 73 - 27. The final roll-call came at 7:40 P.M. on the 83d day of debate, nine days after closure was invoked. Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans. Except for Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, all the Democratic votes against the bill came from Southerners. Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, as he said yesterday he would. The five other Republicans opposing it all support Mr. Goldwater's candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination.

They were Bourke B. Hickenlooper of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee; Norris Cotton of New Hampshire, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming and a John G. Tower of Texas. 2 Pledge Acceptance The bill will now go back to the House for concurrence in the changes that the Senate made in the measure the House passed last Feb. 10 by a vote of 290 to 130. Tonight, Representatives Emanuel Celler, Democrat of New York, and William M. McCulloch, Republican of Ohio, who are the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that they would accept the Senate version of the bill. "We believe that the House membership will take the same position," they said. With the support of these two men, who were responsible for the House bill, acceptance of the Senate bill in the House is assured. President Johnson hopes to have the bill on his desk by July 3 at the latest so that he can sign it on the Fourth of July. Powers of the Bill The bill passed by the Senate outlaws discrimination in places of public accommodation, publicly owned facilities, employment and union membership and

Federally aided programs. It gives the Attorney General new powers to speed school desegregation and enforce the Negro's right to vote. The Senate bill differs from the House measure chiefly in giving states and local communities more scope and time to deal with complaints of discrimination in hiring and public accommodations. It allows the Attorney General to initiate suits in these areas where he finds a "pattern of discrimination, but does not permit him, as did the House bill, to file suits on behalf of individuals. After the roll-call, several thousand people gathered in the plaza before the floodlit Capitol to applaud the Senate Democratic leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, and the Republican leader, Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois. Mr. Dirksen was instrumental in shaping the compromise that the Senate passed. Burke Marshall, the Justice Department's civil rights chief, said after the bill was passed tonight that the department would move promptly to enforce the measure. "I think there is going to be compliance with this bill," Mr. Marshall said. "That's the first thing." "But where there is a pattern of noncompliance, we will move as expeditiously as possible in the courts." It was a year ago today, a few weeks after the riots in Birmingham, Ala. that President Kennedy sent a draft civil rights bill to Congress. He concluded his

message with these words: "I ask you to look into your hearts--not in search of charity, for the Negro neither wants nor needs condescension--but for the one plain, proud and priceless quality that united us all as Americans: A sense of justice. "In this year of the emancipation centennial, justice requires us to insure the blessings of liberty for all Americans and their posterity--not merely for reasons of economic efficiency, world diplomacy and domestic tranquility--but, above all, because it is right." Tonight the first sign that a vote on the bill was imminent came about 7 o' clock when Senator Mansfield rose and paid tribute to Senator Dirksen, who framed the substitute bill. "This is his finest hour," Mr. Mansfield said. "The Senate and the whole country are in debt to the Senator from Illinois." Mr. Mansfield then paid tribute to the "great service" rendered by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, the Democratic floor manager of the bill, and Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California, the Republican floor manager. 'No Sense of Triumph' Mr. Mansfield said that there was "no room for unwarranted sentiments of victory," and that there should be "no sense of triumph but a profound

humility" upon the part of those who had labored and voted for the bill. Then Mr. Dirksen got up, thanked Mr. Mansfield for his "patience and tolerance" and then went into what will probably be remembered as one of the finest speeches of his career. The Illinois Republican proceeded to answer Mr. Goldwater's implied rebuke of yesterday when the Arizonan called the rights measure an "unconstitutional" bill. Mr. Dirksen recalled that on June 5 last year the Republican Conference of the Senate urged the Administration to produce a program to guarantee the rights and privileges of all citizens. He then addressed himself to Mr. Goldwater's argument that the sections of the bill dealing with public accommodations and employment were an unwarranted extension of the commerce clause of the Constitution. Social Legislation Cited Mr. Dirksen tolled a long list of social and economic legislation that had been similarly called unconstitutional when first proposed. "Today they are accepted," he said, "because they were a forward thrust in the whole effort of mankind." "There is latitude enough in the Constitution to

embrace within its four corners these advances," he said. All day long today the galleries were crowded. But the drama lay in the historic achievement and not in the expectation of another breath-holding vote like that on June 10, when the Senate for the first time in history shut off a Southern filibuster against a civil rights bill, 71 to 29. Eleven times before, civil rights forces tried and failed to get the two-thirds vote needed for closure of debate. Passage of the bill was a foregone conclusion, but it was not an anticlimax. The spectators waited to see who among the Republican supporters of Senator Goldwater would follow the Arizonan's example and vote against the bill, and who would vote for it. After closure was imposed, each Senator had one hour to speak. On Wednesday night, by a vote of 76 to 18, a revised bill sponsored by Senator Dirksen was accepted as an amendment in the form of a substitute for the original House measure. Since then, Senators have used their remaining time to speak their valedictories on one of the Senate's longest battles. Yesterday Senator Richard B. Russell, Democrat of Georgia, leader of the Southern opposition, angrily denounced the forces--the press, clergy, unions--that had exerted pressure on Congress to pass what he called an "unconstitutional" bill. He said the bill was destructive of the system of divided powers and states' rights, and was directed solely at the South.

Today Senator Humphrey sought to allay this bitterness, if possible; to bind up the wounds and to look to the great unfinished work before the nation. Mr. Humphrey said the civil rights bill of 1964 was "the greatest piece of social legislation of our generation." The framers of the bill, he went on, endeavored to "fashion a bill which is just, reasonable and fair." They established a framework of law "wherein men of good will and reason can seek to resolve these difficult and emotional issues of human rights," he said. The burden has been laid primarily on the states and communities, he said, and Federal action is reserved for those occasions when local government is unable or refuses to meet its responsibilities. Senator Humphrey said that Congress and the nation must now expect governors and mayors "to do their public duty and to carry out the law with the sense of justice and equity which is so vital to a democratic community." Then he turned to the South and made this appeal: "Those of us who are privileged to bear some of the burdens of this struggle must demonstrate by example that we can fight without rancor, win without pride, and, on occasion, lose without bitterness. Surely it would be one of the ironies of history if equality were purchased at the expense of the community. We must solemnly pledge that this

will never come to pass. "What we are involved in, as Lincoln once said in an earlier conflict, is too vast for bitterness. We are engaged in the age-old struggle within all men--a struggle to overcome irrational legacies, a struggle to escape the bondage of ignorance and poverty, a struggle to create a new and better community where 'justice rolls down like waters and righteous is a mighty stream.'" Senator Byrd explained his vote against the bill by saying that the measure "goes beyond" equal justice and provided "special treatment" for some people. In doing so, it "does violence to long-established constitutional principles," he said. Senator Mechem said he would vote against the bill because the sections on fair employment and public accommodations "could assure the greatest assult on property ownership and private enterprise in this country has known." Senator George A. Smathers, Democrat of Florida, disagreed with Senator Russell's position that the Senate substitute was "more obnoxious" than the House bill. By their 75 days of debate prior to closure, he said, the Southerners forced Mr. Dirksen to bring in a bill "which considerably softens the harshest paragraphs of the House-passed bill." Nevertheless, he said that the substitute had been rewritten so that "we find all of the force of the Federal Government directed at the South."

He predicted that if a dictator ever appeared in this country, "that man will ride to power on the influence and power he will get under Titles VI and VII." These sections of the bill provide for a Federal cutoff of funds to programs administered in a discriminatory way, and for a fair-employment commission. An Unusual Move Before the speech-making began this morning, Senator Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennesee, made unusual use of a parliamentary device in a last-ditch effort to achieve a change in the bill. Amendments cannot be offered after closure, and amendments already read once cannot be called up after the third reading. The bill was given its third reading two days ago. Yesterday, however, Mr. Gore obtained unanimous consent to have an amendment qualify. It stated that the cutoff of Federal funds would not be applied to educational programs or the school lunch program in any school district "unless such school district shall have failed to comply" with a court desegregation order. The understanding was that Mr. Gore would move to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with this amendment added. He so moved this morning. He argued that without this provision a school district

that was complying with a desegregation order but was not yet fully desegregated could lose its school lunch and milk funds. The Gore motion to commit was defeated, 74 to 25.