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 provisions of most of our States. Only in the backward States does it really represent a step beyond their constitutional guaranties. Fortunately, we have a background of experience by which we can be certain that Senate bill S. 984 is practicable and enforceable. As a businessman, in daily touch with business affairs, with businessmen, 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. The fears expressed by some businessmen 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 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 profess support for the principle of no discriminations on the basis of race, religion, or color, in the field of employment. 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. 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 conclusive evidence to justify my statement that those fears which were not actually fictitious have been shown to be fanciful. You will find, too, that the promises of measurable progress toward equality of employment opportunities to qualified persons, irrespective of race, religion, or color have been fulfilled. The total achievement to date has run far beyond the expectations of reasonable persons who know that legislation alone is no more a cure-all than is education alone, but when legislation and education are combined, they create an effective force, bound to produce tangible results. The experience has proved that when men and women work together, they achieve greater understanding and respect for each other-even when they disagree and do so more quickly and more completely than in any other way. The experience has proved that the factory and office become the schoolrooms where ancient prejudices die. Now, I want to return to the subject of business organizations. As a former president of the National Retail Code Merchants Association, ex-chairman of the National Code Authority for the Retail Solid Fuel Industry, ex-president of the Bronx Board of Trade, and with many other such affiliations, I can say with assurance that the representatives of big business organizations, with few exceptions, are seldom in the forefront of social progress. A notable exception was recorded during his last term of office as president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, by Mr. Eric A. Johnston, whose statement on the subject of discrimination is truly challenging. He said, * * Wherever we erect barriers on the grounds of race or religion, we hamper the fullest expression of our economic society. Intolerance is destructive. Prejudice produces no wealth. Discrimination is a fool's economy. * * * The withholding of jobs and business opportunities from some people does not make more jobs and business opportunities for others. Such a policy merely tends to drag down the whole economic level. Perpetuating poverty for some merely guaranties stagnation for all." 66 While on the subject of business organizations, it is also important to remember how such organizations are conducted, and how easy it is and how frequently it happens that a large and important organization may be recorded in support of or in opposition to a legislative proposal by a vote of only a handful of members. Frequently, in fact, generally, the membership of the organization knows nothing about the position to which they have been committed unless the story gets into the newspapers and they happen to read about it. The process is sim ple. A board of trade or chamber of commerce may have a membership of 1,500 firms and individuals. Its affairs are generally dominated by its executive director, if he has held the office for any length of time. On its board of directors are perhaps 40 members, many of them cronies of the executive director. A larger board would be unwieldy. A quorum is probably not more than 12 members. An annual dinner meeting in the spring and a fall membership rally, probably constitute the only occasions when rank and file meetings are held. Few such organizations have provisions to poll the membership at large on current issues. If such provisions exist, they are seldom invoked and, if resorted to, the participation, percentage-wise, is small. Thus it was in the case of the Ives-Quinn bill, in the early part of 1945, that just such an organization, with more than 1,500 members, was committed. at a meeting of 12 directors, by a majority vote, to a position in opposition to discriminatory practices in employment, but opposed to the creation of a governmental commission to enforce a law against discrimination. Incidentally, for the record, I registered support for that commission on the part of a larger number of directors, individually than the number who attended the meeting in question and voted against the proposed law. The group supporting my position included three ex-presidents of the organization, two presidents of local banks, and the president of our largest department store. Yet, at the hearing, this organization opposed the bill. Another organization similarly recorded its "firm belief in the principles contained in the State and Federal Constitution, 'that no one should be denied rights and privileges guaranteed by Government because of race or color,'" but questions the desirability of, and, therefore, opposes the entire legislative program recommended by the Commission Against Discrimination. That was a beautiful straddle, wasn't it? Still a third large organization supported the declarations of findings and principle contained in the Ives Quinn bill and all its provisions for enforcement of the law, except that it opposed the creation of a State commission on the grounds of cost. Hence, I urge the importance of determining the grounds of opposition and bases for such action on the part of organizations who appear either in opposition to or in support of this or any other pending measure. In the field of employment, it cannot be denied that the Negro is the minority group to suffer most from discriminatory conditions, in which connection I want to supplement Mr. Johnston's statement with two significant paragraphs from an excellent paper submitted May 23, 1947, to the department of economics and social institutions at Princeton University, by a World War II veteran in his junior year. His name is Donald H. Balleisen. He chose Negro Employ ment as his topic and he wrote: "The Negro problem is one of the most pressing economic issues facing America today. True, it is certainly our leading social problem but its consequencies are definitely economic in nature. No fair-minded, thoughtful, observant person has to read a book or magazine article to be aware of this fact. A walk through any Negro district will impress on one's mind their low economic status. A glance at relief and charity figures throughout the Nation will find the Negro drawing far more on a per capita basis than his shares of expenditures made in these fields. In short we have a group constituting approximately one-tenth of our population, the vast majority of whom live in substandard conditions and must rely on the contributions of others to maintain them or worse yet, do not significantly contribute to the advancement and welfare of the general mass. "As many have stated, the Negro problem will not be solved overnight, but this fact should not deter us from working toward its eventual solution. No one will deny the great advantage that would accrue from making a group that is today in many ways a drain on society, but a drain through no fault of its own, a contributor to society. Imagine the effect on the entire economy if each Negro family was able to raise its yearly income by $100 because it had been better prepared for its part in our national community." To the above closing sentence, I would like to add the phrase, "and because it had been denied no employment opportunity simply because of its dark skin." Four short but significant assertions made at the 1945 Albany hearing are as true now as they were when made, and seem to sum up concisely the case for the passage of Senate bill S. 984. by this Eightieth Congress. The first: "It is regrettable, but true, that many veterans of World War II are seeking jobs, trying to put to use some of the new skills they learned while in the service of their country, and they are striving to make a normal adjust ment to civilian life, but they, too, are confronted with the humiliating evils of discrimination, because of their race, their color, their creed, or their national origin. These veterans fought against the enemies' theory of a master race only to come home and find that similar theories of racial superiority are a barrier to employment in their native land." The second: "The suppression of people of ability belonging to minority racial or religious groups does a profound disservice to society in general, as well as to the humiliated member of the minority group himself, and urgently requires remedial legislation." The third: "The means and the end contemplated by the bill are not revolutionary. They are merely a fresh declaration of the American faith that the United States of America is one nation, with liberty and justice for all." The fourth: "It is said that the legislation is too idealistic. It is not anywhere near as idealistic as the baptism of this Nation in the faith that all men are created free and equal. It is not anywhere near as idealistic as the sublime affirmation in the American Constitution that 'We, the people, given freedom and opportunity, are able to conduct government, establish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity'." In conclusion, I ask permission to quote from an exchange of views between the distinguished Senator from Maine, Mr. Brewster, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Hawkes. This colloquy occurred on the floor of the Senate on April 18 past. Senator Brewster had said he was in favor of a certain $400,000,000 loan "to buy time" and Senator Hawkes had suggested that “we could buy the time" by another means. This colloquy led to a succinct, timely, and significant expression of views concerning democracy. Mr. Brewster said, "I am not as much disturbed over that aspect as some others may be. Personally, I am not burning any bridges on this matter; I am not embarking on any world program of extending our culture or democracy to all the world. I do not think we can make democracies by outside force. I think they come from within and not from without." Mr. Hawkes said, "That is what I said yesterday. I said we could do a thousand times more by setting an example to show that democracy will work, and make the people of the world want it, than we could do with all the bullets, bayonets, and bombs in the world." It is on that basis that I support Senate bill S. 984. I want to see progress toward realization of equality of employment opportunity come "from within," as Mr. Brewster so well said, and thus, we "will be setting an example to show that democracy will work," as was so well said by Mr. Hawkes. The committee will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning to meet again in this room. (Whereupon, at 5:25 p. m., the committee adjourned subject to reconvening Thursday, June 19, 1947, at 9:30 a. m.) ANTIDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol Building, Senator Irving M. Ives presiding. Present: Senator Smith, Donnell, Ives (presiding), and Ellender. Senator IVES. The subcommittee will come to order, and we will continue the hearings on S. 984. The first witness is Mrs. Mildred H. Mahoney, chairman, fair employment practice commission, Boston, Mass. STATEMENT OF MILDRED H. MAHONEY, CHAIRMAN, FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION, BOSTON, MASS. Mrs. MAHONEY. In the brief which I sent you from the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Commission I think I really lived up to the word "brief" since it is only 10 pages, and in it I made five points. I would like to review those five points, taking a minute apiece. I state in the beginning that this present fair employment practice law in Massachusetts was not arrived at lightly. It was prefaced by the study of three commissions. We had a study in 1940, in the State of Massachusetts, and one in 1944, the first concerning discrimination against just one group, the Negro group; the second including all minority groups, that is a study based on race, religion, and nationality, and both of those studies showed quite definitely, at least entirely to the satisfaction of the commission making the study, that there was considerable discrimination in Massachusetts, and they felt that there should be some legislation-at least a good many of the people there felt there shoud be some legislation to correct it. Senator IVES. That was in 1940? Mrs. MAHONEY. In 1940 and 1944, both under Governor Saltonstall. In 1945, when Governor Saltonstall became Governor, he appointed a committee of four men to study existing legislation in order to point up a fair employment practice law in Massachusetts. In other words, he started with the assumption there is discrimination. We have got the facts on that through two commissions. We did not have to go over the same ground a third time. So, starting from them, he had this committee of four men investigate legislation throughout the country, and their feeling was that |