Mr. GOLDMAN. I have no doubt, Senator, that you will find that as testimony appears before you, it will cover a pretty wide range; but I have endeavored to confine myself to those things which relate to employment. You will get into a much larger field. The question of marriage was posed to me this morning, which I take it has very little relationship to the question before us. Senator RUSSELL. I do not know that the question of marriage would be involved in it, but I know from experience what some of the other questions are that will be involved. It is not just the question of equal pay for equal work. I believe every decent American believes in that, but using a law of this kind to enforce a Federal power to change customs and habits of a considerable section of the country is the chief objection to the bill. You say you would regard that as a proper order for the Commission to enter! Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. Senator RUSSELL. All right. Senator DONNELL. Senator Murray, we are glad to have you here this morning. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator DONNELL. Do you wish to interrogate the witness at this time? Senator MURRAY. No; I have been so tied up in other legislation around here that the last few days I have been unable to get over here, but I am glad to be here this morning. Senator DONNELL. Senator Murray is one of the sponsors of this bill. Mr. Goldman, do you have anything further to say? Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir. Senator DONNELL. Thank you. We are grateful for your coming and testifying and giving us the benefit of your testimony. Senator DONNELL. Our next witness is Mrs. Katharine L. Marshall, representing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Washington, D. C. That is an international organization? (Mr. Goldman submitted the following brief :) TESTIMONY OF FRANK GOLDMAN, NATIONAI. PRESIDENT OF B'NAI B'RITH, BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE CONSIDERING S. 984, JUNE 13, 1947 Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is Frank Goldman. My home is in Lowell, Mass. I am president of the Surpeme Lodge of B'nai B'rith and appear before this committee on this bill as the authorized spokesman of our order, which has a membership of more than 300,000 in its 782 men's lodges, 462 women's chapters, and 1,000 youth groups throughout the United States. Our national convention passed the following resolution in May 1944: "This Supreme Lodge of B'nai B'rith, in convention assembled, expresses its appreciation of the purpose and achievement of the committee appointed by the President of the United States, and known as the Fair Employment Practice Committee, in eliminating un-American practices in the field of employment." B'nai B'rith was founded 104 years ago for the purpose of uniting all Jews in serving the highest interests of our country, our people, and of all humanity. The proposed National Act Against Discrimination in Employment deals with a matter which falls definitely within the purview of our interest as the oldest and largest Jewish service organization in the United States. One of the important services rendered by B'nai B'rith is that of vocational guidance for our youth, particularly returned veterans, and in this work we are constantly encountering restrictive barriers which deprive our young men and women of opportunity for full exercise of their talents. Although I speak here for B'nai B'rith, I know, as all of you I am sure are aware, that Jews are not the only victims of the vicious practice of selection of applicants upon the basis of ancestry instead of the individual merit of the applicant. Many others suffer the pangs of job rejections because of their religion, or their race, or their nationality background. We should not have to be reminded in America at this late date that such ideas are a counterpart of the discredited Nazi theories of race superiority, and it should hardly be necessary to document a statement that economic discrimination against Jews and others does exist and is widely practiced in many fields of employment. The final report of the Fair Employment Practices Commission contains ample statistical and factual material along this line. In addition, the want-ad columns in newspapers throughout the country-except those cooperative few which have denied the use of their columns for such purposes-contain daily evidence of openly expressed prejudice. I do not believe that even the opponents of this legislation will deny that the condition exists. It is a practical reality; one we must face. Nevertheless, its mere existence is no justification for its continuance nor for the contention that Congress can do nothing or should do nothing about it. Let us look at that argument for a moment. Under the Constitution it is clearly within the power of the Congress, and in fact, among its specified duties, to act in furtherance of any of the purposes for which our Government was formed; in this instance: "to promote the general welfare" and "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." The right to the pursuit of happiness by competing for employment on an equal basis with others is an essential element of the American principles of liberty and equality of opportunity. Some applicants for a job have better qualifications in the way of experience or training than others, and an employer who does not take these into account would be short-sighted; but, on the other hand, to disqualify a whole category of applicants, and blacklist them from the start as undesirable, without regard to their individual capabilities, is not only equally shortsighted, but highly un-American. There is nothing revolutionary, or of wild-eyed radicalism about the bill before you, althuogh you will hear many of its opponents so characterize it and probably deplore it as an evidence of Government interference with the rights of free enterprise. Actually, it is merely another application of one of the long-established principles of our Government; namely, to safeguard by specific legislation one of the fundamental rights of all citizens. This principle has been frequently applied over our history to the protection of political and civil rights and what is being sought now is merely what has been found by experience to be necessary; that is, protective legislation for the equality of economic opportunity. In other words, having in mind the constitutional provision, it is an endeavor to make secure one of the blessings of liberty. 1 The Senators who are sponsoring S. 984 have drawn a temperate measure. The elements of education and moral suasion rather than the punitive are predominant in its enforcement features, and the decisions of the proposed Commission are appealable to the courts. The authors of this measure have aproached the problem of discrimination with an eye to protecting the rights of all parties by ample and definite provisions with respect to procedure, judicial review, and enforcement. I think it is also a point of the highest importance and warranting the earnest thought of this committee in making its recommendation that this is a bipartisan bill, not so much because of the political considerations involved-although the national conventions of both major parties have endorsed this legislation in principle but because the recognition of the need for it is so plain that eight Members of the Senate, four on each side of the aisle, agree upon it, lend their names to it, and pledge their wholehearted efforts to its passage. Gentlemen, this bill is an honest effort to deal with an evil which cries out for remedy. Experience in New York, in New Jersey, and in my own State of Massachusetts has shown that in those three States, which already have anti 1 Sec. 7-A. Secs. 8-A through 8-I. discrimination laws in operation, there is a definite decline in discrimination in employment practices. Both prejudice and bigotry are not confined within State boundaries. This is a national problem which calls for treatment on both the State and National levels. I do not for a moment contend that this bill is a cure-all, or that discrimination will cease upon its enactment, or prejudice be eradicated. But if the Federal Government writes into the body of its statutes its own expression of abhorrence of these evil practices it will also encourage and hasten State action. Moreover, a national commission will be of immense aid to State commissions in setting standards of procedure and coordinating policies, in addition to acting administratively in its own sphere. The need for Congress to enact such a law is twofold: economic and moral. First, the practices complained of deprive our national economy of the productive value of the work of individuals who are denied an opportunity to make full use of their education, training, and talents. These are vitally needed to carry out the Nation's program of high production and full employment. Secondly, we must make effective in everyday life at home the principles of democracy which we preach abroad. I hope this committee and the Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives will pay no heed to the voices crying: "Do nothing about this situation." In every great struggle for progress and justice in the whole history of civilization there are always such voices, always the advocates of a do-nothing policy. Rather I hope that you will recall the words of George Washington that this Government will "give to bigotry no sanction." For today, under economic conditions which could not have been foreseen in his time, the mere absence from the fabric of our law of any expression condemning unfair or discriminatory employment practices might be construed as giving them unwritten sanction. STATEMENT OF MRS. KATHARINE L. MARSHALL, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes, Senator. Senator DONNELL. How many countries are there in which your organization functions? Mrs. MARSHALL. That I am not exactly certain of. May I say that I began to work for the league in September and I have not yet been in contact with groups in all of the countries where the league is organized. Just which they are I am not certain, but I know that we do have branches in all of the Scandinavian countries, in Great Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany, Austria, and several of the Latin-American countries. Senator DONNELL. You started in September 1946; is that right? Mrs. MARSHALL. That is right. Senator DONNELL. And would you tell us, now, Mrs. Marshall, something of your own educational background? Mrs. MARSHALL. Shall we start with college? Senator DONNELL. Yes. Mrs. MARSHALL. I went to William and Mary for 2 years. Senator DONNELL. In the first place, from what part of the country do you hail? Mrs. MARSHALL. From Pennsylvania. I went to William and Mary for 2 years. Then I was married and followed my husband around the country while he was in the Army for 2 years. Then I went to Bryn Mawr, graduated in June 1946, with a major in economics. Senator DONNELL. And you were not employed between then and September by this organization? Mrs. MARSHALL. No. Senator DONNELL. As legislative secretary, I take it you are a salaried employee? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes. Senator DONNELL. Is that also an officer? Mrs. MARSHALL. No; it is a staff member. I am present at meetings of officers in an ex officio capacity. Senator DONNELL. You spoke of being around over the country during the time your husband was in the Army. Did you have occasion to be in the southern part of the United States? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes; I was first in Florida and Montgomery County, Ala., and Miami. Senator DONNELL. For how long a period were you south of the Mason and Dixon's line? Mrs. MARSHALL. For the period of about a year and a half. I was south of the Mason and Dixon's line 2 years at William and Mary. Senator DONNELL. Now, your organization is entitled "Women's International League for Peace and Freedom." How is your organization governed-by delegates or conventions or what type of organization? Mrs. MARSHALL. Perhaps you would like to hear just a little of its history. It was set up in 1915-not really set up; it was conceived in 1915 by Jane Addams of Hull House and a group of European women who met in the Hague in 1919. At the start, it was set up as an international organization with representatives from several nations before the national sections were developed. Then there was created the constitution and after that the national sections grew up. There used to be congresses, international congresses, every other year, following the period of its inception up to about 10 years ago, and the last congress that was held last summer was the first since the war. I think it was the first in 10 years. Senator DONNELL. Where was that congress held? Mrs. MARSHALL. It was held in Luxemburg. Senator DONNELL. Did that congress make any expression officially as to discrimination against persons in matters of employment on account of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry? Mrs. MARSHALL. Senator Donnell, the report of the congress, which had to be printed in two languages, has not yet come out of Geneva. I would like to be able to refer back to people who did go to the congress and tell you about it. I don't know. Senator DONNELL. Just briefly; do you want to supply that? (Subsequently Mrs. Marshall submitted the following resolution of 1919 :) I. INTERNATIONAL The following resolution was adopted by the international congress held in Zurich in May 1919. It was at this congress that the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom formally acquired its present name and form. The resolution quoted below was one of several specifically designated as the basis for future work by the national sections of the organization within their respective countries: "RACE EQUALITY "We believe no human being should be deprived of an education, prevented from earning a living, debarred from any legitimate pursuit in which he wishes to engage, or be subjected to any humiliation, on account of race or color. We recommend that members of this congress should do everything in their power to abrogate laws and change customs which lead to discrimination against human beings on account of race or color." Senator DONNELL. Very well. Now, as to the United States, have there been any meetings held of the executive committee or the members in the last year or so? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes; we held an annual convention in late April in Philadelphia. Senator DONNELL. Of this year? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes. Senator DONNELL. How large an attendance did you have? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes. Senator DONNELL. From all parts of the United States? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes; we have branches in 71 cities. Senator DONNELL. And these 50 or 60 are all women who belong to the organization? Mrs. MARSHALL. No; some of them are men. Senator DONNELL. Some of those 50 or 60 are men? Mrs. MARSHALL. No; there were observers who were men. The delegates were all women. Senator DONNELL. Did they make any official expression with respect to discrimination in employment because of any of the bases to which I have referred-race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry? Mrs. MARSHALL. No; but it is the well-known policy of the organization. Senator DONNELL. You say it is well known that your organization stands for principles of this kind? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes. Senator DONNELL. That are enunciated in this bill-the general basis? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes; I will cover that a little in my statement. Senator DONNELL. Do you have any official expression of your organization on that? Mrs. MARSHALL. Not today. Senator DONNELL. Have you anything that you can furnish? Senator DONNELL. Will you do that in the next few days? Mrs. MARSHALL. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. Where did those delegates come from that met and passed on that resolution? Mrs. MARSHALL. Well, California, Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania. There was one from St. Louis. Senator DONNELL. Who was that young lady, if you recall? Mrs. MARSHALL. I could give you her name. I can't think of it now. Senator DONNELL. Will you supply it for our records? Mrs. MARSHALL. May I take a few notes of the things I am to supply? Senator DONNELL. Did you have any delegates from Southern States, from Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas? |