than of whites earned social-security wage credits in only three or fewer quarters of the year:

Percent earning wage credits for less than 4 quarters of 1944

Nonwhites also suffer from a serious wage differential. Earnings credits for social security purposes show that, age group for age group and sex for sex, Negro income is far lower than that of whites. Average wage credits for all ages, in 1944, reveal that whereas all men averaged $1,691, Negro men averaged $1,081; and that whereas all women averaged $891, Negro women averaged only $530.

Government, ironically enough, indirectly contributes, through benefits paid under the Social Security Act, to the perpetuation of the injustices and inequities of the private economy. The average monthly retirement payment per beneficiary as of the end of 1945 was $24.19 for all, and only $18.28 for nonwhite. The average monthly payment for surviving children of deceased workers was $12.45 for all children, but only $9.35 for nonwhite children. Here we see another generation of second-class citizens beginning life already doomed by the double standard which metes out unequal economic justices to white and colored Americans.

Discrimination and the economic consequences of discrimination constitute a dangerous drag on a nation which has yet to prove to itself and to the world that its people are capable of utilizing their tremendous productive skills and resources for the common good. The unwanted tenth, if granted that equality of participation in the life of the country which is their due, could prove to be the margin of deliverance from national and world economic catastrophe.

THE OUTLOOK

President Truman, in his letter of acceptance of the Final Report of the Fair Employment Practice Committee, wrote (on June 28, 1946):

"The degree of effectiveness which the Fair Employment Practice Committee was able to attain has shown once and for all that it is possible to equalize job opportunity by governmental action, and thus eventually to eliminate the influence of prejudice in the field of employment."

Again on January 8, 1947, in transmitting to Congress the Economic Report of the President, Mr. Truman urged:

"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 UAW and CIO experience has demonstrated that labor alone cannot cope with the problem of discrimination in hiring; that while trade-union discipline and education may to a considerable extent break down prejudiced attitudes and even achieve the enviable record of sanity and solidarity shown by white and colored UAW members during the Detroit riot of 1943, only government, through the imposition of legal sanctions, can finally guarantee that the right to employment without discrimination is recognized, in the words of S. 984, as "a civil right of all the people of the United States."

The CIO does not believe that a law against discrimination in employment is the sole answer to the minority-majority problems that afflict Aemrica. Our own intimate experience throughout the past decade amply confirms the undeniable yet elementary truth that attitudes cannot be changed overnight. Yet it is criminal to hold up the need for education as an excuse for inaction in Congress or in State capitals. Passage of a law against discrimination in employment would itself be an educational act of vital importance, for in affirming the creative purpose of law, it would be a sign to both those who discriminate and to their victims that the community does not intend to remain passive in the face of discriminatory acts which are morally wrong and both economically and politically subversive.

Law is not merely a reflection of changing community habits and customs. Law influences custom and initiates change in habits. If this were not so, American would still suffer from uncompensated industrial accidents, lack of unemployment compensation, lack of social security, lack of minimum wages, absolute employer dictation of wages, hours, and working conditijns, long and arduous hours of work, and any number of primitive conditions which once were complacently accepted by large sections of the community as "custom."

Neither does the CIO believe that a fair-practices law represents the chief answer to our domestic economic problems. It should not be necessary to labor the point that the Congress of Industrial Organizations does not isolate the factor of discrimination in employment from the multitude of economic problems which must be solved before the United States can control the business cycle and achieve a stable economy of full production, full employment, security, and abundance under freedom. The existence of these other grave problems, however, renders all the more pressing our need to eliminate the intolerable wastage of skills, energies, and productive powers arising from discrimination in employment.

The CIO endorses S. 984 out of the conviction that full and equal economie opportunity for the minorities of this Nation can mean a higher standard of living for all of our people. Access to employment on equal terms for all Americans means releasing the majority as well as the minority from the burden of poverty, disease, crime, and unused talents which represent the high cost of discrimination. The lifting of this burden through passage of S. 984 and through energetic community programs to make the American creed a reality can mean opening the way toward full participation in the national productive effort by the one-tenth to one-third of our people now denied this right. Higher levels of employment and wages mean greater purchasing power, greater demand for the products of our factories and farms, a greater chance to keep America at work and at peace. Fair employment is an essential component of any full employment program which seeks to reach the goal of security and abundance without sacrifice of democracy and basic freedoms.

Congress must also reckon with the fact that, above and beyond the tangible benefits that all Americans may derive from fair-employment legislation, passage of S. 984 would represent a victory of the democratic conscience, an act of extreme symbolical importance. Failure to pass S. 984 would defeat the hopes of millions of Americans. It would be a sign to them that the highest lawmaking body in the land, while voluble about freedom in other nations, stood mute and indifferent while the stage was being set at home for new race riots, for an eruption of domestic unrest of unparallelel proportions at the first sign of economic collapse.

Passage of S. 984, on the other hand, while it is but one step among many that must be taken, would restore the ebbing faith in democracy's promises of millions of Americans whose daily experience of rejection and exclusion has made them skeptical and bitter.

The international implications of discrimination in the United States are no less ominous than its domestic consequences. The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Charter, which affirms the determination to achieve internations cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for "human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

The United States cannot escape the responsibilities of world democratic leadership. The "reservoir of good will" of which Wendell Willkie spoke is still high in the hearts of people everywhere who look to America for strength and purpose. Yet it is diminishing. We cannot play our proper role in world affairs without unity and well-being at home. Other nations will regard our professions of concern for world freedoms as hypocrisy if we do not move aggressively to guarantee elementary civil rights within our own borders.

For these reasons the CIO and the UAW-CIO urge passage by Congress of S. 984. We would regard prompt and favorable action on the bill as evidence of the highest statesmanship.

Senator DONNELL. At this time I will offer for the record, subject to the approval by the committee, a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City in regular meeting on the 10th day of June 1947, in which

the chamber of commerce condemns the bill S. 984 for certain reasons as set forth, and I ask that this resolution be made a part of the record. (The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION

The following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City in regular meeting on the 10th day of June 1947, upon the recommendation of its national affairs committee, after careful study and consideration of Senate bill 984, now pending before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate of the United States, and before the subcommittee of that committee, of which the Honorable Forrest C. Donnell is chairman: Whereas there is now pending in the Senate of the United States the bill S. 984, entitled, "A bill to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry"; and

Whereas the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City, acting by and through its duly appointed committee on national affairs, has made a careful and exhaustive study of said bill; and

Whereas said bill, on its face, clearly is coercive and punitive in form and subsistence and seeks to substitute governmental force and coercion for tolerance and understanding in the handling of our national racial and minority problems; and Whereas it is the sense of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City that said national, racial, and minority problems, with the prejudices attendant thereon, can only be met and solved by education and intelligent toleration, rather than by governmental fiat: Now, therefore

Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City does condemn the bill S. 984, for the following reasons:

(a) Because the bill seeks to substitute governmental interference for private toleration and cooperation in the settling of our racial and minority problems; (b) Because the bill is coercive and punitive in nature and seeks to eliminate prejudice by governmental force rather than by private toleration, and in this connection the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City makes the observation that prejudices not created by law can never be removed by law;

(c) Because the bill, if it were enacted into law, would make every employer employing over 50 persons subject to harassment and litigation and great expense upon the bare naked statement of any person that he had been discriminated against in employment because of race, religion, color, racial origin, or ancestry, thus subjecting employers to fraudulent and groundless lawsuits and interminable board hearings;

(d) Because the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City, together with other citizens throughout the United States, has had an opportunity to observe the workings of the temporary Fair Employment Practice Commission established by Executive order during the late war, during which time it was the observation of the chamber of commerce that the rulings of said board were arbitrary and capricious, and nowhere in S. 984 is there any safeguard against arbitrary and capricious rulings of the Fair Employment Practice Commission which S. 984 seeks to set up and establish;

(e) Because the bill, with its punitive provisions, if enacted into law, would stir up ill-feeling and dissension between various groups of employers and employees throughout the country, and would accentuate and increase racial tension and prejudice to a degree that would discourage the mutual understanding and toleration necessary to the solving of our racial and minority problems.

Resolved further, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Forrest C. Donnell, United States Senator from Missouri and chairman of the subcommittee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate of the United States, with the request that this resolution be presented to the committee.

KEARNEY WORNALL,

President.

GEORGE W. CATTS,
Executive Manager.

Senator DONNELL. Our next witness is Col. Charles Garside, chairman of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination. Senator SMITH. For the record I want to personally welcome Colonel Garside. He is an old friend of mine, one who has had a dis

tinguished career, and has always had my great admiration. I am delighted to see him today.

Senator IVES. I wish also to say that Colonel Garside comes from the State of New York, and I want to welcome him here and thank him for coming before us.

Senator ELLENDER. The whole committee welcomes him.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES GARSIDE, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, NEW YORK, N. Y., AND HENRY C. TURNER, ATTORNEY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Senator DONNELL. I suppose it would be very unwise for the chairman not to join in this welcoming. I am wondering if you have ever lived in Missouri?

Mr. GARSIDE. No, Senator: I have not.

Senator DONNELL. Now, Colonel, will you please state your name, your residence, and something of your experience?

Mr. GARSIDE. My name is Charles Garside, 48 Fifth Avenue, New York 28, N. Y.

Senator DONNELL. Where were you born?

Mr. GARSIDE. Middletown, Conn.

Senator DONNELL. How long have you been chairman of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination?

Mr. GARSIDE. Two months.

Senator DONNELL. What is your educational background?

Mr. GARSIDE. Graduate of Princeton University and Cornell Law School.

Senator DONNELL. When did you finish at Princeton?

Mr. GARSIDE. In 1923.

Senator DONNELL. What degree did you make?

Mr. GARSIDE. B. S.

Senator DONNELL. Did you specialize in any subject in the univer

sity?

Mr. GARSIDE. History and politics.

Senator DONNELL. Did you study economics?

Mr. GARSIDE. No, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Social relations?

Mr. GARSIDE. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Sociology?

Mr. GARSIDE. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Then you went on to Cornell Law School? Mr. GARSIDE. I had a rather curious career, by reason of the fact that I enlisted in the Marine Corps in World War I, and that interrupted my education. In consequence I took my law degree at Cornell in June 1921, and took my academic degree at Princeton in June 1923, and was immediately admitted to the New York Bar.

Senator SMITH. You had the cart before the horse.

Senator DONNELL. My attention has just been called to the fact that the former chairman of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination is also here, Mr. Henry C. Turner. Perhaps Mr. Turner and Mr. Garside would like to be in reasonably close proximity here, in case one should be asked a question that he desired the other one to

assist in.

Mr. GARSIDE. I think that would be fine.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Turner, we welcome you the same as Colonel Garside. We are very happy to have you with us. In order that our record may show something of your background, will you tell us, please, first, what your business address is?

Mr. TURNER. Brooklyn, N. Y.

Senator DONNELL. Where did you acquire your preliminary education?

Mr. TURNER. In the high schools of the city and at Princeton University and New York Law School.

Senator SMITH. I would like to note for the record that Princeton University is pretty well represented here.

Senator IVES. I would also like to note for the record that New York is also.

Senator DONNELL. When did you finish at Princeton?

Mr. TURNER. I finished in 1901.

Senator DONNELL. What was your degree?

Mr. TURNER. I did not graduate. I was in the class of 1903.
Senator DONNELL. What was your specialty?

Mr. TURNER. I had none; I was taking the regular art course.
Senator DONNELL. Did you study sociology?

Mr. TURNER. No; I did not.

Senator DONNELL. After you left Princeton what did you then do? Mr. TURNER. I studied law in New York Law School.

Senator DONNELL. Did you graduate?

Mr. TURNER. I did, and was admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 1905. I have been practicing law since then continuously until the present time.

Senator DONNELL. You are still practicing? You practiced even when you were on the New York State Commission, did you?

Mr. TURNER. Theoretically, Senator. Actually 90 percent of my time was spent on the commission.

Senator DONNELL. Did you engage in any particular type of law practice?

Mr. TURNER. General practice.

Senator DONNELL. Have you studied labor relations?

Mr. TURNER. Yes; I have had a number of labor-relations contract negotiations.

Mr. GARSIDE. I practiced law for 25 years in New York City.
Senator DONNELL. With what firm were you associated?

Mr. GARSIDE. Well, I was a member of the firm-I began with the firm of Tilton, La Roque, & Mitchell, and in 1927 became a member of that firm, and in January 1945, I was appointed by Mayor LaGuardia a justice of the municipal court in the city of New York. I served 1 year by appointment, and in the fall of that year I was elected to a 10-year term on the municipal court, and I resigned after serving 1 year and 4 months of my elective term to return to law practice, becoming a member of the firm of Webster & Garside, and continued as such until the date of this appointment, at which time I resigned.

Senator DONNELL. In your law practice did you have occasion to engage in any labor matters representing parties either employer or employee?