wage rates not only for minority groups but for all workers. See for instance Spero and Harris, op. cit., pp. 33, 178, 181, 286-294; Patterson, S. Howard, McGraw-Hill, 1935 p. 71; Johnson, Charles S., The Negro in American Civilization, Henry Holt, pp. 55-58; Taft, Philip, Economics and Problems of Labor, Stackpole, 1942, p. 325.) This ground likewise affords an established basis for Federal regulation. The cases upholding the power of the Federal Government to bar from interstate commerce convict-made goods (Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 299 U. S. 334) and the power similarly to bar goods made at substandard labor conditions (United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100), in their holdings and reasoning recognize in Congress a power comprehensive enough to include the barring from interstate commerce of goods made under discriminatory racial practices in employment. Instead of barring such goods, Congress may make it mandatory that employers whose activities affect commerce, because their products or services compete with those of producers in other States, do not follow practices which depress wage rates. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF UNIONS WHOSE MEMBETS ARE EMPLOYED BY EMPLOYERS COVERED BY THE BILL Section 3 (c) makes the bill applicable to any labor union which has 50 or more members in the employ of one or more employers covered by the bill. The same constitutional provisions which afford the bases for congressional regulation of the racial practices of each of the types of employers embraced in the bill likewise afford the basis for requiring the unions composed of employees of such employers to follow consistent racial practices. An examination of the authorities cited above in connection with strikes shows that the labor disputes burdening commerce which arose from racial incidents involved in most instances the racial practices of unions as well as of employers. The congressional power to remedy such burdens to commerce applies equally to employers and to unions. THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AFFORDS ADDITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED ACT Section 2 (c) of the bill recites that the act is enacted "as a step toward fulfillment of the international treaty obligations imposed by the Charter of the United Nations upon the United States as a signatory thereof to promote 'universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion'" The guild heartily endorses the adoption of the act as part of our fulfillment of our international obligations. The guild also believes that the provisions of article 55 of the Charter, which is quoted in part in section 2 (c) of the proposed bill, as a treaty obligation of the United States provides a firm constitutional basis for the proposed statute. Since article VI of the Constitution of the United States provides that "all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land" the United States Senate by ratifying the Charter of the United Nations (the Senate ratified the Charter as a treaty on July 28, 1945, 91 Congressional Record 81898190) raised to the stature of the supreme law of the land the obligation of the United States to "promote respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race." It is generally accepted that one of the human rights and fundamental freedoms referred to by the Charter is the right to employment. See Statement of Essential Human Rights by a committee appointed by the American Law Institute, printed in the Annals of the American Academy for Political and Social Science, January 1946, pages 22–24. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that by reason of article VI of the Constitution, Congress has full power to enact all statutes appropriate to carry out treaties even if prior to the adoption of the treaty, Congress would have lacked constitutional power to deal with the matters encompassed by the statute. Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court in Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416, 433, 434), stated: "It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well-being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, ‘a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government' is not to be found No doubt the great body of private relations usually falls within the control of the state, but a treaty may override its power." * * * THE MEANS WHICH THE BILL EMPLOYS TO REMEDY DISCRIMINATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW It having been demonstrated that long years of discriminatory racial practices by employers and unions has led to recurring labor disputes burdening commerce, the prescription of a program of nondiscrimination by employers and unions is clearly an appropriate means for Congress to adopt to put an end for all time to come to the ills we are at the present suffering because of the failure to follow such a program in the past. The power of Congress to interfere with an employer's right to hire or fire whomsoever he wished for whatsoever reason he wished has already been recognized. The public interest in ending discrimination against union members was held sufficient justification to restrict the employer's former unrestricted powers of running his business as he pleased (Texas & New Orleans Ry. v Brotherhood, 281 U. S. 548; Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 301 U. S. 1, 43-45). We believe the public interest in ending discrimination against persons because of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, justifies a like restriction on the employer's powers to run his business as he sees fit. The remedial provisions of the act, providing for reinstatement with back pay, likewise find full support in the above-cited and other decisions sustaining and applying analogous provisions of the Railway Labor Act and of the National Labor Relations Act. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD. ROBERT J. SILBERSTEIN, Executive Secretary. JUNE 27, 1947. STATEMENT OF HARRY E. LEONARD, BUSINESS MANAGER, LOCAL UNION B-160, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS-RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES BILL (S. 984-H. R. 2824) Whereas discrimination in public and private employment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry, with consequent denial of job opportunities to large groups of inhabitants of this country foments strife, creates unrest, disorders, and group tensions, and substantially and adversely affects the general welfare and good order of the country; and Whereas such job discrimination tends to create and breed vice, degeneration, juvenile delinquency, and crime, thereby causing grave injury to the public safety, general welfare, and good order of this country, and endangering the public health thereof; and Whereas experience has proven that legislative enactments prohibiting such job discrimination remove some of the sources of strife, unrest, poverty, disease, juvenile delinquency, and crime, and would directly promote the general welfare and good order of our country: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Electrical Workers Local Union B-160, International brotherhood of Electrical Workers, representing 1,047 members, hereby unqualifiedly endorses and urges the passage of the FEPC bill, Senate file 984, and House bill 2824, and further urges the Minnesota delegation in Congress to exhaust every energy and means toward accomplishing this end. LOCAL UNION B-160, I. B. E. W. Business Manager. STATEMENT OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE, JUNE 30, 1947 The Liberal Party of New York asks this committee to support, without reservation, S. 984, and to send to the United States Senate before adjournment or recess in July, your recommendation for positive action on the part of that body. It should be evident to this committee that discrimination by interstate corporations, individuals engaged in interstate commerce, or by States receiving Federal aid, against American citizens or other inhabitants of the United States because of their race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry is a matter of concern to the Federal Government. It should be evident that such discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest, endangers the tranquillity of the economic structure, and threatens the rights and privileges of inhabitants of this Nation. We of the Liberal Party maintain that the denial of equal employment opportunities in our society, the consequent failure to utilize the productive abilities of the persons being discriminated against, tends to lower the productive capacities of industry, and deprives large sections of the population of their hardwon opportunities to maintain even the barest, minimum standards of living. This, in turn, demoralizes the individual, gives totalitarian groups fertile seeds to sow, increases public relief rolls, and makes for group conflicts. Its subsequent danger to public safety and welfare should at once be recognized. That the continuance of such a policy makes for dangerous tensions for our country should be conceded by even the most fair-minded critic and opponent of this bill. During a period of recession or depression, race conflicts would greatly increase. That this bill can work in practice is evident from the fact that Executive Order 9346, issued on May 27, 1946, by President Roosevelt, which set up the wartime Fair Employment Practices Commission, operated during a period in our history when the need for unity was at its greatest-and operated successfully. Persons of all colors, religions, national ancestries fought side by side, died side by side, won side by side. Persons of all colors, religions, national ancestries worked side by side in the factories which help forge the weapons of war and victory. Let those who would castigate totalitarian governments where freedom of opportunities sorrowfully do not exist, and who equally castigate those who demand passage of this bill, truthfully and candidly ask themselves whether an official or unofficial policy which prevents a person from contributing to his nation's welfare without the shackle of discrimination does not in fact lead to a violation of the basic freedoms of humanity. We cannot contribute large sums of money and men abroad successfully to annihilate and prevent the spread of totalitarianism while practicing at home a policy which completely negates the purposes of our foreign policy. It is wholly inconsistent with the fundamental rights of man as set forth in our Nation's early and official documents, to permit within our borders racial discrimination in employment. This bill, insofar as discrimination in employment is concerned, merely reiterates the laws of our forefathers. It merely states in legal language what every politically unfettered nonlegal mind knows that "Democracy is that form of society, no matter what its political classification, in which every man has a chance and knows that he has it." Late in 1941, we were forced to defend our homes. In the immediate future we might well again, if the National Legislature is not wise enough to enact S. 984, be forced to defend our political faith from the hatemonger, or from the political representatives of a foreign country who will be able to capitalize on our weakness and failure to practice at home what we preach abroad-complete and unequivocable democracy and economic, social, and cultural opportunities for all peoples. The truth is harsh: American citizens are being discriminated against by other American citizens. The fact is cold: Something can be done to rectify this unmitigated insult to our country's principles. The bill being surveyed by this committee can, if enacted into law, weaken the arguments of those powers who, at a diplomatic conference table, will say to our representatives, as undoubtedly they have: "How can you speak of justice when you withhold the dispensation of economic justice to your own people?" If this bill is enacted into law, a multitude of Americans will have the opportunity to create, to build, to make the United States a nation both feared by those who would wish us harm, and an inspiration for those who seek a pattern on which to base their own governments. More than that, we will continue to be an inspiration to those who continue to fight for freedom, for justice both moral, spiritual, and economic. To do less would be negating our promise to those who gave their lives in World War II-a promise that they were dying, that they were bleeding so that man, the free world over, could walk the streets without the fear of racial, religious, or economic discrimination; so that those who speak with the tongues of bigots would be forever silenced. We have liberated nations; we have freed men and women and children of all religious and political faiths from concentration camps. Yet American citizens linger in industrial concentration camps which say: "You cannot work here if you are of a particular religious faith, if you have a skin other than that of the owner of this plant, if you do not have a grandmother or great-grandmother born in this country." We ask this committee to liberate, by enactment of S. 984, those men and women of all religious faiths, of all colors and national ancestries, who are, for no fault of theirs, deemed second-class citizens. The bill does not require great armies; it does not require huge expenditures of funds; it merely requires that our democratic conscience be put into immediate and forceful practice; it merely requires that the principles upon which this Nation were founded are upheld. To give each man and woman willing to work the opportunity to do so without an obstacle or shackle of discrimination because of race, color, or national ancestry is merely reaffirming that this indeed is "a nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It is a reaffirmation that in the United States we have beaten our prejudices into plowshares, and that we do not fear the religious faith, or the color of the skin, of the man who tills the soil or the woman who spins the thread. To pass S. 984 is reaffirmation that in America a man's right to work is part of his right to worship as he pleases, to read what he pleases, and to speak the truth without fear. For these reasons, in our historic liberal tradition, we support and urge passage of S. 984. STATEMENT OF MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Toler S. 984 is based on the fallacy that it is possible to legislate tolerance. ance is an individual state of mind. Any attempt to control it by punitive regulation merely magnifies intolerance. The only sensible approach is through the educational process. The creation of a Federal commission to regulate tolerance will result in the enhancement of the problem, and will increase race- and colorconsciousness. Actually such a law places minority groups in a preferred status, which can only result in deep resentment on the part of other workers. This will inevitably result in a deep cleavage among the workers which does not now exist. There is no need for the enactment of S. 984. In our free economy, minority group workers have made great progress in the field of employment, as well as in other fields. During the recent war period, minority-group workers were able to demonstrate their ability, and have firmly entrenched themselves on the basis of that ability. This is the only sound approach, and it will be a cruel error to jeopardize the recent forward steps made by minority-group employees by arousing antagonisms and prejudices through bureaucratic interference. A measure of this sort will create no new jobs, nor would it in any way help our production or productivity-the basis of our material welfare. The best way to create a national hatred for a particular food would be to pass a law requiring everyone to eat it daily. It is a very natural American reaction. This reaction was well demonstrated during prohibition when Congress sought to force regulation of the conduct of people on a moral issue contrary to the desires of the majority. It just didn't work. There is no demonstrated need for this law, nor for the huge Federal bureaucracy which would be needed to attempt its enforcement. The Federal FEPC operated for 18 months in 48 States during wartime, backed by the wartime power of the President. It heard only 6,855 cases. Of these, 3,400 were immediately dismissed as not having grounds for complaint. If the crusading FEPC could find only 3,455 cases in 48 States in 18 months among more than 50,000,000 workers, discrimination cannot be so terribly dangerous to our economic life as to justify the creation of a new Federal bureaucracy. Actually, the proposed measure will place in jeopardy the job of every worker, because claims of discrimination rest on intangible factors. If we may judge by experience, the proposed FEPC would undoubtedly operate along the same lines as the NLRB, where a discharged worker need only show that he is a union member to have the burden shift to the employer to prove that the worker was not discharged because of his union membership. The proposed FEPC would undoubtedly place this same burden on employers with respect to discharged minority workers. The fear of employers to deal with minority employment problems in a normal manner would create great antagonism on the part of other workers. Lack of harmony among employees in a plant inevitably results in lower production. Majority-group employees would retaliate in many ways if the Government would favor minority groups. S. 984 will create more discrimination than it will prevent. It should not be enacted. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., June 11, 1947. LETTER OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, LABOR SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Hon. FORREST C. DONNELL, Chairman of Subcommittee on Labor and Welfare, Washington, D. C. JUNE 23, 1947. DEAR SENATOR DONNELL: During the testimony on Senate bill No. 984, Senator Allen Ellender, of Louisiana, questioned several witnesses, including President William Green, of the American Federation of Labor, on the Point Breeze strike which involved employees of the Western Electric Co. This plant is located in Baltimore, Md. During my service with the War Production Board and the Committee on Fair Employment Practice, I dealt with the management of the Western Electric Co. in New Jersey and Baltimore on the subject of employing colored persons. It is entirely wrong to say that the Fair Employment Practice Committee ordered management to take down signs or partitions, as was stated by Senator Ellender. It is clear, of course, that in any decent place of employment all individuals should have equal access to whatever facilities are available. However, in this case, management took a position which was as follows: "Frequently it was necessary to transfer employees and equipment between departments and buildings. In order to have a flexible working force and to make certain that it did not discriminate in doing this, the company felt that it was necessary to have facilities which would be available for use by employees, regardless of race." Management's position was explained to the War Labor Board at a panel hearing on November 11, 1943, by Mr. C. C. Chew, who was then superintendent of industrial relations for the Western Electric Co. I think it should be noted that the city of Baltimore at one time required by a municipal ordinance that separate facilities be provided for colored and white persons working in industrial plants. This ordinance had been repealed on February 13, 1942, because it was found that it hindered the full utilization of the labor force in the community. The Western Electric Co., which prior to the war had not employed a large number of colored persons, had established some separate facilities for colored truck drivers who occasionally came to the building. When it embarked on its program of making an intelligent and fair use of all available persons, it followed what certainly is a commendable practice and ended the separate facilities. There are other factors in this situation which are not necessarily relevant at this point. However, if you want me to do so I will be glad to discuss the entire situation with you or any other member of the committee. Incidentally, I believe that I should point out that the situation is fully explained on page 159 of the hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, June 1945, Seventy-eighth Congress. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE MITCHELL. STATEMENT OF THOMAS RICHARDSON, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO The United Public Workers of America, CIO, joins with the rest of CIO in supporting S. 984, which would provide the United States with a permanent fair-employment practice law. The job discrimination against minority groups has become a serious and dangerous infection which threatens the very health of our Nation. Such discrimination is totally out of keeping with the basic principles of the United States Constitution and strong Federal legislation which takes cognizance of this fact and provides a proper remedy will protect the health and strength of our democracy. Particularly are we interested in the passage of Federal legislation which would serve to eliminate the widespread practices of discrimination against minority groups which are at present being carried on in the hiring, promotions, and lay-off of Federal Government employees. We believe that S. 984 would correct much of the racial discrimination in Government personnel practices, and would thus aid the United States Government, as an employer, to set an example of justice and fair play in its personnel practices. We believe that such |