Dirksen's Defection

The historic civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965 would never have become law if Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen had not marshaled the G.O.P. votes that quashed Southern resistance. Nor does the most controversial proposal in President Johnson's 1966 civil rights bill, a clause banning racial discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of all housing, have any chance of approval without Republican backing. That support may not be forthcoming for the provision, at least in its present form. Last week Dirksen pronounced the housing section "absolutely unconstitutional," on grounds that it would invade the rights of private-property owners.

The Illinois Senator challenged the Administration's contention that the "fair housing" clause is in line with Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Thundered Ev: "If you can tell me how interstate commerce is involved in selling or renting a house fixed to the soil, or where there is federal jurisdiction, I'll go out and eat the chimney off the house."

Mrs. Murphy Revisited. On the contrary, argued U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach before a House Judiciary Subcommittee, "the construction of homes and apartment buildings, the production and sale of building materials and home furnishings, the financing of construction and purchase all take place in or through the channels of interstate commerce." Maintaining that the housing-discrimination provision fell under the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws, Katzenbach said that this amendment also sanctions the desegregation of residential areas.

While the bill empowers federal courts to force owners to sell or rent to Negroes, the Attorney General predicted widespread compliance comparable to that achieved under the public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He conceded that the Administration would not object to a "Mrs. Murphy clause"* exempting owners occupying small houses from any compulsion to rent to Negroes. Katzenbach emphasized nonetheless: "The ending of compulsory residential segregation has become a national necessity. Law must lead and law must protect in this vital area." Congress, he suggested, must now "address itself to the vindication of what is, in substance, the freedom to live."

Katzenbach admitted that G.O.P. support is essential. Dirksen, however, said that he could see no way in which the housing provision could be rewritten to his satisfaction and "still get the effect they want." There were suspicions, of course, that Dirksen's dubiety did not wholly reflect constitutional qualms. The G.O.P. would dearly like to see the Democrats ride into November's congressional election in the embarrassing position of having angered whites by proposing the fair-housing provision--and disappointed Negroes by failing to pass it.

*So called after a hypothetical white landlady who was conjured up during debate on the 1964 bill.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.