But education of such character, valuable as it is, is not enough. Much more is required. Legal enforcement by the courts is essential, and I earnestly hope that the Congress will hold firmly to this basic provision of the bill without in any way compromising on it.

Frankly, I become a bit impatient with persons who insist that the whole matter of securing fair employment opportunity for all the people without discrimination, is solely the business of education. In too many instances their position amounts to holding that a just social order is to be built brick by brick, but that only one brick is to be laid every hundred years. We may not resign ourselves to such a policy of defeatism and of doing nothing.

Education and more education, indeed, we need. But it may well be doubted whether in the field of fair employment opportunity we can educate unless we also legislate. And legislation in the present case means not only providing for opportunity for conciliation but also for the use of government to effec tuate the declared purposes of the proposed act whenever conciliation efforts are found to be inadequate.

I earnestly hope that your committee will recommend S. 984 as it stands and that the Congress will without delay enact it into law.

Respectfully yours,

Most Reverend FRANCIS J. HAAS,

Bishop of Grand Rapids.

Senator DONNELL. Is Mr. Joseph Bustard present?
Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Bustard, it has arrived at the hour of 9 minutes past 1 this afternoon.

Our committee finds itself in this situation: At 2 o'clock this afternoon there is a Subcommittee on Labor of which Senator Ellender, Senator Murray, and myself, members of this committee, are also members, which will hold an executive meeting on a very important matter. The Senate also is to vote at 4 o'clock, as per unanimous-consent agreement, upon another very important matter.

I think in view of the fact all of us, both the members of the committee and the witnesses, would like to get a little lunch in the meantime, it will be necessary to recess, and I am wondering if 3 o'clock this afternoon would meet the convenience of Mr. Bustard and members of the committee to resume.

We will necessarily adjourn or recess a few minutes before 4 o'clock. Will that meet your convenience, Mr. Bustard?

Mr. BUSTARD. I was planning to get the 3: 45 train.

Senator DONNELL. How long would your testimony require?

Mr. BUSTARD. I planned only to take 15 minutes, but as most of the witnesses have consumed much more time I would perhaps be longer.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Bustard comes from my State of New Jersey. I am very much interested in hearing from him.

Mr. BUSTARD. Will the hearing start promptly at 3 o'clock?

Senator DONNELL. On reconsideration, I think we will adjourn until 2:45. This room will not be open either to witnesses or the public until the conclusion of the executive meeting at 2 o'clock, and if agreeable with Mr. Bustard, and other witnesses, and to the committee, we will resume at 2: 45.

I had entirely overlooked the fact that Mr. Roderick Stephens is on the list of witnesses.

Is Mr. Stephens here?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Stephens, what is your convenience? Do you want to get back to New York this afternoon?

Mr. STEPHENS. I had hoped to leave this evening.

Senator DONNELL. We will meet at 2:45 and we will see how it goes. I have explained the circumstances. If it appears impossible we may have to ask you to come back tomorrow morning.

Mr. STEPHENS. We will if necessary.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you. That is a very fine spirit.

The committee is in recess until 2: 45.

(Thereupon, at 1:15 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 2:45 p. m. this day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing was resumed at 3: 10 p. m., pursuant to recess.) Senator DONNELL. Mr. Bustard, will you take the stand?

Senator SMITH. Just for the record, I want to say that I am very happy to see you here from the State of New Jersey. I am familiar with the splendid contribution you have made to this difficult subject as part of our department of education project.

Senator DONNELL. Gentlemen, in view of the fact that Mr. Bustard comes from Senator Smith's State, I would suggest the Senator conduct the examination of Mr. Bustard.

Senator SMITH. I just want to state a preliminary question. When this matter came up in New Jersey there were reasons for putting the commission under the department of education.

Now, I would like Mr. Bustard, if you would, to give us briefly your background and the relation of this work to the department of education in New Jersey.

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BUSTARD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. BUSTARD. I was born in New Jersey, Paterson, N. J.

I went to teachers' college in New Jersey, and from there to Rutgers University, and I received a master's degree in education from Columbia University.

I was a teacher, a high-school coach, in elementary and high schools, and a principal and superintendent of schools in New Jersey. Senator SMITH. You were?

Mr. BUSTARD. I was.

The law was passed in New Jersey in April 1945, and became operative in July 1945, at the same time the New York law became operative.

Senator SMITH. Will you state for the record why this was placed in the department of education?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes; I was going to mention that, Senator.

There are two reasons.

One reason why that was done is this: While this law was being enacted in New Jersey the Governor at the same time was streamlining the State.

Senator SMITH. Governor Edge?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir; and while he was in favor of the law he did not want to create a new branch of State government. He wanted to fit it into an existing branch of State government.

Some people claimed it should go into the department of labor and I believe it was Governor Edge who came forward with the idea of putting it in the department of education because he felt so many of the matters dealt with were matters of educational nature rather than a strictly department of labor matter, and to the best of my knowledge that is about the logic and reasoning that was used in the placing of it in the department of education, feeling that the success of the law depended upon education as well as upon enforcement.

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Bustard.

Senator DONNELL. You will proceed, then, Mr. Bustard, with your

statement.

I note that you have filed a brief and is it your suggestion that we incorporate this brief in our record of this proceeding?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. It will be so incorporated.

And you also presented an annual report. Is it your idea that that should likewise be incorporated?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir; that was attached to the brief, and it consists of substantiating evidence.

Senator DONNELL. The annual report will likewise be incorporated in the record.

Will you proceed with your statement at this time, Mr. Bustard? Mr. BUSTARD. I think that any presentation should be pressed with a little philosophy. I might say that many of the things I might have to say or am going to say are very similar to the things that Mr. Turner said, because our experiences in New York and in New Jersey have been almost identical right from the time we started, and we have been running parallel as well as having joint conferences and trying to work the thing out together.

I think that I might say this, when the New Jersey Legislature passed this, it did not, as some people assume, create a new civil right, but I think the New Jersey Legislature had in mind trying to make the Declaration of Independence work.

In other words, when we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I think we had in mind the idea that certainly a man can never achieve happiness if he cannot get a job, particularly when he is qualified.

I think that many of the people in New Jersey that did not in the beginning accept this law, have accepted it when this philosophy has been presented to them.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Bustard, by this question I mean no impertinence or any expression of opinion on this proposed legislation, but I want to ask you what you would think about the employers, or of any employer, who might say what employee, or while an employee has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I, as an employer, likewise have the right in the pursuit of my happiness to use my own best judgment in the management of my business and if I think, says the employer, that it would be better for me from the standpoint of harmony in my business to follow the plan of using persons of one race only in my business, then in the pursuit of my happiness I have as much right to exercise that privilege as has the employee on the other hand to be employed.

In other words, what would you have to say about that arrangement?

Mr. BUSTARD. I do not think it could be quite consistent for an employer to take that stand. The employees enjoy certain privileges as a result of government in this country. Certainly the employer enJoys certain privileges as a result of the Government in this country. He enjoys the privilege of doing business and making money, profits, under our system of government. He does not enjoy the right to infringe on personal liberties of other citizens.

Senator DONNELL. Do you regard it as a personal right or the personal privilege that any particular individual has to be employed by a specific employer?

Mr. BUSTARD. No; he must be qualified.

Senator DONNELL. I mean if he is qualified.

Mr. BUSTARD. Let us look at it from the other side. I feel that it is an American right that a qualified person should not be barred from employment for ancestry. In other words, he should be able to compete with any other American if he has the qualifications.

Senator DONNELL. If I may just interrupt you for a moment, I am just presenting this other side to give the other idea on it. For instance, we take an employer who says, "Here are 10 men on this side of the line and here are 10 men on this other side of the line. For my own best reasons," says the employer, "these 10 men on this side of the line will best promote my establishment"; or you, Mr. Bustard, or Senator Smith, or Senator Ellender, or Senator Donnell, may not agree with that. I will decide that I want to employ the first 10 rather than the second 10. Is there any thought in your 10 that any member of the second 10 has any civil right to say that that employer must employ me?

Mr. BUSTARD. If the men are qualified, all 20 of the men could say, "Judge us on our qualifications and select us according to merits."

Senator DONNELL. The point I am getting at is whether the employee would have a right to use his own judgment. Suppose the employer says, "I believe my business would be best served by employing all 10 of the colored men, and I am going to do that." Would he or would he not have the right, in your opinion, to do that, notwithstanding the white men step up and say, "You ought to employ some of us"?

On the other hand, suppose he says to himself or to them, "I think my best business would be conducted by having 10 white men. I therefore decline to employ the 10 colored men." Would any one of the colored men have any civil right as against this employer to say, "You must select a certain proportion of us regardless of our own personal thought."? Your own personal opinion is what; that is, what is your own personal opinion? That is the point I would like some time during your presentation to address yourself to.

Mr. BUSTARD. I was coming to that. I have a point on that later on. I would like to say that just as the New York law was a two-way law, we consider the New Jersey law a two-way law. That is, we consider that we have within the law the complaint section where it takes a verified complaint for a person to file against any one of our five illegal practices, illegal employment practices.

On the other hand, we consider very seriously this educational phase of our law. In other words, the educational phase that deals with a whole field of human relations. We think that is more important.

I heard the testimony this morning, and you gentlemen were very much interested in the number of complaints, the nature of complaints, and so on. It takes me back about 2 years when this law was first beginning to operate in New Jersey. The fears that you are expressing are the same fears that were being expressed then.

I might say I address chambers of commerce, personnel managers, the employers' groups, and so on, familiarizing them with the law.

The whole center of the law always seemed to center around the technicalities, complaints, and so forth, thinking the law was going to work as the result of complaints or the lack of complaints.

We feel in New Jersey that, as far as complaints are concerned, they are only one phase of the law and, the way the law is operating, really almost a minor phase to date. We have had to date 312 complaints, and 173 of them have been verified, formal complaints in employment.

Of these complaints, we have settled 130 of them as of May 31, as New York has done, by conciliation, conference, and persuasion.

Senator ELLENDER. When you say you have settled 130 of them, what do you mean? Did the employers take those complainants? Mr. BUSTARD. In some cases; yes, sir. In some cases we had the same experience as in New York. We found that many had already secured a job in another plant.

Let us get away from consideration of only employers, because some of these complaints are against employees, some against labor unions; a few of them were made against labor unions, and in the labor-union cases we got the local people, not at the State level. The labor unions are on record in favor of antidiscrimination.

Senator ELLENDER. How many of the 130 that you settled originated with the unions?

Mr. BUSTARD. Not originated with the unions. They were made against the unions.

I think we had six or eight against unions.

Senator ELLENDER. Involving how many persons?

Mr. BUSTARD. In New Jersey we mean if six or eight people cause a complaint that covers one person. We do not except persons from organizations. The complaint must come from an aggrieved individual and not from an organization.

Senator ELLENDER. So that when you state you had 312 complaints altogether from July 1, 1945, to date, you mean only 312 people filed discriminatory charges?

Mr. BUSTARD. That is right. I would say 173 of that number were formal verified complaints. They involved 173 people. The other complaints were what we called informal, and some of them were what we call miscellaneous, where we operated on the level of good will without there being a formal verified complaint.

For instance, an informal. complaint would come in-we have had complaints against newspapers for their advertising policy, against a series of newspapers or against an individual newspaper because of interpretations in their ads.

Those cases we cannot classify as verified formal complaints, the way they were made. We settled those complaints as a result of conference, because of the way our law reads, and as it is interpreted by our lawyers. When the legislature passed this law and the declaration