purpose of the law. Members of the staff as well as others attending the conferences have been educated concerning the many problems involved in operating an antidiscrimination law. Another feature of the educational program has been the distribution of over 100,000 pieces of general literature in the field of human relations. This literature has been distributed on request to service clubs, women's organizations, labor unions, social agencies, and other interested groups and individuals. All of it has been furnished to the division without cost by several national organizations including: Council Against Intolerance in America. National Conference of Christians and Jews. Anti-Defamation League. American Jewish Committee. Common Council for American Unity. Intercultural Education Service Bureau. A still greater variety of literature dealing with race relations and intercultural education has been distributed to teachers, members of county councils, and clergymen. School programs in intercultural education have been studied and encouraged. While many schools in New Jersey have been doing an outstanding piece of work for some time, it is the aim of the division to see a greater spread in all sections of the State. A member of the staff has personally visited the Springfield, Mass., schools and observed the Springfield plan in action. State Teachers College, Trenton, has been working on an outstanding project under the direction of the American Council on Education. This project is designed to give beginning teachers a viewpoint that will help them ease intergroup and intercultural tensions and misunderstandings. Through the efforts of the division, the cooperation of Rutgers University has been secured in attempting to establish a workshop in intercultural education for New Jersey teachers in the future. Sample courses have been prepared for use in the field of adult education and staff members have participated in the first course of its kind in New Jersey offered in Newark during the winter months. A very important educational service has been rendered all through the year to employers, personnel managers, and some employment agencies regarding the use of job application blanks. Individual help has been given to interested parties in all sections of the State. Many employers have been informed as to the illegality of certain questions they were using and in no case on record has the employer refused to make the necessary changes in order to comply with the law. CONTACTS WITH OTHER STATES Continuous contact has been maintained with the New York Commission Against Discrimination. Meetings and conferences have been held that have been of mutual help to staff members of both organizations. Massachusetts called upon New Jersey for help and advice concerning its recently passed law. In addition, representatives from Rhode Island, California, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have asked for and received suggestions concerning the operation of the New Jersey law. Many inquiries have been received from representatives of groups in several other States requesting information about the New Jersey law. ATTORNEY GENERAL The attorney general's office has rendered very valuable service in helping to interpret the many legal problems arising out of the application of the law. Two formal opinions have been issued by the attorney general as the result of direct requests for rulings concerning certain cases presented to the division. The first opinion came as the result of inquiries asking whether New Jersey's law against discrimination affects the State government and its political or civil divisions. The essence of this opinion follows: "Mischiefs at which this law is aimed are, obviously, practices of discrimination (in employment) because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry. It is inconceivable that the legislature would intend to exclude, from the purview of the statute, the State and its political units to the remotest degree while, at the same time, declaring (1) the enactment of the law to be for the 'protection of the public safety, health, and morals and to promote the general welfare,' (2) 'that practices * * * of discrimination against any of its inhabitants, because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, are a matter of concern to the government of the State, and that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of the inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic State,' and (3) the opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry is recognized ** to be a civil right.' Clearly the objective of the statute could not be accomplished without including the government." * "Therefore, although the statute in question contains no express provision embracing the government, the conclusion is inescapable that from the nature of the language used therein, the government is essentially embraced within the obvious purpose of the legislature and within the scope plainly intended to be given to the act. "Accordingly, the State, its counties, municipalities, and school districts, and all other subdivisions of government as well as all heads of departments, and all boards and commissions of the State government and its subdivisions, are bound by this law." * The second opinion was issued to settle a question of jurisdiction raised by the division concerning its right to entertain a complaint made, signed, and filed in behalf of the public by a person other than the commissioner of labor or attorney general. The following quotation from the attorney general's opinion is clear as to the jurisdiction of the division in cases of this kind: "* * Where, however, no person can show, in addition to the unlawful discriminatory act, an injury to himself which is peculiar and distinct from that suffered by the public in general, the matter is purely one of law enforcement; and for public redress in such case, section 12 of the law against discrimination specifically names two public officers upon whom the right to institute action is conferred. While private citizens often have a special interest in the enforcement of a statute, nonetheless where the duty of enforcement is entrusted solely to a named public officer, private citizens cannot intrude upon his functions (New Rochelle v. Bechwith, 268 N. Y. 315; 197 N. E. 295; 100 A. L. F. 991). Obviously, it was intended that either of the public officers named in the New Jersey statute should act in a representative capacity, in behalf of the public. The specific naming of such officers in the statute, therefore, precludes all other persons from making, signing and filing a complaint in behalf of the public." CONCLUSION The staff of the division as of June 30 consisted of eight employees headed by the assistant commissioner. There has been no attempt to place employees on the pay roll until a definite need for additional help was evident. No doubt, as the varied educational program of the division expands to all sections of the State there will be a need for several additional staff members. It may also be necessary, in the future, to establish a branch office of the division in the southern section of the State, preferably in Camden. Members of the staff have worked diligently to carry out the spirit of the law in both its enforcement provisions as well as its educational program. Good will and better relations among all the elements of the population of the State can best be secured at the level of conference and conciliation rather than through a series of unpleasant compulsory incidents. A bureaucratic approach to problems in the field of discrimination would, undoubtedly, hinder rather than help the program. It has been refreshing to members of the staff to find that most New Jersey citizens with whom they have come in contact are in accord with the idea that a person should be given an opportunity to secure a position on his qualifications rather than on his race, creed, national origin or ancestry. Many employers have modified or changed their personnel policies in keeping with the above idea. In addition, because they are interested primarily in production, many industrialists have found this law helps production due to the fact that it emphasizes employment on merit. Perhaps one of the most significant points that should be mentioned in a report of this kind is the fact that the predictions made by some of the opponents of this legislation have not materialized. It was prophesied that industry would not only stop coming to New Jersey but that some industries would even leave the State for other areas. It was also stated that race relations instead of being improved would steadily decline even to the point of alarm. Fortunately, at the end of the first year, it can be reported that the opposite is true. Prejudice still exists in New Jersey and as a result, its outgrowth, which is discrimination, still is in evidence. New Jersey, however, has made a start in a pioneer movement designed for the benefit of all of its citizens. In the years ahead, the vast majority of New Jersey citizens will, undoubtedly, be proud that they lived in a State that was among the first to recognize more fully the civil rights of its inhabitants in keeping with the intentions of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Mr. STEPHENS. I appreciate the opportunity of being here, Mr. Chairman, and finishing up today. Senator DONNELL. Will you please state your name and business, and if you appear for any organization what that organization is, or that you appear for yourself individually. Where do you live, Mr. Stephens? Mr. STEPHENS. My name is Roderick Stephens. I am an enrolled Republican, as was my father before me. I reside in Westchester County, one of the strongest Republican counties of the East. My place of business, Bronx County, has been declared by no less a political authority than Mr. Edward J. Flynn to be the banner Democratic county north of the Mason and Dixon's line. Neither county is seriously tainted with communism or dominated by a radical or subversive ideology. Neither am I. I am president of a retail fuel-distributing concern in New York City. It was founded by my grandfather in 1853. I am the third generation of Stephens to head this concern. We employ men and women, white and Negro, gentile and Jew, white-collar office and sales people, skilled and unskilled workers. Senator ELLENDER. About how many? Mr. STEPHENS. About 200. And in associated concerns about 800— concerns that are associated with Stephens Fuel Co. We have an aggregate pay roll of about 1,000 employees. Senator ELLENDER. Distributing gasoline? Mr. STEPHENS. Distributing coal and fuel oil throughout the State of New York. Senator ELLENDER. You do not have any manufacturing of any kind? Mr. STEPHENS. No. Senator ELLENDER. Most of your work is menial work? Mr. STEPHENS. By no means. Senator ELLENDER. What is that but menial? Mr. STEPHENS. I would not say so. 65936-47- -26 Senator ELLENDER. How much office work have you? Mr. STEPHENS. We probably have an office staff of 100 people-80 to 100 people. Senator ELLENDER. How many of those are colored and how many white? Mr. STEPHENS. I have not the proportions. It is a substantial proportion that are Negro, and I would say an increasing proportion. Senator ELLENDER. You mean in the office. Mr. STEPHENS. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. In the distributing of coal-that is menial work, is it not? Mr. STEPHENS. I do not think you would call it menial. You are driving a piece of equipment that costs $10,000 to $12,000. You are coming in contact with housewives. Oil deliveries and coal deliveries today are more like milk deliveries, and the drivers in the business are still called chauffeurs; in the milk business you call them salesmen. But I do not consider it menial work at all. Our staff, in effect, is a cross section of the community. We choose our employees by their qualifications their experience, their intelligence, their industry, and their character. We have not found that race, religion, or color bears any relationship to these qualifications. Some years ago Mr. Justice Hughes delivered a majority opinion for the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice McReynolds being the sole dissenter, in which the Court said: It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the fourteenth amendment to secure. I would like to adopt those words as the basis for my position on this subject. That statement expresses better than could words of mine the basic reason for my advocacy of Senate bill 984, against discrimination in employment. This fourteenth amendment, which, until now, has been little more than principle and a promise, will, by the passage of Senate bill No. 984, become a living reality in the field of employment. Think what that will mean in terms of self-respect, in terms of self-support, for millions of American men and women to whom our proclaimed principles of equality of opportunity have been a pretense and a sham. The passage of Senate bill No. 984 will help those who most need help along the slow, uphill road toward civil liberty and equality of human rights and opportunities. It will be an inspiration to all who have a part in moving our Nation's standard forward. To those who gloat, openly or secretly, whenever democracy fails or falters, it will be the Nation's ringing answer: Democracy will again be on the march. With the clash of ideologies which is ap parent in all parts of the world, democracy and free enterprise will gain new adherents and renewed vitality by a demonstration what we in America have the ability and the courage to reinforce our principles with forceful and enforceable legislation. None can claim, with truth, that this is a radical piece of legislation. It is no more radical than is our Federal Constitution. Its intent is in conformity with the constitutional guaranties of most of our States. Only in the backward States does it really represent a step beyond their constitutional guaranty. Fortunately, we now have a background of experience by which we can be certain that Senate bill No. 984 is practicable and enforceable. As a businessman, in daily touch with business affairs, with business men, and men in all ranks of the labor movement, in my own State, I can assert that the bill upon which this legislation is modeled has been shown, beyond dispute, to be sound legislation. It is also significant that this bill has biparty sponsorship and broad support within both parties. By that I mean not only the support of those who would be classified, perhaps, as liberals but conservatives and "middle of the road"; all phases of party support are, in my opinion, presented by those who are sponsoring this bill. The fears expressed by some business men and business organizations before the passage of the New York State Act Against Discrimination in Employment simply have not been realized. That is something to be considered when you hear the very same predictions of disorganization, disorder, and disaster, as being sure to follow the passage of this bill-and you will assuredly hear such testimony— from persons and organizations who will generally profess support for the principle of no discriminations on the basis of race, religion, or color, in the field of employment. And if you do not hear it in these hearings, you are certain to be told that is the case by those who will not come forward and state their position openly but will seek to express views on the side. I propose to attach to each copy of my filed statement a copy of a concise pamphlet in which are set forth, in one chapter, in a single column, all the arguments advanced against the Ives-Quinn bill in the course of a truly historic State legislative hearing at Albany, N. Y., in February 1945. You will hear those same arguments repeated here, word for word, by opponents of the Ives-Chavez bill. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Stephens, the pamphlet will be received as an exhibit. The committee will use its own best judgment as to whether it will be printed. It requires considerable expense to reprint such a large pamphlet as this; but it will be received as an exhibit. Mr. STEPHENS. That is right, sir; and may I say in this connection that the quotes in the chapter I mentioned here are literally quotes in the arguments that were stated both for and against the Ives-Quinn bill at Albany. Senator IVES. May I introduce an observation there? As I have listened to the testimony which has been made at the hearings on this bill so far, it follows more or less the pattern set in the testimony before the temporary State commission in New York which had this same problem facing it, and I think the evidence that is indicated in that pamphlet, inasmuch as it shows the fears-and there were fears expressed at that time by those people who doubted the advisability of the enactment of that statute. Mr. STEPHENS. In a parallel column, you will find opposite each such argument the assertions made by the supporters of that bill to controvert each objection raised by the opposition. Add to that record the experience of almost 2 years in New York State, reinforced by comparable experiences for shorter periods of time in several other States with similar legislation, and you will find |