◆ SpookStack

| | € 4 STATE SIT SY SENATOR WILLIAM E; JEUNE 3efore Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (Hearines on S, 2646) - y March 5, 1958 ~) Sy Mr, Trotter_—~ Mr. Clayton_ Tele. Room Mr, Holloman. Miss Gandy__ ‘_ wontt do this extensively, because I don't think the objections to the bil] all . In nine days of hearings criticism of my bill 3, 2646 has fallen into several categories, I want to discuss these briefly, touch upon th _main objections to the bill which“have been advanced, and answer them, I require extensive answers, 23ut there are a few points I want to make aa before this record closes. ole | b7t- All of the objections to this bill fall into two main categories: (1) those which involve the claim that the bill is unconstitutional, and those which admit the constitutionality of the bill but object to one or more of the features of it on some other grounds, Let's loagk first at the constitutional arguments, The constitutional arguments against the bill fall into three sub- classes: (1) the argument that the language of Articie III, section 2, clause Z does not mean what it says, This is the argument first advanced by Mr, Joe Rauh when he testified representing Americans for Democratic Action. This is a completely Specious argument and has been repeatedly refuted by expert witnesses during the course ‘of these hearings. (2) That the grant to the Supreme Court of original jurisdiction over cases having a State as Party encompasses a grant of appellate juris- diction over any case in which a State is a Party, and that this includes cases brought in State courts and involving State statutes. This point not only does not involve any good law, it doesn't even involve any good logic, ! 340 a an it OMAR 18 1958 I ee ee NOT RECORDED 14 MAR 18 1958 1 Lee eee . Bn a eeeneene stamens