unfair and less excusable than discrimination against workers on the ground of union affiliation."

In People v. Barber (289 N. Y. 378) the New York court of appeals said (p. 386):

"We know now, more surely than ever before, that callousness to the rights of individuals and minorities leads to barbarism and the destruction of the essential values of civilized life."

In James v. Marinship Corp. (155 Pac. (2d) 329) the Supreme Court of California, in a decision announced on January 2, 1945, granted an injunction against the refusal of a local union having a closed shop agreement to permit members of a Negro auxiliary union to work in the shop. The court said:

"It's (the union's) asserted right to choose its own members does not merely relate to social relations; it affects the fundamental right to work for a living (citing cases). * The discriminatory practices involved in this case are, moreover, contrary to the public policy of the United States and this State." In Railway Mail Association v. Corsi (326 U. S. 88) the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of section 43 of the civil rights law of the State of New York. That section prohibited any labor organization from discriminating in the matter of membership and privilege on account of race, creed or color. In upholding constitutionality, the Supreme Court said:

"We have here a prohibition of discrimination in membership or union services on account of race, creed, or color. A judicial determination that such legislation violated the fourteenth amendment would be a distortion of the policy manifested in that amendment, which was adopted to prevent State legislation designed to perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race or color. We see no constitutional basis for the contention that a State cannot protect workers from exclusion solely on the basis of race, color, or creed by an organization, functioning under the protection of the State, which holds itself out to represent the general business needs of employees."

In Steele v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. (323 U. S. 192) the Supreme Court held that a Negro railway fireman who was discriminated against because of color by the union chosen by the majority of his craft as bargaining representative under Federal Railway Labor Act, could properly invoke the protection of the court by injunction, notwithstanding that such discrimination was buttressed by the contract between the union and the employing railroad. The Supreme Court said:

*

* *

*

* we think that Congress, in enacting the Railway Labor Act and authorizing a labor union, chosen by a majority of a craft, to represent the craft, did not intend to confer power upon the union to sacrifice, for the benefit of its members, rights of the minority of the craft, without imposing on it any duty to protect the minority.

66

*

the discriminations based on race alone are obviously irrelevant and invidious. Congress plainly did not undertake to authorize the bargaining representative to make such discrimination."

To the same effect are

Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (323 U. S. 210 (1944));

Morgan v. Virginia (328 U. S. 373);

Yale Law Journal (April 1947, p. 731, vol. 56, No. 4)-Discrimination by labor union bargaining representatives against racial minorities; California Law Journal (September 1945, p. 388, vol. 33, No. 3)-The right to equal opportunity in employment.

NO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF CONTRACT

Freedom of contract is not absolute. Like all other rights of person and of property, it is subject to reasonable regulations and prohibitions in the interest of the common welfare and of a sound and consistent democracy. As said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nebbia v. People of the State of New York (291 U. S. 502, 527):

"The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases."

And in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (300 U. S. 379) the same Court, per Chief Justice Hughes, said (0.391):

"What is this freedom (of contract)? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the Constitution does

not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process. This essential limitation of liberty, in general, governs freedom of contract in particular."

Hence, the courts have steadily upheld legislative authority to regulate labor conditions and relations, and to prevent the right to hire and discharge from being used to impair "the countervailing right" of employees (Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N. L. R. B. (313 U. S. 177); N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin (301 U. S. 1); U. S. v. Darby (312 U. S. 100)). The phrase "affected with a public interest" is no longer accepted judicially as the determining characteristic of businesses which can be subjected to "the economic and social programs of the States" (Olsen v. Nebraska (313 U. S. 236, 246)).

CONCLUSION

Senate bill 984 rests on sound principles.

It is a workable and moderate but effective expression in the economic field of the basic American doctrine of equality of opportunity.

It is supported by the precedent and experience of like legislation in several of the States.

It is called for by the Charter of the United Nations and by the leadership which this Nation must take in strengthening and validating the principles and practice of democracy throughout the world.

It is constitutional and it is statesmanlike.
Respectfully submitted.

JUNE 10, 1947.

CHARLES H. TUTTLE.

Senator IVES. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I don't think I stated for the record that Mr. Tuttle's activity in the particular legislation which was enacted in New York came about because he was the counsel for the temporary commission against discrimination which proposed and sponsored the bill.

Senator ELLENDER. As I understand, Senator, you are simply filing this for incorporation in the permanent record.

Senator DONNELL. That is right; yes, sir. I think we should have it incorporated in full in the permanent record.

The next witness is Rabbi William F. Rosenblum.

Will you please state your name, address, and something of your background?

STATEMENT OF RABBI WILLIAM F. ROSENBLUM, PRESIDENT, SYNAGOGUE COUNCIL OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I am president of the Synagogue Council of America, which is the all-over coordinating body of our religious groups in this country, the orthodox, conservative, and reform groups. I am a graduate of the College of the City of New York and also of Tulane University Law School, Louisiana. Since you asked the previous witnesses, I thought I would get it in the record right now that I was a lawyer, but I advanced myself to a spiritual state by graduating from the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati as rabbi in 1926.

Senator ELLENDER. What caused you to do that? Didn't you like law?

Rabbi ROSENBUM. I advanced from law, realizing that justice had to be implemented in this field of human relations which we are dealing with now. I think it is a great profession and I am proud of it.

Senator DONNELL. Rabbi, have you given special attention to social problems in these matters?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. Yes, sir. I have been a member of various groups dealing with that in our own Synagogue Council. For many years, I was on the social justice commission. At the present time, I am a member of an interracial commission in New York and several bodies of that character, and, together with representatives of the Federal Council of the National Catholic Welfare group, sit very frequently in consideration of subjects of a social import.

I am also chaplain of the Legion, and in that connection, come in contact very frequently with all problems of this character. Senator DONNELL. That is, the American Legion.

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. You mean of the national organization?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. No, sir. I am a chaplain of the Navy post. There are few Navy posts in the American Legion. During the war, I was one of the three-priest, minister, and rabbi-that spoke to many hundreds of thousands of soldiers on why to fight, and also stressing the fact of equality of opportunity and unity. It is interesting that present in this room is the priest on our mission to Alaska, Father Cardinal. That is my background.

While I occupy a representative capacity as president of the Synagogue Council of America, as indicated above, I come here as an American citizen, interested in the welfare of all Americans and especially in preserving those institutions that are vital to our democracy. It is from this larger point of view that I support the objectives of S. 984, known as the Ives-Chavez bill. I believe that failure to enact some such bill will make many Americans lose heart and faith in our democracy and plant thoughts of dictatorship in their minds.

It is natural that religious groups should come strongly to the support of any measure which puts into practice the fundamental principle that we have "one Father and that one God made us all," and, moreover, that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." However, it is not merely from a theological point of view that we feel strong effort must be made against discrimination, but from the more practical aspect of preserving the rights of our citizens and especially of furthering the aims of our form of government.

One of those rights is the right to work, which this bill establishes for the first time, I believe, definitely as a civil right.

Following are some of the reasons why I believe the Ives-Chavez bill against discrimination should be enacted:

1. It is in keeping with the fundamental American concept as contained in the Declaration of Independence and as further implemented in our Constitution, that every American is entitled to equal opportunity, without regard to race, creed, or color, or whatever his situation socially, economically, religiously or with regard to geographical origin. One of the fundamental rights of an individual is to earn a livelihood, and it places a citizen in a condition of servitude to be the victim of practices which deprive him of that opportunity.

2. We have made a great deal of progress in this country in breaking down class barriers, and, of course, it differs in some localities as

to which group is discriminated against. There are places where Jews are discriminated against mostly. There are other places where the Negroes are discriminated against. In some places it is the Mexican group; in certain parts of New England which I visited recently, it was the French-Canadian group. It depends on the pattern of the different States.

There are some parts of the Nation which are more liberal than others, but there still persist in industry, as well as in education, particularly in many areas of employment, practices which make it impossible for people of certain religious and racial groups to receive fair and equal consideration when applying for jobs. Many employers and even labor unions are guilty of discriminatory policies. It is desirable that such un-American methods be eliminated, and since this is the aim of the Ives-Chavez bill, we feel it our duty as religious people to endorse it.

3. Efforts made in the State of New York and New Jersey, and perhaps other places, show that proper methods of intervention on the part of a duly established legal authority frequently result in having discriminatory practices stopped. A national law on the subject is bound to be helpful to local bodies working along these lines and will also reach those organizations which are not municipal or State in character, but country-wide in their operation.

When I say "organizations," I am referring to big corporations whose business is interstate and whose organizations are interstate. May I inject here that it has been my privilege to sit several times with advisory bodies of the State commission of which Mr. Turner was the chairman. So I am familiar with some of the operations and some of the work that has been done in the State of New York.

Senator IVES. Pardon me, I don't like to interrupt you, but I would like to ask a question. Do you approve the procedure they are following there?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I approve of it because I have been able to observe the procedure they have used. The procedure they have used thus far has resulted time after time in employers as well as employees admitting that, while they had reservations and they had these prejudices, after the trial, they said they found their fears were unwarranted, and perhaps that is one of the reasons why it has not reached the courts.

I have sat several times with the New York State Advisory Board, and while I am unable to be a member of it because of my official position, I have been familiar with its work.

Senator IVES. Thank you.

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. Discrimination is against all religious principle. When I say "all," I am not speaking as a Jew or as a rabbi. I am speaking as one who has been able to be in contact with all the other religious groups.

Senator ELLENDER. With reference to discrimination, what do you find most discriminated against, creed or color or just what?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I find in different places that the discrimination is for different reasons.

Senator ELLENDER. I know that, but is there more discrimination based on religion or race or creed or just what?

65936-47- -4

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I must answer the way I stated, because I have lived in various parts of the country in which religion has been the basis. I know places where a Catholic could not get employment. Senator ELLENDER. Where is that?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. Somewhere in the South, in Texas, which I have had occasion to visit. On one occasion, I took a trip and invited a priest to come with me, and I have been told by some of my Protestant friends that that is not the right thing to do in this particular locality. That was in a place a little distance out of Houston: "We don't like them here." I have been in places where Protestants have been discriminated against.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean in work?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. Yes; one organization in New York has luckily changed its practice from what it was when I went there 15 years ago because of the policy of its employment manager. The employment manager happened to be at that time a Catholic. He discriminated against the Protestants and particularly the Jews. That was not the policy of the corporation and they rectified it by getting a different employment manager. However, that was particularly a religious discrimination, not interested in the national origin or where they came from. It was because of religion. That particular woman had a conviction that only those of her particular denomination, religious denomination, could be the best employees.

Senator ELLENDER. Don't you think that that is a problem that should be dealt with by the churches rather than by law?

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I think I will cover that in the statement that I make, or I can say it now. I believe that the forces of education must go on all the time. We have had religion for thousands of years, and I have found as a matter of actual experience after I became a rabbi and thought I had a call-and it was a God-given work-I frequently found men who were elders of the church, members of the vestry, who got up on Sunday morning and most beautifully read out of the Bible the advice that Jesus gave that there are only two great commandments. One is: "Thou shall love the Lord with all thine heart, soul, and mind"; the other, "Thou shall love they neighbor as thyself," who nevertheless practiced discrimination in other things.

It is a difficult thing. As was indicated by one of the Senators speaking to you, though we have these aims and education and religion, it is difficult to get human nature to adopt it without certain disciplines. Even religions have to have disciplines in order to enforce some of the ideals that are accepted. I believe the church can help, but not enough.

Senator ELLENDER. Suppose we should try to do that legally.
Rabbi ROSENBLUM. To have the church in charge of that?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes, of course. It wouldn't meet the constitutional requirement, but that would be as good a reason to do it.

Rabbi ROSENBLUM. I am thoroughly convinced that the church should not enter into any field of enforcement of certain legal obligations. It would be highly political. It is one of the things that I see in some avenues of American life that I deplore. I believe that the church has its business to train people spiritually. It has the discipline within the church, but in the larger field of relations, where it comes in contact with other groups, there must be the all-over body;