Mr. SALERT. That is right; unorganized. Senator ELLENDER. Well, how many, to your knowledge, how many Jewish people applied and were refused employment? Mr. SALERT. To my knowledge, I know of only a handful. But I do know what was the prevalent thing in that community. And the thing in that community was that there was not any possibility of employment if you were Jewish or Irish or Italian Catholic. Senator ELLENDER. How many complaints came to your knowledge? Mr. SALERT. They did not come to my knowledge because I had no direct contacts with that organization. I was an organizer for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. Rochester is a very important center for men's clothing industry in New York State; but I do know what the workers told because basically most of the workers in the Rochester garment market were either Italian Catholic or Jewish workers; and they did tell their stories at union meetings when they wanted to or decided to get out of the garment industry and get into another industry. I think maybe the Senator knows about it. He held hearings in the city of Rochester. Senator IVES. We got the same information from Rochester. Senator ELLENDER. Well, what class of people were employed at Eastman Kodak Co.? Mr. SALERT. Working men and women. Senator ELLENDER. I know, but you say Jews and Italians were not permitted. Were all others except, as you say, the colored sweepers! Mr. SALERT. Yes; and there were white Protestants for production jobs employed there to the best of my knowledge. Senator ELLENDER. Now, can you give any other examples? Mr. SALERT. Yes; in the city of New York for a long time it was not possible for either Jewish or Negro women to be employed as telephone operators in the New York Telephone Co. or in the other public utilities operating in the New York area. With the advent of the Ives-Quinn Fair Employment Practices Act that policy of the corporation was changed overnight and there has not been any real problem that has faced the corporation with the change of its policy. Senator ELLENDER. What other industry, to your knowledge, refused to hire Jews? Mr. SALERT. I have no other information on that score, sir. Senator IVES. Let me ask a question if I may, on that. While you are on that subject, do you find that discrimination in New York State is today nearly wiped out as a result of this effort to eliminate it? It is almost gone, is it not? Mr. SALERT. That is right; and there has not Senator ELLENDER. There was evidently very little of it as I understand the witness; he states that as far as he knew in New York City it only applied to the utilities. Mr. SALERT. That is because I have not the figures for other cases, sir. Senator ELLENDER. But as a labor recruiter and labor organizerMr. SALERT. I have been active in the garment field which has been highly organized throughout the United Sates for a good many years and there is no discrimination in the garment industry, either in the men's clothing or ladies' clothing because you have a very strong and powerful union set-up in that industry. Senator ELLENDER. Closed shop? Mr. SALERT. Not always, union shop, closed shop; yes. Senator ELLENDER. And, of course, there was no discrimination practiced in the unions at all as to that? Mr. SALERT. No; as a matter of fact, I just came from a convention of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union where the report was made that more than 37 nationalities belong to one local, union, the Dressworkers of New York, and they live in peace and enjoy all the benefits of democracy, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Are you familiar with the operations of the FEPC of old? Mr. SALERT. Are you talking about the President's order? Senator ELLENDER. Do you believe it was right for the Commission to exercise its functions to such an extent as to break down segregation laws in those States that had it by law and by rule and by custom? Mr. SALERT. I do not know about the acts of the Commission in such cases, sir. So I could not possibly comment on that. Senator ELLENDER. I am asking you, if it did occur, do you think it was right? Mr. SALERT. I would have to know a lot more about why it was right and why it was not right. I would have to know the details. of the ruling of the Commission before I could honestly give you an answer. Senator ELLENDER. Well, I suppose you are familiar with the Maryland case we cited here on many occasions? Mr. SALERT. Well, I am not Senator ELLENDER. You had a company there that employed colored and whites; there were facilities for both whites and blacks, one marked "Colored" and the other "White." Well, the colored insisted that the wall between the two facilities be broken so as to let everybody use the same facilities without discrimination. Now, that was the custom and we have segregation laws in that State. Do you think the Commission should have gone that far in the exercise of its duties? Mr. SALERT. I do not know about the particular plant, sir, and I do not know whether or not the Negroes and whites belonged to the same union or whether or not there was any kind of educational campaign waged by the union or the.workers themselves for racial and religious understanding among all people, but I would say, certainly say, that if it was the will of the workers of the plant, the Commission was right in ruling that wall should be broken. Senator ELLENDER. But it was not, because it caused a strike. It was not the will of the workers; that was the trouble. It was an edict that was proposed by the Commission. Mr. SALERT. I do not think we have the problem in S. 984 and I do think that the educational features of the bill do a lot to eliminate all of the tensions that sometimes can be waged by certain rulings. Senator ELLENDER. Let me ask you this: Do you believe in the segregation of the races as we have it in the South, where you are given the same facilities? Mr. SALERT. I would give the same facilities. Senator ELLENDER. You believe in segregation? Mr. SALERT. I believe that all human beings are free and equal. Senator DONNELL. What is the answer to the question as to whether you believe in segregation? Mr. SALERT. I do not. Senator ELLENDER. You think that the white children and colored children should all mix and go to the same schools and the same place? Mr. SALERT. Yes, sir; they have gone to the same schools in a good many States of this Union and there has never been any great difficulty. Senator ELLENDER. And your views would not be tempered where the facts are that the colored and the white are equal-that is, 50-50. You would advocate the same policy? Mr. SALERT. Yes. I know schools where the colored are 90 percent and the whites are only 10 percent. Senator ELLENDER. That may be true in some places like Harlem or some place in Brooklyn. Mr. SALERT. In places like the city of Detroit, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Yes; where you have colored aggregations in particular localities in the city; that is correct; I grant that. Mr. SALERT. And that there has been never any disturbance because of it and the children have all gotten the benefits of a good education. Senator ELLENDER. That is only in recent years; is it not? Mr. SALERT. I could not say so, but I do know that in the city of New York and throughout the State of New York and throughout the State of New Jersey and it has been practiced for a good long time. Senator ELLENDER. I had Detroit in mind. There have been quite a few racial difficulties out there in recent years, have there not? a Mr. SALERT. That is right. Senator ELLENDER. Section 5 (a) (1) which Senator Donnell quoted while ago reads as follows: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Would you say that under that provision segregation barriers may be obliterated by the Commission in States where it is legal and in States where it is customary? Mr. SALERT. I do not think so, sir. I think the kind of Commission we had to administer the law is what will determine. I know that in the State of New York Senator DONNELL. Would not determine? I say the character of the Commission will not determine the legal effect of the meaning of that section to which Senator Ellender referred, will it? That is, the section means what it means and regardless of the personnel of the Commission, whatever the legal effect of that section is, it stands, does it not? Mr. SALERT. That is right. Senator ELLENDER. Do you not think it is subject to the interpretation that it may be used to break down segregation barriers? Mr. SALERT. I do not think it will be used Senator ELLENDER. Do you think it is subject to that interpretation? It is plain English. Mr. SALERT. It may be but I do not think so. Senator ELLENDER. That is all. Senator DONNELL. Are there any other questions? Senator IVES. No questions. Senator DONNELL. Just a very few questions, Mr. Salert. You referred to the situation existing in the Eastman Kodak Co. I am not familiar with that situation but I wanted to know just how much you personally know about it. Are you just taking it on hearsay or did you go into Rochester and make an investigation there? Mr. SALERT. I spent about 5 months in the city of Rochester and Buffalo and spoke at approximately 40 different union local meetings. Senator DONNELL. Yes. Mr. SALERT. And these talks were almost all on human relations and improved race relations and in almost every instance I was told by someone in the audience about the practices of this particular concern. Senator DONNELL. Eastman Kodak Co. ? Mr. SALERT. That is right. Senator DONNELL. Did you make any inquiry of the officials of the Eastman Kodak Co. to find out what their side of it was? Mr. SALERT. There was not that possibility. The Eastman plant was unorganized. They had absolutely no contact with organized labor in the city of Rochester; there was no possibility of contacting or getting the information. I did see an employment form which had race, creed, color, and national origin on the employment form. Senator DONNELL. On the employment form. Mr. SALERT. That is right; that is, they called for that information. Senator DONNELL. But you did not inquire of any official of the Eastman Kodak Co. to find out whether or not it is true that that com- · pany did discriminate against Negroes, Catholics, and so on? Mr. SALERT. I never applied for employment. Senator DONNELL. I did not ask you that; I asked whether you made inquiry of any official of that company. Mr. SALERT. I never did. Senator DONNELL. And your information was derived solely from what people would say who were in these various audiences to which you referred; is that right? Mr. SALERT. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. Now, the telephone company and other public utilities, did you personally conduct an investigation there to ascertain whether or not there was the discrimination to which you refer? Mr. SALERT. I did not, sir. Senator DONNELL. You did not make any inquiry of the officials of either of those companies or any one of those companies to find out what if any admission they might make in regard to that matter; that is correct, is it not? Mr. SALERT. Yes. Senator DONNELL. That is all, Mr. Salert. Senator ELLENDER. Did you participate in the hearings that led to the enactment of the Ives bill in New York? Mr. SALERT. I did, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Well, on the basis of the testimony adduced at these hearings and then the passage of the bill, and then its administration for the past 2 years, are you not a little surprised at the few cases that have come before the commission? We have testimony here that only 500-some-odd were actually filed, or 600, and there were less than half of those actually adjusted." Mr. SALERT. Just because there is an Ives-Quinn bill. Senator ELLENDER. I am asking the question, Are you not surprised at the small number? Mr. SALERT. No, I am not; and I will tell you why, sir; because we have a law in the State of New York which states that there shall be no discrimination in employment. We have no discrimination in employment. And if we have a Federal law, I am sure we will have few cases because of the strength that that law would have on the thinking of individuals. Senator IVES. You want to add one more thing in that connection, and that is the broad educational program that is being carried out constantly in that connection. Mr. SALERT. We participate; our agency participates as an advisory agency to the commission together with scores of other interfaith agencies in this particular field, and I am sure that the educational features of S. 984 would also have a worth-while effect on the thinking of our people in the United States of America. Senator DONNELL. Anything further, gentlemen? (No response.) Mr. Salert, we are much obliged to you for your testimony and for appearing here. Our next witness is E. Pauline Myers, national legislative representative, civil liberties department, Improved, Benevolent, Protective Order of Elks of the World. STATEMENT OF E. PAULINE MYERS, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE Senator DONNELL. You are Miss Myers-E. Pauline Myers? Senator DONNELL. You are the legislative representative of the Elks department of civil liberties? Miss MYERS. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. Where is your home, Miss Myers? Miss MYERS. My home is in Washington, D. C. Senator DONNELL. You are employed by the Elks department of civil liberties as its representative? Miss MYERS. Yes, and I reside in Philadelphia, at the headquarters of the civil liberties department. Senator DONNELL. I see. I am not clear; I thought you resided in Washington. Miss MYERS. No, sir; I do not; I reside in Philadelphia. Senator DONNELL. You reside in Philadelphia? Miss MYERS. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. What about Washington? Miss MYERS. I come in and out of Washington. Senator DONNELL. You come in and out of Washington, but you reside in Philadelphia? Miss MYERS. Yes, sir. |