(Dr. Hutcheson submitted the following brief:)

I, Dr. R. H. Hutcheson, am speaking officially as commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Public Health and for myself individually.

My experience since 1920 has been sufficiently varied to give me what I consider an insight into the medical-social life and experience of all classes, and especially the Negro race of the South.

I should like the record to show that I consider myself a friend of the colored people. Since graduation from medical school I am sure that approximately one-half of my work has been with the Negro. I try never to miss a possible opportunity to improve his chance for social improvement.

As director of the Tennessee Department of Public Health I am personally responsible for final approval of all employees in the department, a department employing primarily technically trained personnel. In instances where we feel that a Negro physician could do the job to be done, every effort is made to employ the Negro instead of the white physician. I make this statement with the full realization that it violates the conditions of S. 984, in that we are literally discriminating against the white physician. We have in Tennessee approximately 3,000 white physicians. We have about 185 negro physicians; yet in the health department, out of a total of 115 physicians employed, 10 are colored and 105 are white. Of nurses, we have a total of 259; 40 are colored, and 219 are white. Of nurses' aides, we have a total of 17; 5 are colored, and 12 are white. Of dentists, we have a total of 8, of which 1 is colored and 7 are white.

Job descriptions, class specifications, and compensation is the same, regardless of color. The over-all percentage of colored personnel employed is approximately 10 percent plus.

Those in favor of S. 984 probably will say-your attitude being what it is-why do you object to the bill? My reason is simply this: Those who favor the bill either do not know anything of mass psychology in the South or are not interested in the welfare of the Negro. Slowly, with the aid of a large number of interested southern friends but largely by and through the efforts of their own leaders. progress is being made. This progress will continue unless their less-wellinformed white well-wishers attempt to force the issue and by so doing negate gains that have been made.

To understand the soundness of this reasoning one must examine the attitude of the people in what is usually called the North (actually the area of the United States that has in the past had very few Negroes in residence) and the attitude of those of us in the so-called South. That attitude is as different as the two poles, and in very few instances is the basic fact understood by either. In the South, contrary to general opinion, we, as a rule, like actually I should say we are quite fond of, and in many instances love-the individual Negro. We know him, and know his limitations, and therefore as a race we know that collectively he needs time to raise the race intelligence level to that-as low as it is-of his white cousin. In the North there has been too much talk of equality of opportunity for the race as a whole, with no regard for the individual.

The statement is made in this bill that present conditions foment unrest of the minority group. I agree that there has been some unrest, and I agree that present conditions are responsible, but it is not a practice of discriminating in employment against properly qualified persons but instead agitation designed to create unrest.

Speaking only for myself personally and as one with some knowledge of biology-there is no such thing as two people equal in all respects.

There is within each of us the results of the summation of thousands of years of heredity, which, when combined with our environment, made us what we are, and attractive phrases cannot change this fact.

Gentlemen, I should like to tell you that until 75 to 80 percent of the people in an area are ready for a bill it cannot be enforced in spirit, and unless this bill can be enforced with the good wishes of the majority it will serve to retard social gains of the minority. We in the South are not ready for this bill.

Senator DONNELL. The committee will be in recess until 12 noon tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee adjourned until noon. Friday, July 18, 1947.)

ANTIDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT

FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1947

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTIDISCRIMINATION,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 12 noon, in the committee room, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Capitol Building, Senator Forrest C. Donnell presiding.

Present: Senators Donnell (presiding), Smith, and Ellender.
Senator DONNELL. The committee will be in order.

We will hear from Mr. Tyre Taylor, general counsel, Southern States Industrial Council, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF TYRE TAYLOR, GENERAL COUNSEL, SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, my name is Tyre Taylor, general counsel, Southern States Industrial Council, Washington, D. C.

I was born June 4, 1898, at Laurel Springs, N. C., on a farm. My father's farm adjoined Uncle Bob Doughton's farm.

My high-school training was received at Glade Valley High School, a Presbyterian school.

I attended the University of North Carolina for undergraduate work and obtained my master's degree and went to the Harvard Law School.

Senator DONNELL. What did you specialize in at the University of North Carolina?

Mr. TAYLOR. Taxation, Senator; State, real property taxation in North Carolina.

Senator DONNELL. At Harvard you took your law course and received a degree of LL. B.?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir; although I completed all my courses, I did not receive the degree. I attended 2 years, and my money ran out, and they would not permit me to receive it.

Senator DONNELL. Did you study constitutional law?

Mr. TAYLOR. Not at Harvard, but I did at the University of North Carolina.

Senator DONNELL. Was it the constitutional law of the United States or comparative constitutional law of other nations?

Mr. TAYLOR. Of the United States.

Senator DONNELL. Had you finished with your qualifications?
Mr. TAYLOR. Not quite. I was admitted to practice in 1926.

Senator DONNELL. In North Carolina?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. I entered the private practice of law in Charlotte, N. C., and was there 2 years, 1927 to 1929.

I was the secretary and executive counsel to the late Max Gardner, while he was Governor of North Carolina. As executive counsel I had charge of all parole and clemency matters.

Senator DONNELL. And extradition matters?

Mr. TAYLOR. And extradition matters. I was on the Washington legal staff of the RFC from 1932 to 1937, working on bank recapitalization and bank reorganizations for banks in the South. The first part of that period and during the latter part I was working under the chief of tax legislation.

I resigned in 1937. Thereafter I was assistant to the attorney general in charge of the Cherokee land reservation litigation in western. North Carolina, a matter in litigation wherein some whites had come come in and squatted on the Indian reservation.

I was counsel to the House Small Business Committee in 1942 and 1943 for a special study of the wartime problems of southern industry. We held nine hearings in the South and several hearings here in Washington.

I am general counsel for the Southern States Industrial Council, Washington, D. C., an organization representing 16 Southern States. It represents manufacturers in all lines in the Southern States.

I might mention, Senator Donnell, that you undoubtedly know some of our directors in Missouri; for example, Mr. Howard I. Young and Mr. Grant Stauffer.

Senator DONNELL. In Kansas City?

Mr. TAYLOR. In Kansas City; yes, sir.

And you, Senator Ellender, I know must be acquainted with our directors in Louisiana, Mr. John U. Barr and Mr. C. C. SheppardSenator ELLENDER. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. I have no further preliminary statement to make and will be glad to answer any questions.

Senator DONNELL. Have you in the course of your work examined into the industrial condition of both the white and colored workers in the southern part of the United States?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have not had occasion to go into that in any specialized detail, Senator. I have been all over the South. I have been in all the States and know a great many of the plants. I am in reasonably close touch with the whole situation down there.

Senator DONNELL. You have in the course of your experience known a great many colored people and have observed their contacts with white people in the section in which you have lived, I presume?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. One of the proudest things that I can recall about my public service was the fact that when I came to Washington some of the most beautiful recommendations and testimonials I had were from Negro leaders in North Carolina which came about as the result of the fact I had had that contact with all these prisoners. We had about 8.000 prisoners, and 60 percent were colored, but in the county where I was born I doubt if there were over 100 Negro families.

Senator ELLENDER. When you say 60 percent were colored, you mean for the entire State?

Mr. TAYLOR. Prison population.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean the penitentiary?

Mr. TAYLOR. For the entire State. The State prison system.
Senator ELLENDER. Did that include counties?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. We do not have what you call the county chaingang system. It is a State system.

Senator ELLENDER. But the 8,000 prisoners you spoke of were incarcerated in the penitentiary?

Mr. TAYLOR. In the central State prison and various prison farms. Senator ELLENDER. The central State prison and various prison. farms?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir..

Senator ELLENDER. Did it include what we have in Louisianaparish prisoners, county prisoners?

Mr. TAYLOR. No; we do not have any so-called county chain gangs. That was abolished 20 or 25 years ago.

Senator ELLENDER. What is the relative percentage of colored and white population in North Carolina? Do you know?

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not think it is over 30 percent colored.

Senator ELLENDER. Thirty percent?

Mr. TAYLOR. Colored. We do not have the high percentage of colored that we have further on down South.

Senator ELLENDER. How do you account for the fact that 60 percent of the prisoners were colored, although the entire population in North Carolina is only 30 percent colored?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I never was able to figure out any entirely satisfactory explanation of that, Senator. It is a fact, though.

Senator ELLENDER. The only reason I am asking is that you mentioned it. I had occasion to make some surveys myself in 1938 to show the difference in populations between colored and white prisoners.

In the District of Columbia, contrasted with New Orleans, I took 7 of the most heinous crimes in criminology: murder, rape, and 5 others; and although the population in the city of New Orleans was 38 percent colored, whereas in Washington it was 37 percent, and the total population of Washington at that time was about 40,000 more than New Orleans, for every white man in New Orleans who was incarcerated or tried for one of these 7 heinous crimes, there was 1 colored, but in Washington the proportion was 512 colored to 1 white.

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know.

Senator ELLENDER. I am a little surprised that the proportion of 60 percent colored in North Carolina with only a 30 percent colored total population should be so high.

Senator DONNELL. Proceed with your testimony.

Senator ELLENDER. May I say I do not know whether that is pertinent. You may strike it from the record if you wish.

Senator DONNELL. No; that is interesting and well worth while. It is interesting as a fact, and I think it should stay in the record unless the Senator desires it stricken.

Senator ELLENDER. Oh, no.

Senator DONNELL. You may proceed with your statement, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Before reciting our objections to S. 984, I should perhaps briefly discuss its coverage.

Unlike S. 101, which was introduced in the Seventy-ninth Congress, this bill does not apply to State and local governments, or to religious,

65936-47-47

fraternal, educational, and other organizations, other than labor organizations, which are not organized for private profit.

Also exempted are employers of less than 50 persons.

All other employers, including the Federal Government, and including employers engaged in activities which "affect commerce" are covered. In the case of private employers of 50 or more persons, ultimate coverage may be expected to be coextensive with that of the National Labor Relations Act. Under that act, it has been held that an employer producing entirely for local consumption is nevertheless covered if some part of his raw materials come from outside the State (N. L. R. B. v. Richter's Baking Company, 140 Fed. (2d) 870 (C. A. A. 5th, 1944)).

But although this general assumption as to the scope of the pending bill's coverage would appear to be well-founded, such extension may be, from the standpoint of the individual employer, entirely unfore seeable. This is so because the extension is not brought about through any affirmative or specific act of Congress-other than the inclusion in the bill of the words "affecting commerce"-but through administrátive determinations and court decisions. This in itself is a serious defect, but for the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming that practically all employers of more than 50 persons will eventually be held to be covered, and this irrespective of whether they are engaged in activities usually regarded as intrastate or local in nature.

The council's objections to the bill fall into three general categories: 1. Certain of its provisions are not believed to be in the public interest;

2. Certain of its provisions are unduly oppressive upon employers;

and

3. We do not believe it will work.

Taking up these objections in the order named, we find, first, that this bill, if enacted into law, would facilitate sabotage and espionage in the event this country should get into another war-especially a war with any nation which has a large fifth column in this country. The bill applies to the United States Government and its instrumentalities and would make it unlawful to discriminate against any applicant because of his national origin. Thus the Atomic Energy Commission, for example, would be precluded from inquiring as to the nationality or place of birth of a job applicant, or whether he was a naturalized or native-born citizen of the United States.

There is serious question as to whether a job applicant may even be asked whether he is a citizen of the United States. Whether this interpretation will be upheld by the courts, however, remains to be seen. Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Taylor, are you familiar with the situation in New York?

Mr. TAYLOR. Senator, I have tried to look into it a little bit; yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Are you familiar with the rules and regulations that have been promulgated by the commission in New York? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; I have a copy of them here.

Senator ELLENDER. You have copies?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have one copy.

Senator ELLENDER. Are you willing to discuss them as you go along in your brief-the last part you spoke of?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am going on to private employers and I had not planned any discussion unless you wish to ask the questions, Senator.