The Corkscrew Compromise

No section of Lyndon Johnson's 1966 Civil Rights Bill has raised more of a ruckus than Title IV, the wide-ranging ban on racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. One reason is that civil rights bills have never previously hit Northerners so close to home. From the moment it was drafted, a powerful coalition of builders, real estate men and politicians of all persuasions objected to the housing measure, and Southern civil rights foes viewed their discomfiture with undisguised glee. "For the first time," chortled North Carolina's Democratic Senator Sam Ervin, "we have a bill which proposes that other than Southern oxen are to be gored."

Last week, as the House Judiciary Committee took up the bill, it was Title IV that got gored--while the other sections of the measure* passed with ease. First, several Republicans and moderate Northern Democrats sought to strike out the housing clause altogether, figuring that it was doomed anyway by warnings from Senate G.O.P. Leader Everett Dirksen and House Minority Leader Jerry Ford that they consider it "absolutely unconstitutional" and will fight to the end to defeat it. Title IV was barely rescued (17 to 15) by a curious coalition of Northern liberals who were committed to the housing provision and Southerners who reckoned that its inclusion would spell certain death for the whole civil rights bill.

"Majestic Opportunism." The committee then spent two days in bitter debate before adopting, 21 to 13, Maryland Republican Charles Mathias' substitute proposal, which would exempt individual homeowners and owners of dwellings with four units or less. A principal feature of the substitute clause is that it would permit other owners to make two discriminatory transactions in a single year, but would make a third such sale illegal; large-scale real estate operators would thus find it difficult to segregate big apartments or tracts. Almost apologetically, Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn noted afterward: "All good legislation is the result of compromise. The bill without the Mathias amendment would be like having a wine cellar without a corkscrew."

Dirksen scoffed at the compromise. Describing it as "a majestic piece of opportunism," he wondered aloud "what tortures those souls have gone through to come up with that!" There seemed to be no way, in fact, that the Administration could rewrite the provision to overcome his opposition. After a recent two-hour session during which Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach sought to find some language that would be acceptable, Dirksen finally told him: "Nick, it's just no dice. I see no out that doesn't violate principle."

*Prohibiting discrimination in choosing federal, state or local juries, empowering the Attorney General to initiate school-desegregation suits, and forbidding intimidation or physical harm to civil rights workers and voters.

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