The Dan Smoot Report

Vol. 9, No. 1 (Broadcast 386) January 7, 1963 Dallas, Texas

DAN SMOOT

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Fourteenth Amendment (1) to the Constitution of the United States (proclaimed ratified in 1868) was never legally adopted. Yet, this illegal appendage to our organic law is the basis for contemporary court decisions and governmental practices which are shattering the foundations of our free society.

Congress should resubmit the Fourteenth Amendment for legal ratification, or rejection. I do not think we can restore the American constitutional Republic until the people compel their Congress to take such action. Hence, in this Report, I offer a brief review of the incredible history of the Fourteenth Amendment, with examples of dangerous doctrines and practices which have resulted.

But first, one needs to understand the legal methods of amending the Constitution. These methods are clearly specified in Article V of our original Constitution, as adopted in 1789. (2) The President and the federal courts have no role in the amendment process. Congress has only a ministerial role. Congress may propose an Amendment on its own initiative (two-thirds of both houses desiring). Congress must call a convention for proposing Amendments if two-thirds of all states demand such action. And Congress may select one of two constitutionally prescribed methods by which the people in the individual states can act on a proposed constitutional Amendment: Congress can require that the people act through their state legislatures; or Congress can require that the people act through constitutional conventions. But Congress has no other authority in the Amendment process.

The power to amend the Constitution resides, exclusively, in the people of states in the union — who have an absolute right to reject, or accept, a proposed amendment, without any kind of coercion from any branch or agency of the federal government.

Page 1

It is important to keep these facts in mind

while reviewing the history of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

History of the 14th

Throughout the War Between the States

(1861-1865), President Lincoln maintained

that the American union was indivisible;

that the war was being fought, not to abolish slavery,

but to suppress rebellion which threatened

to dismember the union; and that, once the

rebellion was suppressed, the union of all states

would exist exactly as before the hostilities.

On December 8, 1863, Lincoln formally emphasized

this doctrine by issuing a proclamation,

promising amnesty (forgiveness) to people

in the confederate states who would

swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution

and to the union, and promise to obey

laws and proclamations abolishing slavery.

At that time, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts

(radical leader in the Senate) and Thaddeus

Stevens of Pennsylvania (radical leader in the

House) wanted Lincoln to consider the southern

states as territories or alien lands outside

the union, so that they could be treated as

conquered provinces if the north won the

war. (3)

Lincoln carefully refused to do this.

Inasmuch as the north won the war, Lincoln’s

point was proven: the southern states never did

secede from the union: they merely tried to.

The day hostilities ended, therefore, the

southern states were constitutionally entitled

to their full representations and rights in the

national Congress. The federal government

could not legally lay down conditions for

"re-admitting” the southern states, because,

according to the doctrine of Lincoln and the

decision of war, they had never left the union.

On January 31, 1865, Congress submitted,

for approval of the states, a resolution

proposing the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery.

The proposal was submitted to four confederate

states which already had post-war governments

recognized by Lincoln:

Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

On March 4, 1865, Congress adjourned

without having recognized the Lincoln-approved

government of Louisiana.

On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee

surrendered at Appomattox. President Lincoln

expressed gratitude that the "rebellion” had

come to an end at a time when Congress was

not in session to cause trouble, and said:

"If we are wise and discreet, we shall

re-animate the states and get their governments

in successful operation with order prevailing

and the Union reestablished before

Congress comes together in December.” (3)

On April 14, 1 865, Lincoln was assassinated;

but, on May 29, his successor — Andrew Johnson —

issued a proclamation of amnesty patterned

on Lincoln’s proclamation of December, 1863.

On the same day, Johnson also issued a proclamation

to carry out Lincoln’s plan of reconstruction.

Johnson’s proclamation set up a provisional government

for North Carolina, appointing a governor to call

a convention chosen by the people of the state

for the purpose of establishing a permanent

state government. The persons qualified to

vote for delegates to this convention were

those who had been qualified to vote prior to

the Civil War — and who had taken the required

oath of amnesty. (3)

By July 13, 1865, President Johnson had

applied this "Lincoln formula” for reconstruction

to all remaining states in the confederacy.

Before Congress convened in December, 1865,

all confederate states (except Texas, which

delayed until the spring of 1866) had thus

established legitimate governments. And,

as states, all (except Mississippi and Texas)

had ratified the 13th Amendment, abolishing

slavery. (4)

When Congress convened in December, 1865,

the radicals in control refused, however,

to seat Representatives and Senators from the

confederate states.

Page 2

Thus, the Congress which convened in

December, 1865, was an illegal Congress,

because it denied representation from states

constitutionally entitled to representation.

On April 9, 1866, the illegal Congress

enacted the Civil Rights Bill (over President

Johnson’s veto). To place this measure beyond

the danger of overthrow by the courts, or

by a subsequent, legal Congress, the radical

Congress incorporated the essential provisions of

the Civil Rights Bill in a Resolution proposing

the Fourteenth Amendment. (5)

The Resolution proposing the Fourteenth

Amendment passed the Senate on June 8, 1866,

by a vote of 33 to 11, with 5 Senators not

voting. On June 13, 1866, the House took a

final vote on the Resolution: 120 representatives

for the proposal, 32 opposed, and 32 not voting.

This vote in the House did not meet the

constitutional requirement that a Resolution

proposing a constitutional amendment must

be approved by two-thirds of both Houses.

There were 184 Representatives in the illegal

Congress on June 13, 1866. (6) Two-thirds of

that number would have been 123. Only 120

voted for the Resolution proposing the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Nonetheless, the leadership of Congress

arbitrarily declared the Resolution enacted.

Congress submitted the Fourteenth Amendment

proposal to all states for ratification —

including the confederate states which had

been denied representation.

Tennessee was the only confederate state

which voluntarily ratified the Fourteenth

Amendment. The other ten confederate states

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Texas, and Virginia) rejected it. Four states

outside the old confederacy also rejected

the Amendment: California, Delaware, Kentucky,

and Maryland. Iowa did not ratify the

Fourteenth Amendment until April 3, 1868; and

Massachusetts did not ratify until March 20, 1867.

Thus, by the first of March, 1867, only 21

of the then 37 states said to be in the union

had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. (7)

At least 28 states had to ratify, to meet

the constitutional requirement that amendments

must be approved by three-fourths of all states.

So, on March 2, 1867, Congress passed the

Reconstruction Act, abolishing the governments

in the ten confederate states which had

rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act

placed these ten states under military dictatorship,

requiring the commanding generals to prepare

the rolls of voters for conventions to formulate

governments acceptable to Congress.

Everyone who had served in the confederate

armed forces was denied the right to vote or

hold office — despite the presidential proclamation

of amnesty. Virtually the only persons

permitted to vote or to hold office were negroes,

southern scalawags, and carpetbaggers from

the north and from foreign countries. (3, 4, 6)

The Reconstruction Act provided that when the

legislatures of these "reconstruction” governments

ratified the Fourteenth Amendment,

the states would be admitted to the union —

although the Constitution clearly provides

that only states already in the union can act on

Amendments, and gives Congress no authority

to coerce action on Amendments. (2)

Congress denied the southern states any

judicial relief, by intimidating the Supreme

Court into silence — threatening to abolish

the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, or to abolish

the Court itself, by constitutional amendment.

When Mississippi attempted to secure a

court injunction to prevent the President from

enforcing the unconstitutional Reconstruction

Act (and when Georgia asked for an injunction

to keep Army officers from enforcing the Act)

the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said that

even if the Court heard the cases and granted

the injunctions, it could not enforce its decrees. (8)

Page 3

President Johnson called the Reconstruction

Act a "bill of attainder against nine million

people at once.” (8)

During debates in the Senate, over passage

of the Act, Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin,

condemning the radicals for what they were

doing, said:

"The people of the South have rejected the

constitutional amendment [the 14th], and

therefore we will march upon them and force

them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet,

and establish military power over them until

they do adopt it.” (8)

That is precisely what happened: Army bayonets

escorted illiterate negroes and white carpetbaggers

to the polls, keeping most southern whites away.

In Louisiana, an Army general even presided

over the state legislature which "ratified”

the Fourteenth Amendment.

By July 20, 1868, Iowa and Massachusetts

had completed their ratifications of the

Fourteenth Amendment, and the legislatures of 6

"reconstructed” confederate states (Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina,

South Carolina) had ratified. These 8 new

ratifications, plus the 21 which had been

completed before March, 1867, made a total

of 29 state ratifications by July 20, 1868.

But legislators of 2 northern states

had changed their minds.

Their sense of decency outraged by the

whole monstrous procedure, the legislators of

New Jersey (on March 24, 1868) and of Ohio

(on January 15, 1868) withdrew their former

ratifications, and rejected the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Hence, there were still not enough ratifications

to adopt the Amendment. There had to be 28.

There were only 27.

On July 20, 1868, Secretary of State

William H. Seward proclaimed that three-fourths

of the states had ratified the Fourteenth

Amendment — if the legislatures which ratified

in the six confederate states were authentically

organized, and if New Jersey and Ohio

were not allowed to reject the Amendment.

The radical Congress did not like Secretary

Seward’s equivocation about legality.

On July 21, 1868, Congress passed a joint

resolution declaring the Fourteenth Amendment

a valid part of the Constitution and

directing Seward to proclaim it as such.

On July 28, 1868, Secretary Seward certified,

without reservation, that the Amendment was

a part of the Constitution. (3, 5)

Stretching the Amendment

Freedom of the slave race was, ostensibly,

the exclusive purpose of the framers of the

Fourteenth Amendment. Yet, as soon as the

Amendment was declared adopted, efforts were

made to use it as a weapon to destroy states

rights. Groups and individuals, who did not

like certain local or state laws, brought cases

into the federal courts, claiming that the

Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government

authority to supervise the activities of

state and local governments.

In 1873, the Supreme Court heard the first

case testing this doctrine, and held that the

Fourteenth Amendment did not authorize

federal intervention in state and local affairs.

The Court said that the real purpose of those

who made a claim of such federal authority

under the Fourteenth Amendment,

"was to centralize in the hands of the federal

Government powers hitherto exercised by the states."

To foster such intentions, the Court declared,

would be

". . . to constitute this Court a perpetual

censor upon all legislation of the States . . .

with authority to nullify such as it did not

approve ....

"The effect of so great a departure from

the structure and spirit of our institutions is

to fetter and degrade the State governments

by subjecting them to the control of Congress,

in the exercise of powers, heretofore

universally conceded to them, of the most

ordinary and fundamental character.

"We are convinced that no such results

were intended by the Congress, nor by the

legislatures which ratified this Fourteenth

Amendment.” (5)

Page 4

Those who wanted to transform our federal

system into a centralized system

(by transferring all rights of the states

to the central government in Washington)

kept badgering the Supreme Court for a decision

that the Fourteenth Amendment did authorize the

federal government to regulate and supervise

state laws. The position of the Court on this

point began to weaken at the turn of the century;

and, by the 1930’s, the Court had begun

to assume jurisdiction, under the Fourteenth

Amendment, to act as “censor upon . . .

Legislation of the states.” (9)

But it was not until after Eisenhower

appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice, that the

Court began to assume power, under the

Fourteenth Amendment, to do anything

desired by a majority of the nine justices.

In the school segregation decision

(Brown v. Board of Education) which the

Warren Court handed down on May 17, 1954,

Chief Justice Warren said the Court had tried

to determine what the nation’s legislators

had in mind in 1866-1868 when the Fourteenth

Amendment was proposed and declared ratified —

but had found the evidence inconclusive.

Warren explained why the Court was on

uncertain ground in using the Fourteenth

Amendment as authority for a decision

concerning public schools. He said:

"An additional reason for the inconclusive

nature of the Amendment’s history, with

respect to segregated schools, is the status of

public education at that time. In the South,

the movement toward free common schools,

supported by general taxation, had not yet

taken hold . . . .

"Even in the North, the conditions of

public education did not approximate those

existing today ... compulsory school attendance

was virtually unknown.

"As a consequence, it is not surprising that

there should be so little in the history of

the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its

intended effect on public education.” (10)

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment

did not have, and was not intended to have,

anything whatever to do with the question of

public schools.

This means — if we have constitutional Government —

that neither the Supreme Court

nor any other agency of the federal government

has a legal right to do anything about

public schools. The meaning of constitutional

government is that the government must be

bound by the contract — the Constitution —

which created the government. If Supreme Court

justices (or any other public officials),

who are sworn to uphold the Constitution,

can change it at will by adding to its meaning,

or by re-interpretation, then we have

no Constitution at all.

It does not matter that the officials may have

a good purpose in mind. It does not matter,

even if an overwhelming majority of the people

may approve of what the officials are trying

to accomplish by changing the Constitution.

The Constitution is meaningless if the agents

who are hired to implement it and who are

solemnly bound to uphold, and stay within the

limits of, all its provisions, can change it to

suit themselves.

If the people want the agents of government

to do something which the contract of government

does not authorize, then the people should

change the contract (amend the Constitution

by due process) in order to give officialdom

the additional power and responsibility

which the people want it to have.

To let officialdom change the contract,

is to open the floodgates to unrestrained,

unconstitutional, tyrannical government.

Warren Court refused, however, to be bound

by the Constitution. Chief Justice Warren said:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot

turn the clock back to 1868 [when the Fourteenth

Amendment was proclaimed ratified].

... We must consider public education in the

light of its full development and its present

place in American life throughout the Nation.”

Page 5

Warren concluded that segregation of white

and colored children in public schools has a

detrimental effect upon the colored children,

saying the conclusion "is amply supported by

modern authority.” (10)

In a footnote, Warren cited the modern

authorities whom he was relying on. He did

not cite any authorities on the Constitution,

or legal experts, or court decisions, or judicial

precedents. He cited books written by racial

agitators: (1) K.B. Clark, a negro who was

hired by the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People and whose

evidence in the segregation cases was subsequently

proven false; (2) Theodore Brameld,

whose record in the House Committee on

Un-American Activities shows membership in

at least 10 communist organizations;

(3) E. Franklin Frazier, who has 18 citations

for connection with communist causes; (4) Gunnar

Myrdal, a Swedish socialist who has served the

communist cause for many years and who

(in the very book that Warren cited)

has expressed utter contempt for the

Constitution of the United States. (11)

To the old, false doctrine that the Fourteenth

Amendment authorized the federal courts

to interfere with state and local laws, the

Supreme Court, in the Brown v. Board of Education

decision, added the doctrine that the

Fourteenth Amendment empowered the Supreme Court

to revise the Constitution itself —

for any purpose and on any authority

which the Court itself may proclaim.

Admitting that the Fourteenth Amendment

originally had no effect on the operation of

public schools, and citing pro-communist

agitators as "authority” for concluding that the

Amendment should now be interpreted to have

such effect, Chief Justice Warren decided that

segregation in public schools violates the

"equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Wrong Breeds Wrong

The Court began immediately to use the

Brown v. Board of Education decision as

a precedent for other similar decisions.

Upon the illegal decision of May 17, 1954, the

Court has erected an edifice of illegal decisions —

an edifice which has become a legal Tower of

Babel. The "law of the land” has become

Whatever a capricious Court claims it to be.

We are at the mercy of a judicial oligarchy which,

today, can say that the Constitution and the laws

mean one thing, but tomorrow can reverse itself

and decide that they mean something else.

Recent Court decisions (if permitted to stand)

will shatter the foundations of our free society.

Consider, for example, the James Monroe case.

James Monroe, a negro, claimed that

Chicago police had violated his rights by

searching his home without a warrant. Illinois

law provides individuals with adequate opportunity

for relief if their rights are so abused.

But Monroe did not bring suit against Chicago

police in state courts. He brought action

directly in federal court.

On February 20, 1961, the Supreme Court,

in the Monroe Case, held that the Fourteenth

Amendment does give individuals the right

thus to by-pass state laws and state courts.

It was an 8-to-l decision. The dissenter was

Justice Frankfurter, who said the effect of the

Monroe Decision was to convert the United

States Constitution into a,

"law to regulate the quotidian [daily] business

of every traffic policeman, every registrar of

elections, every city inspector or investigator,

every clerk in every municipal licensing bureau

in this country.” (12)

In Baker v. Carr (March 26, 1962),

the Supreme Court decided, in effect, that the

Fourteenth Amendment gives federal courts

jurisdiction to supervise the actions of state

legislatures in the apportionment and districting

of states for purposes of state and local

elections. The Baker v. Carr decision

involved the apportionment and districting

laws of the State of Tennessee; but approximately

26 other states were involved in similar suits,

or expected to be shortly. (13)

Page 6

The Constitution makes no grant of power

to any branch of the federal government to

interfere in any way with such matters.

When the federal government can make decisions

governing the composition and representation

of state legislatures, state governments become

branches and tools of the central authority.

The American system — a constitutional federation

of separate states — is destroyed.

On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court

handed down the New York School Prayer

Case decision (Engel v. Vitale), holding that

classroom recitation of an official prayer

violated the "establishment clause” of the

First Amendment, as "reinforced by provisions

of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In effect, the Court used the Fourteenth

Amendment to reverse the meaning of the

First Amendment. Whereas, the First Amendment

prohibits the federal government from

interfering with the free exercise of religion,

the Supreme Court used the First Amendment

(as reinforced by the Fourteenth) as authority

to outlaw the free exercise of religion. (14)

What Can We Do?

The destructive effect of these Supreme Court

decisions (and of other similar decisions

handed down since May 17, 1954) will grow

and multiply.

The Constitution (Article 3, Section 2,

Clause 2) gives Congress complete authority

to limit, regulate, or even abolish the appellate

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (14)

Congress could, therefore, prohibit the Court

from accepting appeals in cases involving matters

which, by the clear terms of our Constitution,

are beyond federal jurisdiction. (15)

The public should strive to elect a Congress

with the courage to take such action. But even

if this were done, we would still have the legal

chaos which illegal Supreme Court decisions

have already caused.

Eisenhower’s invasion of Arkansas with

military force in 1957, and Kennedy’s occupation

of the city of Oxford, Mississippi, are fruits of

the Supreme Court’s decision of May 17, 1954.

A frightful number of public school systems

in the United States have already eliminated

all recognition of God in the classrooms,

as a result of the Supreme Court’s New York

Prayer Case Decision.

The most fundamental of states rights —

the right of representative government free of

outside interference and domination —

has already been abrogated in Tennessee by the

1962 Baker v. Carr decision, and is threatened

in 26 other states.

Misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment

(which is not a valid part of our Constitution)

has caused such legal confusion as to

render our system of constitutional law

almost meaningless — even if the courts were

restrained from further misinterpretations. (16)

Obviously, we need to eliminate the Fourteenth

Amendment and all the fruits of it:

get rid of the Amendment and nullify all court

decisions, executive actions, administrative

regulations, and laws based on it.

How? Technically, Congress, by simple

legislative enactment, could proclaim the

Amendment invalid and could declare null and void

all official acts and decisions based on it.

But this would be dangerous procedure.

It could set a precedent which Congress

might try to use in eliminating a valid amendment

to the Constitution — thus creating even greater

confusion.

Moreover, spurious constitutional doctrine,

which the Fourteenth Amendment has already inspired,

renders infeasible the remedy of simple

legislative enactment. There is no possibility

that the present Supreme Court —

basing its usurpations of power on the

Fourteenth Amendment — would uphold a

congressional act abolishing the Amendment.

Congress could enact a Resolution proposing

repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment; but this

would be tacit recognition that the Amendment

is now legal.

The only proper and feasible remedy appears

to be a Resolution by Congress re-submitting

the Fourteenth Amendment to all state legislatures

for proper ratification or rejection.

Page 7

In other words, this vital question should

be resolved not by some branch or agency of

government, but by the people themselves,

acting through their state legislatures by due

constitutional process. If the people want the

Fourteenth Amendment and all that it has produced,

they could persuade three-fourths of

the state legislatures to ratify it legally.

I believe, however, that the people would

tell their state legislators to reject it.

Large numbers of Americans are coming to realize

that, unless the Fourteenth Amendment and

all its progeny are abolished, we will not

(no matter what else we may do) restore

constitutional government in the United States.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Here is the full text of the Fourteenth Amendment:

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

(2) Here is the current full text of Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its Suffrage in the Senate.

(3) The Encyclopedia Britannica, Fourteenth Edition, Vol. 22, pp. 810 ff.

(4) Andrew Johnson: A Study In Courage, by Lloyd Paul Stryker, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1929, Chapter XXVI.

(5) The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 3 0, 1952, Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, Senate Document No. 170, Government Printing Office, 1953, pp. 614-5, 749-59, 966-78.

(6) A Brochure On The 14th Amendment, written and published by John B. Mason, 357 East Wood, Raymondville, Texas, 1956.

(7) The Fourteenth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States, A Study, written and published by Walter E. Long, P.O. Box 1, Austin, Texas, 1960.

(8) "The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment,” by Walter J. Suthon, Jr., Tulane Law Review, Vol. XVIII, New Orleans, Louisiana, December, 1953, pp. 22-44.

(9) See Senate Document No. 170, cited in Note 5, especially Pages 565 and 757. For brief history of the "constitutional revolution” which has occurred in this century, see this Report, "Supreme Court’s Prayer Decision,” Parts I, II, III, and IV, especially Part III, dated July 30, 1962.

(10) Segregation In The Public Schools: Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of The United States, Senate Document No. 125, Government Printing Office, 1954.

(11) Senator James O. Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi), Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee and Internal Security Subcommittee, speeches in Congressional Record, May 26, 1955, and September 26, 1962.

(12) Editorial in The Durham Morning Herald, February 23, 1961.

(13) Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, March 30, 1962, pp. 496-9.

(14) For a detailed discussion of the New York Prayer Case decision and of constitutional questions involved, see the four issues of this Report mentioned in Footnote 9.

(15) David Lawrence, "How to Reverse Court’s Segregation Decision,” San Francisco Call-Bulletin, September 19, 1957.

(16) See also David Lawrence Editorials, U.S. News & World Report, "Which ’Constitution’?”, September 13, 1957, p. 128; "There Is No 'Fourteenth Amendment’!”, September 27, 1957, pp. 139-140; "Illegality Breeds Illegality,” October 4, 1957, pp. 143-4; "Illegality Breeds Illegality,” October 8, 1962, pp. 123-4; "Lawlessness,” October 22, 1962, pp. 107-8.

WHO IS DAN SMOOT?

Dan Smoot was born in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940.

In 1941, he joined the faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization.

In 1942, he took leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close of the war, he stayed in the FBI, rather than return to Harvard.

He worked as an FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial Midwest. For two years following that, he was on FBI headquarters staff in Washington, as an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover.

After nine and a half years in the FBI, Smoot resigned to help start the Facts Forum movement in Dallas. As the radio and television commentator for Facts Forum, Smoot, for almost four years spoke to a national audience giving both sides of great controversial issues.

In July, 1933, he resigned and started his own independent program, in order to give only one side — the side that uses fundamental American principles as a yardstick for measuring all important issues.

If you believe that Dan Smoot is providing effective tools for those who want to think and talk and write on the side of freedom, you can help immensely by subscribing, and encouraging others to subscribe, to The Dan Smoot Report.

Page 8

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT, a magazine published every week by The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., mailing address P.O. Box 9538, Lakewood Station, Dallas 14, Texas, Telephone Taylor 1-2303 (Office Address 6441 Gaston Avenue). Subscription rates: $10.00 a year, $6.00 for 6 months, $18.00 for two years. For first class mail $12.50 a year; by airmail (including APO and FPO) $14.50 a year. Reprints of specific issues: 1 copy for 25£; 6 for $1.00; 50 for $5.50; 100 for $10.00 — each price for bulk mailing to one person. Add 2% sales tax on all orders originating in Texas for Texas delivery.

No reproductions permitted.