tion as directed against people on the basis of race, color, religion, and nationality. In November 1945 Governor Tobin appointed a committee of four to study legislation designed to eliminate discrimination in employment because of race, color, or religion and stated that he intended to use the recommendations made by this group of four as a basis for legislation which he would submit to the legislature of 1946. The present Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act was passed on May 23, 1946, and closely follows the Ives-Quinn bill of New York as was recommended by this committee of four.

Massachusetts under two governors had first studied the problem carefully and had then decided that there was need for legislation to help solve it and stop exclusion from job opportunity. I do not believe that Massachusetts has more need than other States for this type of legislation. As I have said, a very careful study has been made before any legislation was proposed. There followed numerous public hearings, and the bill received hearty support from practically every organization except the Associated Industries.

Since the approach followed by Massachusetts is the accepted approach of legislatures, I presume that similar studies supporting similar conclusions have been conducted by the other States that have passed fair employment practice legislation. I am sure that problems of discrimination are not peculiar to these States but occur all over the country.

May I add just one more amplification of a point already touched upon. The hearings held before the passage of the act were thrilling meetings to attend. The crowd was so considerable that it was necessary to hold them in the Gardiner Auditorium, a huge room, which was crowded. Distinguished lawyers, educators, and representatives of all the clergy, besides the representatives of all the social agencies of the community were insistent in their demands that we in Massachusetts further implement the Constitution and do all within our power to assure a fair economic deal. A very large segment of the population was definitely aroused to the need for this type of legislation.

So much for a summary of what antedated the passage of the Fair Employment Practice Act in Massachusetts.

Now for a consideration of the second question as to whether S. 984 constitutes an adequate solution. Because of the many features of S. 984, which are identical with our Massachusetts bill I am inclined to believe that it does. You gather that our commission is very well pleased with the operation of our bill in Massachusetts. I know I speak for our whole commission when I say that we feel our bill and the bill you are considering are exceptionally well drawn. They make it possible to enforce a difficult and pioneering piece of legislation and yet avoid being dictatorial about it. One of the most important provisions of our act and Senate bill 984, is the section that demands that any complaint must be handled first by one commissioner, and that it is his duty to try to settle the matter through the methods of arbitration and conciliation. In other words, everyone has a chance to talk things over and any decision is not binding unless it meets with the approval of all parties. Let me give you an example: Miss A comes to our offices and files a complaint, stating that in her judgment, she was discriminated against on the score of race. She applied for a position as secretary, and when she telephoned, she was accorded a most enthusiastic reception; but when she appeared in person, as she was asked to do, the atmosphere became quite different and she felt this was due to the factor of color. The employer in this case agreed that he had hesitated, not that he doubted the ability of Miss A, but he felt his other employees might object. In fact, they showed some signs of doing so. After a talk with the commission, he decided to employ the girl; and when his other clerks learned of this action, they postponed judgment until she appeared, and within 2 days, all the girls were getting on beautifully together. In fast this one case led to a broadening of employment policy; not alone in that office, but in all the branch offices of this large concern. It is not always so easy to detect discrimination; nor is it always possible to find a prospective employer who will state his objections with candor and then be broadminded enough to shift his approach; but we can report a heartening number of such cases. Incidentally without this act, I fear that most of these employers would not have considered the matter at all, but would have just continued their usual habit of hiring the friends and relatives of previous employees, and these first employees might have been selected with the consideration of race, color, religious creed, national origin, and ancestry much in mind. The very passage of a Fair Employment Practice Act is educational because people are forced to give this matter of discrimination serious consideration. But the point that I especially want to make here is that it is demanded that before a final decision everything possible must be

done to settle the matter amicably by a meeting of minds arrived at through arbitration and conciliation. I believe this method to have great merit. So far our commission has not needed to go beyond this initial step.

I note, too, that in S. 984 you accept any signed complaint made by an individual or by a commissioner. I think it is important to allow the commission to investigate a case through the signed statement of one of its commissioners providing of course that he feels that he has received sufficient evidence to make him feel that there is really ground for a complaint. In Massachusetts we can also initiate complaints through the commission, but our approach is somewhat different. In our policies, we state:

"The commission may issue a complaint—

"1. When it is made cognizant of any violation of the law as outlined above under A or of any provision of the act;

"2. When it is made cognizant of

"(a) the printing or circulating of any advertisement for help which directly or indirectly specifies any limitation because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, or ancestry which comes within the scope of the law; or of

"(b) any employment application blank which asks questions directly or indirectly regarding the race, color, religious creed, national origin, or ancestry of any applicant for employment unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification."

I should like to add just a word in amplification of how the commission may file a complaint. May I give another example? Let us say that any organization gets in touch with us, and states that Mr. B called at their office and said he felt he had been discriminated against on the score of religion in that he had not been upgraded when, in all justice, and according to the length of service given, and the number of sales made, etc., he rated the advancement. Since he is working in this certain establishment, he did not want to have his name appear, because he felt he might get the reputation of being a troublemaker. In a case of this kind, we would say to this organization or any other accredited organization that approached us that we would be willing to consider the case provided we might send one of our field investigators to interview this man. If, in the opinion of our investigator, he had a real grievance, a commissioner might act on the strength of that testimony; or the commissioner might want to get in touch with the man himself. But in either case, if the man made an impression for truthfulness and mental balance, the case would go forward under the direction of a commissioner who would ask for an investigation of the policies of that concern―not in relation to the complainant because he would remain anonymous as he had requested, but an investigation of the hiring, upgrading, and other employment policies of that firm.

In this manner a citizen who feels a duty to the Fair Employment Practice Act and the State that has put it on its statute books may call attention to a breaking of the act and the commission acts if it feels he presents sufficient evidence. He gains nothing from the investigation personally unless a reform in the employment policies may later affect him in an advantageous way.

You will hear it said that the best way to settle this matter of discrimination is through education. The members of our commission are agreed that that is the most advantageous long-range program. But it need not be an exclusive program. It is perfectly possible, and in fact eminently to be desired, that a program of education be conducted at the same time that the enforcement provisions are operating. I want to spend more time a little later on the educational phases of the work as provided in your S. 984 which parallels the wording of that section in our Massachusetts law, but first I should like to sum up the feeling of the Massachusetts Commission concerning enforcement. For present relief something more than an educational program is necessary. This something more we term "enforcement" which may be one of two kinds or both. These two kinds are: (1) Arbitration, conciliation, mediation in the first instance when one commissioner is dealing with the case; (e) a formal quasi-judicial system which embodies both the conference approach and a judicial review. This latter pattern appears if it is necessary to refer the case to the other members of the commission because the first commissioner has been unable to arrive at a satisfactory meeting of minds.

Although neither Massachusetts nor any other of the States in the East have needed to my knowledge to enter into this second stage, the very fact that it is part of the procedure, failing settlement by the first commissioner, has doubtless had its effect and has helped to make possible the really remarkable record of cases settled through conciliation alone.

IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATIONAL WORK

I have spoken (1) of the importance of conciliation and (2) of the power given the Commission to instigate a complaint. The third item that seems to me of great importance is education.

I shall not presume to talk about an educational campaign as carried on in Massachusets through fair employment practice councils because we are just making a start. The start, however, is a highly auspicious one. We are now in the process of organizing a council in Springfield. Mr. Roger Putnam, president of the Package Machinery Co. has agreed to act as chairman. We have high hopes for this, our first council. New York and New Jersey have been so successful in the work carried on by their councils that I am sure they must have given you a full description of their activities and what ones seem most helpful.

SOME EVIDENCES OF SUCCESSFUL ADMINISTRATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION IN MASSACHUSETTS

Since there was little enthusiasm evinced by industry about a prospective fair employment practice commission, I wish I might say that the commission after its appointment has been deluged with letters from industry stating that they now approve the act and feel that business had been benefited thereby. This has not occurred, although some businessmen have written to the commission and complimented individual commissioners upon the fair manner in which they conducted their meetings with respondents. The commissioners have spoken before about 150 meetings and the majority of them have been made up of businessmen and women. The reception accorded the speakers has been graciousness itself. The question period has been highly stimulating for the speaker and I think of almost equal interest to the audience. All this has helped, in the opinion of the commission, to establish a mutual understanding. Few people will take the time to study carefully a law, but lots of people will take the time to ask questions, especially if a brief speech explaining the philosophy and the workings of act has prefaced this question period. Besides these contacts estab lished through talking with groups, the commission has met with small groups at the office of the commission and our willingness to discuss issues has been approved by the people with whom we met. In fact we have felt that it was part of our job to take every opportunity to act as interpreters of the act. It may seem odd to cite as further evidence of support for the act that it was suggested this fall by a member of the legislature that the act be repealed. This representative at the public hearing which followed his proposal was supported by three other people, making a grand total of four, as against everyone else in the hall in as far as could be determined, and the crowd present numbered about 600. Person after person testified for the commission and these people represented all types of organizations, including labor groups, veterans and community groups and all the clergy of different denominations. I wish I might add that the Associated Industries that I have previously mentioned as opposing the bill, appeared at this hearing in favor of the act but this was not the case. Their representative advocated repeal, but went on to say that so long as the act remained on the statute books the Associated Industries would support its provisions and that they had no criticism of the commissioners themselves but simply did not think that the act itself was the proper and best approach to the problem. They have been very true to their word and no group has given the commission greater help in distributing copies of the summary of the act and copies of the policies drawn up by the commission. Many other groups have also helped in this way. Included are the AFL and the CIO, community groups and many other interested agencies.

The most conclusive proof of the success of the act in Massachusetts would be to cite the number of industries that previous to the passage of the act practiced discrimination and now do not. This I cannot do, because we do not reveal the names of companies which have appeared before us and, too, other companies may have changed their policies without presenting us with evidence of this change. But I can say that we know of many concerns that have appar ently widened their employment policy since the passage of the act. At least members of minority groups are now being hired by them, whereas previous to the Fair Employment Practice Act, they had the reputation of using at best a sort of quota system to guarantee that a few representatives of minority groups would appear on their pay rolls. Now they seem aware that hiring should not be done on that basis at all but the best man should get the job irrespective of

race, color, religious creed, national origin, or ancestry. We feel that these concerns are glad to do this, and do not regard complying with the act as a hardship.

You gather that we feel that on the whole the atmosphere throughout Massachusetts has been cooperative which must be so if the act is to succeed. Public opinion can make or break any law because law in a democracy depends in the last instance on the support of the people. This is hardly news to a group of legislators.

MILDRED H. MAHONEY,
Mrs. John J. Mahoney,

Chairman, Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Commission.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MAYOR,

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

Senator IVES. We will start you off right. What is your background?

Mayor HUMPHREY. My immediate background? I am mayor of Minneapolis, Minn., recently elected. I am appearing here in that capacity and as vice chairman of Americans for Democratic Action.

Senator IVES. What is back of that? What is your education? How did you get interested in this thing?

Mayor HUMPHREY. I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota and I have my master's degree from the University of Louisiana. Senator ELLENDER. You don't say.

Mayor HUMPHREY. A very wonderful school.

I remember you, Senator, too.

Senator ELLENDER. How long did you stay?

Mayor HUMPHREY. From 1939 to the fall of 1940.

Senator ELLENDER. It is not so bad down there.

Mayor HUMPHREY. I enjoyed it very much. In fact, I have many friends down there.

Then I did additional graduate work in the University of Minnesota toward my doctor's degree and following that I was with the War Manpower Commission, Federal Government. I was an instructor at the University of Minnesota in political science, professor of political science at a college in St. Paul and from there I became mayor of Minneapolis, and this is the beginning of my second term. I have just finished an arduous campaign.

Senator IVES. How do you like being mayor?
Mayor HUMPHREY. I like it. I like politics.
Senator IVES. That is good.
Go ahead.

People like you ought to be in it.

Mayor HUMPHREY. Well, my interest in the proposal that you have, Senate bill 984, comes from my particular concern and interest in the whole field of intercultural relations and fair employment practices, and just the fulfillment of the development of what we call our democratic ideals into democratic realities.

I am familiar with the book, American Dilemma, and I agree with you it is one of the outstanding treatises upon that particular subject. and I think it proposes a big challenge to American people.

Senator IVES. It does.

Mayor HUMPHREY. And has very full ramifications.

Senator IVES. Very thought-provoking.

Mayor HUMPHREY. Yes; it is. We had to wait for a good Swede to do it, but we have a lot of those out in Minnesota, and we are pretty proud of the fact that a Swede wrote it.

When I became mayor of Mineapolis, one of the first commissions I established was one known as the mayor's council on human relations, and the mayor's council on human relations was the product of a good deal of thinking and study in this field of employment and general intercultural relationships and group relationships in our community; and if I may take the liberty, I would just like to say a few words about that particular council because from its work we were able to pass an ordinance in the city known as the fair employment practices ordinance. We also established a fair employment practices commission and by the way, all of that is included in my testimony, gentlemen, that I presented to your subcommittee and I trust will be in the record, and I am not going to take the time today to read that.

Senator IVES. Is that a written statement!

Mayor HUMPHREY. Yes; it is.

Senator IVES. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record, to follow your testimony.

Mayor HUMPHREY. It is chaired by one of our leading young men in Minneapolis, the son of the Governor-rather, the brother of the Governor of the State of Minnesota. The gentleman's name is Ruben K. Youngdahl, very prominent in the Lutheran clergy. Other members are Vice Chairman Theodore Bramwell, College of Education, University of Minnesota, one of our distinguished educators at the university. Other members are the editor in chief of the Minneapolis Daily Times, an outstanding newspaper, an outstanding citizen. Mr. Bradley Morse. We have had the assistant superintendent of the schools, Mr. Walter Anderson who, by the way, is going to your State; you are doing quite well, you took Theodore Bramwell and you are taking Walter Anderson."

Senator IVES. We have some pretty good educators in

Mayor HUMPHREY. Are you taking some of ours away? The attorney for General Mills, Edward E. Balch; R. R. Bragg, who was of the Unitarian Church-he went to Boston; we lost him. But we have a replacement, a very fine lady of the Catholic faith who is taking his place.

We have attorneys from the CIO and representatives from the AFL. We have representatives of the Jewish people, the Negro people. One of our leading businessmen, Mr. George M. Jensen, director of Nash-Kelvinator Corp.; and then there is Stuart Lake, of a large construction company. We have Judge Edward F. Waite, a retired district court judge, one of our distinguished citizens. We have members of the city council, Mrs. Emma J. O'Brien, fine businesswomen of Minneapolis; we also have Mr. Cecil Newman, editor of the Minneapolis Spokesman, a Negro publication, who is a very distinguished citizen of our community; and we have 16 members in all.

Now, this group has been setting itself to the job of doing an honest and sincere program of analysis and study of our city. Minneapolis has said, gentlemen, that we are taking a look into the mirror. We want to see our own reflection; we know that we have things in