Now I depart from my prepared mimeographed statement. In the first place, as the bill itself states, if enacted, it would serve, and I quote from the bill:

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

and now I quote from the Charter itself:

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 great significance of this aspect of the bill should be obvious to everyone.

In the second place, there is no longer ground for doubt that legislation of this kind can be made to function effiectively, fairly, and satisfactorily for all concerned. Right now in the States of New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey statutes of this same nature are in effect and are operating satisfactorily.

Senator DONNELL. Senator Ives, are you familiar with the act in the State of Wisconsin?

Senator Ives. I was just going to bring that up. While this is not in my written statement, I understand that Wisconsin, Connecticut. and Indiana each has an act. The Wisconsin act has been in effect since 1943 but is of an entirely different type. I am not familiar with it, but I doubt that it covers this matter at all as is contemplated here. The question has been covered in the States that I named. However, Connecticut and Indiana enacted legislation during this current year. Indiana's, I think, went into effect on February 27 last and Connecticut's will go into effect on July 1 next, along the same lines as are contemplated in this particular bill, along the lines of the acts in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. However, the experience of those last two States is not sufficient to prove of great value in the consideration of this particular legislation. It is the States that I have named that have had the experience-that is, the States in the written document which I have mentioned that have had the real experience in this field to date.

Senator DONNELL. That is, New York, New Jersey, and Massachu

setts.

Senator IVES. That is right.

Senator ELLENDER. Senator Ives, why isn't it a better idea to let the States handle this matter?

Senator IVES. Why isn't it a better idea?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes; why is it necessary in New Jersey New York, and other States?

Senator IVES. This is a matter, Senator Ellender, that transcends to a great extent State lines. It is a good thing to have the States do it, State by State, as long as the Federal Government is not doing it, but it has been my feeling right along that this thing is right, and if it is sound, it shouldn't be limited to any particular State line. I don't think that State lines should be the determining feature about it.

Senator ELLENDER. I can well understand that New York might need it. Virtually 50 percent, if not more, of foreigners who come to these shores make their home in the State of New York or nearby. Senator IVES. I don't believe on the over-all average that is quite accurate.

Senator ELLENDER. Maybe not at the moment, but that is what it has been. New York, we recognize, is the melting pot.

Senator IVES. New York had a large percentage of emigrants in the past few years.

Senator ELLENDER. Don't you think this matter is more or less a question of education?

Senator IVES. That is what I have indicated here, and I shall indicate that more fully as I progress, and that will come out in this whole testimony, I assume, which will be presented in these hearings. It is not the method of compulsion which is the one that solves this problem, not legal compulsion. It is the other approach.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I assume we are going to have testimony from the States Senator Ives mentioned-that is, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey-with regard to the way this program in those States has worked. I assume that will be the case, unless Senator Ives is prepared to testify about the New York situation.

Senator IVES. I am not. I could give you some ideas, but I would rather have those who are directly connected with it do it. They can give you the latest information about it, which I can't.

Senator SMITH. I think you are quite right. I think we should have testimony from witnesses who are right on the ground.

Senator DONNELL. I observe that Senator Saltonstall is one of the sponsors of this bill. Do you know, Senator Ives, whether he contemplates producing anyone from Massachusetts?

Senator IVES. I understand he does.

Senator ELLENDER. I understand, Senator Ives, that you are the New York father of this law.

Senator IVES. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. What prompted you?

Senator IVES. Do you want me to go into that now on this record? Senator ELLENDER. Surely.

Senator IVES. You are going to get a long sermon, and time is of the

essence.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, you are the father of that one, and I am wondering what prompted you to foster this one? You must be familiar with conditions all over the country to suggest it as a Federal law. I presume that existing problems in New York were the determining factors in your decision to experiment with it there, but I think it might be well for the committee to have in the record a comparison of the situation in New York in contrast to what it might be in Montana, what it might be in Nevada, Nebraska, Louisiana, Mississippi, and other States.

Senator IVES. Let's get down to New York first. We'll get to the other States subsequently. In the first place, the matter of deciding or determining upon legislation of this kind was before the Legislature of the State of New York for a number of years before the commission which I had the honor of heading was named.

Senator DONNELL. What was that commission, please?

Senator IVES. The New York State Temporary Commission Against Discrimination, which was created in 1944.

Senator DONNELL. By whom was that commission appointed? Senator IVES. The commission was appointed both by the legislature and by the Governor-a commission of 23. Eight were appointed by the legislative leaders and the other 15 by the Governor. The reason

I became associated in this particular field, I assume, was because of my previous activities in the field of labor relations. This thing deals primarily with human relations. It is the most delicate part of human relations-discrimination. So, too, labor relations. It is all part of the same field.

When it was finally decided to have a commission of that type created for the purpose of ascertaining what might be done by legislation or otherwise to meet the problem, I was requested by the Governor to serve on the commission, to take the chairmanship. I didn't want to do it.

Senator ELLENDER. That was in 44, wasn't it?

Senator IVES. I think it was in '44. Wait a minute. Yes; that was in 44.

Senator ELLENDER. Well, how long before that time was this question agitated in the State of New York?

Senator IVES. New York has had laws against discrimination on its books ever since 1909. Every aspect, I think, of discrimination in one way or another is covered by New York statutes. The only thing that hadn't been touched satisfactorily was the question of discrimination in employment. There was nothing in the statutes of the State which met that situation satisfactorily. That is why it was decided that something ought to be done in the way of additional legislation, if that was deemed advisable, or by other processes.

Senator ELLENDER. What was the nature of the statutes that were passed, as you say, in 1909 and on up?

Senator IVES. Well, they covered discrimination in education, discrimination in public places, places of amusement, hotels. Senator ELLENDER. Marriage?

Senator IVES. No. Let's get this out of our system.

This has nothing to do with social relationships. That is not the purpose of this bill.

Senator ELLENDER. What isn't?

Senator IVES. This legislation. It is not the purpose of this bill. It is not the purpose of any legislation on the statute books of the State of New York and, though I don't know, I am not very well acquainted with other State statutes concerning these matters, but very likely not in any of the statutes of any other State.

Senator ELLENDER. But New York does permit marriage between colored and whites.

Senator IVES. I assume so. I never knew of any law against it there. Senator ELLENDER. Well, that was what you had in mind a moment ago, when you said since 1909 New York had passed statutes along this

line.

Senator IVES. I didn't mean that particular statute. I don't think New York has ever had on its statute books since it has been a State in the Union anything to prohibit that kind of marriage; at least I don't know of it.

Well, I am correct on that about marriage. I have a whole list of New York laws here. It will take some little time to read them, if you care to have me do it. I think we might better leave that for the committee's private consideration rather than to use the time in which these other witnesses might better be heard.

Senator ELLENDER. I have no desire to go into the statutes, but I was anxious to determine what brought this about.

Senator IVES. All right, that is a very legitimate question as to why I got tangled into it. I personally thought it was a question that couldn't be solved. That is, I don't know whether I thought that, but I feared that it was-that it couldn't be solved by legislation. Senator ELLENDER. That it could?

Senator IVES. That it could not be solved by legislation. I am talking now about discrimination in employment. Let's just confine ourselves to this particular field. We are not in any other field in the matter. Well, I took the chairmanship after some delay and with great reluctance, because I figured that that would be the end of me politically, but I figured at the same time that I would have to retire from politics sometime and that might be a good way to do it because it was a very worthy cause. That is how I got into it.

Then I insisted, at the same time, that of the eight members to be picked from the legislature, four be Democrats and four be Republicans, so that we might get politics out of it.

Senator SMITH. If I may interrupt, I observe that you haven't retired from politics yet.

Senator IVES. Well, a year ago, I thought I had when I got into Cornell, but I seem to be here. Now I don't know the political complexion of the other 15. I never inquired and I haven't the remotest idea whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or what they were. Suffice it to say, politics was entirely out in our consideration of this question, as it should be. I am dealing with that slightly in this prepared statement.

We went to work, everyone of us, sincere in our belief, and you have got to have a fundamental sincerity in this thing. You have got to believe that, basically, there should not be such a thing as discrimination because of religion or race or color or national origin or ancestry. If you don't accept that hypothesis-and it is not a hypothesis; in reality, it is a fundamental princple of living-if you don't accept that, you never can meet this thing head on and solve it, as it ultimately can be solved. We took that position.

It didn't look very encouraging to start with. We had on that commission representatives of all religions and all nationalities and races in the State of New York, and we had all kinds of ideas as to how it should be done. Talk about Heinz pickles, the only reason we didn't have 57 was that we only had 23 to start out with.

Senator ELLENDER. When you first started out, if I understood you correctly, you didn't think it could be done by law.

Senator IVES. No. I said I did not think the approach could be done by that process. Very likely the experience that I went through, Senator Ellender, was the experience that you are now in at the present time. I didn't think it could be done by statute, I will be perfectly honest with you; but as time went on and as we went into this business, one way and another, and as our thinking gradually grew together, it became evident that it could be done, and after we found that it could be done, of course, we had to draft the statute which I am dealing with to a limited extent in this prepared statement.

I simply want to point out that the great obstacles which we were confronted with in that instance are mentioned here in what I have to say, and they are the obstacles that are going to confront us here in Washington. They have been met in New York, and if they have been met and solved there, they can be met and solved elsewhere.

Senator SMITH. Shouldn't we emphasize all the way through the equality of economic opportunity?

Senator IVES. That is exactly it, and that is all this bill deals with. Senator SMITH. It is limited to that.

Senator IVES. Discrimination in employment, equality of economic opportunity. That is all it deals with, nothing else. May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

Senator DONNELL. Proceed.

Senator IVES. Actually Senate bill 984 is patterned after the New York statute. In effect, it is the New York plan applied to the Federal level.

In fact, the one who largely drafted the New York State law against discrimination is the one who has largely drafted the bill we are now considering. He is one of New York's most distinguished citizens, the Honorable Charles H. Tuttle, of New York City. He had planned to be on this morning's program, but last night, unfortunately, on his way to the train he had an attack-he is having some difficulty with his liver-and had to be taken directly to the hospital, and that is where he is at the present time. He will be laid up there at least several days, probably the rest of the week.

Senator DONNELL. If I may interrupt, I may state for the benefit of the committee that I have requested Senator Ives to express the very great regret of the members of this committee at the inability of Mr. Tuttle to be here and our hopes for his speedy recovery.

Senator IVES. Thank you, sir. I shall do that. He did send, however, his written statement, well documented, which I think is well worth the consideration of the committee when the members have time to look at it.

Senator DONNELL. Will you state briefly for the record the background of Mr. Tuttle, what his official connections have been and what his general background is?

Senator IVES. Well, if I were to cover all of Mr. Tuttle's background, I would cover quite a lot. I will simply say he is among the leaders of the New York Bar.

Senator DONNELL. What official title did he hold?

Senator IVES. He was Federal attorney for southern New York at one time. He was a Republican of such eminence that he ran for governor in 1930 and was defeated, as the record will indicate. However, that was nothing against Mr. Tuttle. The oncoming leader of the Democratic Party was then Governor of the State of New York and a very difficult person to defeat (laughter). He has been very active as a layman through the instrumentality of the Inter-Church Movement. He is a very strong and active Episcopalian, but as a layman, he has been very active in the various movements carried on through the combined church activities, not of the Protestants alone, all of them, in combating discrimination and everything pertaining to discrimination, not only nationally, but internationally. He probably has in this field as good a background as has any person in the United States.

Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Chairman, I think this committee should by all means hear Mr. Tuttle when he gets better.

Senator IVES. He probably comes as near being a real authority in this country on this subject as anyone.