Senator SMITH. That is the point, Senator, of my suggestion. If the South would accept the spirit of this bill and we'll say it is for you to work out your own salvation, that we are not going to put the arm of Federal enforcement on this, I think you can make progress. I doubt very much, frankly, in thinking this through, that you can make progress by compelling a situation that I don't think can be compelled by the arm of the law. That is what troubles me, Senator.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, it troubles me also, and the people who are going to suffer by it are those you are trying to help, because down South, as you know, we have about 75 to 78 percent of the Nation's colored people and we are striving to help them in our own way.

Senator SMITH. I want to try to approach this problem in these racial relationships, especially in the southern part of the country, through the medium of education rather than through the medium of Federal compulsion. That is the purpose of my suggestion. I appreciate that the Senator from New York has had so much experience in this field, but this is a subject that should be so thoroughly explored.

Senator IVES. I don't think there are any aspects of it that shouldn't be thoroughly explored. I think we ought to cover every corner of it.

Senator ELLENDER. That is the reason why, Senator Ives, I have suggested to this committe that we delve into the cases of discrimination, to see the extent to which there is discrimination. All we have heard here is the testimony of people, and most of it is hearsay, but we haven't had any actual cases presented on the problem even during the hearings of last year on the Chavez bill.

Senator IVES. Well, I think, Senator, when you have the heads of these several commissions on discrimination before the committee, that questions of that kind can be satisfactorily answered. I know there are cases. There have been hundreds of them in New York

State.

Senator ELLENDER. I don't doubt that, but the complaints are highly exaggerated.

Senator IVES. I think you, as well as I, would like to get their slant on this thing and find out what they were and how they were handled. That is what we want to know, but I don't think it is necessary to go into every State in the Union and ascertain that.

Senator ELLENDER. Oh, no.

Senator IVES. I think you can use New York State as the guinea pig. Heaven knows, we are used for a lot of things. We might as well be used for something once in a while that is meritorious [laughter], and I think New York can easily be the guinea pig.

Senator DONNELL. Senator Ives, in your statement, you say, "By the terms of this bill, the penalties are moderate but sufficiently stiff to insure their receiving attention by those whom they would affect." Now, in this connection, I would like to call attention to the fact, for the record, that section 7, to which Senator Smith has referred, gives the commission which is to be created by the bill, if it be enacted, the power to issue an order requiring an individual or employer to cease and desist from the unlawful employment practice. In the second place, in section 8, to which Senator Smith has likewise referred, the commission has the power to petition any circuit court

of appeals in the United States and, in some cases, the district courts of the United States, for the enforcement of the order.

Now I take it, Senator Ives, that the thought behind that lastmentioned provision is that if the court has the power to issue an order enforcing the order of the Commission that for violation of such an order issued by the court, contempt proceedings would lie. That is correct; is it not?

Senator IVES. That is right. You would also find that section 14, I think, would probably have to come out, if we were to do what Senator Smith contemplates.

Senator DONNELL. That is on forcibly resisting the Commission or its representatives, but I am talking about the provisions of 7 and 8, to which he refers. In other words, the procedure would be for the Commission to determine whether or not there is a violation of the act. It would thereupon issue, if it found there was such a violation, an order to cease and desist. If that order were not complied with, the remedy would be for the Commission itself to petition the court which could enforce the order, if necessary, by contempt proceedings. This would give the court, I take it, the power to assess the penalties properly assessable for contempt of court. Is that correct?

Senator IVES. Yes; you would do it that way, but I don't think you would impose the two penalties. If that isn't clear here, it should be made clear. It was made clear in the New York statute and I thought it was made clear here.

Senator DONNELL. Just a minute, Senator, if you please. I had not raised the point of the double penalty at this point. I want to be perfectly clear as to the purpose of section 8, which gives the court the right to issue its decree for the enforcement of the order of the Commission. Now for a violation of the action of the court, I take it that this bill contemplates that contempt proceedings would lie. Is that correct?

Senator IVES. Unless it is straightened out that there shouldn't be any double violation. I don't remember whether the New York statute had that in there or not or whether or not this would be exclusive.

Senator DONNELL. I didn't ask whether it is exclusive. The point I am asking is that section 8 does contemplate contempt proceedings for violation of the act.

Senator IVES. I think that such could be instituted under it.

Senator DONNELL. Then, as you say, there is further provision under section 14, reading as follows:

Whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a member, agent, or employee of the Commission while engaged in the performance of duties under this act, or because of such performance, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both.

Senator IVES. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. Are there any further questions?

Senator ELLENDER. Senator Ives, is the commission the sole judge of the facts in the case?

Senator IVES. Well, it is up to the time it decides whether there

a violation or not and issues its cease and desist order, and then it has the court procedure.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, that is to enforce its order.
Senator IVES. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. But it is the final arbiter of the facts.

Senator IVES. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. Senator, during your investigation in New York, would you be able to tell the committee against which class or race of people there was the most discrimination?

Senator IVES. No; I don't think I could because no record was ever kept on it. I don't know. For instance, in the city of Rochester, there was more criticism raised, I think, from Italian sources than from any other quarter. It depended on the location in the State. Sometimes it was the Negroes, sometimes the Jewish.

Senator ELLENDER. Who was it in New York City?

Senator IVES. I don't know. No record was ever kept on it. It depended on the area affected.

Senator DONNELL. Are there any further questions of Senator Ives? If not, we thank you, Senator Ives, for your testimony, and we will proceed to take the testimony of Senator Chavez.

Senator IVES. I wish to say, sir, before I depart from you, that any legal interpretation I may have placed on this statute or this bill is subject to further interpretation and possible revision by Mr. Tuttle, who understands it so thoroughly in a way in which I never will, not being an attorney.

(The following brief was submitted by Senator Ives:)

STATEMENT BY UNITED STATES SENATOR IRVING M. IVES ON SENATE BILL 984 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE WHICH HAS BEEN NAMED TO CONSIDER THIS LEGISLATION-JUNE 11, 1947

Over the years legislation aimed to eliminate discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry seems to have fallen largely into three main categories:

First. There is the punitive type of legislation which by heavy fine and imprisonment, would seek to gain the objective that is sought.

Second. There is the educational type of legislation which without penalty, and through conference, conciliation, persuasion, and an over-all educational approach seeks to produce an attitude and condition which in themselves will cause the elimination of discrimination.

Third. There is the type of legislation which combines in moderation both of the foregoing approaches. In this third category penalties are at a minimum and emphasis is placed largely on the voluntary processes of mediation, conciliation, conference, persuasion, and the general enlistment of representative publicspirited citizens in the local communities, in an organized effort through so-called advisory or conciliation councils, to engage in a broad informal educational program for the purpose of making not only the letter but the spirit of the law accepted and observed.

Senate bill 984, which, if enacted, would become the National Act Against Discrimination in Employment, belongs in the third category I have just indicated. By the terms of this bill the penalties are moderate but sufficiently stiff to insure their receiving attention by those whom they would affect. At the same time the possibilities for obtaining compliance through action by voluntary processes are almost without limit.

In fact, mediation, conciliation, conference, and persuasion are compulsory in the first instance. This requirement, coupled with the broad intensive program of education which the bill contemplates, should make it wholly effective-without the exercise of its penalty provisions.

It is not my purpose at this time to give a résumé of the contents of this bill. This will be handled by others who will appear at these hearings. There are connected with it, however, several important matters which I would emphasize. In the first place there is no longer ground for doubt that legislation of this kind can be made to function effectively, fairly, and satisfactorily for all concerned. Right now in the States of New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey statutes of this same nature are in effect and are operating satisfactorily.

Actually Senate bill 984 is patterned after the New York statute. In effect, it is the New York plan applied to the Federal level.

In fact the one who largely drafted the New York State law against discrimination is the one who has largely drafted the bill we are now considering. He is one of New York's most distinguished citizens, Hon. Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City, who for many years has been active in combating discrimination and who will appear on this morning's program.

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 afiliation 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 selected 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 rundamental 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.

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS CHAVEZ, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator DONNELL, Senator Chavez, will you be kind enough to proceed with your statement to the committee on S. 984, of which, I take it, you were one of the cosponsors?

Senator CHAVEZ. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, what I say this morning comes from the heart. I am for the legislation proposed because I believe in my Government. I am for the legislation proposed because I believe it fits our Government, and I am for it because I think it is a necessary step that the National Legislature should take.

S. 984, a bill to establish a National Commission Against Discrimination in Employment, is in the great tradition of the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is in harmony with the philosophy that went into the making of our Government.

It is in harmony with the constitutional evolution of that Government to meet the developing needs and desires of a people whose deepest instincts are for freedom, equality, and justice under law and whose genius has carried the industrial revolution to a point where, if we can bring our human engineering skill abreast of our technological skill, we can enjoy a degree of prosperity and freedom unequaled in the history of the world.

The instinct for freedom and justice under law for the individual man was demonstrated at the very beginning of our history. Opposition to the Constitution in its original form of a preamble and seven articles was intense. In order to insure ratification, an agreement was made to submit immediately after adoption 10 safeguarding amendments known as the Bill of Rights, all aimed at protecting rights of the individual and the States. The bill before you today is, in my opinion, a logical extension and implementation of the rights of the individual citizen safeguarded in the Bill of Rights.

In those days, 156 years ago, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that had been proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to a degree for some people in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights could be enjoyed by free men either in the expanding economy of the Thirteen Original States or by going into the frontier as pioneers.

Today, with the Nation settled and the vast majority of our people employed as wage and salary earners, our frontiers are within our industrialized economy, our society, and our Government. Enjoyment of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness today requires legislation such as S. 984 to assure equal job opportunity, equal opportunity to the means of life itself, without discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. This new frontier, this wilderness of discrimination in employment, must be opened up and cleared. We cannot longer postpone this job of modern pioneering.

Precedent and sanction for this step exist in the history of actions by Congress and State legislatures to give contemporary meaning to the philosophy of freedom, equality, and justice that inspired the creation of this Nation.

Property rights as a qualification for full citizenship and holding. office were reduced and abolished.

Chattel slavery was abolished and the Congress moved to give meaning and force to its abolition by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments which prohibited abridgment of the privileges or immunities of citizens and the depriving of any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws.

Article 15 declared that the right to vote should not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude and the Congress was given power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation. That is the