Senator DONNELL. Pardon me, Mrs. Johnson. Could you tell us what is the Council of Negro Churches? Could you personally give us the composition of that organization?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I think I can.

It represents, as I said, 11 major denominations, and they are in just about every State in the Union, and the membership is made up of individuals, of churches, of State conventions, and of associations, different break-down units in the different denominations, and they have memberships that pay to the council to become members of it.

Senator DONNELL. Has any action been taken by the council officially through its board of directors or executive committee or general assembly, or whatever it may be?

Mrs. JOHNSON. You mean to endorse such legislation?
Senator DONNELL. To endorse S. 984?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes. They had their annual meeting in Baltimore May 28 and 29 of this year, at which time they passed the resolution adopting this legislation, and they have always been in the forefront. Senator DONNELL. I was interrupted for just a moment. You may have mentioned that before.

Have you presented that already?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; I have not come to it but it is in there.
Senator DONNELL. You are going to present that?

Very well.

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir [reading]:

As spiritual leaders in various communities across the Nation the clergy of the National Fraternal Council of Negro Churches know how vitally essential fairness in employment is to the economic, social, and religious fiber of our people and all people. When a breadwinner is denied a job to support his family because of the color of his skin, his race, or creed, the moral structure of this great America is weakened. We recognize the fact that the Negro worker along with other minority groups suffers tragically because of the failure to receive fair employment privileges.

Churches and members of the National Fraternal Council of Negro Churches in America have registered their individual and group endorsement of the FEPC legislation in the past and this organization has been outspoken in the support of all efforts toward fair employment practices.

We are especially pleased that this bill, S. 984, has come up for hearing at this time and we do respectfully urge the members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare as well as Congress in general to look upon this bill as a measure that must be considered favorably in the interest of our Nation's welfare.

In the annual meeting of the National Fraternal Council of Negro Churches in America which met May 28-29 in Baltimore, Md., a strong resolution supporting S. 984 was unanimously adopted. We feel deeply the urgent need for this important piece of legislation and urge favorable consideration.

Senator DONNELL. Can you tell us, what are the church organizations that belong to your council?

Mrs. JOHNSON. The different denominations; I think I can name them :

The Baptist, of course, represents the largest denomination. A. M. E.'s, A. M. E. Zion, C. A. M. E.'s, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, Congregational, Christian, and Disciple. I think that is about all. There are 11.

Senator DONNELL. There are 11; yes.

Mrs. Johnson, at the meeting held in Baltimore, on May 28 and 29 of this year, how large delegations were present; do you know?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I did not attend the meeting, but I understand that there was represented at least 300 delegations.

Senator DONNELL. You mean at least 300 delegates were there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; they were there, and others were represented

by proxy.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know whether all these 11 denominations were represented at the Baltimore meeting?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; all these denominations were represented. Senator DONNELL. And you say there was a strong resolution supporting this S. 984 which was unanimously adopted?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. Do you have a copy of that resolution?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; I do not have.

Senator DONNELL. Could you furnish a copy?

Mrs. JOHNSON. I could furnish one.

Senator DONNELL. Would you please send a copy within the next day or two to Mr. Rodgers, the clerk of this committee?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; I will.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson.

Senator ELLENDER. Will you state your name for the record?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KOVNER, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. KOVNER. My name is Joseph Kovner. I am an attorney, resident of the District of Columbia, presently connected with the Johns Hopkins University labor-union study. That is a special study at Johns Hopkins University.

I was formerly counsel to the labor divisions of the War Production Board, and formerly assistant general counsel to the CIO. Senator ELLENDER. Where were you born?

Mr. KOVNER. Brockton, Mass.

Senator ELLENDER. Brockton, Mass.?

Mr. KOVNER. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. What is the American Civil Liberties Union? Mr. KOVNER. The American Civil Liberties Union is a voluntary association organized in the form of a membership corporation under the laws of the State of New York. Its purpose is to defend, promote, and protect civil liberties in the United States.

Senator ELLENDER. What is your membership?

Mr. KOVNER. The membership ranges around 6,000 to 10,000 voluntary contributors.

Senator ELLENDER. Are you maintained solely by contributions from the membership?

Mr. KOVNER. We are maintained solely by voluntary contributions from the membership and occasional larger grants or gifts from members.

Mr. ELLENDER. Do you have a list of the officers?

Mr. KOVNER. Yes; I have here a list of the national committee.

The functioning organization consists of a national committee of 60 to 70 persons scattered throughout the country, and the board of directors of about 30 persons who live in New York City and who meet every week, the majority of whom meet once a week to go over the affairs of the unit.

I have here a pamphlet entitled "Presenting the American Civil Liberties Union," which I shall be glad to offer to the committee. (The document referred to was filed with the committee.) Senator ELLENDER. Who are your active officers?

Mr. KOVNER. The active officers are listed at the end.

Mr. Roger Baldwin is the director.

That is on the very large page, Senator, that you will find the officers.

Roger Baldwin is the director, and Mr. Clifford is the general counsel to the organization.

Senator ELLENDER. Is it open to membership to anybody who desires? Are there any qualifications for membership?

Mr. KOVNER. Anyone who desires is open to membership, and who subscribes to its principles, which include a belief in civil liberties and in the democratic form of government.

Senator ELLENDER. Have you a prepared statement?

Mr. KOVNER. Yes; I do.

Senator ELLENDER. Do you want to go through it without interruption or do you mind interruptions?

Mr. KOVNER. I do not mind interruptions.

Senator ELLENDER. Proceed.

Mr. KOVNER. The American Civil Liberties Union as an organization vitally concerned with the protection and extension of our Bill of Rights and the elimination of any discrimination based on race or religion, wishes to express its complete support of S. 984. The union supported the elimination, during the past war, of such discrimination in public employment among contractors working for Federal agencies and favored the creation of the President's Fair Employment Practices Committee. The union also has supported legislation and court proceedings aimed at eliminating discrimination by trade-unions in admitting members on the ground that some unions now have such large control over employment in many industries that their regulation is necessary.

2. The principle involved in the National Act Against Discrimination concerns discrimination by private employers as well as by Government agencies and trade-unions. The union has taken the position that private employers should be prevented from discriminating on the same basis as trade-unions, controlling between them as they do the means of livelihood. S. 984 applies to employers with 50 or more workers and unions with 50 or more members. The exemption of small establishments is based on the fact that these employers and unions affect the labor market only slightly and that the difficulty of enforcing policies affecting these small units is too great.

3. It is contended by those who oppose enactment of statute to outlaw discrimination in employment that they violate their right to choose their own employees. That argument, it seems to the ACLU has been effectively answered by the many labor laws enacted, the progress being made under comparable State legislation, and the remarkable success of the FEPC during its short life. The right to work has been recognized as one of our primary civil rights and the denial or curtailment of the right to work by reason of race, creed, color, or national origin deprives minorities of their constitutional rights to earn a livelihood (Carroll v. Local 269, 133 N. J. Eq. 144, 147, and cases cited).

Senator ELLENDER. Will you tell us, for the record, what minorities are?

What is your conception?

Mr. KOVNER. I would suppose that a minority is a group less than the majority of the Nation, who have certain marked characteristics in common, either matters of belief, or ideas, or biological traits of race, or accidents of birth.

Senator ELLENDER. Would you consider a group of 24,000,000 people a minority?

Mr. KOVNER. That would depend upon the unit. When we are proceeding with a unit of 125,000,000, it would be a minority, just simply on the arithmetic of minority and majority.

Senator ELLENDER. Is it your conception that as long as it constitutes less than 50 percent of our entire population, that it is a minority?

Mr. KOVNER. That would be technically so.

Now, there are practical considerations. Some groups which may be a technical minority may have no practical problem as a minority group. I should suppose, for example, that certain members of the Anglo-Saxon Episcopalian faith in this country are a very small group and a minority, but think of the very few problems of discrimination as a practical matter; whereas a very much smaller group or much larger group such as Negroes would have a very serious problem.

Senator ELLENDER. Now, there was a statement made here yesterday by a Catholic priest to the effect that he considered 23,000,000plus Čatholics a minority group.

Mr. KOVNER. Speaking technically, I suppose that would be true. I suppose it is also true that we all belong to some minority group or another.

Senator ELLENDER. That is a point.

In other words, there are no majority groups. nority groups, according to that interpretation? Mr. KOVNER. Again, it is a matter of relation. Negroes, for example, the majority are whites. distinct minority in such a situation.

Senator ELLENDER. In relation to racial origin?

They are all mi

In relation to the
They are a very

Mr. KOVNER. Or in relation to religion. I should say the Jews or the Mohammedans are a distinct minority as against the overwhelming Christians in the country. One does have such minorities and such majorities. I think the term is a relative one and has to be understood in this case, but it does create or does have very practical groupings and problems in the minds of those who sponsor this legislation.

Senator ELLENDER. Proceed.

Mr. KOVNER. The courts have consistently upheld legislative authority to regulate labor conditions and relations (Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 313 U. S. 177; U. S. v. Darby, 313 U. S. 100; Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236).

The experience of the States and municipalities which have comprehensive and effective laws forbidding job discrimination has shown that progress can be made through law toward the elimination of discriminatory employment practices and the opening of fields of oppor

tunity previously closed to certain minority groups. A Federal law, however, is essential so that uniformity can be achieved and large employers engaged in interstate commerce can be covered. The President's wartime FEPC, drawing upon 5 years of experience, warned in its final report that—

no device will solve the problem [discrimination] short of the enactment by Congress of Federal fair employment legislation.

Senator DONNELL. Pardon me, Mr. Kovner.

One of the members of our committee has to attend another meeting in a few minutes and desires to present something for the record, if you will pardon the interruption.

Mr. KOVNER. Absolutely, sir.

Senator SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, at these hearings, I discussed the possibility of an amendment to this bill on the question of enforcement; and I see by the papers this morning that from the headlines and the statements in the papers that what I proposed was apparently misunderstood by members of the press and therefore, for the record, I would like to correct what I think is a misapprehension.

The New York Herald Tribune of Thursday, June 12-this morning-has a big headline as follows:

Plan to Exempt South in FEPC Bill Proposed.

Senator Smith suggested at hearing.

The Washington Post has a headline, "Smith Asks State Run FEPC."

And goes on to say:

A suggestion by Senator Smith that enforcement of fair employment practices be left to the individual States was a proposed consideration yesterday before a Senate labor subcommittee.

For the record, I want to make it perfectly clear what my suggestion

was.

I am entirely in favor of this bill the way it is framed. I was a cosponsor of the bill. I think that the whole program is well worked out, with its educational program, and with its conciliation-mediation program.

I think the proposals for enforcement and the prevention of unlawful practices is extremely well worked out.

I am entirely for the whole way the matter is done, with court review and with court participation.

That applies to the bill as a whole covering the country as a whole. What I suggested, however, was that, in those areas of the country where an over-all program like this might conceivably be unacceptable and that might be in the Southern States, or any State-if within the period of time after the bill is passed, and before it actually goes into effect, such States, by positive action of their State legislatures, resolve that they do not wish sections 7 and 8 of the bill, the punitive provisions of the bill, to apply in those States, in those instances, and while the State continues to take that attitude, those provisions would not be applicable.

I never said any area should be exempted from the bill. I think the bill should be passed as an over-all statement of national policy. I think it should apply to every State equally as far as that is concerned.