ANTIDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1947 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTIDISCRIMINATION, The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol Building, Senator Forrest C. Donnell, presiding. Present: Senators Donnell (presiding), Smith, Ives, Murray, and Ellender. Senator DONNELL. The subcommittee will come to order. We will resume the hearings on S. 984. Senator Ellender has certain exhibits that he desires to introduce into the record at this time. Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have incorporated in the record at this point an editorial appearing in the New Orleans States in the issue of June 10, 1947, entitled "FEPC Is a Threat to Workers." Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have invited Mr. Ralph McGill, a columnist for the Atlanta Constitution, to appear as a witness. Mr. McGill informed me that he was unable to come here today. He sent me an editorial prepared by him, and one which was widely circulated throughout the South. It is entitled, "There Ought Not To Be an FEPC Law." I ask that that editorial also be incorporated in the record. Senator DONNELL. Those two clippings described will be so incorporated. (The clippings are as follows:) [From the Atlanta Constitution, June 22, 1947] THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE AN FEPC LAW (By Ralph McGill) Congressional hearings now are being held in Washington on the Fair Employment Practices Committee Act. This is commonly known as the FEPC. If I were able to testify I would appear against the bill for a number of reasons which seem valid to me. I would expect such testimony to be distorted. The bill now proposed is less drastic than the one formerly offered, in that it applies to businesses employing 50 or more persons instead of 6 as formerly. I am for everything stated in the preamble to the bill. In this section it sets out that it is not in keeping with American principles that a person be denied an opportunity to work because of his race, religion, or national origin. It also declares that such practice foments domestic unrest, endangers the general welfare, and adversely affects the domestic and foreign commerce of the United States. All that is true. It could go even further and say that it affects the international relationships of this country with others and that such practices provide our enemies, and those opposed to our system of government, with very effective propaganda against us. That, too, is true. But it still is not sufficient reason for a Federal law. I think I can demonstrate the truth of that premise. Law: In the first place, we seem to be in an era when we say that if we can only pass laws enough we will solve all problems. But in this very human, but very illogical search for a panacea, we forget one important fact. No law can succeed which is not undergirded, or supported, by opinion. Any law which contains an element of coercion is doomed to failure. In its failure it tears the fabric of all law. The prohibition law, coercive and not supported by public opinion, is an excellent example. Proposals: It-the proposed FEPC law-proposes what is, in effect, a police force for enforcement. It gives great and arbitrary authority to its director and aides. It does not provide that any person of a minority, a Negro, Mexican, a Chinese or Japanese, must be hired. Nor does it require that a person belonging to a minority religious group be given employment. It simply says that one may not be refused employment because of such a fact. Yet quite obviously it supplies such a person, once employed, with a greater protection than that given a person of a majority group, and subjects a majority group employee to discrimination in cases of discharge or lay-offs. I put this in because my next point is that you simply cannot control what is, in essence, human morality and ethics with law. Lynchings: I think it has come to be very clear to a great many persons who have favored a Federal lynch law that the recent Greenville, S. C., case would have been in no degree different had there been a Federal law. The law functioned perfectly. It was the moral sense of the jury which rendered a not guilty verdict for men who had signed confessions implicating themselves. The law did not fail. In the recent Federal grand jury investigations of the horrible and awful Georgia lynch murders, the Federal law and jury functioned according to law. The Federal law, and agency, here failed because again, those persons who knew about the murders were not willing to testify because of fear or a lack of moral sense and responsibility.. The same reasoning applies to a Federal FEPC law. Respect: There is a demand for a Federal law because of the great respect we have for Federal law. There is a turning to it in times of frustration and failure of other law. Yet a Federal FEPC law or a Federal lynch law would serve to weaken Federal law and would serve no other purpose. Also this may be said without fear of refutation-namely, that such a law would give to the anti-Negro and antiminority forces generally a weapon they do not now possess. It would direct the energies of many employers who now, although reluctantly, are beginning to do the right thing because of the pressure of public opinion, into the channels of evasion. It is directed principally in behalf of the Negro. The South has about 70 percent of the Negro population. Yet what largely is ignored is the fact that about 75 percent of that population is farm population. The FEPC is largely political in origin and many of those who push it are not interested or near the core of the problem. Wrongs: The Negro ought to be employed on the basis of his skills and ability. We keep our economy poor by depressing him. But a law will not change it. We will do things for the Negro, and the minorities generally, if we proceed with the chief offensive directed at the basic injustices in housing, health, educational opportunities, police, and courts. Employment in the South will become more general only when there are more jobs, and more jobs are on the way. To pass a law directed largely at a section which has never had enough jobs doesn't make good sense anyhow. I feel so strongly about this, and believe so firmly that a Federal law as proposed will be detrimental, that I had to say all this. I think the FEPC is wrong, though its objectives of providing employment be proper. [From New Orleans States, June 9, 1947] FEPC IS A THREAT TO WORKERS A subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee will begin hearings tomorrow in Washington on the latest version of the annual fair employment practices committee bill. The members are Senators Donnell, Missouri; Ives (the author of the measure), New York; Smith, New Jersey; Pepper, Florida; and Ellender, Louisiana. The bill this year would set up what is called a National Commission Against Discrimination in Employment, and aims to prohibit such discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. It doesn't say anything about the color of an applicant's eyes. The measure, Senate bill 984, is just about the same as that of last year which was filibustered to death on the Senate floor. The main changes are that it applies now to employers in interstate commerce with 50 or more employees, and unions with 50 or more members. Last year it was six. But good times and employment being what they are, they upped it. Another change is that instead of a $5,000 fine or 1 year in the jug for interfering with a member of the Gestapo which would be set up to enforce this thing if it became law, the fine now would be only $500. You can still get the year. There is no trial by jury. If an employer were to violate this contemplated law, he could be found guilty after due process of contempt of Federal court. There is also the little matter of a $500 to $1,000 fine for willfully failing to post or keep posted in a conspicuous place on the premises of the employer notices which the "commission" deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act. And a fine for each separate offense. Who will do all this? A commission of seven men, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, will head the Gestapo. This commission shall have the powers, among others, to appoint such agents and employees as it deems neces sary to assist it in the performance of its functions, and to issue, amend or rescind suitable regulations to carry out the provisions of this act. If it goes too far in these new regulations, the Congress is granted the right to nullify them by concurrent resolution. The trouble with this is that it will not work. The historic answer is still that you cannot legislate a state of mind, or prejudice. And if it isn't prejudice to attempt to tell an employer whom he can hire or fire any more than you can tell an employee he has to work there we don't know what the word means. Proof that this daydream is no more workable than prohibition is found in section 6g of the act, subsection 5 of which says: "Upon the request of any employer, whose employees or some of them refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate in effectuating the provisions of this act, (the commission shall have the power) to assist in such effectuation by conciliation or other remedial action." 46 * ployees. * Or other remedial action." Therein lies the threat to all em And that threat is bland confession that the authors of this unfair, prejudicial and inflammatory legislation know themselves it will not work. Senator DONNELL. Is there anything further, Senator Ellender? Senator ELLENDER. I have a telegram from Gov. Millard F. Caldwell, of Florida, which is dated July 3, and I would like to have that incorporated into the record at this point. Senator DONNELL. It will be incorporated into the record. (The telegram is as follows:) Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, TALLAHASSEE, FLA., July 3, 1947. United States Senator, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Washington, D. C. Retel. Because Governors' conference conflicts with FEPC hearing dates, will not be able to appear but would like the record to show that, in my opinion, the proposed legislation, when viewed from a Nation-wide standpoint, is unwise. Florida and the South generally are making real progress toward more amicable relationship between the races and better living, educational, and health standards. Intermeddling in the form of FEPC can only engender il feel ings and retard development. Sincerely hope this important question may be divorced from politics and the good of the country as a whole served by its early defeat. MILLARD F. CALDWELL, Governor. Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Chairman, I have many other exhibits that might be pertinent, but it is not my desire to clutter the record with them. I will be content to place certain selected articles into the record with a few more added tomorrow. Senator DONNELL. You say that you have quite a number of exhibits and various items for submission for the record, also, which you will endeavor to bring tomorrow? Senator ELLENDER. Yes, sir. Senator DONNELL. So far as practicable, the committee will endeavor to place the exhibits now at its disposal into the record and have them incorporated as a part of the record. Senator ELLENDER. It has been the custom to present them for the record, and the clerk under the supervision of the committee, would incorporate such exhibits as in the committee's opinion should be put into the record. Senator DONNELL. That is right. Mr. Looney, will you please come forward? STATEMENT OF FRANK J. LOONEY, ATTORNEY, SHREVEPORT, LA. Senator DONNELL. Will you please state your name and address? Senator DONNELL. What is your profession, Mr. Looney? Senator DONNELL. In order that we may have an adequate description of factual data in the record as to your background, you do not mind if I ask you a few questions, do you? Mr. LOONEY. Not at all. Senator DONNELL. Where were you born, Mr. Looney? Mr. LOONEY. Shreveport, La. Senator DONNELL. What year was that? Mr. LOONEY. 1873. Senator DONNELL. Can you tell us something about your education? Mr. LOONEY. I graduated from military school in Shreveport, and then I went to Tulane, studied law, and also Washington and Lee, where I graduated in 1894. Senator DONNELL. Where did you take your degree in law. Senator DONNELL. You had previously studied law at Tulane University? Mr. LOONEY. Yes, sir; and part in the office of a lawyer. Senator DONNELL. After graduation in law work, what did you do? Mr. LOONEY. I tried to practice law at first, you might say, and then I went into service in the Spanish-American War. I was occupied at that for a while, and after a time I came back to the practice of law and I have been practicing law ever since. Senator DONNELL. Would you tell us something of your experience in the Spanish-American War? Also, your rank in the Army? Mr. LOONEY. I was a captain in the Infantry. I was a part of the Second United States Volunteer Infantry. |