of national origin or ancestry. These discriminations, too, are serious in their effects on wages, purchasing power, and production. I shall in this statement, however, discuss principally the effects of discrimination based on color since the Negro is among the largest of our minority groups affected and statistical data are available with respect to this group which are not available for other groups. There is a marked difference in earning power as between Negroes and other workers in nearly every industry where they are employed in substantial numbers. To take but one example, in 1943 white workers employed in blast furnaces in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan had a median annual wage of $2,330, while Negro workers received $2,080. Although 75 percent of the white employees thus employed received over $2,000, only 54 percent of the Negro workers received this much. In the State of Alabama this median annual wage for white male workers in that year, in that industry, was $2,078; for Negro employees it was only $1,442. Although 54 percent of the white workers in blast furnaces in Alabama in 1943 received over $2,000 annually, only 9 percent of the Negro employees earned this much.

Negroes usually have to take the least-desirable and lowest-paying jobs. In the occupations where education and training are requirements, such as professional work and the crafts, there are relatively fewer Negroes. According to the census of 1940, 5.9 percent of all white male workers were professional or semiprofessional, as against 1.8 percent of all employed Negroes. The occupations of craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers included 15.6 percent of the white male workers and 4.4 percent of the Negroes; managerial occupations included 1.3 percent of the Negroes, but 10.6 percent of the white males; 7.5 percent of white workers were laborers, but 21.2 percent of the Negroes were in this lowest-paid classification.

During the war years many Negroes left the farms and sought employment in industry, but the general occupational distribution was not changed materially. Even though our present high level of employment means that many more Negroes are in skilled and semiskilled jobs, when lay-off time comes they are the first to leave. Reports by employers to the United States Employment Service show that in the aircraft industry Negroes accounted for 5.1 percent of the labor force in the war period, but for only 2.1 percent in 1947. In coal mining they accounted for 11 percent of the working force in the war period, but for only 9.2 percent in 1947. In electrical machinery the percentage went from 4.1 to 3.6; in furniture, from 9 to 7.5; in smelting and refining, from 10.4 to 9.2; in shipbuilding, from 15.4 to 12.6. Increases were recorded only in "hot and heavy" industries such as ferrous foundries, metal mining, and the like. These figures clearly demonstrate the lack of equal opportunities for Negroes to acquire the same skill and seniority as other workers.

Negro employees not only earn less, and have fewer occupational opportunities than white workers; it is a matter of common knowledge that given equal skill and training, the chances of a Negro getting a job are ordinarily less than those of a white worker. The job he does get more than likely will be of a relatively unpleasant variety paying less in wages than that obtained by the white applicant. Frequently he receives less in wages for performing the same job than the white employee. It must be constantly borne in mind that when an employer pays a substandard or close to substandard wage to any particular group of employees for reasons not connected with their qualifications for the job, the wage rates of all other employees are also jeopardized. This is true whether the discrimination takes the form of employer practices or results from unfair barriers to union membership.

It is impossible to estimate the damage to our economic well-being caused by forcing Negroes and workers belonging to other minority groups to the fringe, submarginal and onerous jobs and paying them for their labor wages less than those paid to preferred groups of employees for the same work. It is well to recall Booker T. Washington's pertinent remark, "The only way to keep a fellow in a ditch is to get into it yourself and sit on him."

Eric Johnston, formerly president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, has aptly said:

"The withholding of jobs and business opportunities from people does not make more jobs and business opportunities for others. You can't sell an electric refrigerator to a family that can't afford electricity. To put it in simplest terms, we are all in business together.

*

*

"Whenever we erect barriers on the grounds of race or religion or of occupational or professional status, we hamper the fullest expression of our economic society. There are some in our country-industrialists, white-collar workers, laboring people-who hold to the myth that economic progress can be attained on the principle of the unbalanced see-saw. They think that if some groups are forever held down, the others will forever enjoy privileges and prosperity at the end which is up.

“Fortunately it does not work that way. Any advantage thus gained is paid for out of the fruits of the productive plant. I repeat: Intolerance is destructive. Prejudice produces no wealth. Discrimination is a foolish economy."

If we mean what we say by the term "free enterprise," we must also mean that a man with skills will not be subjected to discrimination in their use to make a living. To employ the term otherwise is to give it a meaning in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence and the American credo. Our economy needs all available skills, and cannot afford to deny itself the services of a journeyman because of his color, his race, or his national origin any more than it can do so because of his Democratic or Republican politics. As stated by Dr. Frank P. Graham, president of the University of North Carolina, in his opinion for the National War Labor Board in the Southport Petroleum Co. case:

"The world has given America the vigor and variety of its differences. America should protect and enrich its differences for the sake of America and the world. Understanding religious and racial differences makes for a better understanding of other differences and for an appreciation of the sacredness of human personality as a basis to human freedom. The American answer to differences in color and creed is not a concentration camp, but cooperation. The answer to human error is not terror, but light and liberty under the moral law. By this light and liberty the Negro has made a contribution in work and faith, song and story, laughter and struggle, which are an enduring part of the spiritual heritage of America."

S. 984, in my opinion, represents a wise approach to the problem of discrimination in employment practices. It has been the experience of the President's Fair Employment Practice Committee, as reflected in its final report dated June 28, 1946, the State Commission Against Discrimination in the State of New York, the National War Labor Board, labor conciliators and arbitrators, and others, that, in the largest part, what is most vitally needed is not so much law enforce ment as education.

Discrimination in employment for the reasons we have under discussion is frequently based upon local tradition, accepted as a matter of course by the community. Sometimes it is grounded upon what an employer believes are the prejudices and preferences of the majority of his employees. Conciliation, negotiation, conference procedures, and similar educational methods cannot always dispel the mists of prejudice. There were important cases in which the Fair Employment Practice Committee found its conciliation and mediation efforts unavailing. But its 5-year record of settling nearly 5,000 cases by peaceful negotiations, including 40 strikes caused by racial differences, is impressive.

I am convinced that the most efficient method of dealing with the problem of discrimination in employment is primarily by the process of peaceful persuasion by a mediator who specializes in employment discrimination cases. This is the method proposed in S. 984. Such a mediator can bring to each situation a wealth of background and experience which should serve to dissipate the frequently unreasoned and ill-considered fears that equality of treatment will result in riot, bloodshed, and other extreme consequences.

Last year it was brought to my attention that in the District of Columbia the United States Employment Service operated on a basis of racial segregation. White and Negro applicants for employment, I was told, were obliged to form separate lines for interview purposes. The maintenance of separate application files and the practice of having white staff members serve white applicants and Negro staff members serve Negro applicants operated to reduce the effectiveness of the employment service in providing efficient service to all applicants. It was believed by some that there was a deep local tradition that justified and made necessary this segregation of administration, the termination of which, notwithstanding its cost and inefficiency, would be attended with deplorable consequences. They were wrong. When this segregation was ended it was found that these fears were imaginary. In fact, all applicants now receive more efficient service than was possible under the previous policy of segregation. S. 984 provides that when "informal methods of conference, conciliation, 65936-47-50

and persuasion" fail, and only then administrative proceedings shall be conducted, leading up to the issuance of a cease-and-desist order, where the legislative standards have been met. The provisions of the bill make special reference to the necessity of conforming with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. I support these provisions of the bill. It must be recognized that the mere fact that legal sanctions may be invoked will be of inestimable help in persuading employers and labor organizations voluntarily to discontinue their unfair practices. The sanctions provided are appropriate to the offenseadministrative action, including reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of the act.

The bill provides that only employers engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce who have 50 or more individuals in their employ are subject to the act. This is, I believe, a wise provision. It would not be well for the Congress to burden the Commission's administrative efforts with a profusion of small cases. It is reasonable to expect that the largest number of charges of unlawful employment practices will relate to Negroes who, with a population of about 14,000,000, represent the largest minority group subject to discrimination in employment. It has been estimated that about three out of every five Negroes employed in nonagricultural establishments are in industries within the scope of the bill, and that the great majority are in the larger establishments. Section 5 of the bill defines the unlawful employment practices which it is its purpose to eliminate. In addition to proscribing discriminatory practices of an employer with respect to hiring and discharging and terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, this section prohibits employers from utilizing employment agencies, placement services, training schools, and labor organizations in their hiring or recruitment of workers, which discriminate on the grounds specified. Not all employers who discriminate on racial, color, religious, or other grounds are motivated by narrow prejudices. Frequently their discriminatory practices stem from the fact that the agencies which are the sources of their labor supply impose undemocratic restrictions. It would be unfair and unjust to proceed legally against employers who are of good will and purpose and to ignore the sources of their labor supply where racial, religious, or color tests are applied as conditions of referral to employment.

Section 5 (b) makes it an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization to discriminate against an individual on the specified grounds, or to limit or classify its membership in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of, or to limit his employment opportunities, or would otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant, or his wages, hours, or employment conditions. Most labor unions, like the vast majority of Americans, draw no color, race, ancestry, or religious lines insofar as economic rights are concerned. There are a few labor organizations, however, which do discriminate on these grounds. Discrimination should no more be tolerated in labor unions than in industry or in any other phase or aspect of American life.

Among other provisions of the bill deserving comment are those in section 10. The President is authorized to issue rules and regulations prohibiting any unlawful employment practice by any person who makes a contract with any agency or instrumentality of the United States which requires the employment of at least 50 individuals. It is frequently impossible to predetermine the labor requirements of a contract although it is manifestly administratively desirable to do so if the contractors are to be dealt with fairly. A contractor may not know until performance is in full swing that the employment standards of the bill are applicable to him. It is suggested that it might be preferable to make the coverage of the employment standards of the bill with respect to the performance of a Government contract depend upon the dollar value of the goods or work called for by the contract as under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, rather than the number of persons employed. This would have the advantage of assuring uniform application of minimum wage, overtime, and child-labor standards and fair employment practices to employees working on Government supply contracts.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that discrimination in employment is not a regional or a local problem. It does not respect State lines. Widespread wage discrimination against a minority group in one State not only tends to depress wages in that State, but subjects competitors in other States where antidiscrimination laws exist to a severe competitive disadvantage. Discriminatory treatment on grounds of race, color, and religion adversely affects our whole economy. It

lowers living standards, creates difficult problems in public health and relief, denies needed skills to the productive machinery of the Nation, interferes with production by causing labor unrest and disputes, and hampers and embarrasses us in the conduct of our international relations.

Although the President has not endorsed the specific provisions of this bill it may be pertinent to quote the following statement in his economic report of January 8, 1947, which discloses his recognition of the seriousness of the national problem with which S. 984 would deal, in part:

"We must end discrimination in employment or wages against certain classes of workers regardless of their individual abilities. Discrimination against certain racial and religious groups, against workers in late middle age, and against women, not only is repugnant to the principles of our democracy, but often creates artificial labor shortages in the midst of labor surplus. Employers and unions both need to reexamine and revise practices resulting in discrimination. I recommend that, at this session, the Congress provide permanent Federal legislation dealing with this problem."

The economic, moral, and political need for early enactment of S. 984, in the broadest sense of those terms, is pressing.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWIN SELVIN, CHAIRMAN, WOMEN OF THE PACIFIC, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF.

To the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

Washington 25, D. C.

JUNE 11, 1947.

(Attention: Philip R. Rodgers, Committee Clerk.) GENTLEMEN: Relative to your telegram of June 4, informing me that the subcommittee on antidiscrimination legislation had directed you to advise me that I have been scheduled to testify on June 13 at its hearings on S. 984, and that I am to file my completed brief with the committee clerk (Mr. Phillip R. Rodgers) submitting 75 copies to supply the committee members and the press.

The day I received your telegram (June 4) I called Mr. Rodgers long distance and stated it was doubtful if I could come to Washington in person at that time but that I would prepare and file a brief, which is herewith submitted in multiple form of the required 75 copies.

CALIFORNIA'S ATTITUDE

My understanding is that these hearings are held for the express purpose of ascertaining public opinion throughout the Nation on this controversial issue. Insofar as California public opinion is concerned, the record of legislative action in this State shows that California is opposed to this type of legislation. Believing I can best serve the purpose of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by confining this brief to a factual recital of my State's experience with this particular type of so-called antidiscrimination legislation, I will let the facts speak for themselves without any argumentation or academic discussion on my part.

On three different occasions California has rejected such proposed laws. Twice, through the peoples' elected representatives, rejection was by action of the State legislature. The third rejection was by direct vote of the people, at the general election of November 5, 1946, when, as an initiative measure on the ballot designated as proposition No. 11, the proposal to create a fair employment practice commission in California was defeated by a vote of 1,682,646 to 675,697. This was an overwhelming majority against of more than 1,000,000 votes.

It is significant of the intent of California people to have no such legislation that not only was proposition No. 11 rejected by a majority in excess of 1,000,000 votes; but that its sponsorship (various pressure groups which prior to the 1946 election had rather generally been supposed to be the dominant power in California politics) was repudiated. Until the votes had been counted-so much noise had the sponsorship made by newspaper, radio, and billboard advertising, public meetings, and other avenues of publicity—the assumption had been that proposition No. 11 would carry by a heavy majority.

Under California law sponsors of record of initiative measures must be qualified registered voters who, as individuals, sign an initiative petition. They are called legal proponents. In this case there were 20 legal proponents, all of

whom are associated in the public mind with various segments of the so-called liberal or left-wing movement.

In the California debacle of FEPC it is noteworthy that there were large majorities against proposition No. 11 in this State's highly industrialized centers, where the AFL and CIO hierarchies have boasted they are able to deliver the labor vote.

For instance Los Angeles County, 758,641 to 294,938-majority against of 463,703; San Francisco County, 141,956 to 69,651-majority against of 72,305; Alameda County (Oakland and other Bay cities) 131,961 to 64,252-majority against of 67,709; San Diego County, 83,006 to 31,961-majority against of 51,045. And in the agricultural sections, the vote in Orange and Riverside Counties (heart of California's great citrus industry was typical: Orange, 40,580 to 9,508 majority against of 31,072; Riverside, 25,424 to 7,396-majority against of 18,028.

In not a single one of California's 58 counties was there a majority vote for the measure. This is added factual evidence that the people of California, on a State-wide basis, do not want FEPC legislation.

To complete this clarification of the California attitude on legislation of this type, two other factual matters, peculiarly germane, are here offered for consideration of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare:

I.

As recorder in the office of secretary of state at Sacramento, the total number of valid signatures of registered voters to the initiative petition qualifying proposition No. 11 for the 1946 general election ballot was 192,426, of which 90,631 were from a single country (Los Angeles County), leaving a hypothetical average of only 1,786 for each of the other 57 counties.

The point in this is that after deducting this backlog of 192,426 captive “yes” votes from the final State-wide tally of 675,697 "yes" votes, only 483,271 other citizens were influenced to cast a ballot for proposition No. 11. And, further, the total registration for the 1946 election being 4,383,963, and of these only 675,697 having voted "yes," there remained 3,708,266 California registered voters who could have but did not vote "yes" on proposition No. 11.

So, by any line of reasoning, or any combination of comparative figures, the record shows that California by both positive and negative action has utterly repudiated the type of legislation that the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is now considering on a Nation-wide scale in S. 984 titled "National Act Against Discrimination in Employment."

II

The source of the backing, financial and otherwise, for proposition No. 11 has a bearing on this analysis of the California attitude.

Without casting any reflection on well-meaning persons who might have favored proposition No. 11, it is a mattter of common knowledge here in California that Communists, fellow travelers, parlor pinks, left-wingers, and radicals of all hues were its protagonists and that FEPC propaganda emanated from those

sources.

And, right here, again, it is well to emphasize the fact that of 4,383,963 California citizens qualified to vote for proposition No. 11 had they wanted to, only 675,697 did so.

In 1941 the California Legislature created the joint fact-finding committee on un-American activities in California, composed of members of both houses, which is still functioning.

The committee's third report to the legislature was made March 24, 1947. This is a printed volume of 403 pages. Nine of the 20 legal proponents of proposition No. 11 are named therein, linked with what the legislature's committee brands as Communist front organizations of the Communist Party itself.

On page 46, under the subhead "Behind the FEPC," the committee on unAmerican activities in California sums up its investigation of that phase of the Communist Party line with this indictment:

"Early in 1945 it became apparent to the Communist Party leaders in California that a political organization capable of drawing ethnical groups into its sphere of influence was necessary to supplement the work of its other fronts. The Communist-inspired Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPC) was to be