Senator ELLENDER. I think it is essential that we hear him. Senator DONNELL. I would be very anxious to have him here, Senator Ives, and I hope you can arrange, with due regard to his health, of course, to have him here. Senator IVES. He will be very glad to appear, because his heart and soul are in this particular legislation. I want to say that he is about 70 years of age and he has no political ax to grind because, like some of us, he believes in it, and you have got to believe in this thing or you can't go at it properly. The New York law has been in operation for almost 2 years, and I am informed that during this period of time, not one penalty has been imposed and not even one case has gone to court. The record of New York is indeed impressive and will be fully covered by the present chairman and the former chairmen of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination, who are to appear at a later date during these present hearings. Suffice it to state, however, that the experience of New York State has already demonstrated that this kind of law can be made to work as it is intended to work. There are, no doubt, some who may question the possibility of creating a commission, as provided in this bill, whose members will administer the statute fairly and properly. I can understand this kind of doubt in the mind of any person. As a matter of fact, it was the biggest obstacle which had to be overcome at the time the New York bill was being considered by the legislature of that State. However, again the experience of New York has proved beyond question that it is possible to choose a commission whose members can and will meet the requirements I have cited. The New York commission consists of five members who come from the white and Negro races, the Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant religions, management and labor, and both sexes. They were selected, moreover, without regard for their affiliation in any political party. Although I am not sure about the party affiliation of every one of them, I do know that two of them are Democrats and that all of them were chosen by a Republican Governor with the advice and consent of a Republican State senate. Every one of them has been doing an outstanding job in the most delicate area in the field of human relations. If this high quality of commission can be obtained in New York State, surely a commission of equally high caliber can be obtained in the Nation. I realize that it is not necessary for me to remind the members of this committee of the basic justice inherent in this bill. Two of you, Senator Smith and Senator Murray, are with me cosponsors of the bill. All of you are men of good will. No man should be deprived of the right to earn a living because of his race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Discrimination in employment is contrary to all that is fundamental in our American creed. That is what this bill deals with the right to work, regardless of one's race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. This right, as all of us know, is fundamental in religion. It is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, and of the Two Great Commandments and of the Golden Rule. The Declaration of Independence gave it new life, the Constitution of the United States presumably guarantees it. And yet, our failure as a Nation to live up to it constitutes the gravest anomaly in our American tradition. We may differ among ourselves on how to meet and overcome this so-called American dilemma, but at the same time we must recognize that it has to be met and that it has to be overcome. I firmly believe that the bill we are now considering offers the soundest and most effective plan thus far devised, by which to solve the problem of discrimination in employment. Senator DONNELL. Senator Ives, you state it is not your purpose at this time to give a résumé of the contents of this bill, that this will be handled by others who will appear at these hearings in addition to Mr. Tuttle. Who is it that you contemplate will explain the details of the contents of the bill? Senator IVES. I think probably that will be confined largely to Mr. Tuttle himself. While I am on this subject, if there is anybody that desires to have further information concerning the contents of the bill, I assume we can get others to testify on it, but I think that you will find, when I said others, I presumably meant another, although there may be among those who are to testify some who will want to comment on the bill itself and its contents. That is why I didn't restrict myself to the singular. I wonder if I might file with the committee as an exhibit the report of the New York State Temporary Commission Against Discrimination? Senator DONNELL. I understand Senator Ives will file the document with the committee as a part of its records. Senator IVES. Yes. Senator DONNELL. Senator Ellender, do you desire to ask Senator Ives some questions? Senator ELLENDER. Senator Ives, were you chairman of this commission? Senator IVES. Yes, sir; chairman of the temporary commission. Senator ELLENDER. How long did the commission sit before it finally decided to draft the bill? Senator IVES. We started operations in the early summer of 1944, and we first had to decide on whether we were going to have a bill or not. It was tough to make that decision. Fortunately, the State of New York, under its war acts of one kind or another, had established previously a temporary committee on discrimination in employment under the New York State War Council, which had had a substantial record of activity and experience, and we could draw on that to get the information as to conditions as they existed in the State at that time, and thereby avoided a great deal of survey and investigation by the temporary commission. That we did, which enabled us to have at the start pretty good first-hand information on the conditions in New York State. So that our problem in the beginning was how to meet those conditions, whether we should attempt to do it by statute or whether we should attempt to take some other course. So what we did was to draft a bill out of whole cloth. Senator ELLENDER. When did you become convinced that it could be done by legislation? Senator IVES. During the course of the hearings on the bill that we drafted. That is what I am coming to, Senator. Senator ELLENDER. I thought you said the first thing the commission did was to decide whether or not it could be done by law. Senator IVES. That is right, whether or not it could be done by a statute. There is a big difference as to whether it can be done and as to whether it should be done. Senator DONNELL. Well, was your doubt a constitutional one? Senator IVES. My doubt was one of feasibility as to whether it was workable or whether it was a practicable approach to the thing by statute. That was my doubt, and I hadn't had any experience in the field at all, that is, in this particular field of human relations. Naturally, I was one of those who were open to conviction on the matter of approach. I knew it could be done by statute. That is, the attempt could be made by statute, but the question arose as to whether it should be done, and in order to find out whether it should be done, we had to draft this statute, this bill, which we did. We held hearings all through the fall. Senator ELLENDER. When did you decide that, before or after you held the hearings? Senator IVES. Decide what? Senator ELLENDER. That it could be done by statute. Senator IVES. We decided it could be done before we held the hearings; otherwise there wouldn't be any point in holding the hearings if we decided it couldn't be done that way. Senator ELLENDER. You say there were no constitutional inhibitions. It was a question of what? Senator IVES. There couldn't be any constitutional inhibitions. The constitutional part of it goes in the opposite direction from any inhibitions. Senator ELLENDER. What was it that made you doubtful as to whether or not that could be done? Senator IVES. The question of approaching this matter through statute with the necessary legal compulsions that a statute might entail. Senator ELLENDER. And that was decided by you and your commission before you started the hearings. Senator IVES. No. Senator ELLENDER. After? Senator IVES. The question as to whether it should be done was decided afterwards. Senator ELLENDER. Well now, to what extent did your commission hear cases in the State of New York to convince you that the course you took was a proper one? Senator IVES. That it would be a proper one, you mean? Senator ELLENDER. Yes. Senator IVES. Well, as I said before, we had the complete record of the temporary committee on discrimination in employment which had been operating through the war under the New York State War Council. That was a committee similar to the Federal FEPC. We had their record of experience, which was very complete. Senator ELLENDER. You also had the one in Washington. Senator IVES. We had case after case after case in the State of New York before us. So we knew what the situation was in those particular instances. Senator ELLENDER. You had the one in Washington here, did you not? Senator IVES. We had that one to draw on, but we didn't need to. We had our own. Senator ELLENDER. As a matter of fact, didn't what was happening here in Washington form a basis for the whole problem in New York? Senator IVES. No. We had our own, I guess, even before that, as far as the war was concerned. At least ours, I assume, was created simultaneously with that. Senator ELLENDER. How long before the war did the situation exist? Senator IVES. In New York State? Senator ELLENDER. Yes. Senator IVES. Well, I think it probably existed for a great many years. Senator ELLENDER. When did it first come to your attention as a legislator? Senator IVES. You mean for action as a legislator? Senator ELLENDER. Yes. Senator IVES. We had bills of one kind or another before the legislature in previous years prior to 1944, when the temporary commission was created, I would assume during all the period I was in the legislature, which was from 1930 on. At one time or another, bills of this character had been presented. Senator ELLENDER. Did your commission hear any cases of discrimination? Senator IVES. Yes; sure. Senator ELLENDER. To what extent? Senator IVES. Well, to the extent that we found out what the situation was, both pro and con, in connection with the alleged discrimination. Senator ELLENDER. Did your commission travel about the State? Senator IVES. Yes. It held hearings in all of the large centers of the State. Senator ELLENDER. And cases of discrimination were brought to your attention? Senator IVES. Yes; that is correct. Senator ELLENDER. By whom? Senator IVES. By the witnesses who appeared. Some of the witnesses were people who had been discriminated against or claimed they had been discriminated against. Senator ELLENDER. Can you give us a few glaring cases of discrimination? Senator IVES. Can I give you a few? Senator ELLENDER. Yes, that registered on your mind during the hearings. Senator IVES. No; it is too long ago. I don't think any particular one stands out above any other. The cases that were presented were all more or less of a similar pattern, where the person alleged that he had been discriminated against because of race or religion or nationality. Senator ELLENDER. Did education come into the picture? Senator IVES. No. That hasn't anything to do with this subject. You want to bear in mind in dealing with this subject that you are dealing with something where you are discriminated against because of your race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. If there is an educational variation there, that is something else. That doesn't enter into this. Senator ELLENDER. Did the complainant give specific testimony that the employer discriminated against him because of his race? Senator IVES. Well, they gave testimony to the extent that they indicated that there had been discrimination because of that; that is, the allegation was on that basis. You see, we weren't out as a commission to solve those particular cases; that wasn't our function. Our function was to find out what the situation might be. Senator ELLENDER. But still in all, you were in search- Senator ELLENDER. Of cases for information. Senator IVES. Yes; of the type that would fall within the purview of the statute; that is right. Senator ELLENDER. Well now, to what extent did employers appear before your committee? Senator IVES. I would say all of the representative groups of employers in the State appeared at one point or another on the committee agenda. I don't recall a single hearing we held where an employer didn't appear on one side or the other. They weren't all against it. There were a great many employers that were for this type of set-up. Senator ELLENDER. That was the next question I was going to ask you. What proportion would you say of the employers who appeared were for the bill? Senator IVES. Why, it is hard to say. I don't think any record was ever kept. I would say of the employers appearing for and against, the ratio was probably two against to one for the bill. However, I think you will find that today, if we were to have the same kind of hearings in the State of New York, that the ratio would be reversed, considerably more than reversed, because the experience under the New York statute over these last 2 years has shown employers right and left that it can work satisfactorily and that they have nothing to fear from it. Oh, to be sure, there is criticism here and there; there is bound to be. You never saw a statute dealing with a controversial subject where there wasn't any criticism, but the criticism is at a minimum. Senator ELLENDER. To what extent did any of the employers who appeared testify that they discriminated against their employees because of race or color? Senator IVES. That they discriminated against employees? Senator IVES. Well, they would naturally never admit it. Senator ELLENDER. Did your commission attempt to find out from the employers the extent to which they discriminated or did they depend entirely on Senator IVES. Yes, Senator. Senator ELLENDER. The testimony of the employees? Senator IVES. Yes; we had the testimony of the employees, as well as the employers, in the same outfits. We had a very complete record, you see, as a result of the activities of this temporary war council committee which had been functioning for 3 years prior to the activities of our temporary commission, and we did go into that and got all the facts necessary on that. I want to say this in connection with the employers: That where the objection came from employers at that particular time-I can't answer as regards that at the present moment, because this was 2 or 3 years |